# Love and Logic



## Ms.QsMama (Nov 2, 2006)

Love and Logic Magic for Early Childhood by Jim Fay and Charles Fay

What do you mamas think?


----------



## robynlyn80 (Jun 18, 2006)

I have not actually read the book or taken a course (but am considering it because I will earn cheap CEUs!!) but we used the basic theories in a treatment center when I worked with children. It focused a lot on logical and natural consequences and eliminating the power struggles, which I think is a great place to start from.

Curious to hear what others say.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I dislike it a lot.
I borrowed it from the library, and read most of it. I read parts to dp, and he couldn't figure out why I'd even want to read any more of it.
There are some big threads on the book...
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=logic
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=logic

I saw a lot of witholding food as a "logical consequence". The vast majority of it just doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Wendy~ (May 15, 2005)

It didn't sit right with me either. It's been quite some time since I read it. I did like the parts about offering you child choices, but not how manipulative it was used. I am not a firm believer in consequences anyway, but I didn't see how many of the "logical consequences" were very logical.

I read somewhere once that the original editions of these books endorsed spanking (I don't remember where I read that though), so that puts me off of it even more.


----------



## lava mama (Jan 2, 2007)

There is a woman in my town (and church!) who uses Love and Logic. In fact, she just did a presentation about it and although I wasn't there, I definitely heard about it.

I'm not sure if she takes it to "extremes" or if this is actually something in the book, but she actually sends her children to school WITHOUT shoes because "they didn't plan their time well enough to get their shoes before we had to leave." She said that she has received calls from the school and she doesn't understand why they are threatening to call CPS about it. She said that the school needs to "understand" her discipline methods.







:

She's also a foster mom.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

The shoes thing sounds nuts. I think people can take anything to an extreme or use it in ways that are not effective. I haven't read the books in entirety, but I think there is a lot of good information there that can be used with certain issues that might be problematic.

Like everything else, you take what works and leave what doesn't...and for what fits a particular family/child.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wendy~* 
I read somewhere once that the original editions of these books endorsed spanking (I don't remember where I read that though), so that puts me off of it even more.

The copy I read did endorse spanking (but only if you're going to do it hard enough to really hurt). I found out later that they changed their minds on that. So I don't really hold that against them.

The shoe things sounds VERY L&L. There are all kinds of wierd things like that.
(I copied this from a previous post of mine)
There was an example about the author's son spending his allowance (which is to for school lunches too) before the school week. The son asked for lunch money, and Dad said you spent it. Son said he could maybe pack a lunch. Dad said, well you could, but do you have money to pay for the food you'll pack? The author said that Son went the whole week with only 2 meals a day! OMG!
Another example was when kids say "yuck" to dinner. Mom put the food in the garbage, and told the kids she'd see them at breakfast. When they went to the fridge later to eat, she told them that they owed her $1.95 for the food.

Then the example where Daughter forgets to feed the dog. Mom feeds the dog, and since Mom only feeds 4 mouths for dinner (usually Mom, Dad, Son, Daugher), Daughter doesn't get any dinner.

I dunno. Outside of the food examples, I guess it wasn't too horrible. Still not my style at all. But the food examples make up a big part of it! That and allowing your child to suffer when you could easily help. It's not like suffering is the only (um, or even good) way to learn.

eta- I'm not saying that all L&L'ers do those things. I'm sure you could read the book, and make it your own style.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
The copy I read did endorse spanking (but only if you're going to do it hard enough to really hurt). I found out later that they changed their minds on that. So I don't really hold that against them.

The shoe things sounds VERY L&L. There are all kinds of wierd things like that.
(I copied this from a previous post of mine)
There was an example about the author's son spending his allowance (which is to for school lunches too) before the school week. The son asked for lunch money, and Dad said you spent it. Son said he could maybe pack a lunch. Dad said, well you could, but do you have money to pay for the food you'll pack? The author said that Son went the whole week with only 2 meals a day! OMG!
Another example was when kids say "yuck" to dinner. Mom put the food in the garbage, and told the kids she'd see them at breakfast. When they went to the fridge later to eat, she told them that they owed her $1.95 for the food.

Then the example where Daughter forgets to feed the dog. Mom feeds the dog, and since Mom only feeds 4 mouths for dinner (usually Mom, Dad, Son, Daugher), Daughter doesn't get any dinner.

I dunno. Outside of the food examples, I guess it wasn't too horrible. Still not my style at all. But the food examples make up a big part of it! That and allowing your child to suffer when you could easily help. It's not like suffering is the only (um, or even good) way to learn.

eta- I'm not saying that all L&L'ers do those things. I'm sure you could read the book, and make it your own style.

Holy cow about the food stuff! That seems like an eating disorder waiting to happen....I never knew about that.


