To think gentle parenting is actually permissive

Ineffectual parenting is not the exclusive domain of 'gentle' parenting. There are plenty of poor parents who aren't 'gentle' at all, but a combination of neglectful, uninterested, unengaged, whatever. Perhaps parents like that feel like attaching themselves to a 'movement' of some sort is justification. I remember reading an article by someone who claimed to be a free range parent, but when I read further it turned out she was just neglectful and in denial. But she'd justified it to herself by attaching a school of thought to it, as if that made her actions more acceptable.

Anyway as I said earlier, I wouldn't call myself a GP particularly, although a lot of what I do does come from that school of thought. I prefer to call it respectful parenting as I think that encompasses the ethos more. And god knows I don't always manage it. I'm writing this while having a break in our bedroom as DD1 has been winding me up all day with little things and I eventually lost my shit and shouted at her for something fairly minor but it was the last straw. So I am calming down and will go apologise and explain in a bit!

Are there really so many parents who sign up to a specific 'parenting philosophy'? I have read a few parenting books but basically I do what feels right/works.

That’s just crap parenting though. Yesterday at soft play, I saw an about 2 smack a child of a similar age. His dad laughed and literally said ‘boys will be boys eh? They all do it’. About 20 minutes later he was shouting at him about 6 year old that he was having no tablet for the weekend, because the kid had knocked over his slush. He wasn’t gentle parenting when he let his child hit another, he wasn’t parenting at all.

But saying 'I won't let you hit' and holding their arms is doing exactly that? Just with perhaps different words than some other people might be used to, but it's the same sentiment. I've said that I can't let the behaviour continue and have physically prevented it.

I don't parent based on what other parents might think of me, generally. But if a child hit my child and their parent immediately intervened and said/did the above and then removed them if it continued, I would feel like that was a suitable intervention. I don't feel like kids need to be shouted at to tick off some sort of discipline box so other people can see you're being a good parent.

If one of my kids really is fixated on the cupcake and won't be distracted or move on, then I'll just remove them from the situation. I won't give them the cupcake when I've laid down that boundary. But it would be in a 'I can see you're really upset about the cupcake. I'm going to take you over there so you can calm down' way. Or if it's really intense, 'You're having a tough time with the cupcake. I think it might be time to go home.'

You can't avoid every tantrum, nor is that that a desirable thing anyway I think. Sometimes they will be frustrated and angry and cry and scream whatever you do and you just have to ride it out.

Sorry not read the full thread.

Gentle parenting is not by its nature permissive but I find many of the people who think they're doing it, are just permissive and non confrontational.

I've seen some amazing kids turned into tyrants by failed gentle parenting. I don't think the issue is with gentle parenting as a concept. I also think as a phrase it's an easy out for conflict avoidant people who are parents.

I would say I have raised my dc in a gentle but authoritative way. I would absolutely not tolerate either my DC hitting someone else, or someone else hitting my DC, and frankly if that kid’s parent didn’t intervene then I would, very sternly, and I would make it abundantly clear that nobody hits anyone else. That’s possible without shouting and with a minimum of physical intervention (you might have to physically remove one of the children but a sharp vocal tone might be enough to make them stop). And then reparations or separation, and then we all move on: no rehearsing the incident or shaming for the behaviour, but hopefully the boundary enforced and explained.

@doodleschnoodle do your children never just fixate on the cupcake? And what about in the hitting example when all the other parents judge you for not saying 'no, stop doing that'.

In the cupcake example, it's fine to stop Billy having a cupcake. It's not against GP in any way to prevent a child doing something that will adversely affect themselves or others.

A GP way to do it might be to say: 'You really want another cupcake. The problem is that then there won't be enough for everyone, so I can't let you take that one/you've already had two and any more might give you a sore tummy.' And then you might distract with something else or make a game of it depending on age: 'If you could design your own cupcake, what would it look like?' Or 'what toppings would you have if you baked a cake?' or something. Even 2yo DD can engage with that kind of thing (carrots apparently!).

Often kids will engage with something like that and then lose interest or forget they were bothered by the real cupcake. It's actually quite an amazing thing when it works - I've had both DDs go from the verge of a screaming tantrum to laughing and then happily trotting off, totally unbothered by the thing that 2 mins earlier was a massive flashpoint, by just putting play or a game or something silly into the mix.

I think the big problem with GP is that it feels like it takes much more time and effort to do. But in reality I've found that the times (plenty of them) where I've been exasperated and irritable and have reacted accordingly have just made things much more drawn out and unpleasant for everyone, so I'm not sure that GP is any more effort, it's just a different kind of effort.

A GP reaction to hitting is not saying 'gentle hands' and ignoring it. That's not any kind of parenting.

A GP reaction might be saying 'I can't let you hit' or 'I will not let you hit Bob' while you physically hold their hands to stop them if needed. If it continues, then you remove them from the situation with something like 'I'm worried someone is going to get hurt so we are going to leave/have a break'. In reality, many people with young kids probably do a version of this anyway.

