# Parenting With Love and Logic?



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I recently took 2 books out of the library- Parenting With Love and Logic and Parenting Teens With Love and Logic. So far I've read the first one.

Some of the book makes sense to me, but some of it just doesn't sit right with me. I'm willing to ignore the "Pearls" about "Keeping the kid in the room" and "Spanking 101."

It seems like so many of their examples centered on the kids each having his or her own room, and I don't see how I can apply some of these principles to 3 kids sharing a room. How do I establish "logical consequences" that don't sound like "punishments?" How does "you can watch TV as soon as the dishes are put away" work with 1 TV in the living room and 2 kids sharing the chores?


----------



## Bufomander (Feb 6, 2005)

also wondering about these books -- haven't read them, but i was at a nanny interview the other day and the family said that's what they go by...


----------



## kawa kamuri (Apr 19, 2006)

Are these the books that equate children with dogs?


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

:


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

I went to a Love and Logic class with dh because it had been highly touted by several people I like.

There were bit and pieces that I liked, but in general, as my dh said after one class 'What they really need is a lot more love and a little less logic'







Actually, the guy who ran the course was very cool and included other perspectives, but the basic course was Love and Logic.

I wasn't thrilled that they place a heavy emphasis on timeout. There were some video episodes of the authors' giving lectures and in one, a child got a time out because he'd taken his oatmeal and dumped on the floor/the dog. My reaction to that was "what's a child that age doing eating breakfast alone?" and second "I'm not sending my kid to his room for this, he's going to be down on the floor helping me clean up!"

On the other hand, they did have some good ideas -- I liked the idea of 'practice sessions' for things that are repeatedly difficult (like getting out the door), and they did talk about natural/logical consequences, and the general principle of paying attention to behaviors you want. And for my husband, it was useful for him to hear them talk about delaying consequences if you're not sure what to do at the moment. He has a tendency to burst out with a random statement when something goes wrong, one that usually is hard to follow through on.

So, like all parenting books/philosophies, my bottom line is: take what you can, think about the issues they raise and do what works for you.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

I have the Love and Logic for Toddlers Book and find it to be an excellent resource. Note that in the new editions of the Love and Logic books, spanking is no longer condoned. The authors do however advocate short time-outs, which I am not a huge fan of. I do, however, think that the authors have a great idea of providing natural consequences to acts. Your toddler drops his cup on the floor just to watch you pick it up, over and over again? Next time you pick it up, put it on the counter rather than giving it back to him. Your child does not want to get dressed to go to school in the morning? Take him to school in his pyjamas. Your child does not want to where a coat outside? Let him go without a coat and bring the coat along for when he gets cold. Your child repeatedly burps at the table just to annoy you? Next time, just say, "Oh, how sad. Dinner is over" and clear the table. Your child has a messy room. Ask him if he will be picking up his toys or whether you should do it. When you finally do it, put them away in an inaccessible place for a period of time and say that when YOU are the one picking up his toys, you put them in a place that might not be accessible to him.

I think it is a great method but again, I don't think that I will be practising the time-outs with my daughter.


----------



## VelmaLou (Jan 8, 2006)

cmlp -- Those things you are suggesting are just mean.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

I don't see them as mean at all but obviously it all depends on the age and development of the child. I would not expect my 22 month old daughter to pick up her toys. But I would expect an 8-year old to do so and I would consider putting them away for her if I asked her to and she did not, for example. And I do think the principle of logical consequences for actions is a good one and an important component of gentle discipline.


----------



## rgarlough (Jul 18, 2002)

For dh's kids, I've tried some of the ideas. They were going through a HUGE bickering phase especially in the car. Both kids know full well that we don't do bickering at our house... their mom's maybe...







I had just finished watching the PBS Love & Logic thing and told both kids that their bickering was really draining my energy and I would need both of them to pay me $1/minute for any further bickering. The bickering stopped and never returned. I know I've tried a few other things but I don't really need any specific book to help me parent dh's kids. They're really super kids. They just have a different home environment with their mom and sometimes they forget what our house is like.


----------



## VelmaLou (Jan 8, 2006)

Quote:

And I do think the principle of logical consequences for actions is a good one and an important component of gentle discipline.

