“The Harsh Reality of Gentle Parenting”

[Anonymous]

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-harsh-realm-of-gentle-parenting?utm_campaign=likeshopme&client_service_id=31202&utm_social_type=owned&utm_brand=tny&service_user_id=1.78e+16&utm_content=instagram-bio-link&utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&client_service_name=the%20new%20yorker&supported_service_name=instagram_publishing

There was a post recently about the limits of gentle parenting and this piece is really great, thought I’d share!

[Anonymous]

Interesting read--thanks for sharing, OP.

I wish the author had included consideration of Attachment Parenting, which was the big thing when my oldest was born, and which I think places outrageous pressure on mothers specifically. And I say that as a psychologist who wrote a dissertation (literally) on attachment theory!

That she ignores Whole Brain Child is interesting, too, since that book is arguably the most prominent within the genre. But maybe the examples she chose are more extreme versions of gentle parenting.

I try to be aware of my kids' developmental limitations and to be empathic, but we also have clear boundaries and limits for our kids. Making everything "child-led" isn't particularly beneficial for kids, IMO.

[Anonymous]

I really like Janet Lansbury. But I can't say I follow all her advice perfectly. I don't see most of these philosophies as something you need to do PERFECTLY. They are ideas. Ways to push your thinking about child rearing, and how to change your approach when you aren't getting the behavior you want. I do not see them as a holy gospel. I think that's our cultural problem, we want a check list of "how to do it right" when it's much more complicated than that.

Lansbury helped me be MUCH more empathetic with my toddler. Especially after I added a little brother to her life, which really did throw her in a tailspin. I still put her in timeout, so I was not The Perfect Unruffled Parent, but it helped me immensely see the limitations of my own "my way or the highway" attitude in getting what *I* wanted.

I think each generation finds improvements in parenting. But again, there is no one perfect doctrine. It just moves the needle. Look at how spanking has gone from common to derided in just one generation.

[Anonymous]

I think empathy, modeling the behavior you want to see, and getting away from shame all make sense, but also think there are some parts of gentle parenting philosophy that are actively bad for parents and kids.

I think advice that tells parents (moms) that they can't express a full range of emotions is really problematic (the go in the garage and scream in a pillow rather than show frustration or anger in front of your child-to me that is messed up.

More harmful to me as the parent of a kid with anxiety is the constant smoothing of the path for kids. The experts in my life keep stressing that my role as a parent is to help my kid build distress tolerance. Kids need to know that they can hear "no" and they will be okay, that someone can be angry at them and they will be okay. If you don't have those small experiences of suffering and recovering through childhood-how do you get to a place where failing a test in college, or getting negative feedback from a boss is something you accept, recover, and work through. I see young people in my life who do not seem to be able to navigate even small adversities without falling apart and I wonder if there is a connection to this style of parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really like Janet Lansbury. But I can't say I follow all her advice perfectly. I don't see most of these philosophies as something you need to do PERFECTLY. They are ideas. Ways to push your thinking about child rearing, and how to change your approach when you aren't getting the behavior you want. I do not see them as a holy gospel. I think that's our cultural problem, we want a check list of "how to do it right" when it's much more complicated than that.

Lansbury helped me be MUCH more empathetic with my toddler. Especially after I added a little brother to her life, which really did throw her in a tailspin. I still put her in timeout, so I was not The Perfect Unruffled Parent, but it helped me immensely see the limitations of my own "my way or the highway" attitude in getting what *I* wanted.

I think each generation finds improvements in parenting. But again, there is no one perfect doctrine. It just moves the needle. Look at how spanking has gone from common to derided in just one generation.

I agree with the gentle parenting philosophy, but for whatever reason Janet Lansbury just seems a little too extreme? Perfect? Annoying? idk. but when i listen to her I feel like she rarely gives practical advice for the problems, and basically only ever says things like "Connect with them' 'express how they're feeling'. Like yes yes i agree that this should be done, but little Timmy keeps putting little Becky in a headlock and that is not helpful.

I prefer people like biglittlefeelings and a couple other parenting podcasts i listen too who 1) provide actual practical solutions to problems and 2) Are less 'perfect' and are very real about making mistakes and you are not going to get it right all the time and that's ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think empathy, modeling the behavior you want to see, and getting away from shame all make sense, but also think there are some parts of gentle parenting philosophy that are actively bad for parents and kids.

