Does anyone do Unconditional Parenting with a 2 year old??

[nappyaddict]

There seems to be a lot of explaining things for it to work and I just don't think a 2 year old has the understanding for it to work. Would love to be proved wrong though

yes, you have to sort out all the little arguments..

abbeya...why don't you buy them the same teddy?.

It wasn't possible-it had been a present. This is a real case-I was DC1 and my younger brother took a liking to my teddy (a much loved one that I still have today!).
I was persuaded to be nice to my little brother and let him play with it.
To my mind there was no argument my mother should have said straight away-'that is your sister's teddy give it back now'-and if he cried tough! I shouldn't have been reasoned with!

Of course you have to intervene in that sort of argument. If the children know that the owner of the item has the final say then they usually accept the decision to give it to the owner even if not as graciously as you might want(might fling it). I've found that once the toy (or whatever) is given back to the owner then they quite like being in the position where they might lend it to the child who wanted it - if not now, then with a promise of later. Not always, but sometimes.

I think it's a good lesson to learn that you can't have something that isn't yours without the owners permission.

I didn't want to lend the teddy ever! I don't think I should have been put in a position of being talked into doing the reasonable thing. It was a clear case of the teddy should have been taken off my brother. He would have screamed and forgotten it.You can't be fair to all the children all the time! (as it was I took at back when he was asleep and then got into trouble as he was clutching it at the time!)

My whole point is that sometimes you simply have to say 'no' to a child.

exacactly abbeya...young children just don't understand....i always tried to make thier lives easy...trust me i was stressed at time's...would go to the bottom of the garden..fall on my knees and cry ..but i'd go back in and smile at them.

maybe ive spoilt them..didn't say "no" enough....time will tell

I don't think you should have been made to give up the teddy either, Abbey.

BUT in defence of your mother maybe she was at the end of her tether with your brother. Perhaps she'd had a bad day and just wanted the noise etc. to stop. A bad decision maybe but as has been said before, none of us is perfect. Unfortunately, possibly as the more reasonable child you drew the short straw in that intance. Perhaps she saw to it that you got your own way on other occassions. It's just that this one has stuck fast due to your attachment to the teddy.

I have no idea whether I'm even close with the above, just guessing. Don't mean any offence if I'm way off.

My mother was the youngest of 4 children so she tended to stick up for the youngest because she thought the eldest got the best deal! As the eldest I think the opposite!
From an adult point of view it was only a teddy bear-from the childs point of view it wasn't only a teddy bear!
I think life is simpler, and fairer, if you limit the choices and have some things that are non negotiable.
I can see it working if you have one DC but more than one causes problems, especially if you have a very strong minded DC and a very easy going DC. The strong minded one tends to get their own way unless the adult is tough and prepared to say 'No' when necessary.

My philosophy is rather different from yours Abbey, as we already know.

I believe that there are mutually agreeable solutions to family conflicts, which often involve everyone involved changing their minds about what outcomes they would like as whatever situation goes on. That good ideas for problem solving are good ideas whether they come from the adult or a child or through the actions of a pre-verbal child or from a childless theoretical physicist on an email list ( ). That we are all fallible so that parents laying down the law might well be wrong, and in knowedge of that potential wrongness it's worth taking our children's ideas into account just as much as our own.

And I also believe that such a non-coercive and optimistic family dynamic is in a positive feedback spiral - as families get more practice at consent-based living, they get better and better at it.

And I also believe that sometimes the people involved can't find a solution to a particular problem in real time and someone gets hurt. But everyone knows that it wasn't because anyone was being Wrong or Naughty necessarily, it's just that the people involved couldn't think fast enough that time. Which gives one the optimism for next time to a) [shrug] and b) have a think about non-coercive ways out of similar situations in the future.

I'd much rather expend my energies with my family on finding mutually agreeable ways to act than on laying down the law.

As a reasonable and rational child I would much rather that someone laid down the law!
It was my teddy-end of story. There was no mutually agreeable solution.

Abbeya - that's why we say that the owner of something has first call. All my children understand that and know that they will never be forcibly made to give something of theirs up. They also understand that neither will a sibling be made to give something up for them.
Doesn't mean we can't talk to the owner of the item about sharing. Just that they wouldn't be forced to.

yes, but abbeya...young children don't see it like that...that don't really understand and haven't learn't the art of being rational...(i am talking about under 5's here).. "there was no mutually agreeable solution" are we talking about the middle-east..or two little kids??

Therefore that means that is the DC it doesn't belong to has to give it back. If he refuses the adult has to physically remove it-even if it results in a tantrum. You can't always reason with DCs.
I am very sceptical about the whole thing-it appears to let a DC who is unreasonable have their own way at the expense of the more reasonable sibling. My brother with the teddy bear was actually quite reasonable (he was very young at the teddy incident), but my youngest brother was totally unreasonable-he just wasn't open to listening to reason if it didn't suit him!
My mother never did manage to reason with him-you can't even now he is adult!!

Under-5s can understand a lot more than they are usually given credit for as long as you take the time to explain things in terms they can comprehend.
Or so I've found with my children and I don't think they are any different to other children in that respect.

As it is not the middle east but 2 little children you don't need to reason about it. Merely take it off the DC that it doesn't belong to -they will throw a quick tantrum and forget it. There is no need for it to be mutually agreeable.

Even if there is a tantrum at the time, you can always reason with them (or try) once the storm has passed.

They don't always forget it.

There are always DCs who flout the rule juuule!
I always smile when people have one reasonable DC and they put it down to their superior parenting, then number 2 comes along and what worked with number one is a dismal failure!
My mother was always one for reason and explanations-it simply didn't work with her DC3!! He is still difficult today!

I haven't forgotten the teddy incident-although my mother has and my brother certainly can't remember it!

well clearly you can't (always) reason with young children..as abbeya is pointing out, she still remembers the "teddy incident".. even though her mother probably thought she dealt with it fairly..

What do you mean by difficult? I presume he is now an adult?

You still can't reason with him!

So he has his own ideas about things that don't match with yours - is that what you mean?