Take a photo of a barcode or cover
200 reviews for:
Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers
Gabor Maté, Gordon Neufeld
3.99 AVERAGE
200 reviews for:
Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers
Gabor Maté, Gordon Neufeld
3.99 AVERAGE
I'm giving this book to all my friends parenting kids with me. It is an attachment perspective on western adolescence, and resonates with my feelings about parenting. It is yet another parenting book written by a man who I suspect spends more time being a parenting expert than being with his kids.
I like this and the ways in which he speaks about attachment do ring true to me. I think he's a little extreme in his opinions though, and have filtered the really black and white ones out a bit as I was reading, substituting "CAN happen" for "WILL happen" and "SOME kids" for "ALL kids."
It seems so simple: build your relationship with your own kids so their attachment needs are met within their relationship with you. I like some of his practical advice and wish there was more, and that it included more specific examples.
It seems so simple: build your relationship with your own kids so their attachment needs are met within their relationship with you. I like some of his practical advice and wish there was more, and that it included more specific examples.
This will be my go to Bible when it comes to parenting.
In all honesty, I had to return this book and didn't get a chance to finish it. What I read from it, I thought it Ok.
I'm not sure I completely agree with his argument (it's a bit black-and-white to me); however, I do think that you cannot read this book as a parent without rethinking children's social needs.
Thinking about this book some more: What I really liked is the argument that discipline, for the most part, is rooted in attachment and that if we fail to cultivate that attachment we will have a difficult time raising our children since other things will fulfill that role. I just wish that their was less emphasis on the idea of "peer orientation," which makes it sound like peer relationships are at fault rather than a lack of attachment in the parent-child relationship.
Thinking about this book some more: What I really liked is the argument that discipline, for the most part, is rooted in attachment and that if we fail to cultivate that attachment we will have a difficult time raising our children since other things will fulfill that role. I just wish that their was less emphasis on the idea of "peer orientation," which makes it sound like peer relationships are at fault rather than a lack of attachment in the parent-child relationship.
Whoa. This book has risen to the top of my list of favorite parenting books. I read it slowly and savored each chapter, letting it sink in. Ultimately it's about the village -- something our society has lost in recent generations. It's been such a slow dissolve that we didn't see it happening. I'm so grateful for all the studies/stats, the detailed examples, and the advice for various future scenarios. Thank you to my friends who rated this book 5 stars. I picked it up because of you and this wisdom is already making a difference in my family! <3 Simply put: READ. THIS. BOOK!!
I'm not sure I completely agree with his argument (it's a bit black-and-white to me); however, I do think that you cannot read this book as a parent without rethinking children's social needs.
Thinking about this book some more: What I really liked is the argument that discipline, for the most part, is rooted in attachment and that if we fail to cultivate that attachment we will have a difficult time raising our children since other things will fulfill that role. I just wish that their was less emphasis on the idea of "peer orientation," which makes it sound like peer relationships are at fault rather than a lack of attachment in the parent-child relationship.
Thinking about this book some more: What I really liked is the argument that discipline, for the most part, is rooted in attachment and that if we fail to cultivate that attachment we will have a difficult time raising our children since other things will fulfill that role. I just wish that their was less emphasis on the idea of "peer orientation," which makes it sound like peer relationships are at fault rather than a lack of attachment in the parent-child relationship.
My summary of the advice in this book is this: All people need to feel accepted and emotionally secure, and that feeling is a prerequisite for learning and maturity. Traditionally, that emotional security for children (and all of us) from our place in our families, traditions, and communities. All of those institutions have taken major hits over the last century and the result is that our children are now looking to other children (their peers) to feel secure. The problem with that is that children are incapable of providing the kind of guidance and unconditional love that adults can, and so they are being set up to fail.
And some key takeaways:
* Our ability to influence our children comes down to the quality of the relationship we have with them. In order to maintain that influence, we ought to prioritize the relationship itself over any specific transaction or interaction. If we withhold our affection because of a particular issue (a tantrum, for example) we are undermining our future relationship with our kids and our future ability to influence them.
* The typical moving from attachment to parents towards attachment to peers as children age isn't a law of nature. This author would argue it is in fact a perversion of nature but I wouldn't go that far.
* Kids can only grow and mature when they feel truly safe, and our job as parents is to give them that safety.
* There's an interesting challenge to the idea of specialization that I associate with capitalism, in that we relate to people rather than roles. So any system that removes people and human connection erodes our chances at genuine attachment. That would include the replacement of family bakeries with faceless grocery stores or extended families raising kids being replaced by daycare employees.
And some points that I disagreed with and would love to discuss with the author:
* In many parenting books, there is a conflating of younger and older children. His anecdotes were about kids from age 3 to age 16, and frankly I think that's ridiculous. By calling all of them children and not clarifying the different needs of different-aged kids I end up thinking he's making moral arguments vs. scientific ones and undermines my trust in the message.