I think advice that tells parents (moms) that they can't express a full range of emotions is really problematic (the go in the garage and scream in a pillow rather than show frustration or anger in front of your child-to me that is messed up.

More harmful to me as the parent of a kid with anxiety is the constant smoothing of the path for kids. The experts in my life keep stressing that my role as a parent is to help my kid build distress tolerance. Kids need to know that they can hear "no" and they will be okay, that someone can be angry at them and they will be okay. If you don't have those small experiences of suffering and recovering through childhood-how do you get to a place where failing a test in college, or getting negative feedback from a boss is something you accept, recover, and work through. I see young people in my life who do not seem to be able to navigate even small adversities without falling apart and I wonder if there is a connection to this style of parenting.

This is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think empathy, modeling the behavior you want to see, and getting away from shame all make sense, but also think there are some parts of gentle parenting philosophy that are actively bad for parents and kids.

I think advice that tells parents (moms) that they can't express a full range of emotions is really problematic (the go in the garage and scream in a pillow rather than show frustration or anger in front of your child-to me that is messed up.

More harmful to me as the parent of a kid with anxiety is the constant smoothing of the path for kids. The experts in my life keep stressing that my role as a parent is to help my kid build distress tolerance. Kids need to know that they can hear "no" and they will be okay, that someone can be angry at them and they will be okay. If you don't have those small experiences of suffering and recovering through childhood-how do you get to a place where failing a test in college, or getting negative feedback from a boss is something you accept, recover, and work through. I see young people in my life who do not seem to be able to navigate even small adversities without falling apart and I wonder if there is a connection to this style of parenting.

I agree and think both of these are real risks and it doesn't help when parenting in the later years and leads to burnout.

I found that most parents struggled with trying to get their toddlers and preschoolers to stop doing things that totally just didn't matter at all.

I recall my friend getting into this ridiculously long session of back and forth with her almost 3 yr old because he wouldn't sit at the table to eat snack. I couldn't believe she could be so vested in that. She felt that if he didn't follow what she said now it would cascade over to other areas. It ended up with crying and threats of no snack and so no. I seem to recall he wanted to sit on the steps that led down into their family area/playroom. I didn't have the heart to tell her at home we let our child stand next to the table at dinner and eat. Yeah it was weird but we let her as long as she stood in one place and didn't run around. So for a few months, she put her plate on her chair and stood there and ate. We of course sat at the table and ate. One day she said she wanted her plate on the table and from then on she sat at the table and ate. She is now a teen, doesn't remember a thing about it, and can't believe she ever did something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really like Janet Lansbury. But I can't say I follow all her advice perfectly. I don't see most of these philosophies as something you need to do PERFECTLY. They are ideas. Ways to push your thinking about child rearing, and how to change your approach when you aren't getting the behavior you want. I do not see them as a holy gospel. I think that's our cultural problem, we want a check list of "how to do it right" when it's much more complicated than that.

Lansbury helped me be MUCH more empathetic with my toddler. Especially after I added a little brother to her life, which really did throw her in a tailspin. I still put her in timeout, so I was not The Perfect Unruffled Parent, but it helped me immensely see the limitations of my own "my way or the highway" attitude in getting what *I* wanted.

I think each generation finds improvements in parenting. But again, there is no one perfect doctrine. It just moves the needle. Look at how spanking has gone from common to derided in just one generation.

I agree with the gentle parenting philosophy, but for whatever reason Janet Lansbury just seems a little too extreme? Perfect? Annoying? idk. but when i listen to her I feel like she rarely gives practical advice for the problems, and basically only ever says things like "Connect with them' 'express how they're feeling'. Like yes yes i agree that this should be done, but little Timmy keeps putting little Becky in a headlock and that is not helpful.

I prefer people like biglittlefeelings and a couple other parenting podcasts i listen too who 1) provide actual practical solutions to problems and 2) Are less 'perfect' and are very real about making mistakes and you are not going to get it right all the time and that's ok.

