question about PET and similar styles of parenting

[tenar]

This question relates to the thread here:
http://forums.bellybelly.com.au/foru...ning-brat.html

But it's sufficiently off the topic that I thought I'd start a new thread.

Looking at Kelly's posts, I have been reading the PET website. And some of it looks really good and sensible to me. But I have a question about how those kinds of courses allow parents to set sensible boundaries for their children, that are suited to the age and character of the child.

I'm not sure that I believe in "democratic parenting". It seems to me to be one of those things that sounds great, but when you try it, I am not sure how it works. I'd like to learn more about it. Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by the term as used on the PET website.

The family I was raised in was certainly loving, caring, and everyone had a say in things, at least to express their opinion. But it would be naive to suggest that the power levels in the family, between parents and children, were at all equal. The parents had to make most of the big decisions, and they had the brain capacity and experience to do so. So they had by far the most say in what went on in the family. To me that seems perfectly sensible and "right" (not that I think there would be one right way to do things, mind you).

I know one family (my step-brother's) where the parents don't want to discipline, or set boundaries for their kids at all. I don't think they have ever been told "no". The result is that their eldest son bullies their younger sons. He's a miserable, violent kid, now 8 years old, who has no friends at school because he's mean. His brothers are a mess too, because they have grown up with his example for beahviour. It seems like the parents don't see what is going on, but it's pretty clear to the rest of us that those kids need more setting of boundaries than they are getting, and they need consequences for breaking rules when they do. The last thing I want to do is parent in this fashion - I'd rather go too far in the other direction (actually I'd rather get it totally perfectly balanced in all directions, not sure if I can do that, but it's nice to try...).

One of my big jobs in the next few years is to help my DH, who was parented in a very authoritarian fashion, and who has a rotten relationship with his father as a result, learn how to parent well himself (his mum is dead). We don't want him to parent as he was parented, and the role model for good parenting is going to have to be me. So far he's doing well, but it's a steep learning curve for him, and I want to help him all I can. So it's important for me to learn about these things in time for us to get it right for DD and the other children that we hope to have.

Can anyone please comment on this, or discuss in general? I'm very interested.

[tenar]

I should add that I have and have read "What every parent needs to know", which used to be called The Science of Parenting", and I think it's wonderful. It does suggest ways to set limits for children, as well as ways to help them learn to control and cope with their own good and bad emotions. I'm all for the stuff in that book, though have yet to try most of it. Hopefully it will work as well in practice as it seems in theory...

[onthefly]

I think one of the basic tenents of PET is that parents and children both are humans above all, so we must aim to treat our children with respect and consideration and guide them to treat us and others in the same way.

Coming at communication in this way, we can be open and honest about our needs and feelings and work toward mutually satisfactory solutions to problems.

The traditional idea seems to be a power play - either the parent or the child has all the control. Without mutual respect and consideration, neither really understands the other's needs or feelings and so can't see the possibility of win-win situations - rather each tries to win and force the other side to lose.

When children are young, parents typically take control. As children get older, they will often rebel against this, leading to the sort of teenage behaviour we have come to expect. The alternative is that children are so thoroughly cowed by their authoritarian parents that they become completely submissive. Neither scenario is ideal.

Sometimes parents relinquish control and let their kids do what they want. Again, this is not a good scenario.

PET tells us that family dynamics do not have to be this way. When we are honest about our feelings, communicate with respect, use active listening, etc etc, we can find another way.

I haven't done the course, but read some books - maybe check your local library

Gordon, T "Parent Effectiveness Training"
Faber, A & Mazlish, E "How to talk so kids will listen, and listen so kids will talk"

[BellyBelly]

Marcellus has it right... you want to communicate to your kids in a way in which they'll grow up and still want to communicate with you because you are fair. Everyone has needs - this method ensures everyones needs are met, and helps you separate needs from values and deal with them accordingly.

As per the above post, there are three methods of parenting and the first two are mostly used:

Method 1. Authoritarian, where the parent is in control
Method 2. Permissive, where the parenting is more passive and child ends up getting what they want
Method 3. (sorry forgot the name was up very late, will check back) But basically it's where both parent and child have their needs met.

In those first two scenarios both parent and child end up with bad feelings. Guilt, powerlessness, dominance - loads of negative feelings. And the kids grow up with these issues - the kid who gets their way - perhaps may turn into a selfish/bully kind of person. The child who has a parent who is authoritarian will break out eventually and rebel. But where you both have an outcome you're happy with, it breeds respect, life skills (negotiation), achievement, satisfaction - because both parties are satisfied with a mutally agreed outcome where no-one gives in and no-one overpowers the other.

Active listening in itself has been a huge thing for me especially for my daughter who isn't very forthcoming with her feelings, she's really coming out with problems totally unrelated to what I thought they were.

PET teaches you to find out the root problem and aid the child to resolve it themselves - who owns the problem? They do so they need skills in working out solutions. You can't fix their problems for them, they need to grow up and learn how to do this... so you guide them in the process, without punishment, rewards (breeds dependence on the parent) and it does work!