----------



## Valian (Oct 16, 2005)

Bad, bad, bad idea. They started the whole thing with teens and have been trying to 'water it down' to work for babies ever since. Problem is, kids at this age don't have logical reasoning skills like adults, and no amount of forcing or punishment is going to make them develop cognitive skills faster than they are capable.

There are many threads on here if you do a search. I usually post my (least) favorite example about putting locks on the outside of doors and locking kids in until they stop crying and are ready to 'be nice' again. The example they give the kid is less than 2 yo. uke


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

I like Love & Logic. I've taken their classes a couple of times through a local hospital, and been to a workshop they did at a WAEYC conference.

You can take anything to extreme but the basic concept is something I'm comfortable with.

If you leave your bike behind Dad's car and he backs over it, you don't have a bike to ride. If you forget your homework at home, you turn it in late the next day and get marked down. If you hit the snooze button too many times, there isn't time for a shower and you go to school with bed head. Or whatever. Natural consequences.

Would you like to wear your coat or carry it? If the child chooses not to take their coat at all, no problem. No nagging, no lectures. If they are cold, that memory may make them take their coat next time.

If they don't eat dinner because they are too busy playing Legos, and want something made at 8:30 when it is time to get into the bath, Love and Logic would say their hunger will convince them to come to dinner the next evening. Personally, I would tell them to grab a cheesestick to eat on their way up to the bath - but I'm not cooking something up special right before bed when the child chose not to eat dinner.

What it does is give the child the power. He has the choice to take his coat and be warm. He has the choice to eat dinner and be full. I don't want my kids to be six or eight or ten or whatever age and need me to tell them what kind of shoes or whether or not they need a coat or whether or not they are full. I want to provide shoes and coats and dinner - and hope they make good choices.

Some things are non-negotiable. You wear your seat belt. You play or ride your bike within these acceptable areas. You go to the dentist twice a year. I'm not going to let my kids make other choices and feel the consequences of not wearing a seat belt if we end up in a wreck, or deciding not to have their teeth cleaned for five years straight. I'm not willing to let them make those choices as kids, or to feel those consequences.

Being cold one recess because they forgot or refused to take their coat - not going to damage them. Also works on problem solving skills - does my friend have an extra sweatshirt in her locker? Could I ask to stay in and read?

It does depend on the age of the child, and the specific situation. But in general I like it. If you don't believe in saying no to food requests, don't. But Love & Logic as a basic theory is fine IMO.

When my dd1 was four, she was the biggest dawdler in the mornings. Her timetable for getting ready for preschool wasn't compatible with our getting there on time. Every day it was a stress between us. She loved school; she just wasn't a morning person (which I understand; I'm not either). In hindsight, an afternoon class would have been better but those were scheduled for the older kids who didn't nap, with the 3 year olds in the morning). So we tried everything - getting up earlier, me reminding her, her picking out her outfit the night before, a variety of things. Still late out the door and lots of stress each morning. So one day, we got in the car with her clothes in a bag. She got dressed in the car in the preschool parking lot. The next day she decided to get dressed at home.

I just asked her if she remembered that day. She didn't. I told her the story. She laughed and said she was sorry she did that.

Like La Leche League says 'take what works for you and leave the rest'.


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Valian* 
Bad, bad, bad idea. They started the whole thing with teens and have been trying to 'water it down' to work for babies ever since. Problem is, kids at this age don't have logical reasoning skills like adults, and no amount of forcing or punishment is going to make them develop cognitive skills faster than they are capable.

I have never heard any L & L teachers or read in their books about using this with babies. I think you could water it down to use with preschool age.

Quote:

I usually post my (least) favorite example about putting locks on the outside of doors and locking kids in until they stop crying and are ready to 'be nice' again. The example they give the kid is less than 2 yo. uke
Can you link to anything official from L & L that says this? I've taken multiple series of classes - with video each week of Jim Fay - and a professional workshop and read the book and never come across this example.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

I took a Love and Logic Class for our co-op school. I was thankful that we have gentle, loving teachers becuase their version of it is much NICER than the version I always hear about. lol. That said, I still disagree with most of it for young kids, but I like the basic ideas behind it for older kids (teens mostly).

I have seen it suggested on a video of one of the Fays to shut a child in their room til they can "be nice" .... that was one of the things that turned me off of it. It isn't logical or nice to do that LOL.

So while I think the theory behind it is great for older kids to help them learn respnosibility for their decisions, I think the watered down version they are passing it out for young kids/toddlers is horrible and ineffective. It doesnt have any room for compassion or understanding of age appropriate behavior IMO.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I bought the book on the recommendation of someone and I didn't get past a chapter or two. Not my thing. It felt to me like it was putting the parents and their kids on different teams, so to speak. Like they were working against each other.