This is PP. I can see that. I generally only listened to Janet (either her podcasts or the audio book of "No Bad Kids") which I found a really helpful format. Mainly because tone really matters with what she's saying. But also, I did not follow her "perfectly", but she gave me some terrific tools to use. Including ones I use now that my kids are older. She has one tip about using momentum (I can't remember what she called it) that I still need to use. Sometimes kids just have a hard time actually HEARING you when you are telling them to do something, but if you can gently help them start moving, it can be the perfect grease to keep things running while I keep from getting frustrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really like Janet Lansbury. But I can't say I follow all her advice perfectly. I don't see most of these philosophies as something you need to do PERFECTLY. They are ideas. Ways to push your thinking about child rearing, and how to change your approach when you aren't getting the behavior you want. I do not see them as a holy gospel. I think that's our cultural problem, we want a check list of "how to do it right" when it's much more complicated than that.

Lansbury helped me be MUCH more empathetic with my toddler. Especially after I added a little brother to her life, which really did throw her in a tailspin. I still put her in timeout, so I was not The Perfect Unruffled Parent, but it helped me immensely see the limitations of my own "my way or the highway" attitude in getting what *I* wanted.

I think each generation finds improvements in parenting. But again, there is no one perfect doctrine. It just moves the needle. Look at how spanking has gone from common to derided in just one generation.

I agree with the gentle parenting philosophy, but for whatever reason Janet Lansbury just seems a little too extreme? Perfect? Annoying? idk. but when i listen to her I feel like she rarely gives practical advice for the problems, and basically only ever says things like "Connect with them' 'express how they're feeling'. Like yes yes i agree that this should be done, but little Timmy keeps putting little Becky in a headlock and that is not helpful.

I prefer people like biglittlefeelings and a couple other parenting podcasts i listen too who 1) provide actual practical solutions to problems and 2) Are less 'perfect' and are very real about making mistakes and you are not going to get it right all the time and that's ok.

Can you please share the parenting podcasts?

[Anonymous]

My kids are teens and tweens and our circle is mostly composed of internationals working in DC (World Bank, NIH, etc), who never heard about the terms you mention. My only friend who hesitates in saying no to her child, is constantly worried about her self-esteem, and never wants to push her in any way, is an American with a degree in education, who probably spent her formative years with that kind of philosophy and never thought it would backfire. It has, unfortunately. Her child is not resilient in the least, and is now home-schooled because no one in the family could handle the minor indignities of public middle school - things that my kids and their other friends have weathered fine. The family blames everyone but themselves for the multiple issues that plague their child.

Any parenting philosophy taken to extremes will backfire. It's important to listen and observe and know what makes your child tick, and lean into their strengths. It's also important to challenge them and guide them through obstacles so that they can come out more resilient and with a stronger sense of self.

[Anonymous]

It’s just another way to market solutions to anxious middle class parents trying go to replicate their success for the next generation.

It’s destroying parents, particularly mothers, because many of us have two full time jobs—one that pays and one that does not.

Authoritative in the middle path. Gentle leads to permissive very easily, especially if you’re an over loaded parent.

[Anonymous]

I just skimmed the article, so I could be off base, but I'm not sure if our definitions of gentle parenting are the same.

I have a child who is extremely anxious. When she says she is too anxious to go to school, I am gentle and understanding, but I make her go to school.

When I am angry, I don't bottle up my emotions, but I also don't take my anger out on my kids or suggest that they are somehow the cause of my anger.

If my kid doesn't want to do an assignment, I don't make them do an assignment, but I also wouldn't dream of shielding them from the teacher's consequences of not handing in the assignment.

I don't yell at my kid when they don't do their chores, but I do stand next to them and keep asking them to do their chores until they do them, rather than just not giving my kids chores.

My approach is really not outcome-based, it's more needs-based, which is why I'm generally attracted to the idea of gentle parenting. And so much of what kids need is boundaries, guidance through difficult times (rather than help avoiding difficult times), and allowing kids to fail.

So, I dunno. I wonder if it's hard to talk about gentle parenting because the terms aren't firmly defined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are teens and tweens and our circle is mostly composed of internationals working in DC (World Bank, NIH, etc), who never heard about the terms you mention. My only friend who hesitates in saying no to her child, is constantly worried about her self-esteem, and never wants to push her in any way, is an American with a degree in education, who probably spent her formative years with that kind of philosophy and never thought it would backfire. It has, unfortunately. Her child is not resilient in the least, and is now home-schooled because no one in the family could handle the minor indignities of public middle school - things that my kids and their other friends have weathered fine. The family blames everyone but themselves for the multiple issues that plague their child.

