Free Friends Forum 29 PARENTARCHY—The Elephant in the Womb—Personified
A Response to Tereza Coraggio’s Substack “Is Parenting an Abuse of Power?” with three daughters as “Machiavellian midgets”
All those who have been children (yes you, including Tereza) are invited to a Zoom Forum this Saturday, Jan 25, 9PM; and Sunday, Jan 26, 9AM New Zealand time) to discuss Tereza’s proud assertion that the only three ways of dealing with children are “bribes, threats and manipulation”. She states parents have a necessary and morally justifiable right/duty to use their “power over” children since they are “Machiavellian midgets” out to manipulate parents to get what they want which is not what the parent wants, which is for them to be their “best self”. This is a “battle of wills” between parents and children and parents must win for the sake of the children who are “out to thwart themselves”. To posit that parents can reason and negotiate with children rather than trying to control children’s behavior is not even a possibility to consider. Only parents know what are the “best interests” for their children and Tereza’s children (three adult daughters) turned out to be “successful” so “bribes, threats and manipulation” work.
I will show how Tereza is the archetypal Parentarchical parent and how and why Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) by Thomas Gordon attempts to change this Parent Wins, Child Loses Authoritarian position to a No Lose, respectful, mutual meeting of parent and child needs.
I could not have created a better parent than Tereza to illustrate what PARENTARCHY is. She is Parentarchy personified. Note: all “quotes” are from Substacks/YouTubes by Tereza.
Jack Carney is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/8245320024
Meeting ID: 824 532 0024
Passcode: 772388
New Zealand Time Converter
https://dateful.com/convert/new-zealand
DR. THOMAS GORDON ON PARENT EFFECTIVENESS TRAINING - A SHIFT AWAY FROM POWER AND CONTROL ParentEffectivenessTraining, June 14, 2017. 1:09
PARENTARCHY: THE ELEPHANT IN THE WOMB
PARENTARCHY DEFINED
PARENTARCHY is a neologism created in 2024 (www.parentarchy.com) to bring to Humanity’s awareness the systemic, often unconscious societal framework that normalizes adult control over children, treating them as subordinate, dependent, or lesser individuals whose autonomy and agency are limited under the justification of their "best interests." Rooted in deeply ingrained cultural, historical, and institutional practices, this framework perpetuates the hierarchical relationship between adults and children. It legitimizes the use of coercion, rewards, and punishments as tools to enforce obedience, compliance, and behavioral conformity rather than fostering mutual respect, understanding, and empowerment.
This construct is upheld through social norms, policies, and practices that prioritize adult authority, convenience, and perspective, often neglecting the unique needs, voices, and rights of children as individuals with intrinsic worth and capacity for self-determination. In a PARENTARCHICAL society, childhood is often conceptualized as a transitional, incomplete state, during which children are viewed primarily as beings in need of control, correction, or molding to fit societal expectations, rather than as full persons with evolving agency.
PARENTARCHY intersects with and reinforces other forms of systemic inequality, especially Statism, disproportionately affecting marginalized children or those who deviate from normative expectations. It is sustained by narratives that frame children as inherently irrational, immature, or incapable of making informed decisions, thereby justifying adult intervention and domination in nearly all aspects of their lives.
Critics of PARENTARCHY advocate for reimagining relationships between adults and children based on principles of equity, respect, and partnership, promoting alternative frameworks such as child liberation, autonomy-based parenting, and rights-respecting approaches that acknowledge children's voices and participation in decisions affecting their lives. John Holt and Richard Farson’s critiques of adult-child hierarchies echo the work of other revolutionary thinkers who exposed hidden systems of oppression. Such writers extended the discourse of autonomy and individual rights to children, revealing that PARENTARCHY is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a continuum of human domination throughout history.
ELEPHANT IN THE WOMB EXPLAINED
This metaphorical pun evokes the image of a deeply entrenched and unacknowledged injustice that exists within the very foundation of human relationships—specifically, the adult-child dynamic from which originates the moral justification for Authoritarian coercion. Playing on the phrase "elephant in the room," it evokes an obvious yet ignored reality, and its placement in the "womb" emphasizes that this abuse of power is embedded at the very origin of human life and social development. From the moment of birth (and even before), children enter a world governed by a systemic hierarchy that normalizes their subjugation under the guise of care, protection, and best interests.
