A review by bethgiven
Parenting with Love and Logic: Teaching Children Responsibility by Foster Cline, Jim Fay
3.0
I have mixed feelings about this book.
Here’s what I liked about this book:
* The emphasis on consequences. It makes sense that, in order to learn about the real world, children should be allowed to experience consequences (within reason) so they can alter their behavior. And consequences cannot be given unless choices are also offered, within reason. I agree with that, too.
* Also, I loved that they pointed out several times how important it is to model good behavior for your children. I wholeheartedly agree!
And now, the juicy stuff. Here’s what I didn’t like:
* I’m a mom to a two-year-old, not a teenager — but they rarely seem to preface which age bracket would apply to certain scenarios. Obviously, the section titled “Pacifiers” was meant for toddlers (and thank HEAVENS Logan weaned off the pacifier a few months ago, or I probably would have ended up in tears over that chapter), but as for some of the other situations, I wasn’t sure. There is a specific “Love and Logic” book geared especially for toddlers, but it’s not at my public library, and after reading this one I’m not sure I want to hunt it down.
* Also, some of the sample dialogue of a parent with a child was hard to read without sarcasm — hardly very “loving.” They did warn against sarcasm in a chapter tucked away in the middle of the book, but to avoid it completely might be hard for parents. Phrases like “gee, son, I’m sorry that you got a D on your report card; that’s a real bummer” or “nice try, son, but you’ll have to think of another solution” could be said with love, but just parroting the book isn’t going to cut it (in fact, it could easily morph into one of the most unloving things you could say). Maybe this says more about me than about the book, but a lot of that sample dialogue made the parents out to be snide and manipulative.
* Lastly: I don’t really agree with how they say we should teach our kids about money. I went to a class during BYU Education Week that was a little off-beat on the whole allowance issue, saying that kids need less emphasis on learning money management and more emphasis on learning generosity. I tend to agree with that school of thought (though how exactly I want to implement that, I’m not sure yet). This book, though, took the money management thing to the extreme. Example: kids who wouldn’t eat what was made for dinner are consequently allowed to help themselves to something from the fridge — but ONLY if they paid for the food out of their allowances. I guess the thinking is that that the parents had already paid for one meal as part of their parental duties.
There are some good ideas to be taken from this book, but I think the kind of parent who would pick this book up is the parent who’s already doing a lot of the “good stuff” and probably doesn’t need a book to pick up on it.
Here’s what I liked about this book:
* The emphasis on consequences. It makes sense that, in order to learn about the real world, children should be allowed to experience consequences (within reason) so they can alter their behavior. And consequences cannot be given unless choices are also offered, within reason. I agree with that, too.
* Also, I loved that they pointed out several times how important it is to model good behavior for your children. I wholeheartedly agree!
And now, the juicy stuff. Here’s what I didn’t like:
* I’m a mom to a two-year-old, not a teenager — but they rarely seem to preface which age bracket would apply to certain scenarios. Obviously, the section titled “Pacifiers” was meant for toddlers (and thank HEAVENS Logan weaned off the pacifier a few months ago, or I probably would have ended up in tears over that chapter), but as for some of the other situations, I wasn’t sure. There is a specific “Love and Logic” book geared especially for toddlers, but it’s not at my public library, and after reading this one I’m not sure I want to hunt it down.
* Also, some of the sample dialogue of a parent with a child was hard to read without sarcasm — hardly very “loving.” They did warn against sarcasm in a chapter tucked away in the middle of the book, but to avoid it completely might be hard for parents. Phrases like “gee, son, I’m sorry that you got a D on your report card; that’s a real bummer” or “nice try, son, but you’ll have to think of another solution” could be said with love, but just parroting the book isn’t going to cut it (in fact, it could easily morph into one of the most unloving things you could say). Maybe this says more about me than about the book, but a lot of that sample dialogue made the parents out to be snide and manipulative.
* Lastly: I don’t really agree with how they say we should teach our kids about money. I went to a class during BYU Education Week that was a little off-beat on the whole allowance issue, saying that kids need less emphasis on learning money management and more emphasis on learning generosity. I tend to agree with that school of thought (though how exactly I want to implement that, I’m not sure yet). This book, though, took the money management thing to the extreme. Example: kids who wouldn’t eat what was made for dinner are consequently allowed to help themselves to something from the fridge — but ONLY if they paid for the food out of their allowances. I guess the thinking is that that the parents had already paid for one meal as part of their parental duties.
There are some good ideas to be taken from this book, but I think the kind of parent who would pick this book up is the parent who’s already doing a lot of the “good stuff” and probably doesn’t need a book to pick up on it.