what is "unconditional parenting"?

[ssd]

seen this on a few threads here and have never heard of it

what does it mean?

So if you have really strong views on food, moonface and are vegetarian and hope the DCs will follow how will it work if 11yr old DD says 'I have saved up my money to go to McDonalds and Lucy and her Mum say that I can go with them'? This is a decision that isn't hurting anyone, she is not expecting you to cook meat or even watch. If you give all your points and she can counteract them all, do you just say 'fine dear, I can see that you have gone into it'. If she then comes back and says 'I want to eat meat when I go out and gives lots of reasons'. I suspect that the parent who is dedicated to healthy, meat free eating isn't going to give in without a cunning fight.

Lamorna I am vegeterian. DH isn't. DS can do as he pleases.

WHen he has money how he chooses to spend it will be his choice.

I can't say that I don't hope that in the long run he realises McD's is shite and doesn't go back. But at the end of the day it's his choice. Part of making a choce is exploring the options.

Good-pleased to hear it!

'there will be lots of times that your dcs do things you didn't really want them to because there isn't a truly good reason for them not to.'

The problem is that the parent is the one to decide if it is a good reason. If you know that you need to get out to the supermarket and you will have to take DC who is in the middle of a wonderful game, he is not going to want to go. He can give the very good reason that he thinks you could wait until Dad gets home and you could pop out on your own, not something you want to do for a variety of reasons, so after listening to his reasons you are going to have to persuade him that your reasons are valid, the end result is that he has to go shopping whatever he feels and you have to manipulate him around by reasoning. The end result is the same as saying 'you can choose some sweets when we go'-he is going to do as you wish. Maybe with that dreaded phrase 'I know that you are upset' to which he thinks 'why mention it if you are not going to do anything about it!'

Just being devil's advocate here

Ok devils advocate...coming back atchya with the semantics!...I didn't say a dc would need a good reason to do something...I said there would need to be a good reason not to let them...but of course that decision rests with me...I am responsible for their safety.

SO in the example you give maybe I would ask dc to come with me and see if there was any thing in the freezer we could have instead of going out...(or maybe I'd just leave him with dh while I "go to the pub supermarkt..."

Of course there will be times when dc have to do the thing you have to do...I don't see it as a contridiction, just life and an oppportunity to learn about other peoples perspective.

The important thing is that whenever possible I say "Ok, you sleep in your coat" Or "actually we can have beans on toast for tea instead of going out" or whatever other crazy annoying creative thing they want to do.

The thing I just can't get my head around about UP is very simple:

Surely if children are unconditionally loved they know this by their parents' constant presence, love, care and attention? I don't think that children feel 'unloved' just because they are being punished. They feel unloved if they are unloved, by emotionally distant or abusive parents. I personally have no concern that my child will know that he is unconditionally loved, whichever parenting 'style' I use.

I would really love a reply to this, as I asked it before on a UP thread and got no response. I haven't read the book as this fundamental principle seems so wrong to me - but maybe I have misunderstood something?

If youu want to understand the "fundamental principles" fourleaf I'd suggest youu read the book.
I've read/posted/lurked on lots of UP threads on here before and now that I have read the book I realise none of them came close to explaining it really.

And when you read the (heavily referanced) stuff on why punishment/reward doesn't work you really do wonder what the hell we're all doing. Though you could say that reading some of the threads on here...

I thought the 'unconditional' referred to not manipulating children to do things based on a condition e.g. do this or this will/won't happen (reward/punishment). Rather to explain and reason why something should be done or not done (and genuinely reason with the child not just for the adult to get their own way) and in time the child will come around to the parent's view or the parent will see the child's perspective and change their view. However the parent does always have the final say with UP (AK says this in the book somewhere if I remember correctly).

Fourleaf I sort of assumed that too, until i read the research, but the evidence (and it is referenced in the book) suggests otherwise.

As others have said, there really is no alternative to reading the book if you want to get what UPers are on about - no thread can explain it as well as the book. Saying that, there are some bits in the book where I feel AK takes a bit of a leap and am a bit meh about it, but on the whole I like the ideas (and research) behind it.

Yes there is a lot of research...I thought I still had a quater to read then I realised it was all references...

Juule I think youu are right but I think thet unconditional also refers to unconditional love.

I dont really know but like 'attached' etc, I imagine its a way some parents use to try to feel superior to others !

CarolinaRua, I think that's probably true - but I reckon that's true of any 'method' of parenting. It doesn't make the method right/wrong/useful/useless though.

fourleaf, IIRC, I think the research suggested that children didn't feel they were loved unconditionally, even though their parents thought their children felt loved unconditionally.

