A signature piece of my own childhood was my incessant need to challenge the legitimacy of authority figures. To me it felt like I owned the right to either accept or decline them; the more an authority figure intended to control me by force, the less I respected them. In this society this trait is a burden that made it impossible for me to soar through my childhood untroubled and without incident. Some adults saw it as a quirk, others certainly did not.

Reflecting upon my experiences now brings me some understanding for what was driving me, but back then I truly felt disruptive and wrong; this however by no means motivated me to conform. When I learned what ‘protest’ was, I organized demonstrations, the first I remember being in 3^rd grade. I had my classmates marching around the playground demanding longer playtime outside. I always questioned the topics we were supposed to learn in school and wouldn’t accept the teacher’s opinion, conclusions or agendas without challenging them. When we had homework assigned, I myself decided how much sense was to be found in doing it and felt no shame in conveying my convictions to my teachers in front of the other pupils. I needed to hear what the point and sense was before I did something; needed to feel inspired. I needed to respect a person in order to do something they asked. And that was the trouble: tradition dictates children follow suit, obey their elders and adopt the belief that they are less worthy of dignity, choice and freewill than adults. I would not allow myself to be controlled and bucked my way through any attempt to break my will in order to force me into obedience.

Living in a peaceful paradigm, we acknowledge children’s rights for dignity and autonomy. A person’s will is a wonderful and powerful thing; a thing that is damaged and broken when we are controlled and oppressed into obedience. This we merry few avoid and choose to connect with our children, focus on needs underlying behavior and take a kind and supportive tone when suggesting ways to communicate needs and wishes and resolve conflicts.

As adults it is our role to guard children’s personal boundaries when they cannot, for instance when they have a special toy they do not wish to share and another child tries to take this toy from them, or when a conflict becomes physical and children cannot protect themselves.

In this mindset we understand that interpersonal relationships are determined by needs and personal boundaries. Our children grow up having their boundaries, comfort-zones and autonomy recognized and respected, and so they generally come to acknowledge and respect these things in their fellow human beings, however, sometimes parents use their ability to be flexible to the point where children do not respect their boundaries and needs – because they aren’t respecting them either. This tends to happen to parents new to the peaceful paradigm. We wish our children autonomy and freewill but quickly end up frustrated when we feel heteronomous and restricted in our own autonomy; many of us experience strong reactions to this due to our own oppressed upbringing.

It is wonderful to be flexible and put our children’s needs before our own, but communicating our boundaries in a kind and connected way is in my experience well received by children and plays a large and important role in human interaction. Children acknowledge and show respect by observing the respect we show to them, to others and to ourselves.

When young children come together to play we parents often think, “Can’t you just get along and share?!” It seems so simple, but the reality is another – there is nothing simple about the subject. Sharing requires trust, a certain extent of sequential thinking and inner stability. A child, insecure in the surroundings or tired and crabby will not be willing to share a toy. It is easy to fall into the commanding role and order children to do as they are told, however negating their emotions and their will does more harm than good.

Many parents ask how will my child learn how to share, if I do not show her how? How will my child develop social abilities, if I do not steer her in the right direction? How will she find friends? I must cultivate generosity! I must deepen his awareness and care for others!

Thinking we as adults must do something to promote generosity, empathy and goodwill is flawed in itself and the strategy of forcing children to give up their toy as soon as another child wants it, in order to promote these qualities, grossly fails to meet its aim. Empathy for others cannot develop when the individual isn’t shown empathy. Furthermore, why should a child be encouraged to give something up, abiding the principle that it is good and right to share your possessions but wrong, rude or even unfair to stick by your own boundaries and say “no, I do not wish to share this.” The basic respect that is observed between adults, concerning possessions, seems to be forgotten when it comes to our children. Parents overrule them and promote a disregard for personal boundaries.

Forcing children to give up their toys does not instill healthy connotations with the act of sharing. It promotes a fear of having their things taken away and makes them want to hold on to them tighter. If sharing is forced, the experience is not driven by generosity, empathy and good- or even freewill. It feels negative; the child feels wronged and alienated.

