You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
44 reviews for:
Strong Mothers, Strong Sons: Lessons Mothers Need to Raise Extraordinary Men
Meg Meeker
3.58 AVERAGE
44 reviews for:
Strong Mothers, Strong Sons: Lessons Mothers Need to Raise Extraordinary Men
Meg Meeker
3.58 AVERAGE
At times this book felt a little clinical, but she is an MD so that makes sense. There are so many things in this book that opened my eyes. I sobbed at parts of the story as I realized I cannot protect my boy from every bad thing, but it does bring comfort to know that I, with open appropriate communication, can help guide him through the struggles.
ETA: I WILL delete comments preaching at me or attacking me as a mother. Most of the comments below are well-reasoned and wonderful. But if you came here to force your religion on me, force your fear of sex down my throat, or shame me as a mother, I will delete your ignorant comments and block you. This is a book review site. Keep your drama for Facebook.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was so excited about this book. And the more I read...the less excited I became. Ultimately, halfway through, I decided to put the book down and move on for some very specific reasons.
Meeker seems to think that men and women are fundamentally different. That there are certain universal truths about men and women that just don't hold up when you take a global perspective. If men really were hardwired to compete with all other men and if men were honestly unable to teach themselves emotional literacy without the help of women (yes, she asserts both of these things with alarming frequency) then there are certain stages of cultural development in many places that simply would not have existed. Not to mention that there are men now, in America, who grow up without a primary female caregiver and, according to Meeker, should have no chance at learning emotional literacy. I'm sure they would disagree.
Meeker also spends an entire chapter on the way that a mother can teach her son about God. Yes, that's God with a big G. I was unaware that I was reading a religious parenting book. I should have guessed with the way the author frequently references pastors, treats all pornography use as inherently bad and "an addiction", and the way she makes men and women out to be such vastly different creatures that it's a shock women can relate to their sons at all!
The final straw was Meeker's insistence that a son "wants - and needs - to see his father as stronger because that's his role model for his own impending adulthood. He doesn't want to think of his mother as stronger, because this threatens his masculinity" (From the chapter "Give Him an Ax"). If your son's masculinity is threatened because he sees a woman being as strong as he is, you have raised a man who belittles women. Including you. I don't think any mother wants that.
I bookmarked a lot of pages to quote on here, including her insistence that teens don't "manipulate intentionally" but that they say mean things to their mothers knowing that it will get their mother to change rules the teen doesn't like.... That's intentional manipulation! It might not be malicious, but it is certainly intentional. Or the chapter where she says that teens who play violent video games are more likely to act out violence in their adult years, which multiple studies have disproven. Or the part where she says that children who grow up without loving mothers are far more likely to commit acts of mass violence than children who have loving mothers. She admits it's an extreme scenario, but one sentence does not erase a paragraph of depicting all male foster children as mass murderers waiting to happen.
But after writing this far in the review, I think I've made my case. Meeker presents stereotypes - many of them harmful to all genders - as if they are the reality of human families. She never addresses how parents need to work together (when there are more than one) to help their children, and her views are based on a very Christian platform that does not hold up under psychological studies or common sense. And she seems to think that each family relationship is insular and dictated by what genitalia is in our pants.
I'm too invested in raising a thoughtful, kind, and connected child to waste my time with a book written by a woman who clearly states, repeatedly, that I will never be able to understand him because he's a boy and I'm a girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was so excited about this book. And the more I read...the less excited I became. Ultimately, halfway through, I decided to put the book down and move on for some very specific reasons.
Meeker seems to think that men and women are fundamentally different. That there are certain universal truths about men and women that just don't hold up when you take a global perspective. If men really were hardwired to compete with all other men and if men were honestly unable to teach themselves emotional literacy without the help of women (yes, she asserts both of these things with alarming frequency) then there are certain stages of cultural development in many places that simply would not have existed. Not to mention that there are men now, in America, who grow up without a primary female caregiver and, according to Meeker, should have no chance at learning emotional literacy. I'm sure they would disagree.
Meeker also spends an entire chapter on the way that a mother can teach her son about God. Yes, that's God with a big G. I was unaware that I was reading a religious parenting book. I should have guessed with the way the author frequently references pastors, treats all pornography use as inherently bad and "an addiction", and the way she makes men and women out to be such vastly different creatures that it's a shock women can relate to their sons at all!
The final straw was Meeker's insistence that a son "wants - and needs - to see his father as stronger because that's his role model for his own impending adulthood. He doesn't want to think of his mother as stronger, because this threatens his masculinity" (From the chapter "Give Him an Ax"). If your son's masculinity is threatened because he sees a woman being as strong as he is, you have raised a man who belittles women. Including you. I don't think any mother wants that.
