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

abbeya...i am talking about 2 yr olds here...of course when my dd drew on the walls i would take the pencil off her..but i wouldn't stand and talk to her about it for 10 minutes iykwim....she didn't know it was wrong? ....when she could understand..(which isn't until they are about 3 imo)..then i spoke to her about "house rules"....

Glad to hear that you didn't talk about it for 10 mins darkpunk! A few house rules are very simple-if you start from the beginning there is no problem. They aren't oppressive in any way-it is just about mutual respect.

In Alfie Kohn's UC parenting method, my understanding is that when children want to do something which challenges your notion of what is "normal" or "right", you have a really good think about whether it really is a problem or not. And if it is a problem, then you make it clear that while that thing is not ok to do, you still love them unconditionally. So the mode of discourse isn't the kind of rewards and punishment thing where parental approval and love is connected, either explicitly or implicitly, to the child's behaviour.

I may be confusing the matter somewhat because I am not a UP parent, I see that whole authoritarian trump card as making the whole method just a touchier feelier version of the conventional discipline paradigm, which I don't buy into.

Me, I think that when our children want to do something that we initially think "NO!" to, the best options are

1. to persuade the child, verbally or non verbally, that they'd rather do the thing you had in mind

2. to re-examine that "NO!!!" and see whether it really needs to stand and, if not, to back down

3. to work with the child to find alternative possibilities that both they, and we, and whoever else is affected by the action, are happy with.

4. and if inspiration fails, either the child wins or the parent loses, or the parent wins and the child loses, and both those outcomes suck - there isn't anything to choose between them morally.

It sounds all so blardy convoluted written down like this, when what I'm really talking about is something like

Mum: "D'you want an apple?"
Child: "no. Chocolate".
Mum: "Hmmm. We don't have any. Banana?"
Child: "oh ok". or maybe "let's go to the shop and get some chocolate"
Mum: "Hmmm. It's only 6am and the shops aren't open yet. Shall we make chocolate cake instead with cocoa powder in?"
Child: "oh yeah"

and everyone is happy. Covered in flour and cocoa powder but happy.

I also believe fervently that the more our children get accustomed to the fact that we are not trying to thwart them, that we are trying to help both them and us and the people we encounter to be happy in our interactions, the more they trust that on those occasions when we say "I'm sorry, I just can't get you the moon on a stick" that we really cannot alter the laws of physics for them, and that we understand their disappointment and that we will do our best to help them find other cool things on sticks, but that we aren't stopping them from reaching for the moon just because we don't think that's an "appropriate" thing to do, or it's just "not ok" or it's "bad" or "naughty" or "silly".

I have to say that really, for entertainments which take place upright, fully clothed, and are suitable for family viewing, pen pictures on windows or computer/DVD screens take a lot of beating. :-)

I don't see it as an authoritarian trump card, onwards. To me, for younger children, it is more a case of me having had more experience of things and deciding that something isn't a good thing for them or that the situation necessitates a certain action. I do think that children need to be able to engage with society in a way that is acceptable (which isn't to say that some things in society don't need to be challenged). I see that as the parent, I have more experience than the child and therefore I'm in a better position to make an informed decision. I can explain my decision to the child and try to impart an understanding of the situation. However, I can't always expect the child to fully understand and so at that point, yes, I take charge. As the child matures they come to see why or why not things are done how they are done and can then begin to reason more fully themselves. By the time they are teens they can let me know why my decisions might not be the best ones and I at that point we are becoming on a more equal footing. But when they are younger although I take their views into account and listen and sometimes change my mind about what or why I am requesting something, the final say rests with me.

So maybe I don't UP in the sense some people perceive it or maybe not fully. But then you don't seem to consider AKs veiw of UP really is UP as far as I can gather. I admit that it's not TCS (although I would argue that I take my children and their points of view very seriously).

AK's view of UP is UP - it's his method and his invention!

But I'm not UP, and although I do think that those ideas have a lot of merit, I still think there's so much leeway for someone to say "ah well, I'm UP but X is absolutely out of the question" when X might well be something which needn't be out of the question necessarily, like going out of the house in pyjamas. There is an escape clause for us parents not to re-examine our entrenched theories. Like for AK I think one of his examples was that children simply mustn't have cake before supper. To which the answer from some might well be "er.... why is that a self-evident given, Mr Alfie? Why can't supper be cake on certain occasions? Will the world stop spinning? Will the FTSE fall to a record low? Will our children's legs fall off?"

I totally agree that "children need to be able to engage with society in a way that is acceptable", and that's all part of the guidance that we should be offering (and do offer, of course) our children. I think to say to a very small child "oh no, we just don't do that, let's think of something better" is perfectly acceptable - it's not that the behaviour is wrong in the abstract necessarily, but in the current context it is going to make all sorts of people uncomfortable, so let's not do it. And it might well mean we don't get invited back or we don't feel comfortable coming to this place again. I also think it's important when we are stopping (or attempting to stop) a child do something because that's the rules of that particular place, to make it very clear where the rule is coming from. "That's not our china cabinet, and Aunty Mavis says no thankyou, please do something else". Or "the librarians say no thankyou to children ripping up all the books" or "Gran says please don't draw on the walls of her house, but we can draw with chalk on the walls outside if we want, or we can wait till we get home".