Quote:

Your child repeatedly burps at the table just to annoy you? Next time, just say, "Oh, how sad. Dinner is over" and clear the table. Your child has a messy room. Ask him if he will be picking up his toys or whether you should do it. When you finally do it, put them away in an inaccessible place for a period of time and say that when YOU are the one picking up his toys, you put them in a place that might not be accessible to him.
Using the above tactics, you would be undermining your child's trust in you. The above examples do nothing to foster/continue an attachment relationship with your child.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

This program used to be called "Tough Love." Just FYI.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VelmaLou*
Using the above tactics, you would be undermining your child's trust in you. The above examples do nothing to foster/continue an attachment relationship with your child.

Not if you tell the child ahead of time that these are the consequences.


----------



## VelmaLou (Jan 8, 2006)

Okay, you obviously don't "get" it. Nevermind.

You don't get to these points when you have a consensual relationship with your child. I've never used a consequence -- in 6 years. I have lovely child. I don't use gentle coercion.


----------



## VelmaLou (Jan 8, 2006)

Okay, you obviously don't "get" it. Nevermind.

You don't get to these points when you have a consensual relationship with your child. I've never used a consequence -- in 6 years. I have a lovely child. I simply don't use gentle coercion.


----------



## kawa kamuri (Apr 19, 2006)

VelmaLou - Could you recommend some books or techniques that have worked for you. I'm curious!


----------



## Valian (Oct 16, 2005)

nak

there are numerous threads/debates about L & L on here. just search


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp*
I don't see them as mean at all but obviously it all depends on the age and development of the child. I would not expect my 22 month old daughter to pick up her toys. But I would expect an 8-year old to do so and I would consider putting them away for her if I asked her to and she did not, for example. And I do think the principle of logical consequences for actions is a good one and an important component of gentle discipline.

I agree that natural consequences are good at a certain age point........I would never send my child to school in their pj's, I consider that cruel, but I would let them leave without a coat, and take one with me when they finnaly want it. But as you said, it has to be age appropriate......as a young teen my mum would ask me to clean my room all the time, and sometimes she would get sick of the mess and clean it up herself......she would throw away things she thought were trash, eg peices of paper, and put stuff in places I didn't know, and when I would complain about it....she would tell me..."if you want it kept and put where you want, you clean your room".

to the OP.....if the techniques arn't feeling natural/comfortable or like they would work for you, don't use them. If one thing seems like it might work, and the rest of the book is nothing you can use, at least you learnt one thing. You can modify some of the techniques to work for your situation, just because they use it for children wih seperate rooms, doesnt mean thats the "rule" and if your children share a room those things can't be used.

on a side note - I'm sick of "experts" insisting that co-sleeping is a terrible thing, honey we are killing the kids has had a few familys where the siblings slept together, and the expert insisted they MUST sleep alone in their own beds, and the first few nights were terrible for those poor kids. I find no problem having kids sleep together....its a natural progression for the second or subsequent child/ren to move out of the parents into a siblings.


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

This is really sad. Love and Logic is really all about love and it certainly could be used to be mean (like any parenting method could) but none of those things mentioned are actually mean. They are simply the natural way that we as parents take care of ourselves.

I'm not going to continue picking up a cup that is being thrown on the floor. It will either stay on the floor, get put on the counter or meal time is over and the child can get it themselves. See that's a boundary for *me* not a punishment for the child.

In my mind L&L is all about "gentle discipline" and the parents that refuse to set limits or let their children experience the obvious consequences for their actions are doing them a disservice. It's also true that every child is different. No one way of parenting will work for every child. You don't have to like or use L&L but portraying is as abusive is really going too far. If you listen to Jim faye talk about kids you know he loves them and wants them cared for in a loving way. The first rule of L&L is that you take care of yourself in a loving way (loving to yourself and your child). The second is that you don't ever use anger/lectures/threats or warnings in your parenting. How could you argue with 2 such gentle principles?

He also talks a great deal about meeting the child's needs. Not just for food and clothing like a lot of people think of when they say needs but the whole child. Being held, eye contact, respect, a feeling of control over one's own life etc. etc.

