OK, so I'm reading Alfie Kohn...

[Monkeybird]

...and it is very interesting. And is making me feel like SHITE. As if I've been a disaster area my whole parenting life (punishments/consequences: tick. rewards/bribes: tick...). And I can see the WHOLE logic of his argument and it all makes complete sense.

My oldest child is a PITA sometimes. I think I love him unconditionally and that DH does too. But reading the book makes me go OHMYGOD, that is why he's like this, it's ALL US...

And while that's a bit depressing, I'll get over it, that's what parents have to do.

But two questions...

1. I like to think through things and look at evidence. Who challenges Alfie's approach? Who are his critics? What do they put to him?

1. If a family were to make a complete sea-change in approach, how would you do it? I already think me and the DH have different parenting styles: me a bit more Alfie-ish anyway, him quite strict and firm and wanting very clear boundaries and consquences. I can't see him going for it at all...

I haven't got to the bit about what to actually do and the issues with our eldest seem insurmountable sometimes - he can be very defiant. But presumably (Alfie says) some of that defiance is because we're probably too controlling...?

What do you do?

Agree that Unconditonal Parenting is NOT Permissive Parenting.

'Consquences' are what we make them. Mainly, in mainstream discipline they are imposed and un-natural ie, if you dont put on coat, we are not going out. Then the adults suffer through trying to control another persons thought. Even AP/UP has confusion about natural or logical consquences - ie, you dont take coat then you will freeze and you will have to stay cold.

I think more along the lines that if they dont want to take coat, they have reasons (albeit not understood by ME) and I can see that it is cold. Therefore I take coat. Consequences are - we get to go out, the children dont freeze if they change their thoughts about wanting coat and they feel that someone cared enough to think (modeling behaviour).

There are some times that I will use bigger consequences. On Sunday, we are driving, they start yelling, I pull over and sit in layby. I explain I cannot drive as the noise is dangerous and I cant concentrate and ask what they could do instead of yelling. After some debate, we decided on CD to listen to. Drive off. They learn that their behaviour has effect on others, as does mine, but not in a way that is shaming.

Yes, I agree with you FJ. I think some children are brought up to be pleasing children for adults, and the others are works in progress. Mine I think are works in progress - but more by accident than design I think .

Sometimes you do need artificial consequences I think, because the natural consequences are not the ones you want. So in my house, the natural consequence of hitting ds2 is that he will leave the room in tears and ds1 can change channels and watch The Simpsons in peace. That's not good.

But agree that the next step could easily be 'if you don't get in your bed I'll take your ds for a week' and that wouldn't be good, and it's an easy step to make isn't it?

I haven't read Alfie Kohn. But I would say that I have realised that my moral sense is far more to do with what I read as a child than anything my parents doled out as discipline/punishment. Not sure how relevant it is, but for me all that 19th century/early 20th century children's literature had a huge influence - about not judging people by their appearance or class (Secret Garden, for instance), trying hard to overcome adversity, about standing up for what's right (the Railway Children etc. etc.). My mother probably had lots to do with it, on top of buying the books, but I don't think that was from discipline so much as her sharing her beliefs with us.

I think those sort of classic novels were why I was so puzzled by Enid Blyton - loved her school stories but could see that picking on new girls or ignoring/being rude to anyone who didn't immediately fit in was actually bullying.

I think the trouble is there isn't much in my kids lives that I want to take off them

I was furious with ds last night and said no to a playdate

But I want him to have playdates. I think they are important, especially as he is not in school.

The things he likes are all the things I want him to like, IYKWIM. Or things he is so depserately attatched to, like his doll or soft toys, that it would seem astoundingly mean to take it off him.

So maybe this is why I shy away from consequences. They are too young to have much independence, so anything other than a natural conseqneces would stray into taking something off him that they seem to actually need.

I have never felt comfortable with consequances either.
We discuss bad behaviour at the time and that's that really.
As for the going out without a coat on, it seems common sense to me that you just take a coat with you.

Also, I think removing them from a situation seems to be a better form of discipline than removing a toy or something of material value as it gives them a chance to calm down and reassess without being humiliated by a dressing down in front of people.
It also seems to me that you are sticking to the point of it being a behavourial/emotional topic rather than complicate it.

At the end of the day, I have always had faith that my children would grow up into kind, compassionate people without me having to drum it into them!

I agree with edam's point too- it is much more about environment and influences than anything else

Lovely posts, Johnso, and I totally agree about the coats.
I'd just like to say that the AK approach does work even when you have a few children (I have 9). I also think that his book does have a 'how to' bit - it's the later chapters of the book in which he gives some examples.

edam - agree that the moral sense conveyed by traditional children's literature was a very important influence on me.

Also my primary school - a small all girls Methodist school which placed a huge importance on how we all treated on another.

But my parents and my wider family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins) and how they treated one another was the most crucial influence of all.

I don't remember every getting a punishment ever - certainly never at school, and I don't remember getting one at home either.

Would anyone take a favourite comfort item off a child as a consequence?

I don't think you have to be an APer to think this sounds wrong.

We are not at consequences stage yet so I'm not sure what my position will be on that. My DD is only 18 months so "discipline" of any description is not yet an issue for us. But I certainly won't be taking any of her cuddly toys away from her. The thought makes me very sad.

Putting coats on I don't really care about. Jumping in mud I don't care about. Rudeness I do care about.