Any parenting philosophy taken to extremes will backfire. It's important to listen and observe and know what makes your child tick, and lean into their strengths. It's also important to challenge them and guide them through obstacles so that they can come out more resilient and with a stronger sense of self.

I am not surprised at all and fully agree with your conclusion PP. I will add that i really think children appreciate boundaries. It creates a safe space inside which they can experience their free will at a smaller scale. Kids can get anxious and overwhelmed if they feel too much in charge. It is very stressful to be responsible for all your decisions and it takes a lot of mind space.

Rules help limit that, not everything is negotiable and need to be decided every day. And that's very relaxing. That's one of the first thing i notice among friends who have a more child led approach than we do. Every step of the day can end up open to negotiation "no sweety, we cannot eat on the floor today". It seems exhausting... I listen to my kid a lot and care about their feelings and opinions. But at the end of the day, yes, on most topics i know better. And I expect them to acknowledge that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just skimmed the article, so I could be off base, but I'm not sure if our definitions of gentle parenting are the same.

I have a child who is extremely anxious. When she says she is too anxious to go to school, I am gentle and understanding, but I make her go to school.

When I am angry, I don't bottle up my emotions, but I also don't take my anger out on my kids or suggest that they are somehow the cause of my anger.

If my kid doesn't want to do an assignment, I don't make them do an assignment, but I also wouldn't dream of shielding them from the teacher's consequences of not handing in the assignment.

I don't yell at my kid when they don't do their chores, but I do stand next to them and keep asking them to do their chores until they do them, rather than just not giving my kids chores.

My approach is really not outcome-based, it's more needs-based, which is why I'm generally attracted to the idea of gentle parenting. And so much of what kids need is boundaries, guidance through difficult times (rather than help avoiding difficult times), and allowing kids to fail.

So, I dunno. I wonder if it's hard to talk about gentle parenting because the terms aren't firmly defined.

Agree with this, maybe there is an aspect to gentle parenting that is little or extreme or permissive that people associate it with, but this is very much how i have heard it being implemented. Another name for it is Authoritative Parenting, which i think people will have more time accepting bc it sounds stronger. But ultimately it is the same concept of being empathetic and responsive to emotional needs, while holding strong boundaries and allowing for natural consequences in many situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just skimmed the article, so I could be off base, but I'm not sure if our definitions of gentle parenting are the same.

I have a child who is extremely anxious. When she says she is too anxious to go to school, I am gentle and understanding, but I make her go to school.

When I am angry, I don't bottle up my emotions, but I also don't take my anger out on my kids or suggest that they are somehow the cause of my anger.

If my kid doesn't want to do an assignment, I don't make them do an assignment, but I also wouldn't dream of shielding them from the teacher's consequences of not handing in the assignment.

I don't yell at my kid when they don't do their chores, but I do stand next to them and keep asking them to do their chores until they do them, rather than just not giving my kids chores.

My approach is really not outcome-based, it's more needs-based, which is why I'm generally attracted to the idea of gentle parenting. And so much of what kids need is boundaries, guidance through difficult times (rather than help avoiding difficult times), and allowing kids to fail.

So, I dunno. I wonder if it's hard to talk about gentle parenting because the terms aren't firmly defined.

I agree! I admit I don’t spend a lot of time learning about parenting philosophies. But I was surprised to learn from this article that the big enthusiast “good jobs!” I’ve been giving my daughter for not having accidents (we’re in the depths of potty training) didn’t count as gentle? I definitely try to model calmness and emotional control but I definitely believe in consequences for your actions — I just aim to be much more of a carrot than stick type parent and the most common punishment my child gets is “you were doing X that I found dangerous/unacceptable so now you have to hold my hand for a while.”

I was also surprised to learn “we” language was verboten. I use that specifically for things I do (and make sure she sees me do) so I feel like it’s more informing household rules (we wash our hands after going to the bathroom; we cross streets only when the light is green) and condescension. Other people may do X and that’s fine but we do Y.

In short TIL that I’m an authoritarian parent. Apparently my parents were too and I feel like I had an idyllic building so I guess I’ll just keep on with it. 😝