Gentle discipline is such a vague term. To me it means parenting in a gentle way. But I see some people using it to say we shouldn't even praise our children or show them approval. If parents wont provide a loving example and road to start out on in life who will? It's going to be friends, teachers, tv etc. Children don't grow up in little bubbles. They are social creatures just like the rest of us and need to feel love, approval, pride etc.

So to those posters that think we shouldn't influence children by showing praise and disapproval....why are YOU here? Are you here to be an island unto yourself? Or do you come here to get support (i.e. approval) and advice from other mom's? Why would you come here to receive something you deny your children?

Like I said, children are so different. Even in families. I experience that with my own kids. They are all so very different. Many parenting styles work.


----------



## rgarlough (Jul 18, 2002)

boongirl









I couldn't agree more.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Love and Logic in not for me/our family

It advocates doing unto children what I would not want to be done unto myself.

No matter how gentle and how logical, controlling and training kids are not the "techniques" accepted by me.

Nuff said.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
Gentle discipline is such a vague term. To me it means parenting in a gentle way. But I see some people using it to say we shouldn't even praise our children or show them approval. If parents wont provide a loving example and road to start out on in life who will? It's going to be friends, teachers, tv etc. Children don't grow up in little bubbles. They are social creatures just like the rest of us and need to feel love, approval, pride etc.

So to those posters that think we shouldn't influence children by showing praise and disapproval....why are YOU here? Are you here to be an island unto yourself? Or do you come here to get support (i.e. approval) and advice from other mom's? Why would you come here to receive something you deny your children?

I've never heard anyone here say that won't show their children a loving example and approval...what exactly do you mean? And showing disapproval, that can be done in so many ways, but I just don't know if it's humanly possible for a mother to never show disapproval. Someone here has claimed they don't do that?


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
and the parents that refuse to set limits or let their children experience the obvious consequences for their actions are doing them a disservice.

I do not "set" limits. Limits either ARE or AREN'T. Like the "people can not fly" type of limit. I did not set it. I do however help my kids understand it and develop a proper response to such limit.
Another one "Jonny does not like to be hit". *I* did not set it. Jonny did not set it. That's the way people ARE. Again, I help my kids learn such limits and respect them (by talking and modeling, not by made up consequence or other "made-up" means)

Letting them experience obvious consequences of their action... Again, it will happen no matter whether I "let" it or "not let it". If I can, I *will* prevent it from happening. In the same way I would prevent the obvious concequence of my husbands car's battery dying because he forgot to turn the head-lights off. He DOES know better, right? But it would be rather stupid (for the lack of better word) of me to "let him experience it"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
So to those posters that think we shouldn't influence children by showing praise and disapproval....why are YOU here? Are you here to be an island unto yourself? Or do you come here to get support (i.e. approval) and advice from other mom's? Why would you come here to receive something you deny your children?

I disagree with your definition of support = approval. Support = advice, maybe. Advice on those boards is usually supported by the reasoning behind the advice, and the OP sometimes asks to clarify some points. Then OP has a choice of whether to take that advice or not. To make their *own* decision. This is what I offer my children and they have a choice of whether to take it or not.

Praise and disapproval are not deemed "bad" in and of themsleves. However, when those are *used to influence* somebody's action they are considered (by some, including myself) just a "gentler" mean of excersising one's (parent's) power over another individual (kid)


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
So to those posters that think we shouldn't influence children by showing praise and disapproval....why are YOU here? Are you here to be an island unto yourself? Or do you come here to get support (i.e. approval) and advice from other mom's? Why would you come here to receive something you deny your children?

By contrast, are you saying that you only come here to be praised?

_Deny my children?_ Like, being manipulated is some sort of need that children have, and we are depriving them the possibility of positive experience because we speak to and deal with them on genuine and connected terms?

Riiiiiight.







That makes sense.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:

Dad: "Oh, no. You left your bike unlocked and it was stolen. What a bummer. I bet you feel awful. Well, I understand how easy it is to make a mistake like that." (Notice that the parent is not leading with anger, intimidation, or threats.)

Dad then adds, "And you'll have another bike as soon as you can earn enough
money to pay for it. I paid for the first one. You can pay for the additional ones."

Love and Logic parents know that no child is going to accept this without an
argument, but Love and Logic parents can handle arguments. Jim Fay advises "just go brain dead." This means that parents don't try to argue or match wits with the child. They simply repeat, as many times as necessary, "I love you too much to argue." No matter what argument the
child uses, the parent responds "I love you too much to argue."
From www.loveandlogic.com "What is Love and Logic?"

