I read this book because my own child is disobedient more than not, and my gentle discipline wasn’t too effective in the long term (over 24 hours). I primarily used time-outs. I was hoping to get some good discipline advice from this book, but it provided the opposite. Only follow their advice if you want your child to grow up to be a self-centered spoiled brat who can’t deal with the real world. Their disciplining strategies were even less effective than my own.
24 “And what experience does a time-out give a child? Isolation. Even if you can offer a time-out in a loving manner, do you want your child’s repeated experiences when she makes a mistake to be time by herself, which is often experienced, particularly by young children, as rejection?”
What’s wrong with isolation and rejection? If a kid can’t behave themselves, they deserve to be rejected. It’s only temporary anyway. Isolation can be healthy in moderation. Time outs don’t last forever.
28 “One proactive strategy that can be effective is to help the child create a ‘calm zone’ with toys, books, or a favorite stuffed animal, which she visits when she needs the time and place to calm down. . . . (This is a good idea for parents, too! Maybe some chocolate, magazines, music, red wine . . .) it’s not about punishment or making a child pay for her mistake.”
Sounds like rewarding the child to me. I got sent to my room as a punishment, and I thought my parents were stupid for this since I just played with toys by myself in my room and had a great time.
43 mentions pavlov’s dogs who learned to salivate with the dinner bell, but seems to completely ignore/forget that this justifies spankings and time-outs, because the point of punishment is to associate bad behavior with a negative response, thus discouraging bad behavior.
Makes scientific claims like “when we discipline with threats . . . We activate the defensive circuits of our child’s reactive reptilian downstairs brain” (46-47), but there are no citations provided. The authors talk down to the readers with terms like “upstairs and downstairs brains” like they have no capability of digesting the actual terminology of the brain. And I suppose we readers are just supposed to take their word for it about all their scientific claims. Yet they quote Sherlock Holmes who said, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts” (111). They put their hypocrisy on display again (113-115) when they tell you to not ask your child why they did something (obtaining data), but just ask *yourself* why and guess about it (theorize).
47 “by demonstrating respect for your child, nurturing him with lots of empathy, and remaining open to collaborative and reflective discussions, you communicate ‘no threat,’ so the reptilian brain can relax its reactivity.”
So Kid #1 hits parent to get parent’s attention, and the parent responds with “i can see you’re frustrated because you’re not getting your way. I understand how you feel, but i need to finish this thing i’m doing before we play, and it’s not right to hit people even when you’re frustrated.” So the kid got attention by hitting, and nothing negative came from this talk, so what exactly is the motivation for the kid to not hit the parent to get attention again? If there is no threat and no reward, there’s no motivation to change.
54 Kid #2 gets upset because she doesn’t get to ride in the car w/ the parent of her choice. Author’s solution: first, hold the child to get her to calm down. Problem: not all kids like to be held, so this wouldn’t work to calm all kids down. Most kids who are upset cuz they’re not getting their way, and the only way they can calm down is either if they get their way or they’re given or promised some reward.
“You might promise to get up early tomorrow morning so you’d have time to take her to school. Or you might assure her that you’d ask your boss if you could leave work early this afternoon so you could pick up your daughter and then have some one-on-one special time with her. Or you might offer to tell her a story on speakerphone from your car as her dad drove her to school.” All of those options are inconveniencing the adult for the sake of placating the child. What if the child is upset because her parent is not home all day everyday? What if child never wants to go to school? What if child never wants to brush teeth or hair or get dressed? What if the child insists on only eating candy at every meal? Are you going to cater to the child’s every desire? No, that is not the way life works. In real life, you have to do things you don’t like, and you don’t always get your way. The adult should not be bending over backward just to save the child some unhappiness.
56 “In contrast, a parenting style focussed on control and fear, stressing that a child needs to toe the line all the time, undermines the feeling of safety. If a child lives in constant worry that he might mess up and make his parents unhappy or that he’ll be punished, he won’t feel the freedom to do all the things that grow and strengthen his upstairs brain: considering others’ feelings, exploring alternative actions, understanding himself, and trying to make the best decision in a given situation.” Gee, how did all those spanked kids of generations past manage to grow up into mature, smart, empathetic, well-functioning adults?!