“A common error made by children reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag is, ‘. . . one nation, under God, invisible . . .’ There is truth in the error. To them the nation is indeed invisible. Excluded from almost every area of life in America, they have no opportunity to see it. Moreover, children are invisible to the nation. Segregated, ignored, impotent. Our world is not a good place for children. Every institution in our society severely discriminates against them. We all come to feel that it is either natural or necessary to cooperate in that discrimination. Unconsciously, we carry out the will of a society which holds a limited and demeaned view of children and which refuses to recognize their right to full humanity.” Richard Farson, Birthrights
The two quotes below are from a Substack post and a YouTube by Tereza Coraggio who joined our Free Friends Forum on Sunday, Dec 29, 2024 (New Zealand)
Tereza Coraggio:
“When my oldest daughter, the one who just got married, was at the end of second grade, WE WERE IN A BATTLE OF WILLS AND I WAS LOSING. I’m sure many parents can relate. What the books tell you is to design consequences that are related to the transgression but if you can think that fast, you’re smarter than me. These are, after all, MACHIAVELLIAN MIDGETS WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET WHAT THEY WANT WHILE THWARTING WHAT YOU WANT—WHICH IS FOR THEM TO BE THEIR BEST SELF.” [Capitals added]
DR. THOMAS GORDON ON PERMISSIVE VS. STRICT PARENTING ParentEffectivenessTraining, June 14, 2017. 0:25
DR. THOMAS GORDON ON PARENTING STYLES AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ParentEffectivenessTraining, June 14, 2017. 1:13
Thomas Gordon, creator of Parent Effectiveness Training:
“THE PARENT-CHILD POWER STRUGGLE: WHO WINS, WHO LOSES?
Rarely do we find a parent in our classes who does not think of conflict resolution in terms of someone winning and someone losing. This “win-lose” orientation is at the very root of the dilemma of today’s parents—whether to be strict (parent wins) or to be lenient (child wins). Most parents see the whole problem of discipline in child-rearing as a question of being either strict or lenient, tough or soft, authoritarian or permissive. Because they are locked into this either-or approach to discipline, they see their relationship with their children as a power struggle, a contest of wills, a fight to see who wins—a war. Today’s parents and their children are literally at war, each thinking in terms of someone winning and someone losing. They even talk about their struggle in much the same way as two nations at war.
Tereza Coraggio:
BE THE MEANEST MOM EVER, YOUR KIDS WILL THANK YOU…EVENTUALLY” Third Paradigm, Oct 29, 2021. 20:46
7:10 “There's ONE LEGITIMATE USE OF POWER OVER OTHERS WHICH IS TO GIVE THEM POWER OVER THEMSELVES. AS A PARENT YOU NEED TO USE THAT POWER BECAUSE KIDS ARE OUT TO THWART THEMSELVES ALL THE TIME THEY ARE ALWAYS GETTING IN THE WAY OF THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS SO THAT'S YOUR COUNTERCULTURAL JOB.” [Capitals added]
DR. THOMAS GORDON ON MISBEHAVIOR, DISCIPLINE AND PARENTING ParentEffectivenessTraining, June 14, 2017. 1:17
DR. THOMAS GORDON ON PUNISHMENT, POWER AND PARENTING. ParentEffectivenessTraining, June 14, 2017. 1:09
Thomas Gordon:
“The notion that a parent is justified in using power over her children because she is wiser or more experienced has firm roots. We listed many of the usual rationalizations earlier: “We know best from our experience,” “We’re denying you only for your own good,” “When you’re older, you’ll thank us for making you do these things,” “We just want to prevent you from making the same mistakes we made,” “We just can’t let you do something that we know you’ll be sorry for later,” etc., etc. Many parents who convey these or similar messages to their children sincerely believe what they say. No other attitude is more difficult to modify in our classes than the one that parents are justified in using power—even have a responsibility to use power—because they know more, are brighter, wiser, more mature, or more experienced.
This is not an attitude held exclusively by parents. Throughout history tyrants have used this argument to justify their use of power over those whom they have oppressed. Most had a very low opinion of their subjects—whether slaves, peasants, barbarians, backwoodsmen, Christians, heretics, rabble, commoners, the working class, Jews, Latinos, Asians, or women. It seems almost universal that those who exercise power over others must somehow rationalize and justify their oppression and inhumanity by judging those on whom they use their power to be inferior.”