Wow.







:

I love you all too much to argue about Love and Logic.

I love you all too much to argue about Love and Logic.

I love you all too much to argue about Love and Logic.








Boy, that is easy. And I bet it really doesn't take long at all for kids to simply give up.


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Sijae - you are very new to MDC. Many of us felt the same way you did when we first starting posting here. This is a supportive community, but that does not mean we only agree with each other. Support can mean gently offering a different point of view in the name of suggesting something we think is better for your children. But, every parent is different and every child is different, so ultimately you have to do what works for you. However, I suggest you visit Mr. Kohn's website and do some further reading. I would be willing to wager it will change your perspective. In the meantime, cool your guns and hang out a while.

Peace out,

Kathy

I wasn't aware my jets were firing. I see you conveniently ignored the parts of my post where I stated that all kids are different and different parenting styles work for different people.

I may be relatively new to MDC but I'm not new to AP and I have read posts here talking about the need to not praise or offer approval to their children in an attempt to not "manipulate" the child. I personally think that's silly reasoning and my disagreeing with that viewpoint does not make me ignorant, it means I disagree.

Laura


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

monkey's mom







:


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
I may be relatively new to MDC but I'm not new to AP and I have read posts here talking about the need to not praise or offer approval to their children in an attempt to not "manipulate" the child. I personally think that's silly reasoning and my disagreeing with that viewpoint does not make me ignorant, it means I disagree.

I beg to differ. You do seem quite ignorant of what non-coersion or consensual living is. Your representation is the most cartoonish stereotypes there are.

You may well disagree, but not until you really know what it is. And you don't at this point.

Keep reading...









Peace.


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I beg to differ. You do seem quite ignorant of what non-coersion or consensual living is. Your representation is the most cartoonish stereotypes there are.

You may well disagree, but not until you really know what it is. And you don't at this point.

Keep reading...









Peace.

Hey thanks for being so condecending...it's really motivating.


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

I actually really like Love and Logic. Have read the books, taken the classes, seen the Jim Fay videos.

It is like La Leche League - take what works for you and leave the rest.

If you really looked at it, you'd see there are parts that I think many on MDC would agree with. I actually find it helpful in dealing with adults and kids - in a variety of situations.

**Don't get hooked into arguing with someone who is angry and upset (i.e. not their most rational).

**Lead with compassion.

**Don't tell the child what to do. You can ask if they'd like to hear what others have tried in this situation. They might not like to hear, and that is ok.

**It teaches kids to solve their own problems in any way they wish, as long as it doesn't cause a problem for anyone else.

**I actually REALLY like letting/being ok with a kid not eating if they don't want to - or not wearing a coat to the bus stop. I WANT my kids to listen to their bodies. I don't want them to eat because I am hungry or because it is 6:00. I don't want to make them wear a coat if they aren't cold - how disrespectful is that? My body thermostat may be different than theirs. The NATURAL consequences (I didn't impose; they just happen) of that is that the child may be hungry or cold later. Have yet to hear of a L & L kid who starved or froze to death. I like the "aha" moment that the kid has on their own - "gee, next time I think I'll bring my coat" instead of me nagging about it.

**Another thing I love is that there is no lecturing! Absolutely under no circumstance are you to say "I TOLD you to wear your coat. You'd be warm now if you had." The real world can teach these lessons without me arguing with my kids. Of course, some lessons are not to be taught by real life - not going to let them play in the street and hit by a car and oh boy, they'll never do that again!

**For things that need to be done, there are choices. "Would you like to put your shoes on first, or brush your teeth first?" Both things need to be done before leaving for school; the kid can have some choice in the order, or which shoes, or brushing teeth in the upstairs or downstairs bathroom.