By using method 3 of PET, you breed a strong relationship with your child, as well as strong communication. Methods 1 & 2 breed resent and can erode parent/child relationships.

Think about it, how do you feel when you've completely dominated your child over a situation - you felt really crappy for having to do it, so does your child. When they have dominated you, you feel like a failure, crappy too, confidence drops.... but you feel great after you've both found a solution that works for both of you.

Hope this makes sense. Tired! lol.

[Oorki Galoorki]

So when changing youir parenting style how do your children cope with the changes?
Do you explain that you have learnt a new way to do things??

what is the childs perspective on this change?

sorry for the Qs just wondering

[onthefly]

So when changing youir parenting style how do your children cope with the changes?
Do you explain that you have learnt a new way to do things??

what is the childs perspective on this change?

sorry for the Qs just wondering

With older kids I would say yes, definately explain what you are doing and why. Even give them material to read themselves. Otherwise they may suspect you are trying new tricks to manipulate them.

With young ones, I don't think you need to be explicit about it.

[Jennifer13]

So when changing youir parenting style how do your children cope with the changes?
Do you explain that you have learnt a new way to do things??

what is the childs perspective on this change?

sorry for the Qs just wondering

I've noticed recently I'm getting cross and raising my voice at my DD more often than I should. I'm getting more easily irritated. It has more to do with the amount of stress on me from working hard outside of home for a long stretch (which thankfully is about to slow down) and working on my relationship issues than DD.

I noticed she had been shouting at her little friend yesterday (and me) when she didn't like something. So I sat down with DD (three year old) and said that Mummy had been shouting too much (and being demanding of her) and that wasn't very nice of me and I'm going to stop shouting at her. Wouldn't that make Mummy a bit nicer to be around? And I asked her since Mummy was going to try her best to stop shouting, maybe DD could also try not shouting at anyone either? She agreed and we've both been much better.

I don't think they are too young to talk to them about how you're dealing with them, at any age. I saw a thing on Dr Phil once where the parents agreed to stop smacking their four children (all under 7 I think) and they sat down with all the kids and explained what they were changing and why and the kids just threw their arms around them. It was beautiful. The parents were in tears. Of course, you'd do it in an age-appropriate way.

[Heaven]

The ideal parenting style is authoritative parenting.

The 3 parenting styles were written about by Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43-88. You can google for info. Here's the main idea:

The permissive parent attempts to behave in a nonpunitive, acceptant and affirmative manner towards the child's impulses, desires, and actions. She [the parent] consults with him [the child] about policy decisions and gives explanations for family rules. She makes few demands for household responsibility and orderly behavior. She presents herself to the child as a resource for him to use as he wishes, not as an ideal for him to emulate, nor as an active agent responsible for shaping or altering his ongoing or future behavior. She allows the child to regulate his own activities as much as possible, avoids the exercise of control, and does not encourage him to obey externally defined standards. She attempts to use reason and manipulation, but not overt power to accomplish her ends (p. 889).

The authoritarian parent attempts to shape, control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a set standard of conduct, usually an absolute standard, theologically motivated and formulated by a higher authority. She [the parent] values obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will at points where the child's actions or beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right conduct. She believes in keeping the child in his place, , in restricting his autonomy, and in assigning household responsibilities in order to inculcate respect for work. She regards the preservation of order and traditional structure as a highly valued end in itself. She does not encourage verbal give and take, believing that the child should accept her word for what is right (p. 890).

The authoritative parent attempts to direct the child's activities but in a rational, issue-oriented manner. She [the parent] encourages verbal give and take, shares with the child the reasoning behind her policy, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform. Both autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity are valued. [She values both expressive and instrumental attributes, both autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity] ... Therefore she exerts firm control at points of parent-child divergence, but does not hem the child in with restrictions. She enforces her own perspective as an adult, but recognizes the child's individual interests and special ways. The authoritative parent affirms the child's present qualities, but also sets standards for future conduct. She uses reason, power, and shaping by regime and reinforcement to achieve her objectives, and does not base her decisions on group consensus or the individual child's desires. [... but also does not regard herself as infallible, or divinely inspired.] (p. 891) [Note that portions in brackets are significant additions to the prototype in Baumrind (1967).]

Background Information: Child Qualities & Parenting Styles

Authoritative Parenting

• lively and happy disposition
• self-confident about ability to master tasks.
• well developed emotion regulation
• developed social skills
• less rigid about gender-typed traits (exp: sensitivity in boys and independence in girls)

Authoritarian Parenting

• anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy disposition
• poor reactions to frustration (girls are particularly likely to give up and boys become especially hostile)
• do well in school (studies may show authoritative parenting is comparable)
• not likely to engage in antisocial activities (exp: drug and alcohol abuse, vandalism, gangs)

Permissive Parenting

• poor emotion regulation (under regulated)
• rebellious and defiant when desires are challenged.
• low persistence to challenging tasks
• antisocial behaviors