Rating: 
Summary: Anti-Libertarian Victorian Garbage
Review: While there are a few good points about 2-parent families and the need for love, this is really a book about the moral deficiencies of the author. She sets herself up with the common false-choices and folk-morality of the time: laissez-faire versus responsibility, selfishness versus love, freedom vs control--and predictably, after having lived one side myopically and found she bumped into reality, now as ignorantly and officiously tells us the other side is the Holy Grail. Kids are savages, she says? Talk about psychological projection. Grow up! If her economic students thought they were learning about Libertarianism from her, they should sue. Duh, economic man is an inadequate model, therefore Libertarianism is wrong? Hello, Libertarian psychologists and economists have rejected the economic man model for 40 years! This person knows as much about Libertarianism, and current libertarian educational and parenting discourse, as she knows about rearing kids. Maybe the real lesson here is academics should look out of their fields, and motherhood should not be the fashion of fractured theories by overpaid pseudo-intellectuals. Has this specialist read Montessori, Piaget, checked out a good work on anthropology, or talked to mothers--and fathers? That she irrelevantly parades her religious affiliations while presumptuously attributing the opposite of what something stands for based on her projections of what the theory must mean is a warning sign that if you want science, look elsewhere. Any sane adult who looks at a 6 month old child struggling to learn-- and thinks that they are a "savage' because they don't meet their unexamined expectations is, in a nutshell, what has been wrong with most movements from Victorianism to feminism. They can neither observe, and lack the discipline of true learning. Some scientist. Read the book--the personal stories are touching and sincere--but if you want to think about self and love, do this: talk to your kids.
| 