Ignore the parts you don't like - but much of it has worked here. And Jim Fay - as another poster said - clearly loves children.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:

**I actually REALLY like letting/being ok with a kid not eating if they don't want to - or not wearing a coat to the bus stop. I WANT my kids to listen to their bodies. I don't want them to eat because I am hungry or because it is 6:00. I don't want to make them wear a coat if they aren't cold - how disrespectful is that? My body thermostat may be different than theirs. The NATURAL consequences (I didn't impose; they just happen) of that is that the child may be hungry or cold later. Have yet to hear of a L & L kid who starved or froze to death. I like the "aha" moment that the kid has on their own - "gee, next time I think I'll bring my coat" instead of me nagging about it.
I agree with this idea, but I think until a certain age, you should carry the coat with you, or have snacks available to give them later when they are hungry. My parents followed the same ideal with me when I didnt want to eat dinner, i didnt like what they cooked, didnt want to eat something I could make myself.....so I choose to not eat, I usually went and got a snack eventually before bed.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I don't mean any condescention.

But you _are_ saying a lot of things about something you clearly don't know about. That's ignorance.

I'm not calling you names or putting you down. But I'm not gonna let the weird reductionist characterizations go. You opened up this discussion when you posted #19.


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I don't mean any condescention.

But you _are_ saying a lot of things about something you clearly don't know about. That's ignorance.

I'm not calling you names or putting you down. But I'm not gonna let the weird reductionist characterizations go. You opened up this discussion when you posted #19.

Actually I was being somewhat serious. I don't like feeling condescended to but it does piss me off enough to think and read, lol. Like the PP said take what you like and leave the rest. There are a lot of really useful and loving things about L&L and I just ignore what I don't like. And you're right, I don't really have much research into the idea. I was responding to some of the posts I've read and waiting to see what kind of responses I got, I was hoping they would be informative and not flaming. I will go read Mr. Kohn's work.

Laura


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:

**It teaches kids to solve their own problems in any way they wish, as long as *it doesn't cause a problem for anyone else.*
This summarizes what disturbs me here. This is a real slippery slope to "you're on your own, buddy. Don't bother me with your problems."

It really feels to me like these examples are twisting age-appropriate abilities and learning opportunities. Like, if Johnny is a little too young to appreciate that he will be tired later if he doesn't nap now, he's just too young and can use not only the guidance, but also the help at the back-end as he stumbles before grasping this idea fully.

It sounds like L&L would have a parent let the child suffer to teach one lesson the child isn't equiped to deal with yet (about sleep, in this example), and one lesson that no one is ever equiped to handle - about their parents never catching their back.

Sounds like there's no need to say "I told you so"... it's communicating it non-verbally.









.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
Actually I was being somewhat serious. I don't like feeling condescended to but it does piss me off enough to think and read, lol. Like the PP said take what you like and leave the rest. There are a lot of really useful and loving things about L&L and I just ignore what I don't like. And you're right, I don't really have much research into the idea. I was responding to some of the posts I've read and waiting to see what kind of responses I got, I was hoping they would be informative and not flaming. I will go read Mr. Kohn's work.

Laura

OK, I can accept that. But please understand that your query to see about the responses was really baiting. It might serve your purposes better to just come out and ask...

We're really happy to share, but we get very tired of the strange attacks that come our way.


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
This summarizes what disturbs me here. This is a real slippery slope to "you're on your own, buddy. Don't bother me with your problems."

That isn't what it is about at all. The book is actually a really easy and quick read if you are interested in finding out what it really is about.

There is absolutely nothing I can recall in all the background I have with L & L that infers anything like "don't bother me with your problems". I cannot see how it is a slippery slope to that.

One example I remember from a class was when a child flipped the bird during a class photo. The child had to solve the problem without causing a problem for anyone else. So asking the photographer to alter the image wouldn't work as that was against his policy. Asking the photographer to come back and retake the photo would mean lost wages for him - when he could be taking pix at other schools - so that wouldn't work. I actually forget what the kid decided to do - think the picture was retaken and the boy paid for the photographer's time, and wrote a letter to the families of his classmates explaining that the photo was being retaken on this day.

Another more common example would be a kid forgetting their homework. If mom drives it up, she is late for work - a problem for her. So that won't work.

It isn't about not caring. It is about believing in a child's ability to figure out ways to solve his/her problems. It is about respecting the child's intelligence and ingenuity; not taking care of all issues for them - which basically says "here, let me fix this for you; you clearly aren't capable enough to do it yourself". But they are not left to flounder on issues that are beyond their ability. Kids have an amazing way of living up to (or down) the expectations we have on what they are capable of.