68 Kid #3: Little brother breaks Matthias his older brother’s Lego creation, and father Michael comforts the younger brother. Matthias confesses what he did, and “In response, Michael laughed a little and said, ‘I’d say you did more than that, little man!’ Matthias cracked a small smile.” What does this teach the boy? It teaches that if you’re upset and want people to give you attention and feel sorry for you, just act out. You will be forgiven and get sympathy. And what about the older brother whose Lego creation was destroyed? The father didn’t comfort HIM. The older brother was the VICTIM. Where is the justice? The younger brother gets off without any form of punishment, just praise, comfort, and talking to. Do you think saying to the little 5 year old boy, “How would you feel if someone broke your creation?�� Is going to teach him empathy? Here’s what would teach empathy and discipline at the same time: break one of Matthias’ toys in front of his eyes. THEN he would know how it feels. The father comforting him is just rewarding bad behavior.
79 “The instinctive, reactive lower parts of his brain became so active that he lost access to the higher parts of the brain, the ones that help him think him think about consequences and consider others’ feelings.” What consequences? Matthias got angry and jealous, and so he lashed out and got revenge against his brother, and the consequence was Daddy comforting him.
The book is like how to raise a spoiled brat. No wonder we have so many sensitive snowflakes around now who need a safe space and cant handle being triggered and think they’re entitled to free stuff from the government.
89 The book tries to say that they’re not advocating spoiling: “You can’t spoil your children by giving them too much of yourself.” Actually, yes you can.
The child is “entitled to your love and affection.” Entitled, huh? So a kid could grow up to be a serial killer, but his parents should forgive and love him anyway? Let’s just feel sorry for him because he wasn’t getting his way, and his feelings were hurt, huh? Let’s just give him a great big hug and wipe away his tears. And society shouldn’t punish the killer with prison, because that’s ISOLATION and REJECTION. So damaging to his delicate brain! Let’s just give him a good talking to, with no anger in our face or voice, no finger wagging, no harsh accusations. Just a loving reminder that killing is wrong, and let’s try to do better next time, okay?
Hey, and let’s just get rid of speeding tickets too. All the cop needs to do is give a friendly reminder that speeding is against the law. Try to remember that. Be on your merry way now!
And how about in a romantic relationship: woman cheats on her husband because she was feeling lonely. She does this repeatedly. Should husband comfort her and feel sorry for her because she was lonely? Continue to love her unconditionally despite her repeated “mistakes”? Loving someone doesn’t mean giving them permission to continually make bad choices. Love SHOULD be conditional. There SHOULD be consequences for actions, and simply talking to someone empathetically is NOT consequence.
89-90 “We want to let our kids know that they can count on getting their NEEDS met. . . . Connecting when a child is upset or out of control is about meeting that child’s needs, not giving in to what she wants.”
There is very little that a person actually NEEDS. Kid #1 WANTS attention, kid #2 WANTS to ride in with the parent of her choice, kid #3 WANTS to play with older brother’s toys. Food and shelter are the only needs. Comfort and sympathy are not needs, and they are not deserved when the child just did something wrong.
90 The book says that true spoiling is giving children “the sense that the world and people around them will serve their whims” and “when parents shelter their children from having to struggle at all.”
But this treatment is exactly what the parents are giving to their kids in the examples this book gives.
90-91 “Having a sense of entitlement, as opposed to an attitude of gratitude, can affect relationships in the future.”
This book teaches that kids should be entitled to forgiveness and love no matter what bad things they do. This “discipline” does not teach gratitude. Gratitude teaching would be as follows to the three example kids given above:
To kid #1: “You should be grateful I’m going to play with you at all after you just hit me.”
To kid #2: “You should be grateful you have a parent who’s driving you at all instead of making you walk there.”