Here is from the transcript of our FFF 28 on Sunday, December 29, 2024:
TEREZA 53:05 “So the three tools, once you eliminate physical violence which we are all in agreement, which is not really effective...so what you are left with as a parent is bribes, threats and manipulation.
LEONARD 53:25 “I would just add one more option that you might be, have available, and that is reason. What you talked about, the problems that parents face, it’s all real, right? But, but, think about how you interact with a friend, an adult friend, is it possible to act in the same way to a child, with the same level of respect?
TEREZA “I can give you examples…”
LEONARD “I am just asking you a question.”
TEREZA “I can give you examples of other parents whose kids…
LEONARD “I don’t want anecdotes…”
JACK TO LEONARD “Just you Tereza, please.”
TEREZA “What you’re saying is reason works. And…”
LEONARD “I am not saying that, it’s an option…”
JACK “Yes, good point.”
LEONARD “Because you were very adamant that there were only three, that might be true for some people, they only see three options.”
JACK “Most people can only see three.”
LEONARD “I would just offer that, maybe there are other options that you may just not have come across yet.”
TEREZA “So using reason to say [to a child] here’s why you shouldn’t run carrying your dog, your little baby sister over a cement floor, and saying, you could drop her, she could crack her head, she could die…I found that reason actually is too much for kids…If I would say, and I’m just speaking from experience, long experience, I would say if you do, it’s going to cost you a point [an example of Tereza’s parenting 3 tools of bribes, threats, manipulation], my kids would just stop and argue with me about why they…”
LEONARD: How about this, I give you an alternative scenario. If he runs across the concrete floor with a baby she might die. What about if you redirected his energy and helped him learn how to hold a baby, how to control a baby, not run across a concrete floor that’s dangerous, but instead of denying the child because it’s dangerous and you have to, but you can still work with the intention, what was he trying to do? Have you ever asked that question? You don’t know the motivation. It could have been a bad motivation or a good motivation, you don’t know. But how about redirecting his energy. Hey, you’re trying to lift your baby sister, you’re so strong. How about I can teach you a better way? Now this situation, is it a potential possibility depending on the child, their age and maturity? It’s just a question.”
TEREZA “THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT RESPECTFUL TO ME. BECAUSE WHAT YOU’RE TELLING ME IS HOW TO PARENT…” [Capitals added]
LEONARD “I’m not telling you anything I’m asking questions…”
TEREZA “I am a mother who has raised three daughters who are all successful, happy and who are people who are great additions to the world and who are taking responsibility for themselves. And so for you to tell me how I should have parented…I need to go, I really need to go.”
DR. THOMAS GORDON ON DIFFERENT LANGUAGE WE USE WITH CHILDREN ParentEffectivenessTraining, June 14, 2017. 0:25
ACTIVE LISTENING STRENGTHENS FAMILIES, EMPOWERS PARENTS AND CHILDREN BY DR. THOMAS GORDON. ParentEffectivenessTraining, June 14, 2017. 0:48
12 ROADBLOCKS TO LISTENING: DR THOMAS GORDON SAYS TO AVOID WARNING, ADMONISHING, AND THREATENING. Resilient Recovery Ministries. July 15, 2021. 1:33
12 ROADBLOCKS TO LISTENING EXPLAINED. Resilient Recovery Ministries. Dec 23, 2022. 13:06
PARENTARCHY PERSONIFIED
The Parentarchical parent cannot acknowledge their children as being in the same category as friends, spouses—so-called “adults”—and deserving the usual respect adults generally afford each other by asking questions and listening. Tereza would not respond to this question by Leonard and instead brought up an example of her child carrying another child in its arms across concrete and this is why you cannot interact with a child the way you can with an adult showing you respect their autonomy as a person—you must control them to “protect them for their own good”.
That Tereza was so offended by Leonard's question about considering a fourth way to interact with her daughter by talking with her rather than giving her a command for me shows she was subconsciously aware that her bribe, threat, manipulation Trinity is embarrassingly controlling and coercive. Her Elephant in the Womb was sitting up and facing her.
I consider Tereza’s ego was challenged by Leonard's query and she felt hurt and responded by saying the discussion was NOT RESPECTFUL to her. The irony was hanging heavy since she felt children should not be accorded respect and be listened to rather than simply told what to do.
