Do i have the right book?

[peaceful_mama]

OK I had a whole long thought and then SOMETHING happened!  and it was all gone!  :(

What I was *trying* to find is the Love and Logic books people talk about on this site.

What I have found is one of several books by two authors, Foster Cline, MD and Jim Fay.

The book I am reading is called Parenting with Love and Logic: Teaching Children Responsibility

I have two major reasons I am questioning if I'm reading what I intended to be reading.

I do see some good that makes me think I might have stepped into the right series, more on that later.

Scenario 1 that has me in shock:

A 5 year old child being beaten up by older boys in the neighborhood for being a "smart-aleck."  The book specifically refers to "a bloody nose and/or black eye"  as "learning at blue-light prices"  (while the consequences are small and don't have long-reaching effects)

The book specifically says a parent should NOT yell at the older boys, telling them to "Play nice or I'm going to tell your parents"

Is there a parent out there who would NOT want to be told about this, if your kid was the older child?!  WHY would this NOT be considered a "significant learning opportunity" for the older boys to learn more appropriate ways to deal with the situation when they don't want to include the younger one?  Or for dealing with people they don't like?

And no, I am NOT saying these kids should ALWAYS have to include and play nice with the little one!  It's a "significant learning opportunity" (a term often used in the book) for this little person to learn to respect the boundaries when the older ones don't want to include him and/or find a better way to get their attention.

Scenario 2 of shock:

An actual recommendation to LOCK a child in their room to enforce using it as a place to cool down from a tantrum.

Also the recommendation that you enforce the child staying for 4-5 minutes after all tantrum-noises have stopped.

WHY?  For one, how is it NOT just plain wrong and somehow psychologically damaging to take a child back to the bedroom and inform them that since they did not stay with the door open, and they did not stay with the door closed...."Now YOU are "Choosing" to have the door locked?"  No they're not, YOU the parent have chosen that locking a child into a room is an appropriate response to their behavior.

And please, someone, educate me.  The authors use the example of a child choosing whether or not to wear a coat about 4 times in the space of 1/4 of the book so far....telling me that if I tell my child to put on a coat, I'm undermining their self-confidence in their decision-making abilities.

So--let me get this straight.  If I don't allow my child to freeze and learn from being frozen that they really should wear a coat....I'm ruining them for life.

But if I send my child to a space to cool-down from a tantrum, I can't allow them to determine whether or not they are calm....I'm supposed to enforce 5 minutes of time after the tantrum noises have stopped.

I'm not supposed to trust that they can feel whether they're calm or upset?  Or whether they might....oh....need a hug to help with that?!

I have a nearly 4 year old who finally will stay to cool down--while tantrums are age-appropriate, they're not allowed in areas where they disrupt others--or where someone might literally fall over you!  She often emerges within 2 minutes still sniffling and hiccup-y and wanting a hug to reconnect.  When she gets this, she *is* done and calm.  It truly is over.

and i'm not about to enforce a locked-room scenario!  ugh.

Really, is the Love and Logic being talked about here this series of books by these authors?  Because while I do see quite a bit that is good and useful....I'm seriously APPALLED that a book with these two scenarios would be approved of here??

[peaceful_mama]

hee hee seeing as how this book is called "parenting with love and logic" I guess I'm failing to see some LOGIC here.....

had to say it sorry

[LynnS6]

I don't like the Love and Logic approach, and I don't think it's recommended terribly often here.

Dh and I took a whole CLASS in it, and after about 3 weeks, dh said, "There's far too much logic and not nearly enough love." I find it to be a relatively punitive approach, and they seem to use time-outs for everything. One scenario I remember from the class: The child is sitting at the breakfast table and dumps his oatmeal on the floor. The parent then sings the 'uh-oh song' (another thing I hate) and takes the child up for a time out. In OUR house, the child would be on the floor helping me clean up.

They do have a few valid points: Let children experience the consequences of their actions and don't swoop in to rescue them all the time, and apply your consequences calmly and rationally. I think there might have been one or two other good points, but really, it wasn't a great hit with me.

I could see how it might work better with teenagers. When my brother was in high school, he got to playing poker with a group of kids at school. My brother was a born sucker. By March, he was $100+ in debt to this group of kids and they were calling the house to harass him for the money. He eventually had to confess to my parents. My parents made him get a job and earn $100 to pay off his debt. The talked to him about how to figure out if you're the sucker and that poker probably not his game. He experienced the natural consequences of his actions, but at a relatively low price. If he'd made this mistake with the wrong group of adults, it would have been much scarier. However, my parents also contacted the school and raised a stink about the poker playing (in general) and kids taking advantage of my brother (specific).

[tankgirl73]

Where I've seen it recommended (I think on some homeschooling e-lists I belong to), I think it's usually in reference to older kids... like elementary through teenage.  Not 3 or 4yo's.  

