I took notes, with page numbers, as I read. They are appended below.
16 My kids are doing their best, all the time. I am doing my best, all the time. Hard disagree. Sometimes I am overwhelmed or overstimulated and I act in ways my better self doesn't want. Those times, I am doing my best, despite falling short of my own expectations. Sometimes I know I'm being unreasonable, bitchy, unnecessarily mean, deliberately rude, or intentionally lazy. I make a choice to engage in behaviors that are not "my best." I am not doing my best, on purpose, because I have decided to do something else instead. It is absurd to think anyone is always one thing or the other. Nobody does their best all the time. That's nonsense.
17 radical acceptance. Yes, this is in line with Biblical theology. We don't have to "do our best" to be loved an accepted exactly as we are. We are beloved the way we are created. Radical acceptance of our children is a reflection of Our Father's radical love for them.
21 connection and trust are the core of good parenting. I also agree with this. We teach our children how to be in the world, and how to be the best version of themselves. To do that well, we have to deeply understand who our children are, and they have to believe that we are looking out for their real best interests.
32 healthy, firm boundaries. She keeps saying boundaries and then describing rules. "In control" of what? Of whom? Boundaries are around ourselves and our own behaviors. It's good to have firm boundaries, or else you end up being a punching bag, even if only unintentionally. A "firm rule" is telling another person what they can or cannot do, a "firm boundary" is telling another person what YOU will or will not do. Autonomy for everyone means you ALSO get autonomy, which includes boundaries like, "If you are screaming, I need to go in a different room" and "I will not pay for a Wi-Fi hotspot."
64 Meeting your own needs. Your child doesn't have to do anything differently. This is spectacular advice. To the extent possible, absolutely, figure out how to get your needs met in ways you can control. And you can't control other people.
68 House rules I do a lot of explicitly stating "house rules" so I agree with the concept of making your expectations explicit. A lot of my house rules aren't actually rules, but 4 of her "rules" aren't rules, either. And she's not internally consistent in this section. Her complaint about "we keep each other safe" being a demand makes me roll my eyes. "I won't let you hit another person" is a boundary, and a reasonable one at that. And yes, it contains the expectation that everyone deserves to be physically safe. But that's, again, a very reasonable expectation. And please, "Ask for help if you need it" is a demand, too. So why does she think that's a reasonable thing to say, but it's not reasonable to say "I won't let you hurt me or your siblings"?
82 The orchestra conductor metaphor she deploys stinks. Orchestra members don't choose what songs they play.
90 Not monitoring or controlling your children's screen content is like letting your toddler crawl around on the floor of a machine shop. It's only a matter of time before they "explore" something that will harm them. You can decide that they are allowed to have their screens as many hours a day as they want them, but absolutely what they do on those screens should be monitored and controlled. And all of this discussion of "as much screen time as they want" ignores powerful forces that are working to keep eyeballs attached to content endlessly. I have unintentionally wasted many evenings on digital content rabbit holes when I didn't really "choose" to spend those hours scrolling. I know my behavior was manipulated into that endless consumption cycle. True, shame would be a bad motivator to stop (all the psych research says so), but the endless scroll is not "helping heal" my exhaustion. It's praying on my exhaustion as vulnerability, to keep me searching for another dopamine hit.
99 If the kids throws a tablet and it breaks, and there doesn't have to be a meaningful life lesson. That's a lot of privilege. If my kid throws a tablet and it breaks, we can't afford a new one, so there's a natural consequence even if there doesn't need to be a lesson.
121 Low-demand partnering also looks like it requires a lot of privilege. 2 cars. Pay for the unlimited mobile wi-fi so the kids never have to stop their games. Hired staff to do the stuff you can't. Stay at home parent. You're not asking your spouse to do anything differently! You're just paying for the privilege of doing things the low-demand way you want to.
Ok, that's a lot of details. On a "big picture" level, my problem with Diekman's approach is that her children will never, ever be able to be independent adults. Yes, we should parent towards the liberation values we hold, and we should do what we can to shift the world to be more just and inclusive. However, at the same time, we also have to teach our kids to survive in the real world as it actually exists during this lifetime. We live in a capitalist society, and so adults have to have money. They can hold jobs, where their bosses will demand something. Or they can be entrepreneurs, where their clients will demand something. Or maybe they will be too disabled to do either of those things, in which case they'll have a caseworker who will demand something. There are demands in the real world, and so we can't prepare our kids for adulthood by just never, ever, ever making any demands of them.
There's also the detail that Diekman's oldest child, at the time of publishing this book, is only in early elementary school, and she's only been doing the low-demand approach she espouses in the book for about about a year. I suppose a lot of people are looking for an accessible book that tells them how to successfully and lovingly parent their PDA child. But I feel skeptical about extrapolating "this specific choice worked one year when my PDA child was 8" to "this specific choice is the right one for every single circumstance with a PDA child."