It can all be done without being set boundaries, just the circumstances in which we find ourselves - exactly the same as the moon on a stick e.g. I gave before. And if the child is determined to go ahead and do it anyway, well then the parent has the choice of going with that and dealing with the fall out, or stopping the child and dealing with the fallout, or suggesting icecream

Yep - I agree with all that, onwards.

I misunderstood your earlier post, I think, and thought you were trying to say that a way must be found for child to draw on auntie Mavis' furniture, for example. But now you seem to be agreeing that a parent may, at some point, have to stop a child doing something that they want to.

For me, I'm uncomfortable with my child drawing on the walls. My problem, maybe, but I would let the child know that. If it was a major desire of the child to draw on the wall then I would have to consider accommodating that. So far, it hasn't been that great an issue for the child, thankfully for me. We all need to be comfortable together.

I think the distinction between my philosophy and the UP method is more one of mental approach than necessarily of how it looks from the outside. I mean, this is kind of duh, but if a family are walking happily chatting along the street talking about what they see and not running into the road, as you pass by them, you have no idea whether the children are not running into the road because it has been drummed into them that running into the road Is Bad, or whether the parent just had to say once "no running into the road rodney!" or whether they did the whole science experiment bit around it, with watching cars go by and feeling the big wind, and seeing how big they are, and seeing how they totally mash up the coke can someone else dropped in the street, and being aware of how much they could hurt you. Or whether the children are about to step out idiotically into the path of a juggernaut because their parents have neglected to guide them in this matter. You just can't tell from the outside.

But there's a deep moral and philosophical difference between a parent who sees themself as a trusted advidor to their child, and one who sees themself as just a pal, and one who sees themself as needing to Teach Their Child Right Behaviour by force, threats and punishment if necessary, and one who sees their child as a little prince who can do no wrong etc etc. And I haven't even touched on the ways that I'm sure most people here would conceptualise their roles with theirchildren because silly stereotypes are much easier to categorise.

There also is a huge difference between the kinds of things one does in one's own home and the kinds of things one imposes on people outside the nuclear family, and children are very very quick to pick up the idea that different actions are appreciated in different places. In one place, the chalks are used only on a blackboard. In another place, they can be used on paving stones. In another, they can be used on external house walls or in the bath or internal house walls or wherever it might be. But like you say, Juule, if our children are very very keen to do something and it is only OUR judgement that that's not the right thing to do - noone else is involved and noone else's property is involved, then those are the moments to be thinking really carefully about whether we might be wrong.

with very small children, I see a lot of the parental role as being to guide children in those interactions so that everyone stays happy, and then as they get older, they get the confidence to manage more and more complex social interactions without an interpreter and assistant (as if they are learning a foreign language, which much social discourse is, of course, when you are 0 years old)

I actually agree with the last few posts!
If my DCs really wanted to draw on the walls I would paint one with blackboard paint-however they have been happy with paper so it didn't arise.
They know that they are loved unconditionally and that love is not connected with behaviour. I lead by example so I don't expect them to do things that I don't do myself, for example I always talk to them politely so I expect the same in return.
Although I am willing to discuss things, there are times when I am the adult and if they won't listen to reason I just tell them!

Now that mine are teens I think my methods worked-the proof is in the pudding! All through school all 3 have been described as caring and friendly. Friends are always willing to have them for sleep overs. They have been able to charm ancient relatives even when under the age of 4yrs- by listening to them and not touching things they shouldn't.

Onward As I agree with everything in your last post I am now puzzled at what the difference between your philosophy and UP is. I'm now thinking that I've skipped some parts of AKs book. Perhaps I just picked out the bits I agreed with although there were some parts that I thought didn't make a lot of sense. I know from reading tcs that I couldn't bend over as far backwards as some people seem to do for their children even though I agree with a lot of what is said. I don't think it's healthy or possible to accommodate a child's desires to the point that I've seen some people try although I do still try to see that point of view in case I'm missing something.

Abbeya
"Now that mine are teens I think my methods worked-the proof is in the pudding!"
This isn't always the case. Sometimes a teen can make bad choices and will need to learn from that. This doesn't mean that the parents necessarilly did anything wrong. You can only do your best and hope that everything turns out well for your child.

abbey, I am an oldest child too with a mother who was a younger child and ALWAYS thought that my younger brother was getting a raw deal, still does, though she adores my eldest and we have had words about it...so I hear you! It seems to be almost a knee jerk reaction for her, to side with the youngest.

It has made me very reluctant to step in and sort out my children's fights for them, but rather work to develop their negotiation skills. And yes it takes ages at times, and yes I feel like an utter eegit writing lists of possible solutions to one-croissant-two-children situations, but it works well, and they are getting very good at dealing with conflicts without me. And not always with solutions I'd have suggested, but which they both seem happy with.