Of course the book might very well claim to be for kids that age too, it's just that my own anecdotal experience is that praise for the philosophy comes from parents of older kids.

Anyway, I kind of agree... I haven't read the book myself, but from what I've heard about it, it does have some great ideas... and some not-so-great ones.  

[Octopus8]

There are actually more than 1 Love & Logic books, but they are by the same authors. I think that you have been reading the one for older kids - Parenting With Love and Logic : Teaching Children Responsibility , but what really might suit better is: Love and Logic Magic for Early Childhood: Practical Parenting from Birth to Six Years .

I really like the Love & Logic books, but I am not really totally on board with gentle disipline, either -  I just come here mostly to lurk and get alternate ideas :)

[sparklefairy]

If you do a search, you should be able to find other threads on L&L.I think that there are some good ideas in just about every parenting book, and that we should take what we like and leave the rest. My kids are definitely at an age where I am content to let some natural and logical consequences to the guidance for me, but I found a lot of the L&L examples to be adversarial and/or manipulative. I also think that there are particular skills that I want my kids to have that they aren't necessarily going to learn without being taught overtly and that it's unfair to allow natural consequences to kick in if they don't have all the information they need.

[Petie1104]

L&L works good for my teenager, but not for my little ones.  The 9 yr. old, I use some principles from that and some from GD.  So, it is an age thing.  Plus the whole idea of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".   There are good ideas in there, but they aren't ALL good ideas.  I keep the good and forget the bad.

[peaceful_mama]

I also really don't like the uh-oh song approach, mostly because the "let me see you when you can be sweet' line made me want to puke.  (Where's that smiley when I need it?) 

I also have the early childhood one on reserve, I won't be getting it at least till the library opens again though, if it's in by then.  (I'm not willing to go in the snow and ice today even if they are open and they happen to call, and they're closed tomorrow.  I don't know for sure about Sunday with the holiday weekend.)  I searched for them after reading several threads in a row here one night where "Love and Logic books" were mentioned.

I continued to read, even though those two scenarios left me in shock.  I will be fair and say that there is a lot of good in what I'm reading too.  Determining the difference between MY problems and MY CHILDREN'S problems and allowing *them* to experience the consequences resulting from their own problems *totally* resonates with me, at *any* age.  Even my 6 year old can do this, to some extent.  He knows, for example, after half a year of school, that Monday is library day.  He knows that there are a couple of the school lunches he does not like.  He writes on his lunch menu when he wants "cold lunch" and "library" (acutally "libry" is what is there right now  :) ) on the Mondays.

If I've made his lunch and I tell him "Get your lunch out of the fridge and put it in your backpack" or "Don't forget your backpack!" as he's getting out of the car at school, and he forgets to do this.........well, I'm all for NOT running it up to the school!  The consequences are still light--you don't get a different book this week, you have to eat the hot lunch (which has at least *something* he will eat)  and HOPEFULLY this kicks in that he remembers before the consequences are NO food or an "F" on a forgotten but completed homework assignment, or not having what you need for some important presentation as an adult.

Probably better yet now that he's come up on his own with this idea of writing things on his menu--which he just started with this month--I think I am going to switch it to a reminder to "Look at the lunch menu.  Do you need anything today/tomorrow?" and start teaching him to look at it and get the things he needs together.  (like "Oh yeah Mom, let's make my lunch!  I want to bring lunch tomorrow." or "Library day! I better get my book in my backpack")  Eventually, we work up to not being reminded to look, making your own lunch, etc.  (maybe that all resonates with me because I had the mother who controlled when I got up instead of giving me an alarm clock, who did run all the stuff to me and then guilted me about it, etc.)

I just don't totally agree with the choices given to the kids--I don't think it's *ever* acceptable to lock a child in a room for example (well under NORMAL circumstances, at home.  If we're talking about some sort of treatment situation for a child with extreme behaviors that endanger others, well, then some sort of restraint, locking away, protection for other people and for the person from themselves might be necessary.)  I'm not about to tell my child SHE chose to be locked in a room.  *I*, the adult *CHOSE* to do it.  If SHE were doing the choosing, the lock would be on HER side.

And I'll never be in agreement that ignoring physical aggression/physical bullying between children is an acceptable response from an adult.  There are more options than just trying to force the kids to play together and get along.  The use of physical force is a clear sign that they need HELP to learn an ACCEPTABLE response!  After all, in the adult world, when one person beats up another person and leaves a bloody nose, black eye, whatever, the other person can go and file assault charges with the police!  is it not better for that child to learn while the consequences don't go on a permanent record that could come back to prevent them from getting a job?  Of course!

So....like all books, this one has the good and the bad...

[Polliwog]

I bought L&L for Early Childhood since it was recommended by many foster parents I know.  I really detest it.  While I like the concept of giving choices, they aren't limited to just L&L.  Many other parenting/teaching books use choice giving as a strategy without the coldness that I see in L&L.  That's the part that I really dislike (in addition to the room locking.)

