As you said – sometimes the timeout keeps you from regrettable parenting. I’m human, I get mad at my daughter sometimes. But I also don’t believe in taking my anger out ON my daughter. Which means sometimes separating her from me is the only option.
But I have to believe there’s a difference between withholding affection temporarily and actually withholding love.

Ridiculous. Like it or not, our entire society is based on rules, consequences, rewards, and — yes indeed — punishments. How on earth are children who have been raised without introduction to these concepts going to function once they leave home? How are they going to manage the reward/punishment systems in place at school, work, and even daily social interactions? Kohn might consider a time-out something close to abuse, but I say that raising children who aren’t prepared to function in the real world is much, much worse.
Of COURSE there’s a difference between withholding affection temporarily and actually withholding love. It’s our job as parents to communicate that we love our children unconditionally, but aren’t going to allow them to run wild. Effective discipline is *work* and often not easy, but that’s the job of parenting.

Kohn’s ideas make no sense if you are in the real world with kids. Kohn believes that you shouldn’t ever say to your child that you like something they do? If your child comes over to you with a drawing they did in school today, should you look at it with indifference and say “you drew a brown tree”? It sounds to me like Kohn is on some pretty heavy meds that drown out all emotion and that he wants to ban emotion from the world entirely. How horrible it would be to be his child! Never seeing your Dad’s eyes light up as he says “WOW! That’s awesome!” Yes, negatives are bad and positives are good. We shouldn’t get rid of both in order to create a fantasy world for our children that doesn’t really exist outside our doors. Kids need excitement in their lives. They need parents who get excited about the popsicle stick ornaments they make. If this means that they have parents with real emotion, parents who sometimes get mad, than I say that’s good for them. We can’t see what’s good in the world without having the bad to compare to.

What *is* very valuable about Kohn’s theories is how he puts emphasis on the long-term parenting goals of raising a thoughtful, caring citizen rather than a person who is only motivated by reward. It’s a very tough ideal to live up to and I think people can benefit from trying elements of his ideas, or at least reading him, while holding on to their own personalities. For example, I am effusive and I make a big deal out of all kinds of cool stuff, so if my kid does something good or cool, I can’t help cheer. Kohn emphasizes also that children are not just inferior or underdeveloped adults, but beings in their own rite who have views and perspectives on their world that are valuable and should be taken into consideration and honored whenever possible. We, as adults, should not just assert our authority all the time to “teach a lesson” or “because we can”…

Holy Moly! Sounds like this guy has too much time on his hands. Seriously, my husband and I both feel we were raised right by our parents — rewards for good behavior, occasional spankings, time-outs and sometimes even yelling. Call me crazy, but we both love and respect our parents today. We don’t spank here, but we do praise and reward good behavior. Bad behavior doesn’t get rewarded, but perhaps gets an explanation or maybe a lesson on why that behavior isn’t going to cut it. There’s a lot of work to this parenting thing, but there’s also a lot of work just to put food on the table. If you respect your children and try your darndest to make sure they know what needs to be done to become a good citizen, I think you’re doing your job. Maybe if we taught our kids to stop focusing so much on themselves and what they’re feeling in the moment, and instead use that energy to help someone else, the world would be a better place.

I agree with bettywu-I have a friend who does the unconditional parenting thing with her two year old, and that kid is ALWAYS hitting my boys on playdates, and generally acting like a wild hellion who has no rules. I don’t even want to do playdates with them anymore. You can provide unconditional positive regard for your children and set limits for them, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I am kind of in line w you Mwa…and I like your blog, too

I took a parenting class in which the teacher differentiated between the use of time outs as punishment (not advised with children under 4 or 5- teaches conditional love) and as a way to immediately teach a child a better way to handle a situation (advised with children 2-3). If a child is throwing cars at the play table you say, “Sally, we don’t throw cars at the table.” She throws the car again. You remove her from the table and tell her “If you can’t play at the table without throwing cars you need to play somewhere else.” So you give a timeout from the problem activity/toy/situation. Then you give the child another chance to get it right. “Would you like to rejoin the group at the table and try again?” So the timeout isn’t from the group or from the parent, which is where this teacher saw a problem. Punishing a young child by putting her in timeout teaches shame, conditional love, etc. But it doesn’t teach them how to better handle the situation, which should really be the ultimate goal. I really liked her perspective.