My ideal is honesty with my children. So I WILL say, "no, I am not willing to let you do that, I do not think that you can do it safely and it is my job to keep you safe".

But I have respect for them as people too.

So say with the walking out nekkid. It would depend. Would I let them walk out today? No. Their feet would freeze to the pavement. Would I let them walk out without clothes in July? All the time, tbh, and ditto half their friends' parents (why yes they are homeschooled ). I just don't get the problem here.

But then I have spent the past day accompanied by small two dragons, in firefighter costumes (dragons breathe fire...). Oh and a bumblebee. So what do I know?

It occurs to me that 95% of the time they are charming, easy children. Its just that I do rather sweat the times (7pm each night) when we all explode at each other.

(i have suddenly realised I am making it VERY easy to out me...just look for the woman with the oddly dressed dragons...)

"I know from reading tcs that I couldn't bend over as far backwards as some people seem to do for their children even though I agree with a lot of what is said. I don't think it's healthy or possible to accommodate a child's desires to the point that I've seen some people try although I do still try to see that point of view in case I'm missing something.
"

very much agree.

I think children NEED to be allowed and encoraged to be as self sufficient as possible. Its a self esteem thing. Knowing you are capable of quite a lot is a great feeling.

FJ - but when you say you would let them go out without their clothes in july do you just mean in the garden or would you let them for example walk down the road to the shops or the park with nothing on?

I shall now be looking out for 2 dragons and a bumble bee!!
I think I shall have to read Alfie Kohn-what I would really, really like to know is what his own children are like.

hmm

well I probably would let them walk to the park, yes, if they wanted to.

The thing is, they wouldn't, not really. They know that people don't walk around without clothes, and they are not testing limits, so they just don't

If I start getting grumpy about stuff then whether or not they do things becomes partly about my disaproval. Now if I am honest, I'd rather they didn't walk to the park naked, but its hurting no one, so I probably would bite my tongue.

Certainly it is not uncommon to see naked kids IN the park round here in July.

I think if I felt uncomfortable with it though I'd just have a chat with them about it. But, you know, this is the wnderful thing about 3, as opposed to 2.4-you can explain stuff. thank god.

lol at abbey

also a moomin character with a huge nose and unwieldly hair...

FJ - see that's what i thought you meant - no clothes in the garden, park or beach. all perfectly fine imo but i don't know if i could let mine walk around in just their pants/nappy/completely naked not at one of those 3 places.

Abbey - I think it's really important that being a parent, being part of a family is about process not product. One should behave in a way that is morally right because it is morally right, not because one hopes that it will have an outcome in which one can bask in the reflected glory of the product one has created.

If AK's approach is morally valid, it is valid because punishment and rewards is morally and interactionally counter productive, not because you get a better brand of descendant at the end of it.

Oh - the other thing about TCS is that the public face of TCS on the list and the boards will often tend to take the child's POV because the adult is there with whatever apparently insurmountable difficulty and "I just have to coerce my child here don't I?" cue 27 posters saying "well, you could do this, this, this instead". You don't much get a child posting on the lists and then everyone wading in and saying "ah, well instead of coercing your mum here you could do X,Y,Z." So online I think you get a very one-sided view.

The other thing, of course, is that because of the imperative of respecting privacy, which is big in TCS circles, you tend not to get specifics from people about the precise ways they have found common preferences in their own families, it is very much couched in hypotheticals, which can be disconcerting at first

I think it becomes tricky with slightly older children also. And there is a hygiene element, I suppose.

I think I'd let them walk anywhere they wanted if they were wearing knickers and if it wasn't actually freezing

onwards, I like the general gist of TCS but really, the bbs just seemed like the Masons.

"I think it's really important that being a parent, being part of a family is about process not product. One should behave in a way that is morally right because it is morally right, not because one hopes that it will have an outcome in which one can bask in the reflected glory of the product one has created."

Very much agree, onward. Was trying to work out how to phrase it, you do it very nicely so thank you!

hey filly, who/what are the Masons? [ignorant emoticon]

"I think it's really important that being a parent, being part of a family is about process not product. One should behave in a way that is morally right because it is morally right, not because one hopes that it will have an outcome in which one can bask in the reflected glory of the product one has created."

I also very much agree with this. Very well put.

abbeya..don't know if you're around..but have you still got the teddy?

i still have the one my mum bought me when i was 4...

'not because one hopes that it will have an outcome in which one can bask in the reflected glory of the product one has created."'

I find it very odd to think of a DC as your product!! The one thing that I have learned from motherhood is that they are a distinct personality from the first breath! What works for one doesn't work for all. As long as they grow up with a sense of self worth, are emotionally stable and treat others as they would want to be treated-you can't hope for much more.
I still have the teddy! It was a big deal at the time! It was one time where my brother's views didn't need to have been taken into account!