Anonymous wrote:The trouble with parenting these days is that we put our kids first. I grew up in the 70's - the child of a single mom. She put herself first - it wasn't easy for her by any means but there was no coddling of us. We went to bed when she told us to, ate (for the most part) what she put in front of us and managed ourselves all day when she went to work. I remember breaking my foot as a child and having to wait until she got home from a late dinner to look at it. My kids are nagging me all day to get them some food or this or that. I have begun to feel like a servant more than a parent - so now I embrace my mother, sit on the couch with a book and give them the evil eye when they ask me to get them a snack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Is there someone on this thread that was advocating authoritarian parenting? I guess I didn't see that post. It doesn't matter though. Just about everyone else advocates authoritative parenting, which apparently is the same thing as gentle parenting so we're all arguing about nothing. Typical.

Time outs didn't work for my kids. They work for me, though! I give myself a time out and I love it.

Yes! Literally OP is like "I want to lay down the law," which is authoritarian. Authoritative parenting requires communication and setting expectations and explaining stuff to kids when they don't meet expectations so they learn (instead of just punishing them without explanation, which is WAY easier but ultimately not as effective). And lots of people agree this is easier and just want to yell at their kids and are tired of the "gentle parenting" (i.e. authoritative) parenting advice which says not to do that and instead to meet a higher parenting standard that requires you actually teach your kids how to do stuff and model healthy emotional regulation. It's hard, that's why people don't like it.

My family uses timeouts, btw, but in the way you mean -- people put themselves in timeout. We don't send kids to their rooms for misbehaving, but when someone is clearly dysregulated, we'll ask if they want to take a break or if spending some time on they own might help them feel more calm. Sometimes the answer is no and sometimes it's yes. Works for adults, too. This actually goes to the question of "giving kids agency" that has popped up on the thread. We always try to give our kids agency to do something that is going to be helpful to helping them behave. So giving a kid space to choose to take a break for a bit, or to choose how to make amends with a sibling they hurt, or to choose how to own up to making a mess, is a good kind of agency. It's not "do whatever you want!" It's "I trust you to make your own choice here, and if it doesn't work out, I'll be there to talk through how to make a better one next time."

“Please Larla stop biting mommy! Mommy doesn’t like that. OW Larla that hurts! Are you feeling sad OW! Would you like some OW alone time OW? Please Larla I can’t OW let you OW bite me OW!”

I don't know what this response is for but I do gentle parenting and my kid doesn't bite me (or anyone) and if they did, I would not ask if they were feeling sad or needed alone time. I don't actually believe you've ever witnessed a parent IRL do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentle parenting basically just means no yelling, no hitting, no time outs. It promotes saying no, physically removing children from situations that are dangerous or when they refuse to comply, physically forcing them to do certain things (they won’t put shoes on, you put them on for them). The whole point is if you face very firm boundaries and expectations you won’t need to yell or punish. I don’t know whether that’s true, but that’s the point.

It does not mean negotiating. In fact, Lansbury specifically says not to do that.

I think it’s super hard for two reasons. One, I find staying calm and patient with hundreds of toddler tantrums a day really hard. Two, you have no leverage or punishment, so you have zero in-the-moment tools for stopping bad behavior aside from physical removal, which is hard or impossible when your child physically resists. Gentle parenting is a long game that assumes that over time your kids will learn your boundaries and comply, eliminating the need to act out and push back.

It’s not working for me, but it’s worth mentioning it’s really not about being permissive or arguing with your kids. Quite the opposite.

I hate Janet Lansbury with a passion. Some of her advice is in fact run of the mill behavioral stuff you might get from any child psychologist. But she serves it with a side of massive condescension to women who don’t perform motherhood correctly. Her methods seem to be more focused on the mom feeling and saying the exact right thing instead of setting up structures that actually work. She also seems to literally believe in magic words, as if following her scripts (“I won’t let you hit!”) will change behavior.

Oh, the scripts. I read the Ross Greene books, followed the scripts, and my little dear one laughed manically each time. Maybe it works on some kids.

We found out later that the youngest DS has ADHD and switched to an authoritative style of parenting, which also doesn't allow for parents yelling or losing their cool. We all are so much happier now, including DS. It's not a miracle cure and that funny kid still pushes boundaries but it's definitely all doable.