Sorry about all my comments, but I have alot of thoughts on this…
One this is for sure, Kohn’s style is NOT lazy parenting. In many ways, it’s much more demanding than the positive/negative reinforcement style…

Nobody reasonable is advocating “twacking” them. Or not explaining why they shouldn’t do something. Or trying to keep patient. None of that is what Kohn advocates. He’s saying don’t ever tell them that their behavior is unacceptable.
After rereading the article I think it boils down to this. Kohn is equating unconditional acceptance of behavior with unconditional love. And equating constant affection with constant love. I accept my children for who they are all the time and love them no matter what and I tell them that on a regular basis. But I don’t let them treat themselves or others with disrespect and act like it’s okay.

I DON’T believe that a respect for others is inborn. I think it has to be taught. Lovingly taught, patiently taught (as much as humanly possible) yes. But Taught.

The New York Time article confuses ‘unconditional love’ with ‘unconditional license.’ Really, parents who love their children unconditionally are the only parents who try to inculcate moral values into them through proper discipline. The internal sense of ‘restraint’ felt by the college students interviewed in the study cited is what has historically been called ‘conscience.’ It is because do love their children unconditionally that they guide their formation with both positive and negative reinforcement, so that their child doesn’t become a ‘savage’ always intent on doing their own will, regardless of whom it may harm. The article was also misleading. It implied that children who have moral values instilled in them by their parents need psychological counseling later in life, but it provided no actual cases where that took place.

I agree there seems to be a confusion of unconditional love and unconditional license. In the real world (the one you’re preparing kids to live in), there are positive results and negative consequences that are porportionate to your actions. I would say that anyone who isn’t imparting an understanding of this is doing their child a diservice. I think real love requires discipline. If you want the best for your child you should be helping understand this dynamic. Jenny, I too wonder if there is a difference between religious/non-religious people on this. It seems to me though, that an understanding a of consequences (positive and negative) would be neccessary even in an athiestic world view.

I was punished by my parents when I misbehaved and yet I never resented them and thought they were excellent parents. As an adult I can also forgive them for their mistakes and many times attribute them to a more conservative upbringing – that generational difference. I felt very much loved, thank you very much, and I’m sure my son feels loved by me unconditionally even though I give him time outs or withdraw privileges when he goes way out of line. I always tell him, “Mommy loves you no matter what, but you cannot do (…)” I make sure he understand I’m just punishing the act and not him as whole person.

karmamama – It’s a whole new trend, “Impassive Parenting!” Soon we will be trying to one up each other on the playground for who can keep the blankest expression.

I am going to get the book and learn more … my wife and I certainly believe that it’s critical that our kids feel loved no matter what they do — it’s not clear to me you can’t communicate clear expectations for behavior, and added praise when they do good, and STILL communicate that we love you not matter what. That’s what my parents did, and i think they did a darned good job.

I also think that the cold hard truth is that the world rewards people unequally. When your parents are dead and gone you will be living in a world of your own making, and it could be cold and lonely, or sunny and full of love. Being a productive member of society highly motivated to improve the world is likely to result in getting more “love” back from the world, just as doing good as a kid results in more affirmation from parents. In other words, this is an accurate model for what life is like, and in that way it’s helpful. Would kids prefer to get equal affirmation no matter what they do? Maybe. But is the objective to be the most popular parent, or set your kids up for longterm happiness?

Funny to see the comments from people who obviously haven’t read the book. I just finished the first eight chapters of Unconditional Parenting, and although sometimes tough to swallow, Kohn makes a strong argument about reframing how we think about relating to kids. It has nothing to do with being a lazy, unemotional parent, and has everything to do with refocusing on having a relationship with your child. Which any behavioral discipline will not encourage, because they were developed to alter behavior in animals before being adapted and applied to people. At first, I admit that the book seemed unrealistic and disconnected from the reality of parenting in real life. However, just letting some of the ideas stew, it has helped me to interrupt some of the more reactive comments I make when my child is ‘misbehaving’ and think more critically about what she needs from me, and how I should respond. I haven’t even gotten to the ‘suggestions’ part of the book, but it has already provided me with a platform for diffusing several stressful situations at home (i.e. sibling squabbles, ugh!). It’s hard to hear that your parenting, when done with love and best intentions may have negative consequences, but that doesn’t mean that the underlying theory is inaccurate (and I say this having a child development and psychology background).