----------



## 77sugaree (Jul 3, 2007)

I have used L&L in a preschool setting and loved it. Children are allowed to make their own choices instead of having adults always telling them what to do. But we were never allowed to deny the children food like the book suggests.


----------



## Swallace (Sep 14, 2005)

I am taking it with my husband and alot of it i disagree with and am thinking are you serious?
but the basic message is good, it is just the not so logical consequences they come up with makes me want to scream.
my husband did put my son in his room and held the door shut like they said for not being nice. (playing too aggressive with baby brother) they said it would only take 1 time and he won't do it again. well this was like the fourth time.


----------



## dessismama (Mar 3, 2005)

I used some of the ideas in this book on my daughter when she was younger. The key is to be reasonable with the consequences, and if you are making up your own ones, you need to let your kids know what the rules are. My daughter was very oppositional at 5-7, and giving her choices was good for her.

I still use some ideas from the book. My oldest took 10 dollars a couple of months ago without permission and spent the money, so she had to pay me back by doing extra chores. Many chores later, I overheard her telling her brother, "I will never take money without persmission again." Lesson was learned!


----------



## cheeseRjedi (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama* 
So while I think the theory behind it is great for older kids to help them learn respnosibility for their decisions, I think the watered down version they are passing it out for young kids/toddlers is horrible and ineffective. It doesnt have any room for compassion or understanding of age appropriate behavior IMO.









:

I agree with natural consequences, but a lot of the examples of parents' reactions or what they consider a natural consequence just do not sit right with me.

I hadn't read about the withholding of food - that sounds awful and mean.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten* 
I have never heard any L & L teachers or read in their books about using this with babies.

From the L&L website (bolding mine):

Quote:

When is a good time to start using Love and Logic?

It's never too late for parents to begin using the Love and Logic techniques regardless of whether the family has a teenager or a toddler. Of course *the best time to start using Love and Logic is before the infant can walk*. Our experience indicates that *8 - 9 months of age* is a wonderful time to apply the techniques. Even if children don't understand spoken language, they do grasp the general ideas of what we say to them. No matter what the age of the child, the best time to start Love and Logic is now.
I think the whole Love and Logic paradigm is awful. It definitely doesn't seem gentle or loving to me.

This excerpt from this article (http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/rue_kream2.html) on Jan Hunt's site sums up some of my feelings:

Quote:

If you do things for your children out of love, they learn to do the same. When Dagny forgets to put her bike away, Jon does it. When Jon left a drink on the counter because he got distracted from getting his dinner, Dagny put it in the refrigerator. Treating children thoughtfully lets them experience good feelings that they're going to want to share with the people they love.
and

Quote:

Being cold because your mother decided not to bring a coat for you so you'd learn a lesson is not a natural consequence. It is a punishment. The thing about natural consequences is that you don't make them happen. They are the consequences that happen naturally. Any time a parent plans for something unpleasant to happen to her child so that she will learn a lesson, it is a punishment.
I don't know how repeatedly following the Love and Logic advice could NOT damage the attachment relationship betw/ child and parent.


----------



## Wendy~ (May 15, 2005)

Thank you Monkey's Mom for clarifying what a natural consequence really is! I get so frustrated when someone tells me that they use natural consequences when in actuality the consequence could have been avoided and it was infact imposed upon by the parent. If my dd doesn't want to wear shoes, I put them in my bag just incase she'd want them. I can't think of a single time she didn't end up wearing them. In fact I can't even remember the last time she didn't want to put her shoes on to go out (except to just play in our yard), she is 4 yo now, so that is proof to me that she didn't need me to "teach" her about it, kwim? I believe she even learned that if I suggest something, that I must know what I'm talking about. Since everytime I did suggest and she did not want them, she ended up wanting them. Does that make sense?


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

My son is 7. I was a very permissive parent. I have been trying to turn that around for the past 4 years. It was obvious by the time my son was 3 I was clueless and a good friend (BF twins, LLL leader, very AP, GD) strongly suggested Love & Logic to me. I started to read it, but couldn't finish because the authors seemed so, I don't know... it just didn't sit right with me. The tone of the book (very authoritarian) really turned me off.

I am * FINALLY * reading a book that I really like (is very anti-punishment/rewards) and explains how Logical/natural consequences work. I'm finally * getting * the concept and I'm starting to use it.

Children: The Challenge (The Classical Work on Improving Parent-Child Relations--Intelligent, Humane & Eminently Practical by Rudoph Dreikurs

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it on this board.







Very eye-opening (as to WHY my son is misbehaving - how I am playing into something, when I keep drawing attention to it and how the cycle keeps going) and more in-depth (yet simple) than other fab authors (Bailey, Kurcinka, etc....)