Her Parentarchy control defense was engaged. I consider anyone who reads the transcript of our Zoom and/or watches it, that a non-authoritarian parent would never be offended by Leonard's question and would consider this the morally right thing to do.
CHILDREN DON’T MISBEHAVE By Thomas Gordon, Ph.D. (author of P.E.T., founder of Gordon Training International)
If parents only knew how much trouble this word “misbehavior” causes in families! Thinking in terms of children misbehaving not only spells trouble for the kids, obviously, but it brings on unnecessary problems for their parents.
Why is this so? What is wrong with thinking and saying that your child misbehaved? Every parent does. Yes, and their parents before them did. In fact, the origin of the concept of child misbehavior goes back so far in history it is doubtful if anyone actually knows when it started or why. It’s so common nobody thinks to question it.
Strangely enough, the term misbehavior is almost exclusively applied to children–seldom to adults, friends, spouses. Have you ever overheard someone say, “My husband misbehaved yesterday,” “I took my friend to lunch and got so angry at her misbehavior,” “My team members have been misbehaving,” or “Our guests misbehaved at our party last night”? Apparently, then, only children are seen as misbehaving–no one else misbehaves.
Misbehavior then is “parent language”, tied up somehow with the way parents traditionally have viewed their offspring. Parents say children misbehave whenever their actions (or their behaviors) are contrary to how parents think their children ought to act or behave. More accurately, misbehavior is behavior that produces some sort of bad consequences for the parent.
Misbehaving = Child is doing something that is bad for the parent
On the other hand, when a child engages in behavior that does not bring bad consequences for the parent, that child is described as “behaving.”
“Jack was well-behaved at the store”; “We try to teach our children to behave”; “Behave yourself!”
Now we have:
Behaving = Child is doing something that is acceptable to the parent.
ALL BEHAVIORS ARE SOLUTIONS TO HUMAN NEEDS
Family life would be infinitely less exasperating for parents and more enjoyable for children as well if parents accepted these basic principles about children:
Principle 1:
Like adults, children have basic needs that are important to them, and they continually strive to meet their needs by doing something.
Principle 2:
Children don’t misbehave. Their behaviors are simply actions they have chosen to meet these important needs.
These principles suggest that all children’s actions are behaviors. Viewed in this way, all day long a child is behaving, and for the very same reason all other creatures engage in behaviors–they are trying to get their needs met.
This does not mean, however, that parents will like all the behaviors their children engage in. Nor should they be expected to, for the children are bound to do things that sometimes produce unacceptable consequences for their parents. Kids can be loud and destructive, delay you when you’re in a hurry, pester you when you need quiet, cause you extra work, clutter up the home, interrupt your conversation, and break your valuables.
Think about such behaviors this way: they are behaviors children are engaging in to meet their needs. If at the same time they happen to interfere with your pursuit of pleasure, that doesn’t mean children are misbehaving. Rather, their particular way of behaving is unacceptable to you. Don’t interpret that children are trying to do something to you–they are only trying to do something for themselves. And this does not make them bad children or misbehaving children. But it may cause you a problem.
An infant cries because she is hungry or cold, or in pain. Something is wrong; her organism needs something. Crying behavior is the baby’s way of saying, “Help.” Such behavior, in fact, should be viewed as quite appropriate (“good”), for the crying is apt to bring the child the help that is needed. When you view the child as a creature that is doing something appropriate to get its needs met, you can’t really call it misbehaving.
If parents would strike the word “misbehaving” from their vocabulary, they would rarely feel judgmental and angry. Consequently, then they would not feel like retaliating with punishment. However, all parents do need to learn some effective methods of modifying behaviors that interfere with their needs and causes them a problem, but labeling the child as misbehaving is not one of them.
(Excerpted from the P.E.T. Participant Workbook. Copyright 2006, Gordon Training International)
https://www.gordontraining.com/free-parenting-articles/children-dont-misbehave/
Hi, Tereza. I will reply to your below by going into your words and responding to them there.
TEREZA
Hi, Jack. After our zoom conversation, I texted my oldest daughter about it. She has a master's that includes child psychology because she's a grief counselor for children and getting her license as a therapist specializing in children. When I told her that you said I was authoritarian, she wrote, "Well tell him that your kid says he's wrong." And she attached an article on authoritative vs. authoritarian parenting, making the point (as she has before) that my parenting style was the former.