Children are entitled to bodily autonomy; just because they are smaller and know less doesn’t mean we may force them to undergo anything they do not like or approve of. When it comes to changing nappies, brushing teeth, getting dressed or undressed we should be as playful and creative as we can, but when a “no” is communicated, that “no” must be respected. We must allow children to finish their play and find ways to make these undertakings as fun as possible instead of initiating them in a commanding fashion and expecting obedience rather than compliance.

We must question our motives and see whether or not flexibility is in order – why can’t our child sleep in her daytime-clothes or sleep naked? Why shouldn’t she wear her slippers to the supermarket or wash her hands while playing with water when she doesn’t like doing so on command? Why shouldn’t a boy wear hair-clips or a skirt? Why must hair be cut a certain way? Why shouldn’t an eleven year old girl shave her legs when she feels inadequate? Why can’t a twelve year old have their ears pierced or why should a five year old girl? Must my son allow a doctor to check his ears, his mouth or his penis? Should a wound be stitched by force when it could heal without?

Our children must be allowed to find their comfort zones and personal boundaries, and must also trust they will be treated respectfully while they do so. When they are overpowered, their boundaries ridiculed and discarded, they will be more guarded, more defensive and less trusting. They may even grow used to such a disdain for their boundaries and be less likely to say no, feeling an obligation to fulfill whatever it is their counterpart is asking of them.

Children’s curiosity is often misinterpreted as mischievous. Where they are discovering their surroundings, exploring their impact on the world and interpreting responses and reactions, some believe to see them calculating “how much they can get away with” and them “testing their boundaries”. I’ve written a little about boundaries already here and about holding children to adult standards here.

Children do not require us to set boundaries and limits, they need space to pitch their own comfort zones – a one year old will usually not stray far in a crowded or unfamiliar place if he has felt the vastness of running over a meadow or hiding behind trees in a forest. He will reach for our hand when we approach a train station or walk through a town packed with people. Very rare is a child who doesn’t have these instincts, however very common are children who have turned their back on them because they weren’t trusted to follow them. When we do not let children run, we do not allow them to learn to stay close. If we tell children they can’t…they believe they can’t and then they won’t. This applies here too; telling a child he cannot walk through a mass of people without holding a hand, or stop at a road when we say so, will bring him to act as we anticipate: pulling away from us and running away dangerously.

Allowing children to run as far as they please in safe spaces will not eliminate their compliance in other situations; it will support their instincts to stay close in those situations. By allowing them to experience their will and curiosity, their need is met and they don’t stagnate, trying to have it met.

Keeping up standard dental hygiene can be difficult in those early years with our children. Young children have little to no understanding of the future – any talk of cavities, bacteria or doctors seldom leaves an impression. Cleaning teeth for fear of a parent’s wrath or because of some nightmarish tales doesn’t instill healthy associations with the topic; it alienates children from a part of their body and transfers their motivation to an unhappy place.

Children from around six years and above may well be interested in the reasons for brushing teeth and the consequences of not. They begin to comprehend the future and how our actions now may have implications.

We must first bid farewell to this way of thinking: we mustn’t ever need to “get” someone to do something. Bribes and rewards, punishments and shaming will not keep their hold for long and do not instill healthy connotations (on the contrary in fact), but bring about a dependency on outer, controlling forces and are detrimental to a person’s self-esteem and relationships. We must consider the person standing before us; take their needs, emotions and personal boundaries into consideration and communicate with them instead of implementing aged methods and techniques of child-raising.

The task of brushing our children’s teeth mustn’t be done by the clock or on our schedule – if a child is engaged in play or meeting a different need, telling him it’s “time” gets the whole thing off to a rotten start. When we live authentically, we see our children for the individuals they are; we have no need for methods or time-frames. We can mention the thought, await reply, take interest in the activity our child is immersed in and connect with them. The right time will arise; the connection and playfulness are already in place.