This. I have a boundary pusher. He needs clear guidelines. I use the same approach with people who work for me, ha.

What are the rules?
Will the rules be enforced equally?
What is the punishment for breaking the rules?



90% of humans want to know this on some level. If they know the answers and what to expect, it makes things easiers.

My dude. That is gentle parenting. Making boundaries and rules known and enforcing them consistently is essential in gentle parenting because you have no tools for in-the-moment compliance so you are relying on rock solid boundaries and rules.

gentle parenting is against punishments though. negative consequences are a cornerstone for my kid. some gentle parents offshoots are ALSO against positive rewards. so basically the theory is that you just talk to the kid correctly and they will follow the rules. lol.

I admittedly haven’t researched this much but the one time I heard about gentle parenting the psychiatrist explaining it said they were against *unrelated* punishments. So no spanking or withholding screen time because the kid is being loud. But sure yes, separate loud kids from siblings and send to their room if necessary because that solves the loud problem (they can’t disrupt other people’s afternoon if they’re out of hearing distance). Which makes sense to me; my kid gets both negative and positive consequences but they’re (usually; I’m not above bribing occasionally and I can’t say I never yell or scold unreasonably) related to the situation at hand.

that doesn’t work for everything, and it’s unclear why it’s even necessary for the punishment to be related.

Consequences should be as related as possible to the offense because children are still just learning how to be people and the whole point of consequences should be to teach them how to better behave in the future. That's why "natural consequences" are preferable, whenever possible, because natural consequences will not only teach a child to do better next time, it will also teach them WHY to do better next time.

So an example would be trying to get a child clear their plate and help clean after dinner. An authoritarian parent might take away TV privileges or say "no dessert" if a kid failed to follow the expectation that everyone in the family clears their plate after dinner. But neither of those things have anything to do with cleaning up, and also don't teach the kid anything about WHY cleaning up after yourself is a useful skill. But if the consequence is that you leave their dirty plate at the table with the food still on it, and then serve them dessert or breakfast on the plate that still has they dinner remnants on it, and they say "hey, that's gross!" and then you explain that yes, it is gross, which is why you need to clear your plate and rinse it and put it in the dishwasher after every meal, they will start to understand why cleaning up is important. And gentle parenting would suggest doing this in a kind, playful way, so it feels like a lesson and not some kind of horrible punishment, because then your kids are more likely to listen to the part where you explain it instead of just feeling horrible and mistreated.

Natural consequences are not always possible but they are possible more often than many parents think, and if you can come up with at least related consequences the rest of the time, you discover that the lessons tend to stick better and your kids trust you more because they will view you as a guide who has some wisdom to impart as opposed to a jailer who is alway telling them "do this! don't do that!" with no explanation, and then taking away their favorite activities when they can't keep those rules straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Is there someone on this thread that was advocating authoritarian parenting? I guess I didn't see that post. It doesn't matter though. Just about everyone else advocates authoritative parenting, which apparently is the same thing as gentle parenting so we're all arguing about nothing. Typical.

Time outs didn't work for my kids. They work for me, though! I give myself a time out and I love it.

Yes! Literally OP is like "I want to lay down the law," which is authoritarian. Authoritative parenting requires communication and setting expectations and explaining stuff to kids when they don't meet expectations so they learn (instead of just punishing them without explanation, which is WAY easier but ultimately not as effective). And lots of people agree this is easier and just want to yell at their kids and are tired of the "gentle parenting" (i.e. authoritative) parenting advice which says not to do that and instead to meet a higher parenting standard that requires you actually teach your kids how to do stuff and model healthy emotional regulation. It's hard, that's why people don't like it.

My family uses timeouts, btw, but in the way you mean -- people put themselves in timeout. We don't send kids to their rooms for misbehaving, but when someone is clearly dysregulated, we'll ask if they want to take a break or if spending some time on they own might help them feel more calm. Sometimes the answer is no and sometimes it's yes. Works for adults, too. This actually goes to the question of "giving kids agency" that has popped up on the thread. We always try to give our kids agency to do something that is going to be helpful to helping them behave. So giving a kid space to choose to take a break for a bit, or to choose how to make amends with a sibling they hurt, or to choose how to own up to making a mess, is a good kind of agency. It's not "do whatever you want!" It's "I trust you to make your own choice here, and if it doesn't work out, I'll be there to talk through how to make a better one next time."