I bookmarked a lot of pages to quote on here, including her insistence that teens don't "manipulate intentionally" but that they say mean things to their mothers knowing that it will get their mother to change rules the teen doesn't like.... That's intentional manipulation! It might not be malicious, but it is certainly intentional. Or the chapter where she says that teens who play violent video games are more likely to act out violence in their adult years, which multiple studies have disproven. Or the part where she says that children who grow up without loving mothers are far more likely to commit acts of mass violence than children who have loving mothers. She admits it's an extreme scenario, but one sentence does not erase a paragraph of depicting all male foster children as mass murderers waiting to happen.
But after writing this far in the review, I think I've made my case. Meeker presents stereotypes - many of them harmful to all genders - as if they are the reality of human families. She never addresses how parents need to work together (when there are more than one) to help their children, and her views are based on a very Christian platform that does not hold up under psychological studies or common sense. And she seems to think that each family relationship is insular and dictated by what genitalia is in our pants.
I'm too invested in raising a thoughtful, kind, and connected child to waste my time with a book written by a woman who clearly states, repeatedly, that I will never be able to understand him because he's a boy and I'm a girl.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
there were a few good ideas but mostly this is just one religious woman's opinion of raising a son. i want to agree with her saying that 20 something men exposed to a lot of violent video games as teenagers are more aggressive but she doesn't cite that. i also get the impression that she thinks boys and men are just dumber. it sort of weans you into scare tactics with boys looking at porn and then she begins devoting a lot of the book to god. i do appreciate the idea of giving our children purpose. it makes me appreciate zack more bc she writes about disconnected fathers who don't show emotion. she goes anti feminist at one point saying she believes women are bossier than men.
Good book, I think that if you are going to have a good chunk of the book be about faith and christianity then maybe market towards those moms.
This book had some great lessons and I hope I remember them all in the coming years.
Here are the reasons it didn't get 5 stars:
-It's very long, making it hard to remember the first lesson by the time you finish it. I wish there was a master list of the lessons that was repeated a few times so I could remember them all. I did listen to the audiobook, so maybe if I had actually read it I would have been able to reference the chapter list.
-The author's beliefs about religion are mentioned a lot and I don't think it's fair to say a strong mother has to believe in the same things the author believes in.
-In some cases, I thought extra words were being added just to make the book longer. I would have preferred more concise lessons with powerful examples and less filler.
Here are the reasons it didn't get 5 stars:
-It's very long, making it hard to remember the first lesson by the time you finish it. I wish there was a master list of the lessons that was repeated a few times so I could remember them all. I did listen to the audiobook, so maybe if I had actually read it I would have been able to reference the chapter list.
-The author's beliefs about religion are mentioned a lot and I don't think it's fair to say a strong mother has to believe in the same things the author believes in.
-In some cases, I thought extra words were being added just to make the book longer. I would have preferred more concise lessons with powerful examples and less filler.
I agree with most other reviewers. This book was really not great- lots of stereotypes and very few concrete take aways. Also, it was very religious which is fine, but not if the author cannot connect with her audience who does not see religion as essential to their parenting
Some reviews are easy to write and some are hard. To be honest, this is one of the easier ones. I read this book on the recommendation of a friend. It really resonated with her, and as she and I have many similarities, she thought it would really resonate with me.
First, the good. 1. Dr. Meeker advocates balance. As sons grow, their abilities and responsibilities grow. It is important to neither over or under estimate their abilities. 2. Meeker reminds mothers that they are not responsible for their son’s choices. As boys grown into men, they take responsibility for themselves. 3. Moms need to get off “the crazy train” of constantly doing things for their children. Boys need to find their own interests. 4. Age appropriate chores are good. Give your son space to grow within his experiences. 5. The way that you deal with sex and sharing information about intimacy has far reaching effects on your son.