Close to children’s second birthday, they experience some changes. They go from taking what you say for granted and following relatively compliantly, to insisting upon their will. This isn’t “The Terrible Twos” it is in fact “The Autonomy Phase”. Children are led by primitive instincts that transform them from being babies, dependent lap-dwellers, to autonomous, experienced and able human beings.

Their will is their motivation, it leads them toward learning opportunities, allows them to want to be independent and is so strong, it simply cannot be ignored. Curiosity and the need to explore their world are what drive them.

Two year olds are often seen as tiresome, mischievous terrors, but when we take a closer look at their behavior, we observe their curiosity and exploration resembles a scientist’s. They examine usage, texture, mass, mashability, smashability and response. They have an idea or come across an unknown object and examine it…they experiment. Then they test it to see if the results are identical to the first effort; and then they try something different to see how the things they are investigating behave with another component. They go about testing cause and effect by trial and error. What happens when I throw my food? Are the results the same if I do it again? What happens when I do that? And if I do it again? They examine basic laws of physics, of human interaction and social conduct.

“Bad” behavior is only bad when we wish to interpret it so. Children communicate through their behavior and it’s up to us to receive their messages: A child that won’t refrain from touching the curtains, even if you have told her not to, may be curious to play with them, testing their properties (how do they feel? How does the fabric move when you sway them? Can I hide behind them? Can I swing on them?). The child may be inviting you to play and even if the attempt backfires, she is still engaging you – she cannot carry the responsibility for the quality of the play, her attempt and her communication are the most she can give. The child may be defying you, having found that no other behavior or communication works… the curtain has become a decoy, the message behind it being the same, “I’m bored, I need you, play with me, let me understand my world, I’m interested in reactions and how I affect my surroundings”.

In creating “yes” surroundings, children may move around their home freely and examine everything as they wish. We must remove things or secure things that could be potentially dangerous. Anything that we do not wish to be played with should be kept out of reach and perhaps even out of sight of the child. When children have the freedom to explore their surroundings without being constantly reprimanded or scolded, they will be alert when something is actually dangerous or when visiting a friend’s home we share with them that an object shouldn’t be touched. Keeping objects in their place and hoping children will learn through consistently saying “NO!” doesn’t have that effect. Children do not touch the item for fear of your reaction, not from learning social etiquette. This promotes detachment in the parent-child-relationship and seeks to make the child obedient. (Read about “The Detriment of Obedience”).

It seems the modern adult brain has a problem letting kids be kids. One African tribe, sadly I have forgotten which, rarely reacts negatively to a child’s ‘bad’ behavior, but rather believes children have no conscious thoughts yet and thus cannot control their impulses. I like this way of thinking, for young children certainly cannot and should not control their impulses – testing things out much as a scientist does by trial and error is the key to acquiring knowledge and experience. It is growing up. It would be impossible for young children to think, “I’d better not throw this food on the floor, although I’d really like to see if it splats the same way as the food did yesterday, because, as Mummy always reminds me, it is inconvenient to have to clean the floor so often.”

Children are getting comfortable in their world, learning the laws of nature, learning social skills (closely watching our reactions and interactions) and forever trusting our opinion of things. If we believe they are annoying, up to no good or mischievous then trust me, they’ll comply and be so.

Holding children to adult standards means to expect them to calculate consequences, as in the example above. It means to expect them to calm down as soon as you’ve explained there is nothing to be afraid of. It means to negate the irrational fear instead of comfort the child. When we stop expecting children to behave like adults there is space to see them for the people they are with their motivation, impulses and characteristics. We acknowledge what they know and see what they wish to experience. Our role as parents becomes clear – where we were policing and reinforcing before, now we are suggesting, connecting and protecting. (Read “from policing to parenting: Re-humanization” here)

One of the most common questions when it comes to peaceful parenting is what the hell to do in an acute situation, say, when the child is having a tantrum?

Tantrums have many different triggers ranging from ‘that piece of Lego doesn’t fit’ to ‘that’s the wrong spoon!’ Or ‘I am not getting into the car now’ to ‘I want that toy now!’