* Speaking of moralizing: sex. This author is very clearly anti-teen sex and I'm just not convinced that teens shouldn't be having sex. In fact, I think they should. His point about sex being emotional superglue is right, but I had deep and fulfilling romantic and sexual relationships as a teenager and I feel like I learned a lot about myself and relationships in general through those experiences. This relates to the above point in that we really need a more nuanced conversation about how and when it is good for our kids to start developing other attachments. It can't simply be left at "when they're mature" with no guidelines for how to measure their maturity.
* I will add that there is a cultural conservatism that permeates this book and was off-putting for me. He describes tattoos and piercings as outrageous and gross, sex as only appropriate in committed and exclusive relationships, and traditional hierarchy as "natural" in a way that rang alarm bells.
* One thing I would love to hear more about it is how we make social progress if we don't have some amount of peer orientation. If the "natural way" to raise kids is to inculcate their grandparents' values into them, how do we make social progress on issues like gay/trans rights or feminism? It seems like there is a tension between secure adult attachments and progressive values, because it has always been young people who have pushed us towards more inclusion and justice. Perhaps that is an acceptable trade-off, but I would have liked the author to address this in the book.
And some key takeaways:
* Our ability to influence our children comes down to the quality of the relationship we have with them. In order to maintain that influence, we ought to prioritize the relationship itself over any specific transaction or interaction. If we withhold our affection because of a particular issue (a tantrum, for example) we are undermining our future relationship with our kids and our future ability to influence them.
* The typical moving from attachment to parents towards attachment to peers as children age isn't a law of nature. This author would argue it is in fact a perversion of nature but I wouldn't go that far.
* Kids can only grow and mature when they feel truly safe, and our job as parents is to give them that safety.
* There's an interesting challenge to the idea of specialization that I associate with capitalism, in that we relate to people rather than roles. So any system that removes people and human connection erodes our chances at genuine attachment. That would include the replacement of family bakeries with faceless grocery stores or extended families raising kids being replaced by daycare employees.
And some points that I disagreed with and would love to discuss with the author:
* In many parenting books, there is a conflating of younger and older children. His anecdotes were about kids from age 3 to age 16, and frankly I think that's ridiculous. By calling all of them children and not clarifying the different needs of different-aged kids I end up thinking he's making moral arguments vs. scientific ones and undermines my trust in the message.
* Speaking of moralizing: sex. This author is very clearly anti-teen sex and I'm just not convinced that teens shouldn't be having sex. In fact, I think they should. His point about sex being emotional superglue is right, but I had deep and fulfilling romantic and sexual relationships as a teenager and I feel like I learned a lot about myself and relationships in general through those experiences. This relates to the above point in that we really need a more nuanced conversation about how and when it is good for our kids to start developing other attachments. It can't simply be left at "when they're mature" with no guidelines for how to measure their maturity.
* I will add that there is a cultural conservatism that permeates this book and was off-putting for me. He describes tattoos and piercings as outrageous and gross, sex as only appropriate in committed and exclusive relationships, and traditional hierarchy as "natural" in a way that rang alarm bells.
* One thing I would love to hear more about it is how we make social progress if we don't have some amount of peer orientation. If the "natural way" to raise kids is to inculcate their grandparents' values into them, how do we make social progress on issues like gay/trans rights or feminism? It seems like there is a tension between secure adult attachments and progressive values, because it has always been young people who have pushed us towards more inclusion and justice. Perhaps that is an acceptable trade-off, but I would have liked the author to address this in the book.
This book is pure blasphemy! Everyone KNOWS that children MUST socialize heavily with other kids in order not to become damaged adults later in life. We also KNOW that the best way to deal with angry teenagers is to leave them alone and stay out of their lives. Well, this book throws out all that "knowledge" out the window...
I've never felt comfortable with the societal acceptance of 'typical teenage angst'. Why would angst be typical in a healthy environment? From a historical perspective, angry teenagers estranged from their parents sound like dead meat. This book does a very good job of pointing out that angry teenagers are a modern development, as well as addressing the causes.
It's a revolutionary book and it will take time for this to sink in. In the meantime, I'm finding it very difficult to discuss it with people who are vehemently on board the "children must socialize with other children to the max" choo choo train.
I've never felt comfortable with the societal acceptance of 'typical teenage angst'. Why would angst be typical in a healthy environment? From a historical perspective, angry teenagers estranged from their parents sound like dead meat. This book does a very good job of pointing out that angry teenagers are a modern development, as well as addressing the causes.
It's a revolutionary book and it will take time for this to sink in. In the meantime, I'm finding it very difficult to discuss it with people who are vehemently on board the "children must socialize with other children to the max" choo choo train.
This book makes some important arguments but it makes them in a long winded and repetitive way. The first thirteen chapters, more than half of the book, is spent describing the basis of the problem of peer orientation over parental attachment. The book would be much more effective in spreading its message if it got to the solutions earlier. Plus, other books such as "How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk" and "Playful Parenting" do a better job of offering solutions to the problems outlined so exhaustively here.