To kid #3: “You should be grateful your brother doesn’t break something of yours right now after what you just did!”
That’s a healthy dose of shame and guilt. Do you think making a child feel these things is too mean? Even the authors think guilt can be healthy. “It is evidence of a healthy conscience! And it can shape future behavior” (141).
92 The authors claim that they aren’t endorsing helicopter parenting “where parents hover over their children’s lives, shielding them from all struggle and sadness.”
Untrue. The authors said the father of kid #3 made a mistake by waiting 3 seconds before going into his son’s room. “The shouting let him know that he needed to intervene immediately, but he wasn’t quick enough” (66). So the implication is that the father should’ve been hovering over his kids to prevent any conflict from breaking out.
93-94 The author say “you can connect while also setting limits.” “You wouldn’t simply say ‘you seem upset’ to a child as he hurls a Bart Simpson action figure toward a breakable Hello Kitty alarm clock. A More appropriate response would be to say something like, ‘I can see that you’re upset and you’re having a hard time stopping your body. I will help you.’” How is this setting a limit? It’s rewarding bad behavior with comfort. It’s teaching the kid that whenever he’s not getting his way, it’s okay to throw a fit about it, because no consequence will come from it but Mommy’s loving embrace. She will drop whatever she’s doing in the grocery store or restaurant to give me attention and feel sorry for me, and maybe if I give her big puppy dog eyes and pout really cute, she’ll be persuaded to get me what I want . . . If not right away, maybe for Christmas. Because no matter how bad I am throughout the year, I’m entitled to those presents, gosh darnit!
103 The authors say that yelling and dishing out a punishment (even one that isn’t physical) is “ridiculous” and other people witnessing it will think you’re “crazy.”
The book is filled with cartoon illustrations which almost always show angry kids when the parent is disciplining “wrong,” but happy or sad but hopeful kids when the parent is disciplining “right.” What’s more realistic is for the kid to be angry and crying in every picture no matter what the parent does. But the authors probably don’t want to draw the pictures realistically, because then it would bring attention to how ridiculous THEIR advice is.
120 They say that it’s good to get on eye level with your kids, but that it’s even better to get BELOW the eye level. They say other mammals do this to show that they aren’t a threat. But actually animals do that to show that they are yielding and granting dominance to the other animal. So by getting below your child’s eye level, you might as well be bowing before them as if they are royalty and you are a mere slave to serve their every desire.
124 The book literally says this is the kind of message you want to send your kids: “What you’re sharing with me right now is crucial—more important than anything going on around us, even more important than anything I want to say.” And they don’t think this is going to create kids who are spoiled, feel entitled, and think the world revolves around them?! You SHOULD listen to your kids, but that doesn’t mean the kid shouldn’t listen to the parent! Who is the teacher? Who is the adult? Who is smarter and wiser? In most cases, it’s the parent! How can you teach your kids to be better, if all you’re doing is listening to them whine and validating their emotions? The book even says not to talk to your kid when they’re upset, except to repeat what they say to you and make an empathy statement (132), because they think kids are too stupid to learn anything when they’re upset. If that were true, then kids of generations past who were NOT disciplined gently would not have learned any lessons. But kids of generations past DID learn from their upbringing, and it can be argued that the kids of generations past were better behaved and more mature and respectful than kids today.
130 The authors think it’s great for a mother to say to her adult daughter whose bank account was in the negative, “I was sorry for her bad day and did she need a mummy hug?” And then take care of her financial problems and reward her without cause to her favorite restaurant. The parent is apologizing for something that isn’t her fault, talking to her adult daughter like she’s a toddler, not holding her accountable or letting her face the natural consequences of her poor financial choices, and then rewarding her, not because she did something good but just to erase her sadness. This is enabling and spoiling. The authors say they’re against spoiling, and they define spoiling as “giving them too many things, by rescuing them from every challenge, by never allowing them to deal with defeat and disappointment” (135). But they clearly are not really against spoiling.