There are times when tantrums arise from the lack of autonomy. We can observe this phenomenon in the authoritarian paradigm aka in common child-raising. Children will fight for their right to do and decide certain things for themselves – the more so if they are constantly directed by others.

When children have been accustomed to the power-over paradigm they will seek to overpower others, as is being done to them. Such behavior may lead to being overtaxed, aggressive or discontented, and often culminates to a tantrum.

I often hear people say “kids can’t have their will; then they’d do as they please!” meaning “if the kids have their way, chaos will ensue” “kids can’t just do as they please!”

Why do people assume the intent of the child is always mischievous, bad or in need of correction?

Children’s wills have had a bad reputation throughout recent history, ranging from behaviorists calling to break it, the church naming willfulness devil’s work etc.

This mentality has obviously kept their hold on people and even sneaks its way into Radical Unschooling groups. If children (or people in general) do as they please, the outcome must by no means be ridiculous. Children would possibly do things we (or, let’s say most people) wouldn’t enjoy seeing, like for instance using the garden hose to make a huge muddy puddle in the middle of the lawn and go from stamping in it to sitting in it to sliding in it.

If children did as they please they would play and experiment and learn. They may do tricky or dangerous things we think would surpass their abilities, but we may find they master them with sovereignty. Doing as they please may mean they try out different containers to eat out of and then decide a plate is better. Doing as they please could mean beginning guitar lessons, then quickly changing to piano. Doing as they please means acting autonomously in contradicting conform and conservative thinking.

When people hear of non-coercive parenting, they often remark “well I received punishments and I turned out just fine” or even claiming a smack on the bum or spanking didn’t harm them.

Hitting children diminishes feelings of self-worth and self-love, and instills in them a bone-shaking fear of authority, of life and of people (even their loved ones). Physical abuse stunts emotional development and brings about a state of obedience. Psychological abuse causes the same fear as physical abuse and on the whole has much the same outcome.

When people say such things they are obviously feeling defensive about the way we choose to live with our children. They feel the need to defend their parents, their upbringing and the norms of society.

By claiming they turned out to be fine they are setting a mark for psychological health and behavior that is truly questionable. A childhood spent in oppression, distrust, spite and under control leaves scars, that’s certain, and shapes a culture that is undeniably distrustful, lacking in self-worth and self-love, overly competitive and challenged in self-regulatory skills.

We have a knack of promoting scarcity, where none is to be found. It seems as though our Grandparents planted a belief in our minds, that we shouldn’t take things for granted and that it is even somehow wrong and immoral to live in abundance. So we create worlds that maintain an artificial kind of scarcity. Mainstream methods of child-raising create scarcity, driven by unfounded fears, in order to motivate children to behave.

Making things scarce keeps them special, makes us desire to acquire them, and gives us motivation to be the first. It keeps us in competition, too. There’s only one Number One in competitive games (and try to find games that aren’t competitive or people who aren’t competitively-minded).

When children haven’t the opportunity to self-regulate in honest, true surroundings, but have become accustomed to this false sense of scarcity, they have trouble finding a healthy balance when it comes to certain foods, media or staying up late for example.

These things, among others are implemented in behavior modification to make children act a certain way: be good and you may have some chocolate; were you good? Then you may watch TV; behave and we can go to the park etc.

The crazy thing is that it works. You can make your child obedient by doing this, but the outcome is detrimental, click here for more.

Switching from the authoritarian standard to the un-raising way (un-raising –what? Click here for more…) often leaves parents with a chaotic existence - the kid is naked, laughing and shaking its head at you when you offer it clothes (any clothes - take the shorts even though it’s raining, wear the jumper with the hood at the front, I really don’t care, you want PJs? No, my dress…ok…no?!). It has drawn all over its arms, legs and torso with a ballpoint pen, its face bears witness to the last 3 meals (which it ate sitting on top of the table) and it keeps on saying “no!”, although the word has no relevance whatsoever to the things you are saying.