JACK
You and your daughters both agreeing you were “authoritative” rather than “authoritarian” does not address my critique of you as Parentarchy personified.
Authoritative and Authoritarian, these two words need to be defined and in the PET analysis are often and actually the same which is parents using power to control behavior as you do with your point system of bribes/rewards and threats/punishment.
You do not use your system I hope with so-called adults (including your daughters now?!)—your husband/boyfriend, friends, etc, do you?
Read my post on how parents use a special language of “misbehave” only with their children (and pets).
You stated unequivocally that only “bribes, threats and manipulation” can be used in parenting. These parenting “tools” should be termed “weapons of fear” used to control behavior and are instances of manipulation which should be considered Authoritarian.
P.E.T. and any other truly peaceful parenting model (they are only a few, the most popular such as Triple P and Incredible Years use the “weapon of fear” as you do), consider the use of those behavioral control means to be Authoritarian parenting. Thomas Gordon often critiqued popular parenting programs like Triple P because they try to euphemistically reframe punishments as “natural consequences” etc. and use Timeouts which P.E.T. considers punishment and does not sanction.
Your power-to-control parenting style of “bribes, threats, and manipulation” is accurately termed Authoritarian and it is understandable you and your daughters want to euphemistically reframe this as “Authoritative” but my argument here I hope does not allow you to get away with that.
TEREZA
I happen to be visiting her now and read some of your commentary to her along with my quotes. She said that she and her sisters were talking about my point system recently and both thought it was a good system. She said the beauty of it is that it makes the consequences small and replaceable with a little bit of effort. Maybe a kid may decide it's worth it to lose a point, but that's their choice. She sometimes counsels people who've grown up with very harsh consequences, and that's been tragic. She also sees parents now, where the pendulum has swung the other way, and they're at a loss. And their children are unprepared for life, which has consequences, to say the least.
JACK
As you did before in our discussion on Atheism and continue to do here on parenting, you avoid addressing the issue of Parentarchy because you personify it and cannot see yourself in its mirror just as most authoritarian or permissive parents cannot. The Elephant in your Womb is trying to be born but you would abort it.
You obviously did not read this post or hear in our last Forum the questions put to you about a fourth cooperative and mutual need-meeting way of autonomic respect rather than your three control-for-obedience reward, punishment, manipulation trinity.
I invite you to read my post above what Thomas Gordon wrote on parents like you who believe there are only two supposedly opposed ways of parenting (they are both sides of the one coin of power to control parenting whose fiat financing has condemned the world to forever paying off the debt in violence): either Authoritarian (parent wins) or Permissive (child wins).
You speak for almost all parents in recognizing and acknowledging ONLY two ways of parenting both of which have winners and losers. Tom’s words clearly show your Parentarchy programming of only Authoritarian or Permissive while inviting you to consider the No One Loses, Cooperative third way of respectfully and mutually meeting needs.
But you refuse to read his words as you refused to answer Leonard’s question.
TEREZA
She also said to let you know there was no shortage of explanations and talking and reasoning, in which I always listened to them. For your emphasis on listening to kids, I WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT MY METHOD IN THAT ZOOM. IF I HAD, YOU'D KNOW THAT MANIPULATION WASN'T SOMETHING I USED. I THINK THAT YOUR METHOD FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY. My kids earned points, exchangeable for things they wanted to buy. So love was unconditional but stuff was earned.
JACK
From the PET perspective, your bribe, threats, and manipulation would not be considered listening.
If you were truly “Active Listening” as taught in PET you would not be using bribes, threats, and manipulation.
Your point system is Skinnerian behavioral control no matter how you attempt to frame and excuse its coercion as being for your daughters’ own good and their acceptance of it.
It is what I term your “moral schizophrenia” that allows you to dissociate in your writing above “MANIPULATION WASN'T SOMETHING I USED” when you have repeatedly written and said there are only three ways to parent “BRIBES, THREATS AND MANIPULATION”; and further, this split mind of yours allows you to contradictorily write your love is “unconditional” while writing they must conditionally “earn” points to meet your needs.
For me, when I read you contradicting yourself like this it means you are deeply self-alienated and mistrustful of your self which a theme the Guru Papers on the Course of Miracles you believe in (of course, contradictorily, without believing in your belief) goes into.