Second, the bad. 1. Meeker tells this story with a myriad of real life examples from her medical practice. Most of these examples seemed to be stories where the mother (or the son) experienced extreme trauma. Stories of childhood rape, traumatic divorce, and more. Meeker gave very few examples of positive family role models inside traditional homes and happy families. All the sons interviewed about their wonderful mothers talked about how terrible it was when dad died/left and they were forced to raise their sons alone. 2. Meeker assumes that dads aren’t involved. She dedicated a whole chapter to how to get your child’s father to be more involved. I don’t think this is a reasonable assumption. Yes, many dads are involved, and yes, the stereotype is an uninvolved dad. But their are also many wonderful fathers who want to be involved in their sons’ lives. 3. Meeker off-handedly mentions that children who spend more than 30 hours in daycare are not as emotionally stable as children who spend more time at home. Honestly, what is the point of this? So stay-at-home moms can pat themselves on the back? How does this jive with all the wonderful mothers who were never at home since they had to work 2 jobs to put food on the table? It seems like an unnecessary detail that simply makes people feel bad for choices that they have made. Especially if being a working mother is a necessity. This really continues on into 4. Meeker has a generally sexist tone about mothers and fathers, who is the primary breadwinner. She holds up the traditional family home as the expectation and the ideal. I really struggled with her tone. I am a working mother. My son spends between 45 and 50 hours per week in daycare. I don’t really have a choice in this. Meeker’s implicit bias really bothered me. 5. Meeker states that women are the main emotional teachers in the home. This is almost laughable to me as my husband is much more emotionally literate than I am. She is so biased against men! Just because I am a woman doesn’t mean I am good with emotions. Just because my husband is a man doesn’t mean that is bad with emotions. 6. In a book called Strong Mothers, it seems strange to me that Meeker would advocate being less strong than a child’s father. Meeker contends that a mother’s strength is a threat to her son’s masculinity. How can this possibly be true? Wouldn’t the best way to teach a son strength is a healthy dynamic between mother and father where each upholds the other’s weaknesses? This just doesn’t make sense. Yes, I am physically weaker than my husband, but I am an incredibly strong woman. I am going to show my son that strength and encourage him to find a wife who is also strong. I really hate the concept of “the weaker sex”. Meeker is just perpetuating that stereotype.
So, an equal number of good points and bad points, but the bad points seem to be systemic issues rather than specific examples like the good points.
Just one lingering question. Why are all Christian parenting books biased in favor of stay-at-home mothers? Can we not give solid advice for working mothers who are doing the best they can?
First, the good. 1. Dr. Meeker advocates balance. As sons grow, their abilities and responsibilities grow. It is important to neither over or under estimate their abilities. 2. Meeker reminds mothers that they are not responsible for their son’s choices. As boys grown into men, they take responsibility for themselves. 3. Moms need to get off “the crazy train” of constantly doing things for their children. Boys need to find their own interests. 4. Age appropriate chores are good. Give your son space to grow within his experiences. 5. The way that you deal with sex and sharing information about intimacy has far reaching effects on your son.
Second, the bad. 1. Meeker tells this story with a myriad of real life examples from her medical practice. Most of these examples seemed to be stories where the mother (or the son) experienced extreme trauma. Stories of childhood rape, traumatic divorce, and more. Meeker gave very few examples of positive family role models inside traditional homes and happy families. All the sons interviewed about their wonderful mothers talked about how terrible it was when dad died/left and they were forced to raise their sons alone. 2. Meeker assumes that dads aren’t involved. She dedicated a whole chapter to how to get your child’s father to be more involved. I don’t think this is a reasonable assumption. Yes, many dads are involved, and yes, the stereotype is an uninvolved dad. But their are also many wonderful fathers who want to be involved in their sons’ lives. 3. Meeker off-handedly mentions that children who spend more than 30 hours in daycare are not as emotionally stable as children who spend more time at home. Honestly, what is the point of this? So stay-at-home moms can pat themselves on the back? How does this jive with all the wonderful mothers who were never at home since they had to work 2 jobs to put food on the table? It seems like an unnecessary detail that simply makes people feel bad for choices that they have made. Especially if being a working mother is a necessity. This really continues on into 4. Meeker has a generally sexist tone about mothers and fathers, who is the primary breadwinner. She holds up the traditional family home as the expectation and the ideal. I really struggled with her tone. I am a working mother. My son spends between 45 and 50 hours per week in daycare. I don’t really have a choice in this. Meeker’s implicit bias really bothered me. 5. Meeker states that women are the main emotional teachers in the home. This is almost laughable to me as my husband is much more emotionally literate than I am. She is so biased against men! Just because I am a woman doesn’t mean I am good with emotions. Just because my husband is a man doesn’t mean that is bad with emotions. 6. In a book called Strong Mothers, it seems strange to me that Meeker would advocate being less strong than a child’s father. Meeker contends that a mother’s strength is a threat to her son’s masculinity. How can this possibly be true? Wouldn’t the best way to teach a son strength is a healthy dynamic between mother and father where each upholds the other’s weaknesses? This just doesn’t make sense. Yes, I am physically weaker than my husband, but I am an incredibly strong woman. I am going to show my son that strength and encourage him to find a wife who is also strong. I really hate the concept of “the weaker sex”. Meeker is just perpetuating that stereotype.
So, an equal number of good points and bad points, but the bad points seem to be systemic issues rather than specific examples like the good points.
Just one lingering question. Why are all Christian parenting books biased in favor of stay-at-home mothers? Can we not give solid advice for working mothers who are doing the best they can?