“Please Larla stop biting mommy! Mommy doesn’t like that. OW Larla that hurts! Are you feeling sad OW! Would you like some OW alone time OW? Please Larla I can’t OW let you OW bite me OW!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentle parenting basically just means no yelling, no hitting, no time outs. It promotes saying no, physically removing children from situations that are dangerous or when they refuse to comply, physically forcing them to do certain things (they won’t put shoes on, you put them on for them). The whole point is if you face very firm boundaries and expectations you won’t need to yell or punish. I don’t know whether that’s true, but that’s the point.

It does not mean negotiating. In fact, Lansbury specifically says not to do that.

I think it’s super hard for two reasons. One, I find staying calm and patient with hundreds of toddler tantrums a day really hard. Two, you have no leverage or punishment, so you have zero in-the-moment tools for stopping bad behavior aside from physical removal, which is hard or impossible when your child physically resists. Gentle parenting is a long game that assumes that over time your kids will learn your boundaries and comply, eliminating the need to act out and push back.

It’s not working for me, but it’s worth mentioning it’s really not about being permissive or arguing with your kids. Quite the opposite.

I hate Janet Lansbury with a passion. Some of her advice is in fact run of the mill behavioral stuff you might get from any child psychologist. But she serves it with a side of massive condescension to women who don’t perform motherhood correctly. Her methods seem to be more focused on the mom feeling and saying the exact right thing instead of setting up structures that actually work. She also seems to literally believe in magic words, as if following her scripts (“I won’t let you hit!”) will change behavior.

Oh, the scripts. I read the Ross Greene books, followed the scripts, and my little dear one laughed manically each time. Maybe it works on some kids.

We found out later that the youngest DS has ADHD and switched to an authoritative style of parenting, which also doesn't allow for parents yelling or losing their cool. We all are so much happier now, including DS. It's not a miracle cure and that funny kid still pushes boundaries but it's definitely all doable.

This. I have a boundary pusher. He needs clear guidelines. I use the same approach with people who work for me, ha.

What are the rules?
Will the rules be enforced equally?
What is the punishment for breaking the rules?



90% of humans want to know this on some level. If they know the answers and what to expect, it makes things easiers.

My dude. That is gentle parenting. Making boundaries and rules known and enforcing them consistently is essential in gentle parenting because you have no tools for in-the-moment compliance so you are relying on rock solid boundaries and rules.

gentle parenting is against punishments though. negative consequences are a cornerstone for my kid. some gentle parents offshoots are ALSO against positive rewards. so basically the theory is that you just talk to the kid correctly and they will follow the rules. lol.

I admittedly haven’t researched this much but the one time I heard about gentle parenting the psychiatrist explaining it said they were against *unrelated* punishments. So no spanking or withholding screen time because the kid is being loud. But sure yes, separate loud kids from siblings and send to their room if necessary because that solves the loud problem (they can’t disrupt other people’s afternoon if they’re out of hearing distance). Which makes sense to me; my kid gets both negative and positive consequences but they’re (usually; I’m not above bribing occasionally and I can’t say I never yell or scold unreasonably) related to the situation at hand.

that doesn’t work for everything, and it’s unclear why it’s even necessary for the punishment to be related.

Consequences should be as related as possible to the offense because children are still just learning how to be people and the whole point of consequences should be to teach them how to better behave in the future. That's why "natural consequences" are preferable, whenever possible, because natural consequences will not only teach a child to do better next time, it will also teach them WHY to do better next time.

So an example would be trying to get a child clear their plate and help clean after dinner. An authoritarian parent might take away TV privileges or say "no dessert" if a kid failed to follow the expectation that everyone in the family clears their plate after dinner. But neither of those things have anything to do with cleaning up, and also don't teach the kid anything about WHY cleaning up after yourself is a useful skill. But if the consequence is that you leave their dirty plate at the table with the food still on it, and then serve them dessert or breakfast on the plate that still has they dinner remnants on it, and they say "hey, that's gross!" and then you explain that yes, it is gross, which is why you need to clear your plate and rinse it and put it in the dishwasher after every meal, they will start to understand why cleaning up is important. And gentle parenting would suggest doing this in a kind, playful way, so it feels like a lesson and not some kind of horrible punishment, because then your kids are more likely to listen to the part where you explain it instead of just feeling horrible and mistreated.