Just as in our discussion of Atheism, so too for this on Parentarchy, you never read what I wrote or quote or answer a good faith question put to you.
It seems coming from your everything-is-manipulation perspective you cannot enter into a discussion without being offended and accusing others of manipulating you, rather than treating them with at least initial respect that someone has a different view than you and you are willing to present your evidence and allow them to present theirs.
TEREZA
And the example of Veronica running on a cement airport floor carrying her baby sister was transcribed as a dog, first. I don't have dogs. If she had tripped, which would have been more likely if I'd chased her, she could have fallen on her sister and caused permanent damage, even death. Veronica would have gone through the rest of her life carrying that guilt--because as a parent I had no control over her. I don't think real life consequences like that can be risked.
JACK
You can listen to the video yourself
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wA18G4G0jN7VqCBl5_obSoOoJ5MCxTsl?usp=sharing
you started to say “dog” or perhaps “dau” as in daughter? Then changed to “little baby sister”.
You refused to answer Leonard’s question and instead created a “straw woman” extreme example of saving a life to attempt to justify your behavioral control method of rewards and punishments which you euphemistically term your “points system”. You choose to peer right past the Elephant in your Womb as do all parents unconsciously embedded in Parentarchy.
You cannot admit you use “bribe, threats and manipulation” even as you say and write repeatedly you can only use “bribe, threats and manipulation” in parenting.
TEREZA
But these are no longer my issues, with my daughters all grown. It sounds like your kids are still little, is that right? So I wish you luck with whatever method you use. But my daughters would like you to know that my system took the conflict out of parenting, and left the love. It's how they plan to raise their own kids, for what it's worth to you--which doesn't seem much.
JACK
These issues that you shared about trying to justify behavioral control parenting based on the weapons of fear (bribes, threats and manipulation) personify Parentarchy and our encounter is therefore worthwhile to me as I hope one day it may be to you for the same reason of seeing Parentarchy (and Statism) in the dustbin of history along with Slavery.
That your daughters are carrying on your Authoritarian parenting is understandable and regrettable. Intergenerational trauma as the Stockholm Syndrome is rife.
I will be publishing on my Substack a full article on Parentarchy with references that I hope may enable you and your daughters to see the Elephant in the Womb. I consider the research evidence of peaceful parenting programs like PET and work by Alfie Kohn along with models such as Self-Determination Theory will win/win the day toward no-power parenting.
Toward a Peaceful World through Peaceful Parenting, the only way to awaken Humanity from its Nightmare of History of Child Abuse and Neglect.
Hi, Jack. After our zoom conversation, I texted my oldest daughter about it. She has a master's that includes child psychology because she's a grief counselor for children and getting her license as a therapist specializing in children. When I told her that you said I was authoritarian, she wrote, "Well tell him that your kid says he's wrong." And she attached an article on authoritative vs. authoritarian parenting, making the point (as she has before) that my parenting style was the former.
I happen to be visiting her now and read some of your commentary to her along with my quotes. She said that she and her sisters were talking about my point system recently and both thought it was a good system. She said the beauty of it is that it makes the consequences small and replaceable with a little bit of effort. Maybe a kid may decide it's worth it to lose a point, but that's their choice. She sometimes counsels people who've grown up with very harsh consequences, and that's been tragic. She also sees parents now, where the pendulum has swung the other way, and they're at a loss. And their children are unprepared for life, which has consequences, to say the least.
She also said to let you know there was no shortage of explanations and talking and reasoning, in which I always listened to them. For your emphasis on listening to kids, I was never allowed to explain anything about my method in that zoom. If I had, you'd know that manipulation wasn't something I used. I think that your method falls into that category. My kids earned points, exchangeable for things they wanted to buy. So love was unconditional but stuff was earned.
And the example of Veronica running on a cement airport floor carrying her baby sister was transcribed as a dog, first. I don't have dogs. If she had tripped, which would have been more likely if I'd chased her, she could have fallen on her sister and caused permanent damage, even death. Veronica would have gone through the rest of her life carrying that guilt--because as a parent I had no control over her. I don't think real life consequences like that can be risked.
But these are no longer my issues, with my daughters all grown. It sounds like your kids are still little, is that right? So I wish you luck with whatever method you use. But my daughters would like you to know that my system took the conflict out of parenting, and left the love. It's how they plan to raise their own kids, for what it's worth to you--which doesn't seem much.