Yes this is a picture many of us know all too well. I’ve even heard of kids declining any form of nourishment (yes isn’t it crazy what child-rearing strategies do to make children defiant, rebellious and skeptical of us on many levels), only to waltz over to the fridge and eat chunks of cheese, take a bite of a nectarine and squish it between the hands before throwing it aside and directing its attention to the next victim - a banana, which is brutally mistreated and, likewise, tossed aside. Yes, changing paradigms is tricky for all involved.

Un-raising means to drop all methods of traditional child-raising, that means praise, punishment, threats, manipulation, love-withdrawal, misusing a parents' natural authority to overpower children and forming them to be as another person would consider good or acceptable.

But why do people use these methods? They are a violation of human rights – no other group of people is as suppressed as children. Children have a right to a peaceful upbringing. Where ever there is force and coercion, respect and self-respect cannot exist. These child-raising strategies drive a wedge in the parent-child relationship, something crucial to a child’s wellbeing. Research shows stable attachments are the first and foremost criterion for a healthy psyche. What happens when children are raised by love-withdrawal is documented here, what implications praise has here, and how we may pinpoint needs underlying behavior here. Every person has a right to develop their self-regulatory abilities and through this establish a healthy sense of self-worth and self-esteem.

Do we have a right to form our children? Are they our creation? They live for no one but themselves.

At this time of year we are all thinking of toys we can gift to our children for Christmas. What would they like? What do they enjoy playing with? And some of us think about sustainability and how that toy has impacted the environment when it was manufactured, shipped, and how it can be disposed of.

Most toys aren’t made to be long lasting; it’s no secret how the industries work and how we are brought to consume ever more. Bright colored, loud toys have the purpose of keeping children busy, rather than facilitating learning through playing.

Children want toys that still their learning wishes. What is play? It is learning, exploring, figuring out how things work and imitating life. Even my four year old’s cars serve the purpose of imitating; they may even have characters and missions, create geometry patterns when he parks them in a special way, and offer an insight to the laws of physics.

Most manufactured toys restrict the child’s play; they don’t allow for much fantasy, usually aren’t compatible with other toys and have a limited function. These toys clutter up the home as they are set aside.

Modern methods of child-raising are in fact everything but modern. They stem from a long tradition of forcing obedience onto children, beginning ideally directly after birth. We are caught in a vicious cycle as we have all suffered the effects.

Our own upbringing causes us to see our children as our opponent; babies try to manipulate us, we think. They must be raised to behave and do as they are told, we believe. They must obey us, preferably without questioning our authority: “Why?!” “Because I said so!”

Obedience is the culprit of the repressed and broken will. The meaning of a broken will is we internalize the will of another and through this lose our identity. The self is denied, abandoned and suppressed in order to satisfy the aggressor. This is done in early childhood ; a time where people aren’t capable of fighting for their rights, a time where people believe themselves to be the center of the world, thus the culprit for anything bad that happens around them; a time where children are dependent on their parents and wish to please them.

Children need boundaries. Everyone says so. This ‘fact’ seems to be so deeply embedded in our beings that we back it with passion…but when we ponder its truth it crumbles into meaninglessness.

Boundaries are said to give children security and a safe space for their development, letting them taste their autonomy without becoming overwhelmed. Children are said to test these boundaries to make sure they’re secure. And apparently wherever there is friction, there is warmth, so we mustn’t be alarmed when we spend our days defending the boundaries we have set, our child is actually really thankful for them and feels the love.

Hmm. Where to begin? Attachments and secure parent-child-relationships have been proven to provide security for children and also allow them to thrive, as appose to surroundings that are negative, controlling and overpowering.

The usual response to conflicts is to stop the behavior i.e. the grabbing of a toy, the pushing or shoving or the shouting. Mainstream child-raising concentrates on behavior and believes that through inhibiting bad behavior and praising good behavior the outcome will be a moral human being with a sense of right and wrong. Well, actually the outcome is proved to be obedience, and that has little to do with moral – more on that next time. For generations now, children have been made objects of parent’s and society’s agenda.