Natural consequences are not always possible but they are possible more often than many parents think, and if you can come up with at least related consequences the rest of the time, you discover that the lessons tend to stick better and your kids trust you more because they will view you as a guide who has some wisdom to impart as opposed to a jailer who is alway telling them "do this! don't do that!" with no explanation, and then taking away their favorite activities when they can't keep those rules straight.

But like you said, natural consequences aren’t always possible, which leads to no consequences, which leads to bratty kids.

And sooo much work for every little thing. Why can’t I just say, you can have dessert once you clean up your dishes.

I’m fine with playful and humor and I never treat my kids like a jailer, but I was too permissive with my oldest (because I had screaming parents) and I think the bad parenting advice you see everywhere contributed. But I’ve made great strides in being firm (but not mean) and my kid is behaving better at home and in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Is there someone on this thread that was advocating authoritarian parenting? I guess I didn't see that post. It doesn't matter though. Just about everyone else advocates authoritative parenting, which apparently is the same thing as gentle parenting so we're all arguing about nothing. Typical.

Time outs didn't work for my kids. They work for me, though! I give myself a time out and I love it.

Yes! Literally OP is like "I want to lay down the law," which is authoritarian. Authoritative parenting requires communication and setting expectations and explaining stuff to kids when they don't meet expectations so they learn (instead of just punishing them without explanation, which is WAY easier but ultimately not as effective). And lots of people agree this is easier and just want to yell at their kids and are tired of the "gentle parenting" (i.e. authoritative) parenting advice which says not to do that and instead to meet a higher parenting standard that requires you actually teach your kids how to do stuff and model healthy emotional regulation. It's hard, that's why people don't like it.

My family uses timeouts, btw, but in the way you mean -- people put themselves in timeout. We don't send kids to their rooms for misbehaving, but when someone is clearly dysregulated, we'll ask if they want to take a break or if spending some time on they own might help them feel more calm. Sometimes the answer is no and sometimes it's yes. Works for adults, too. This actually goes to the question of "giving kids agency" that has popped up on the thread. We always try to give our kids agency to do something that is going to be helpful to helping them behave. So giving a kid space to choose to take a break for a bit, or to choose how to make amends with a sibling they hurt, or to choose how to own up to making a mess, is a good kind of agency. It's not "do whatever you want!" It's "I trust you to make your own choice here, and if it doesn't work out, I'll be there to talk through how to make a better one next time."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly people dont even understand what gentle parenting is (or supposed to be), no wonder it isnt working lol.

I love that parents who admit to yelling at their kids think they are superior to gentle-parenting. Yes, yes verbal abuse sounds much healthier! Congrats!

You do know there’s a middle ground, right? Gentle parenting is letting the kids decide their bedtime letting their kid have ice cream instead of a healthy balanced dinner, giving their kid the lollipop when they demand it because you’re afraid to say no. Some of us can have boundaries and rules and be consistent about them without screaming at our kids.

Honestly I think gentle parenting is somewhat abusive…you are leading your kid to build zero resilience, zero exposure to frustration, zero practice not getting their way—so real life hits and they will understandably not cope and then they’re blamed for being a bad kid or having some disability they don’t really have.

I dont think you understand gentle parenting. Which is fine, but dont trash it if you clearly dont actually understand what it is or means. Especially the second bolded, is absolutely not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Regarding consequences, if children cant link timeout to behavior, why can they process those emotions with the parent and thus change their behavior? I think it’s a lot more likely that children will associate dysregulated behaviors with undivided attention and catering to.

If I tell my three year old to stop spitting or he will sit on the time out step, he stops. No yelling required.

Using fear in parenting is abusive.

Or: Using behavior modification is training which we do to dogs, not children.

Don’t know (or care) if you’re trolling or serious, but if you are serious?

I rest my case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Regarding consequences, if children cant link timeout to behavior, why can they process those emotions with the parent and thus change their behavior? I think it’s a lot more likely that children will associate dysregulated behaviors with undivided attention and catering to.