The only "consequence" for bad behaviour in our household is removal ie you go to your room because you are not behaving in a manner appropriate to the circumstances.

juuule - I would add that the AK approach also works with stepchildren who have been brought up with a different approach; and that you can also teach it quite effectively to a partner.

When my partner and I were first together he often shouted at and ordered the boys around. I quite quickly told him that I couldn't live with that sort of parenting and that in any case I didn't want our daughter to be brought up that way.

My partner does "get it right" 99% of the time - he has definitely bought into the idea good and proper now that he sees how much easier family life is.

And the other 1% of the time (when he raises his voice/uses sarcasm etc) our daughter says to me "Papa's being silly" .

i think going to your room to calm down is a reasonable consequense. its what adults do when we argue too, isn't it? I might send my children out in the garden for some fresh air or if they are too hyped up i ask them to go outside and do 100 jumps around the garden and then come back in. I always make them wear coats so when it comes to certain things i am not an ak-mummy.

"-our daughter says to me "Papa's being silly". How nice that your dd is able to say that, Anna888. That's lovely

see, this is where I'm a bit lost. I like the idea of not needing artificial consquences. It is much easier, in fact, to do AK (I've been shifting things round a bit) with the 3 year old than with the 9 year old.

Sending to a room is on the no list in UP. it counts as a withdrawal of love. And think we all probably agree that removing material items probably doesn't work. I even think he'd think 100x strategy of no screen as a punishment.

So what do we do with those older kids who do know what is right, who can't be physically picked up and removed from a situation, yet who cross boundaries.

AK also says 'natural consequences' like not putting your coat on = being cold are a form of punishment (since we should know better). Sure, I take the coat too. But when do I get to stop that (doing everything my 9 year old needs even though most of it he's capable of doing himself, indeed he and I would like him to do himself). For example because he's hungry and bloody minded in the morning? How do I AK him into the bathroom to brush his teeth, into his uniform, into his shoes, coat, pick up his bag and out the door on time. When all he really wants to do for 45 minutes - on the surface - is kick things, shout?

OK, I do know most of the answer to this, and it's the long game. we're working on it, with the notes, the list, the giving him more autonomy and responsibility with it. But when it kicks off, other than banning him from the DS or whatever or sending him to his room, I'm stumped. And in doing those things, aren't we back where we started?

Well I suppose the natural consequence is that he will be late for school and get into trouble, and feel daft - and therefore might want to get his act together in the morning better?

Any chance of that?

Yes, removing screens is a punishment, consequences is just a fluffy way of saying that. It'd be dodgy to say 'I'm having your PSP because you are so darned slow in the mornings' though - I don't think it follows, and is a threat isn't it? I don't threaten with screen ban - I just do it. [dusts off hands]

Oh - and I'm not defending it either.

no I wouldn't do it like that either but I might tell him he'd lost the DS if he'd thrown something across the room...

But isn't the other consequence of MB's scenario that she is also late for work (because she has to take MB junior to school, let's say, and he cannot get there on his own for some reason but because he's spent 45 minutes shouting he doesn't have his school stuff ready so they're all delayed).

I see that natural consequences are good and MB Junior is embarrassed about being late for school but where these consequences also affect others (MB is made late for work, MB spends the whole day carrying MB junior's coat and frankly is fed up with it) I don't really see how the natural consequence to the individual wrongdoer suffices.

I think this is a major sticking point. If you have fewer children and stay at home with them and don't work, perhaps it's easier to do the AK thing because you're not always having to be somewhere else which creates points of conflict in our house for sure.

Mind you, kids still have to go to school unless they're home ed I guess. There are some fixed parts of the day.

I don't get into conflicts about food, cleanliness or any of that old gubbins. But we do about getting to places we have to be on time and about politeness and kindness to others....

m&j that is my other problem

also-if ds is in a strop, he won't GO to his room to calm down.

I would hate to pick him up and put him there. anyway, unless I locked the door he'd just leave. (I would NOT lock the door, I hope no one would suggest that)

UNLESS I threatened him with something else, I suppose, to make him stay in his room.

I think this might be down to individual difference. When ds is bad he is just appalling. But 95% of the time he is incredibly good, patient, understanding, etc.

mb like I said, I think it is much much easier to do AK if you home ed. But AK is anti-HE (for lefty political reasons-I am a lefty but don't follow his logic at all)

I don't see hoe suggesting children go to their room to cool off is a withdrawal of love at all, so disagree with old AK there

Maybe it depends on the child but if my 4yo is in a strop I tend to let it run for a minute and then go and give her a hug and ask if she wants to tell me what's wrong. If she's still too stroppy for a hug then I wait and try again when I think she's more approachable. Usually she relaxes, settles down and we talk about what happened. She generally goes into a strop when something is out of her control and she can't cope. She's 4yo.

juuule, if I went up to my 9yo and hugged him when he's in a strop he'd probably try and whack me.

I'm finding it quite depressing TBH because it makes me think we've gone so terribly wrong somewhere and there's now no hope of helping him be calmer...

I don't send them to their room at all. I used to but didn't feel comfortable with it then. I have put a screaming, tantrumming child outside a room where the other children were because the child was disturbing them but I usually tried to be out there with them or gave an explanation of why they couldn't stay in the room while screaming.

If a 9yo was in tantrum/whack mode and you'd tried reasoning and leaving to it for a period of time to let him calm down then I don't think you have an option but to either send/put him out of the room or walk out yourself.