Of course age plays into it. Situation plays into it. Emotion plays into it. The individual needs of each person play into it. But Love & Logic does have a lot of things that would go along with respectful parenting.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten*
It isn't about not caring. It is about believing in a child's ability to figure out ways to solve his/her problems. It is about respecting the child's intelligence and ingenuity; not taking care of all issues for them - which basically says "here, let me fix this for you; you clearly aren't capable enough to do it yourself". But they are not left to flounder on issues that are beyond their ability. Kids have an amazing way of living up to (or down) the expectations we have on what they are capable of.

Why is this either/or?

Either make the kid fix it without bothering anyone at all - or - "here, let me fix this for you; you clearly aren't capable enough to do it yourself"?

I just disagree with this line. Or at least the message that no one can be inconvenienced to help. It's possible to offer assistance without disrespecting the child's intelligence and ingenuity - and in fact on the contrary, fostering and nurturing it. It feels too disconnected to me that there is an idea that no one is there to lend a hand as the kid makes mistakes and learns about them.

What if Johnny decided that he would not fix the school photo - that he was rather proud of his moment of anarchy? Is that a valid position for him to take, according to L&L?


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

One example I remember from L & L was about a family eating at a restaurant, and one child was not eating very quickly. The L & L way was to give him a deadline for finishing his lunch, and then when the deadline came and he hadn't finished, to insist that he leave without his food, physically dragging him if necessary (but while of course repeating in a calm voice that yes, it sure is tough to leave when you're still hungry).

To me, that's just mean. The parent has set an arbitrary "limit" and then isn't taking responsibility for being the person implementing it. There's this third-party element that bugs me - the "Yes, it's hard when you make decision X" without acknowledging that it's really the parent's decision that created the problem (to set a deadline for leaving). The same holds true for nearly all L & L examples. I think that must be crazy-making for a child, to see what the parent is doing and not have that acknowledged.

The way I have parented is through solving problems together, and through kindness. If I needed to go somewhere and my child was still eating, I'd suggest a doggie bag, or get her something else later if she got hungry - whatever she chose, but with the important difference being that I'm actually on her side and trying to help her. If she didn't want to bring a jacket, I brought one and threw it in the car, or if it was too late for that we shared mine.

When Rain was 6 or 7 we went to see the elephant seals, and she brought a nice warm jacket and I brought a light rain poncho that didn't keep me warm at all... on the walk back I was shivering, and she took her coat off and draped it over my shoulders and said, "Here, you wear it for a while and get warmed up." A love and logic child would probably have said, "Gee, it really gets cold out when you forget a warm coat. I'll bet next time you'll remember." I don't know about you, but I preferred my daughter's actions.

Children have an innate drive to be competent. We don't need to coerce and shame them into it.

dar


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
One example I remember from L & L was about a family eating at a restaurant, and one child not eating very quickly. The L & L way was to give him a deadline for finishing his lunch, and then when the deadline came and he hadn't finished, to insist that he leave without his food, physically dragging him if necessary (but while of course repeating in a calm voice that yes, it sure was tough to leave when you're still hungry).

To me, that's just mean. The parent has set an arbitrary "limit" and then isn't taking responsibility for being the person implementing it. There's this third-party element that bugs me - the "Yes, it's hard when you make decisions X" without acknowledging that it's really the parent's decision that created the problem (to set a deadline for leaving). The same holds true for nearly all L & L examples. I think that must be crazy-making for a child, to see what the parent is doing and not have that acknowledged.

The way I have parented is through solving problems together, and threw kindness. If I needed to go somewhere and my child was still eating, I'd suggest a doggie bag, or get her something else later if she got hungry - whatever she chose, but with the important difference being that I'm actually on her side and trying to help her. If she didn't want to bring a jacket, I brought one and threw it in the car, or if it was too late for that we shared mine.

When Rain was 6 or 7 we went to see the elephant seals, and she brought a nice warm jacket and I brought a light rain poncho that didn't keep me warm at all... on the walk back I was shivering, and she took her coat off and draped it over my shoulders and said, "Here, you wear it for a while and get warmed up." A love and logic child would probably have said, "Gee, it really gets cold out when you forget a warm coat. I'll bet next time you'll remember." I don't know about you, but I preferred my daughter's actions.