 

And more to the point – do you remember how aggravating it was when your parents said “I don’t want to hear it! You’re both as bad as the other!” This kind of intervention in a conflict conveys to the children, you aren’t interested in what their feelings are and they are not worth your time or energy. Focusing on behavior instead of the underlying cause drives a wedge in the relationship to your child and impacts their self-esteem in a harmful way.

We must differentiate between two kinds of responsibility: the personal kind and the social kind.

 

Personal responsibility entails everything that has to do with one’s self – what we wear, eat, where we go, who we spend time with, how we feel and whether we change circumstances in order to feel better etc. and social responsibility is how we act toward each other – we care for each other and cooperate together, respecting the needs of others.

 

When children live in a healthy social community, they imitate the behavior that is modelled to them and are aware of social responsibility – they meet the needs of others and cooperate in order to uphold a healthy, happy living situation. Children grow into their social responsibility and assist their companions in day-to-day jobs, imitate the appropriate mannerisms at their own pace and see that established rules (which they had a say in) are upheld.

Everybody has needs, that’s not news to most of us. You could even say our society is specialized in satisfying those needs, especially the bodily. A myth circles through the ages. It tells us we are all responsible for our own needs, we mustn’t be dependent on others to have our needs met. And so we find ourselves raising our children to be independent from a young age…it’s for their best, right?

 

Well actually there are needs that cannot and must not be met by ourselves. Companionship is a need, simply wanting to share something with someone you love, too. Everyone has the need to be acknowledged as an autonomous being and to be appreciated as an individual. And sometimes we feel the need to curl up and have someone else call the shots. Especially Mummy and Daddy.

 Before un-raising: A story from the past

 

„I want to take the tram!!!“ My son screamed at me one day, many years ago, when I picked him up from kindergarten.

“No! We are taking the bus - it’s more direct and -“

 

“No! Tram!” He screamed and began to cry. I pulled him by the hand as we entered the bus. It was quite full. I was deeply embarrassed that I didn’t have my three year old under control and attempted to explain to him that if we took the tram we would have to change in the city center to get the other one which would take us home. He wouldn’t listen. His Dad let him decide between bus and tram – he knew we would have to change trams.

 Mainstream parenting sees its followers implementing the ‚Time-Out‘. An amount of time is set for the child sit out. Sometimes in silence. Mostly in the child’s room, alone. If the child gets up or comes out, the timer is set again. There are other variations such as the Naughty chair or the Quiet Step.

Time-out… time out from what, though? Time out from all that commotion, as in you notice the current situation is highly stressful for your child and you seek to protect him or comfort her? I do that - but I never force something upon my child that he doesn’t want. If a situation is too much I offer an alternative that my son usually gladly accepts.

 It’s been brought to my attention that many people believe it does children good to hear a good strong “No!” now and again - just for good measure.

There are so many natural nos in everyday life: no, there is no cheese left; no, it’s not time yet; no, we cannot keep a horse; no, you cannot take that child’s toy home; no, that Lego piece won’t go on like that… why should I purposefully provoke a child by forbidding them to do something, just because I thought it’s time he or she heard a healthy no?!

This trail of thought stems from the assumption children must be controlled through authoritative methods of child-rearing. By overpowering the will of the child we are regulating the naturally balanced scales to fit our agenda, claiming my side is heavier and has more impact. I’m the cake, you’re the crumb. I get to decide over your dealings, timetables and body.

 

Children come into the autonomy phase (commonly called the ‘terrible twos’) at around two years of age. What is the point of this phase? Many may ask, as I asked myself a while ago. This is nature’s way of ensuring our little Homo sapiens will strive to become independent and discover the will-power to impact the world around them. This is why they want to do everything by themselves - and why we should let them. When we insist on helping when help isn’t wanted, we go against the child’s quest to grow up, bringing nature’s plans in a muddle. By intervening we also tamper with the child’s self-esteem - it is not up to us to judge and grade how our children eat their food, they manage to maneuver food into their mouths by themselves with a lot more concentration when we leave them to it. Taking the spoon away proves you don’t think they can do it or believe they’re not doing it properly and hinders them in perfecting the art of spoon-using.