If I tell my three year old to stop spitting or he will sit on the time out step, he stops. No yelling required.

Using fear in parenting is abusive.

Or: Using behavior modification is training which we do to dogs, not children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly people dont even understand what gentle parenting is (or supposed to be), no wonder it isnt working lol.

I love that parents who admit to yelling at their kids think they are superior to gentle-parenting. Yes, yes verbal abuse sounds much healthier! Congrats!

You do know there’s a middle ground, right? Gentle parenting is letting the kids decide their bedtime letting their kid have ice cream instead of a healthy balanced dinner, giving their kid the lollipop when they demand it because you’re afraid to say no. Some of us can have boundaries and rules and be consistent about them without screaming at our kids.

Honestly I think gentle parenting is somewhat abusive…you are leading your kid to build zero resilience, zero exposure to frustration, zero practice not getting their way—so real life hits and they will understandably not cope and then they’re blamed for being a bad kid or having some disability they don’t really have.

I dont think you understand gentle parenting. Which is fine, but dont trash it if you clearly dont actually understand what it is or means. Especially the second bolded, is absolutely not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Regarding consequences, if children cant link timeout to behavior, why can they process those emotions with the parent and thus change their behavior? I think it’s a lot more likely that children will associate dysregulated behaviors with undivided attention and catering to.

If I tell my three year old to stop spitting or he will sit on the time out step, he stops. No yelling required.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentle parenting basically just means no yelling, no hitting, no time outs. It promotes saying no, physically removing children from situations that are dangerous or when they refuse to comply, physically forcing them to do certain things (they won’t put shoes on, you put them on for them). The whole point is if you face very firm boundaries and expectations you won’t need to yell or punish. I don’t know whether that’s true, but that’s the point.

It does not mean negotiating. In fact, Lansbury specifically says not to do that.

I think it’s super hard for two reasons. One, I find staying calm and patient with hundreds of toddler tantrums a day really hard. Two, you have no leverage or punishment, so you have zero in-the-moment tools for stopping bad behavior aside from physical removal, which is hard or impossible when your child physically resists. Gentle parenting is a long game that assumes that over time your kids will learn your boundaries and comply, eliminating the need to act out and push back.

It’s not working for me, but it’s worth mentioning it’s really not about being permissive or arguing with your kids. Quite the opposite.

I hate Janet Lansbury with a passion. Some of her advice is in fact run of the mill behavioral stuff you might get from any child psychologist. But she serves it with a side of massive condescension to women who don’t perform motherhood correctly. Her methods seem to be more focused on the mom feeling and saying the exact right thing instead of setting up structures that actually work. She also seems to literally believe in magic words, as if following her scripts (“I won’t let you hit!”) will change behavior.

Oh, the scripts. I read the Ross Greene books, followed the scripts, and my little dear one laughed manically each time. Maybe it works on some kids.

We found out later that the youngest DS has ADHD and switched to an authoritative style of parenting, which also doesn't allow for parents yelling or losing their cool. We all are so much happier now, including DS. It's not a miracle cure and that funny kid still pushes boundaries but it's definitely all doable.

This. I have a boundary pusher. He needs clear guidelines. I use the same approach with people who work for me, ha.

What are the rules?
Will the rules be enforced equally?
What is the punishment for breaking the rules?



90% of humans want to know this on some level. If they know the answers and what to expect, it makes things easiers.

My dude. That is gentle parenting. Making boundaries and rules known and enforcing them consistently is essential in gentle parenting because you have no tools for in-the-moment compliance so you are relying on rock solid boundaries and rules.

gentle parenting is against punishments though. negative consequences are a cornerstone for my kid. some gentle parents offshoots are ALSO against positive rewards. so basically the theory is that you just talk to the kid correctly and they will follow the rules. lol.

I admittedly haven’t researched this much but the one time I heard about gentle parenting the psychiatrist explaining it said they were against *unrelated* punishments. So no spanking or withholding screen time because the kid is being loud. But sure yes, separate loud kids from siblings and send to their room if necessary because that solves the loud problem (they can’t disrupt other people’s afternoon if they’re out of hearing distance). Which makes sense to me; my kid gets both negative and positive consequences but they’re (usually; I’m not above bribing occasionally and I can’t say I never yell or scold unreasonably) related to the situation at hand.

that doesn’t work for everything, and it’s unclear why it’s even necessary for the punishment to be related.