Children have an innate drive to be competent. We don't need to coerce and shame them into it.

dar









: to all of it


----------



## VelmaLou (Jan 8, 2006)

Another "yeah that." Sorry for last night (my night anyway). I was feeling very pissy about the state of parenting in this world.

To the poster who asked for a book recommendation: I don't have one. Search in this forum for Dar, UnschoolnMa, and maybe some of the later posts by PM. There are others, I just can't think of them right now.


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Either make the kid fix it without bothering anyone at all - or - "here, let me fix this for you; you clearly aren't capable enough to do it yourself"?
Or at least the message that no one can be inconvenienced to help. It's possible to offer assistance without disrespecting the child's intelligence and ingenuity - and in fact on the contrary, fostering and nurturing it. It feels too disconnected to me that there is an idea that no one is there to lend a hand as the kid makes mistakes and learns about them.

What if Johnny decided that he would not fix the school photo - that he was rather proud of his moment of anarchy? Is that a valid position for him to take, according to L&L?

I didn't say he had to fix it without bothering anyone - I said he had to fix it without causing a problem for anyone else. Those are two different things. In Jim Fay's videos, he has great examples of calmly talking to kids, helping them sort out options in a way that doesn't hand them the adult's answer on a silver platter. It leaves the kid feeling that he considered a myriad of options and decided on one that would work for him. Jim often ends with "let me know how it works out" - the kid knows he cares about the outcome and he is free to come back for more discussion if need be. It also sends the message that the adult believes in the child's ability to carry out solving the problem - without hand holding from an authority figure.

There isn't anything in the way I perceive L & L about no one being inconvenienced to help. There absolutely ARE people there to lend a hand. If your kid forgets his homework and calls in a panic, and you are just doing laundry (no big time crunch or work meeting to make or plane to catch) and he is not a habitual homework forgetter, go ahead and take it up to him. That doesn't cause a problem for anyone else - and is the kind thing to do.

And as to your last question, no, choosing not to fix the photo is not a valid position to take. Because it causes a problem for someone else - namely all the other kids in the photo and their parents, who paid for a photo that they now will not likely include in the family album.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I hated L&L. I read a few things out loud to my dp, and he asked me to stop reading them, as he found it disturbing that anyone would treat their kid that way.
There was a LOT of withholding food.
Like- if dd doesn't feed the dog, and Mom has to do it, dd doesn't get dinner. The "logic"??? Mom feeds 4 mouths for dinner, and if she has to feed Dog, then she has to cut out DD. DD has to wait for breakfast to eat. If dd wants a snack later, she has to pay for it.
Crazy.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten*
If your kid forgets his homework and calls in a panic, and you are just doing laundry (no big time crunch or work meeting to make or plane to catch) and he is not a habitual homework forgetter, go ahead and take it up to him. That doesn't cause a problem for anyone else - and is the kind thing to do.

And if he _is_ an habitual homework forgetter? SOL again?

If I really _did_ have a busy day? He's SOL again?

I'm seeing a pattern here.

I think I'll just keep working together with my family. When one has a problem, we all help solve it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten*
I didn't say he had to fix it without bothering anyone - I said he had to fix it without causing a problem for anyone else. Those are two different things.

While they may not be exactly the same thing, they are on a spectrum. Where is the line between them? Who determines that? I'll just try to focus on helping as much as possible, and avoid the "bothering/problem-causing" spectrum altogether.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Dar, your post is excellent - and the examples are chilling.

It strongly reminds me of a time when I was about 17 or 18 that I was on a trip with my step-father. I don't remember why, but it was a very odd occurance - we have never gotten along.

I drove us into NYC for the day (SF wanted to drink at dinner) and then to the hotel again. All the activity of the day triggered a migraine for me and the drive back through the hills and curves with the headlights and all just made it awful. After we were back for about an hour, I was in agony. I asked my SF if he would go to the convenience store and get me some medicine. (Now, at that time I had gone over 2 years without a headache so didn't bring the meds with me anymore.) He calmly but absolutely refused, saying that I should have remembered mine, and that it was his all-important bedtime. And this would make me remember to be prepared in the future. He said it all very calmly and matter-of-fact. (He was not still affected by his wine at dinner many hours before.)