 In my last article I introduced reasons why praise is so harmful to children's self-esteem, click here to read it.

 

The article caused much discussion and some despair - what on earth should I do instead of praise!?

 

Many said they didn’t implement praise in order to accent certain behaviors or to control the child, so it’s surely not harmful or even wrong.

But the point is exactly that: people praise without second guessing it - it’s completely socially accepted and expected.

Praise directed at a child isn’t initially wanted or expected. It’s quite rude, really. “Well done! You got the ball! Good boy!”  How condescending that sounds. It certainly implies we didn’t expect him to catch it, which also suggests we think the child is incompetent.

Praise is a strategy of Child-raising used to form children to act as they should, how we want them to or how society requires them to, a means to an end, and it goes hand-in-hand with punishment and love-withdrawal.

By implementing praise you are taking your child’s natural self-reliance and self-confidence away, forcing him to be dependent on you for any feelings of joy about something he has made/said/thought etc. Without your approval, the thing is worthless.

My son, just turned four, and I went to visit my sister. After a two hour train journey we waited outside the train station - she was a little late. Marley ran around manically, working off his frustration after being cooped up. He wasn’t so keen on our visit to his aunty; he said she’s always so angry.

When she arrived he shied away from her excited hellos and hug attempts. Before boarding the next train for the seven minute ride to our destination, we went for ice-cream.

Marley jumped about on the seat in the cafe, hung on me, pulled and pushed playfully on me and still ignored all contact-attempts from his aunty. His playing was rough; I still engaged him as I always do - laughing, holding him close, poking him back and giving him the physical hold he needed in this (for him) insecure situation.

Family members can be very skeptical toward dropping all methods of child-rearing i.e. praise, punishment, manipulation and control. They just don’t get that those new to the world can be treated with trust and respect. Cats don’t keep kittens away from rivers by holding them back or manhandle them to eat their catnip. Would be really weird if they did.

My Mum’s main issue with a peaceful paradigm is that she enjoys a structured routine, so she told me the other day. She doesn’t want cars at the dinner table, food in the car; on the whole she doesn’t want to go alternative routes and be inconvenienced.

 Attention is listening to someone, engaging them, comforting them; showing love through affection and embrace.

When we think our affection toward our child is apparent, we take it for granted that they feel the same way. But really children may feel they aren’t as important as the phone/TV/other person and they may begin to seek attention.

Subconsciously they feel unseen, inferior, worthless, perhaps even betrayed; “am I not worth my parent’s attention?” this eats at them if they are denied regular undivided attention and they develop an inferiority complex, sometimes coupled with disruptive or conspicuous behavior.

I often hear parents say “well, I want my kids to be raised a certain way…” or “I want my kids to act so-and-so…” implying that if I don’t coerce a child to do things, they’ll never do them. Thus parents legitimate their running behind a child, trying to wipe their nose (which turns into a wild goose chase, ending in “I’ll count only to three…1…2…3…”, a scared whimper and tears) and justify their forcing the child to say please and thank you or hello and goodbye.

 The mess we make:

Lots of parents are interested in a more peaceful existence with their children, driven by the most blatant facts- more children are becoming disconnected, unhappy, bored, defiant, even destructive, aggressive or suicidal. And life at home is hard when you’re barking orders, checking things are being done (for instance homework) and threatening with consequences/punishments for bad behavior. All the while wondering “why, oh why must my kids defy me so?!”

Why is it a belief, that children are born wrong or bad, in need of conditioning through being raised?

 Human beings are born expecting certain things- a newborn baby’s place is near the mother’s breast, a small child sleeps soundly in its parent’s bed, the elder child learns by following its interests; all children are curious and explore their surroundings, counting on finding safety in their parent’s lap whenever they seek it.

There is an instinctive bond between parent and child, a bond the children vehemently call upon to be upheld. Somehow people have come to a point in their evolution where they do not trust their instincts, thinking they need feeding schedules, punishments, praise and day care.