I understood the main thrust of the book to be helping you to think about how you can help your children develop into positive people who care about others etc etc rather than how you can get them to do what you want. It's about character development, not short-term compliance.

The problem is that all parenting methods are about character development, anyone who has chosen to have DCs must have had a long term view of the type of adult they want to produce. I agree that when you are stressed, haven't had a lot of sleep etc then you may just want short term compliance, no one is a saint. However, most of the time, a responsible parent is looking to the long term.
I want self confident DCs who don't feel that they need to follow the crowd, who question things, who feel secure and loved, who are kind, caring and sharing, who are not afraid to make mistakes and learn by them and are imaginative, self reliant and honest. (I expect that I have left a lot out.)
To get a fully independent adult with all those qualities I have my methods and they depend on my personality, the situation, the wider environment and the personality of the DC.A book can be a guide, but nothing more.
Everyone is different, I think that people would recognise that adults respond to things differently and DCs are the same. I think it is madness to say 'this is the best way to treat DCs' or 'this is the best way to treat a baby', you can only say 'this is the best way to treat that particular DC'.

The reason that I am somewhat against UP is I would say that is more or less what my parents did and since I was a sensitive DC and a very reasonable, people pleaser I picked up on all the body language and the things they were not saying and I fitted in.
I don't have anything against it, just that you shouldn't kid yourself that you are not manipulating things your way. Of course parents have an agenda, they wouldn't be very good parents if they didn't.

I have never offered rewards before things e.g. exams, I have just said that 'you can only do your best' however I have, on occasion, celebrated afterwards and if they have done well I am pleased and I don't see the harm in saying they have pleased me, they know that my love is unconditional and I am there for them whatever.
Rewards and even bribery (as shown in an earlier post with dentist)have their place and so can punishment, e.g. if you break something you pay for a new one.

I have read the book (I'm looking at now), I have even underlined bits and reread them at length.

I find it confusing, even after reading the book I still struggle to understand what it is saying in many places (and I am supposed to have an IQ of 160+). Or maybe I'm too smart to get it...
I don't believe it is supported by research; well, to be specific, I think that there must be a lot of research to support the contrary arguments, but that unsupportive research isn't adequately covered; it's not an objective discussion of the ideas presented (saying that as an ex-academic myself).

Most the UP threads I've read are along the lines of "How would you handle this?" and usually it's a conflict where the parent needs the child to do something specific but child is not being cooperative. The successful resolution is when the child comes around to doing what really needs doing, albeit with their own delays. That's no different from most parent-child resolutions, just a different path to get there (compared to an authoritarian approach, for instance), but the only successful outcome, really, is going to be when child finally does what parent wants/needs.

The nicest UP-related discussion I ever read was a case where a child was tantrumming because she wanted something the mother couldn't afford. The mother got down face-to-face and explained the situation and asked the girl what she wanted to do instead, and the girl came up with a plan that both liked. Many respondents labeled that a very UP resolution, though I thought it fitted nicely into PET (which Kohn criticises, incidently). I liked that story because it was primarily driven by the mother's compassion, although of course, the mother got what she wanted in that the child now accepted things.

I normally avoid UP threads and will Hide this now; it must be wonderful if it works for you & I respect that. But to argue it's not a different style of "manipulation" is dishonest, imho. We parents are supposed to shape the people are children grow to be.

"Most the UP threads I've read are along the lines of "How would you handle this?" and usually it's a conflict where the parent needs the child to do something specific but child is not being cooperative. The successful resolution is when the child comes around to doing what really needs doing, albeit with their own delays."

Isn't that like most threads though? People rarely post things like 'DD potty trained herself'

I know wouldn't list all the times I have been brought round to my DCs way of thinking.

I agree with ragged, I think that it is fine but parents are being dishonest with themselves if they think that they are not manipulating the DC.
I think that you can often get an honest answer out of a DC if someone who hasn't got emotional involvement asks them a question because a parent can try and be as impartial as they like (maybe they truly believe they are) but the DC picks up on so much that isn't said and will try and please the parent.
It also doesn't suit all DCs. I can think of loud, passionate households where the parents are very spontaneous and are demonstrative, laugh a lot but also shout a lot and I don't think that this is damaging.
Often you can't reason with a DC, not in the middle of a tantrum. I know some who just want a tantrum. You give them a red cup and they go into tantrum mode because they wanted a blue one. You very reasonably give them the blue one but it is still wrong. Of course there is a reason for this, probably overtired, but it is very tedious to the DC to go into it, you can't until they have finished the tantrum and then they don't really want a post mortem when it is over and done with.