I went out again to get the meds, bawling the whole way - looking for a store in the dizzying rain and lights.

Do I think back to how he helped me learn to be more prepared? Not a flippin' chance. Did that help build a positive relationship between us? HA! Did it foster in me any desire to spread the love? Well, I did intentionally park his car in an illegal spot at the hotel so he'd get a ticket, and tell him that I must not have seen the sign since I was hurting so bad. That's the feeling his choice ingendered in me.

I also possibly returned his keys by throwing them at his head when I walked in the door, though I can't remember if I really did that or just fantasized. Though I clearly remember a discussion that included, "Look how calm I'm being and how irrational you are..."









I just remember him as a bastard who didn't care enough about me to be inconvenienced when I was in need. I think of him as a stubborn a**hole who decided arbitrary things and never once took my feelings or needs into account.









ETA: I just asked... I did throw the keys at his head.







:


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten*
Jim often ends with "let me know how it works out" - the kid knows he cares about the outcome and he is free to come back for more discussion if need be. It also sends the message that the adult believes in the child's ability to carry out solving the problem - without hand holding from an authority figure.

I disagree. "Let me know how it works out" says to tell me when it's all said and done and nothing more needs addressing. If I wanted to comunicate to the child that I'm available for help throughout the situation, I'd say something like "I'm rooting for [your solution] to work. (Or I have confidence that X will work.) If you have any more problems, I'm here if you need me."

Quote:

**It teaches kids to solve their own problems in any way they wish, as long as _it doesn't cause a problem for anyone else_.
But how is it that the parent is not causing a problem _for the child_ by implementing the arbitrary things like, from Dar's example, lunch must end at this time _and you may not have a doggy bag?_

I have yet to see an example of L&L responses that _aren't_ the parent causing the child problems - or at a minimum exascerbating the kids' problems - with pointless deadlines, rules, or lessons. What message must the child be getting when the parents' words are so incongruent with their actions?

From the site:

Quote:

Jim Fay advises "just go brain dead." This means that parents don't try to argue or match wits with the child. They simply repeat, as many times as necessary, "I love you too much to argue." No matter what argument the
child uses, the parent responds "I love you too much to argue."
But you're here discussing this with us. Don't you love us too?







:


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Dar and Aira- I love your personal examples. Well, Aira's made me sad, but its a great example of what hppens with L&L type treatment.
Hmmm...I wonder what would happen if I used L&L on my dp...do ya think he'd stick around and keep being my dp?


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Dar, your post is excellent - and the examples are chilling.

It strongly reminds me of a time when I was about 17 or 18 that I was on a trip with my step-father. I don't remember why, but it was a very odd occurance - we have never gotten along.

I drove us into NYC for the day (SF wanted to drink at dinner) and then to the hotel again. All the activity of the day triggered a migraine for me and the drive back through the hills and curves with the headlights and all just made it awful. After we were back for about an hour, I was in agony. I asked my SF if he would go to the convenience store and get me some medicine. (Now, at that time I had gone over 2 years without a headache so didn't bring the meds with me anymore.) He calmly but absolutely refused, saying that I should have remembered mine, and that it was his all-important bedtime. And this would make me remember to be prepared in the future. He said it all very calmly and matter-of-fact. (He was not still affected by his wine at dinner many hours before.)

I went out again to get the meds, bawling the whole way - looking for a store in the dizzying rain and lights.

Do I think back to how he helped me learn to be more prepared? Not a flippin' chance. Did that help build a positive relationship between us? HA! Did it foster in me any desire to spread the love? Well, I did intentionally park his car in an illegal spot at the hotel so he'd get a ticket, and tell him that I must not have seen the sign since I was hurting so bad. That's the feeling his choice ingendered in me.

I also possibly returned his keys by throwing them at his head when I walked in the door, though I can't remember if I really did that or just fantasized. Though I clearly remember a discussion that included, "Look how calm I'm being and how irrational you are..."









I just remember him as a bastard who didn't care enough about me to be inconvenienced when I was in need. I think of him as a stubborn a**hole who decided arbitrary things and never once took my feelings or needs into account.









ETA: I just asked... I did throw the keys at his head.







:









and







to the last line


----------