Consequences should be as related as possible to the offense because children are still just learning how to be people and the whole point of consequences should be to teach them how to better behave in the future. That's why "natural consequences" are preferable, whenever possible, because natural consequences will not only teach a child to do better next time, it will also teach them WHY to do better next time.

So an example would be trying to get a child clear their plate and help clean after dinner. An authoritarian parent might take away TV privileges or say "no dessert" if a kid failed to follow the expectation that everyone in the family clears their plate after dinner. But neither of those things have anything to do with cleaning up, and also don't teach the kid anything about WHY cleaning up after yourself is a useful skill. But if the consequence is that you leave their dirty plate at the table with the food still on it, and then serve them dessert or breakfast on the plate that still has they dinner remnants on it, and they say "hey, that's gross!" and then you explain that yes, it is gross, which is why you need to clear your plate and rinse it and put it in the dishwasher after every meal, they will start to understand why cleaning up is important. And gentle parenting would suggest doing this in a kind, playful way, so it feels like a lesson and not some kind of horrible punishment, because then your kids are more likely to listen to the part where you explain it instead of just feeling horrible and mistreated.

Natural consequences are not always possible but they are possible more often than many parents think, and if you can come up with at least related consequences the rest of the time, you discover that the lessons tend to stick better and your kids trust you more because they will view you as a guide who has some wisdom to impart as opposed to a jailer who is alway telling them "do this! don't do that!" with no explanation, and then taking away their favorite activities when they can't keep those rules straight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the gentle parenting books (Lansbury, how to talk so little kids blah blah) and I didn’t come away with anything about not having consequences. I just don’t think you guys have read the books.

Lansbury is against time-outs

https://www.janetlansbury.com/2016/05/why-timeouts-fail-and-what-to-do-instead/

DP, but did you read the link you sent? Her point is not that time-outs are evil or she is "against" them, but that they aren't very effective. Why? Because they fail to actually teach children the skills or tools they need to behave better the next time, in most cases.

Authoritarian parenting (the yelling/hitting/timeout model) is premised on the idea that if you punish kids for bad behavior, they will think about their behavior and the punishment and draw the logical conclusion that if they want to avoid punishment, they must stop engaging in the bad behavior. What gentle and authoritative parenting experts are saying is that this assumption is wrong, ESPECIALLY for young kids who lack the cognitive reasoning skills to draw those conclusions. Instead, yelling/hitting/timeout teaches kids a bunch of other lessons that parents might not intend (lessons like "I'm a bad person" or "when things are hard, my parents want me to go away" and "the bigger and stronger person gets their way") but doesn't actually help them become better functioning people who can avoid the negative behaviors that parents are punishing in the first place.

But consequences are essential to gentle parenting. It's just that Lansbury and other advocates are pointing out that in order for consequences to work, they must be coupled with things like:

(1) Clearly articulated expectations. A child can not meet an expectation they are unaware of, and young children in particular are not just going to pick up on expectations -- you have to tell them.

(2) Consequences clearly linked to negative behaviors. Timeouts are rarely directly linked to the negative behavior, and they also isolate a kid in a moment of upset or conflict when it would be useful for someone (like a parent!) to be there to explain what is happening and why so that the child actually learns something they can apply in the future. Sitting in ones room alone after being yelled at is not actually the learning experience some parents seem to think it should be.

(2) Communication. This is where a lot of parents struggle and with reason -- it can be hard. I think this is wear gently/authoritative parenting resources can be most helpful. I've gotten some very helpful ideas for how to better communicate with my kids from resources like Dr. Becky and (when my kids were younger) Janet Lansbury. It can feel awkward and stilted at first, but you get better with time.

Regarding consequences, if children cant link timeout to behavior, why can they process those emotions with the parent and thus change their behavior? I think it’s a lot more likely that children will associate dysregulated behaviors with undivided attention and catering to.

If I tell my three year old to stop spitting or he will sit on the time out step, he stops. No yelling required.