I've got a bookshelf full of guidance/parenting/etc books that I use in my work as a education consultant.  L&L isn't one that I ever recommend to parents raising typical children.

[peaceful_mama]

Yes, I'm still reading.  Like I said, there's *some* decent stuff.  The bad parts are also sort of becoming like when you drive by an accident and you *have to* look...

I got to the part where they take a common problem and give their solution for it.  The section on "Chores"  actually advocates refusing to allow your child to eat until the next morning because they did not have chores completed when the family sat down at dinner.

So much of this book is about "real-world consequences" and not shielding your child from them.  This is why I keep reading, because I really like that concept.

Would someone PLEASE educate me as to what real-life situation--other than not having food--would result in you not being able to eat until the next day because you did not complete a task?  (I'm not talking about something like being a surgeon, where you have to do your surgery or a person dies.  I'm talking a task, like paperwork, computer work, things like this)

Even in real-life employment situations, yes, my mealtime might be *delayed*, but certainly somewhere in my shift, I got at least a brief break to eat *something.*

We have laws in workplaces that require employers to give meal breaks.  And certainly my child does not need to be denied access to food that is in the home to prepare them for their career as a surgeon later!

If my spouse told me I could not eat until I cleaned the house to his specifications, would that not qualify as some type of abuse?

The authors advocate "empathizing" with your child by saying that you also get hungry when you miss a meal and "boy I sure enjoy the next one" etc.  WHAT child is not going to eventually figure out that *YOU* don't have to miss dinner if YOU don't get something done?  YOU buy the food, YOU buy yourself something or cook yourself something.

And what about the other options you have?  Is it not just as easy to say "You can watch TV/play Nintendo/go outside/get a ride somewhere  when you get done with XYZ?"

And even if I've got a kid who has chosen to sit in a corner and pout because I've taken away *everything* rather than contribute, so I do actually pull out the "You can sit there until you decide to go do the chore" card...in my house, they'd eventually get hungry enough to go do the chore. 

At that point, wouldn't the TRUE problem be that I don't want to put in extra work to prepare them something to eat at a time separate from when everyone else is eating, after I've prepared a meal and cleaned it up?

So...then THEIR TRUE problem is--again, provided I have food--that they need to solve the problem that they are hungry without involving ME.  And that I am going to expect the kitchen to be clean after they have solved this problem.

A kid old enough to do chores probably has dishes as a chore, so they're capable of washing what they use when they are done.  They're probably also capable of serving themselves food that does not require any sort of cooking, and of using a microwave to reheat whatever might be left from dinner.  (In my house though, the natural consequence of missing the time at the table is that you might also miss out on some of the food, the mashed potatoes might be gone, there's only a tiny piece of meat left, whatever.)

In my mind, if they refused the option of getting themselves food without involving work on my part, then they're not hungry enough and can wait.  THEN that is their choice.

If they refuse to clean up after themselves once they've gotten the food, well...we're right back to another opportunity to learn that you are not going anywhere or doing anything until it's done, aren't we?  And that lesson can continue to take place in the morning, after a good night's sleep.  Who's going to see my kitchen at 3 AM?

Or there's the option to come up with some other consequence after some thought, if it comes down to me absolutely having to clean the kitchen.

When it boils right down to it, I feel that parents have some things that are *obligations* to their kids, or kids have some non-negotiable rights.  Food falls into this category.  Not that a child has a right to their favorite foods all the time!  But the parent has an obligation--provided there is food available--to allow the child access to the available food.  The parent can put limits like "food I don't have to prepare, since I already prepared a meal".  But I feel that denying a child access to ANY food, in a house where there is food available, they are going to see right through to the fact that it's about YOU having control and resent that. 

and back to locking a child in a room....again, a child has certain rights as a human being.  If an adult locked their significant other into a room because they were arguing and told the person they'd let them out after XYZ time, that would qualify as abuse.  How is it any less "abuse" if the person happens to be a child?  (again I'm talking about your normal home day-to-day situations of typical arguments, not people who are having a true psychotic problem...if that's severe enough to require locking in a room to protect the person from others or themselves, well, it's time to be seeking professional help.)

Seriously.  Isn't it insulting to be told that using tactics that would be considered abuse in the adult world (the "real world") are perfectly OK to use in the name of "preparing your child to deal with the real world?"

To those who like this book--I like parts of it too!  I guess that's why it's even more infuriating to think that anyone who could come up with some really good insights could also agree with these things.

It's not quite the same as BabyWise and the like, which I discounted as entirely UGH and BAD.

Oh speaking of babywise, I also cringed at the passage that talked about setting the tone for discipline from birth and started with "How fast are you going to respond to Wailing Will when he's woken you out of a sound sleep?"  That's a NEED.

[LessTraveledBy]

While I have not read this particular book, I agree with Polliwog: There are so many good ones out there to give ideas, that you really don't need this one.