One review I found online says that this is THE best parenting book out there, and I see why.

Quote:

Children the Challenge" by Rudolph Dreikurs is still the most comprehensive book on understanding children and how to guide them. Albeit written in the sixties, the explanation of principles of human behaviour and how to deal with misbehaviour is amongst the best found anywhere.

This book has been cited as one of the most influential books of the last century, by the US Library of Congress. Although written for parents, it was still the text of choice used for studying child guidance when I was working on my masters degree in counselling.
The authors are wonderful about cautioining that when parents impose a consequence (because there isn't a logical one handy) then they have to tread carefully, because it can easily backfire and turn into a punishment anyway.







in agreement with Monkey's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Swallace* 
but the basic message is good, it is just the not so logical consequences *they come up with* makes me want to scream.

I'm not surprised. "They" rubbed me the wrong way, so of course, their imposed consequences (punishments really) make you want to scream because you know in your gut they are wrong. And children are not stupid. They know they are being punished and will lash out







rather than "learn" anything constructive in that instance.

So I am on board with natural consequences. They have good examples in the book.









But you have to still be loving at the same time. I do bring jackets "just in case." Now they know "Oh yes, please bring a jacket for me." They didn't have to learn it "the hard way."







:


----------



## sagira (Mar 8, 2003)

I own the book (got it for 50c at a flea market). I don't agree with many of the things they espouse for young children. I think the stress the logic too much over love, especially in those tender years. However, I do agree with many of the things recommended for prepubescent and adolescent children. That's why I'm keeping it, for future references.

So I never use it right now, I have great books for young and middle children: The Baby Book, The Successful Child, The Natural Child, Positive Discipline A-Z and the Preschool Years, How to Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk and Adventures in Gentle Discipline. I also own Playful Parenting and Unconditional Parenting, but they are not my stand-bys. I also like Hold on To Your Kids; Raising Children, Raising Ourselves; Easy to Love, Difficult to Discipline and I'm agreeing with almost everything The Secret of Parenting has to say.


----------



## morlando27 (May 26, 2005)

I have listened to this specific audiobook as well as a few others from the Love & Logic series. I haven't read as much as I'd like about gd and when I first "read" the L&L books, I thought they were in fact loving and logical, but as I've read objectively through some very lengthy and sometimes heated threads on MDC, I've come to realize that many of the methods employed are quite manipulative. They may "work", but that doesn't mean they are the best approach even if they come from loving parents with good intentions. From what I've gathered, the main problem lies with the imposition of "logical" consequences, which are in fact not at all logical, particularly to young children and many here seem to favor sheltering their children from natural consequences whenever possible, whereas L&L generally favors allowing children to experience the consequences of their actions and decisions, while dolling out empathy and validating thier feelings.

That said, as with most parenting books, you need to take what works for you and leave the rest behind. They stress the importance of sincere empathy, always being loving and never cruel or degrading, not nagging or getting involved in power struggles, empowering children to solve their own problems while offering parental support so they learn how to think as opposed to what to think, etc. There are some useful principles and techniques, particularly for older children, but it probably isn't the _best_ book available for raising young children with gd.


----------



## morlando27 (May 26, 2005)

I have listened to this specific audiobook as well as a few others from the Love & Logic series. I haven't read as much as I'd like about gd and when I first "read" the L&L books, I thought they were in fact loving and logical, but as I've read objectively through some very lengthy and sometimes heated threads on MDC, I've come to realize that many of the methods employed in L&L are quite manipulative. They may "work", but that doesn't mean they are the best approach even if they come from loving parents with good intentions. From what I've gathered, the main problem lies with the imposition of "logical" consequences, which are in fact not at all logical, particularly to young children. Many here also seem to favor sheltering their children from natural consequences whenever possible, whereas L&L generally favors allowing children to experience the consequences of their actions and decisions, while dolling out empathy and validating thier feelings.

As with most parenting books, you need to take what works for you and leave the rest behind. L&L stresses the importance of sincere empathy, always being loving and never cruel or degrading, not nagging or getting involved in power struggles, empowering children to solve their own problems while offering parental support so they learn how to think as opposed to what to think, etc. There are some useful principles and techniques, particularly for older children, but IMO it probably isn't the _best_ book available for raising young children with gd.

ETA: Barbara Coloroso's _Kids Are Worth It_ has many philosophical similarities, but uses more direct methods and relies on allowing children to learn from natural consequences rather than setting them up to learn through "training sessions" and assigning "logical" consequences.


----------



## Ms.QsMama (Nov 2, 2006)

Thank you all so much for your valuable insight! I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post and fill me in.


----------