These examples are permissive.

I always thought I'd be a gentle parent, as I'm a pretty laid back, calm person. I am but I have seen the negatives too.
1.) parents who don't say no. So little Billy wants to eat his third cupcake. Mum says 'Billy, I'd rather you didn't eat that as there's not enough for all the children to have three' Billy continues to move cupcake onto plate. Mum 'Billy, I don't think you should have a third, remember what we said about sugar and treats'. Billy unwraps cupcake. Mum tries distraction, fails. Billy eats cupcake. In GP, what happens then?!
2.) you really have to say no when people are in danger, kid running around with big stick etc, there really is no way to be gentle. The amount of times I've heard 'gentle hands!' as Thomasina is whacking the shit out of Betty.

However, my friend says I should be firmer with my two. I think it's about knowing how their brains work. My dd loves swearing, she's obsessed with it. Shouting and calling her out for swearing just gives her more of a buzz. If I ignore it and try distraction, she doesn't get that hit and on the whole, the swearing reduces. I'm sure many see that and think I'm permissive though.

I can see the reasoning here and appreciate the sentiment. But to my mind, if a child is being violent they have lost control and can't listen. I'd put them in timeout then have that brief conversation when the situation is calm. Plus, if you've been violent, you get the punishment. End of. Violence is never acceptable. A child of any age needs that lesson every single time. And it should hurt them!

In my classroom - and in my home, for my own children - one way of holding a boundary is to say ‘I know you are feeling really angry, and at the moment you are showing that in a way that is hurting other people. Because it’s not right for other people to be hurt, I want you to sit here on your own for just a moment with your toy / a book / a cushion and try to breathe really deeply like we’ve all practised.’

That is, in effect, a ‘time out’ or ‘the naughty step’. But instead of shouting ‘into time out NOW’ I have given them a boundary about hitting others, recognised their feelings and told them how to regulate them.

It seems to me that this is all about how we ‘name’ things and ‘exactly how we do’ things rather than the nature of what us done (a short time by themselves).

I really hope you’re not put in time out or on the naughty step in the workplace.

We can’t treat a 2 year old like they’re in the workplace, there’s nothing to suggest shouting/hitting/belittling your child makes them any more prepared for life as an adult than having your feelings validated and age appropriate expectations, with boundaries.

Well I can only say from my perspective. I chose this scenario as it's a battle I have every day with DC! And also it's something that's really important so you can't just let it go. So I give plenty of warning and ask several times for them to get dressed, they usually don't do it . I have had success with using fun timers on YouTube and they have to get dressed before the timer explodes. That usually works. I suppose both these methods could fall under gentle parenting. However if these methods weren't to work I would absolutely resort to threats example 'if mummy doesn't get to work I won't earn enough money for Xmas presents/birthday presents' or 'if you're late you will get into trouble with the headteacher'.On very rare occasions I have had to simply manhandle them and dress them. I believe in gentle parenting your are not meant to manhandle DC and everything must be done with their consent but IRL this just doesn't work for many kids. For example they need to get dressed, brush teeth and if they won't do it willingly they need to be forced. To take school attendance as a topic as it's very relevant right now, it's amazing how many parents I know irl who's kids are having problems with attendance/lateness but they don't have a firm red line of 'you go to school unless your are genuinely ill'. They have been inconsistent with letting DC have random days off here and there and then wonder why their kids think they can opt out of school. My DC know that is an absolute red line. They will go to school eventually so any mucking about delaying getting dressed is putting off the inevitable. Many children actually don't have that boundary.

No wonder many children get a shock when they get to school when they are told what to do and will have punishments if they don’t.

I always gave DT’s the timescale of my expectations but there would always be a time out or missed activity if they didn’t do as I asked and when I asked.

@Rowen32 Not who you were asking, but having had this exact scenario with my 2yo this morning (for an activity not school), the "natural consequence" is that he doesn't get to choose what he wears.

I gave him a 2 minute warning with a timer that it was time to get dressed. When the timer went off I showed him 2 tops and he chose one (crossly but he did it) and we put it on. Did the same with some trousers and he rejected all of them. I said something like "I've asked you to choose and you're not able to, so I'm choosing these ones," sat him on my lap and put them on him. He wriggled and complained and fussed, but then went happily back to playing until it was time for the next task.

I think some of that is gentle parenting and some isn't but I'm not particularly bothered either way. I use a lot of routine to scaffold getting ready in the morning, and right now I spread out tasks he doesn't like (dressing, tooth brushing, putting shoes on) so that he gets time to play in between. I have a timer so that his choice is "now or in 2 minutes" and neither of us get drawn into "just one more" or "I need to do ..." And I follow through and do the thing when the timer goes off. Those things aren't explicitly gentle parenting, but aren't necessarily inconsistent with it either.

What is perhaps not gentle parenting is that I absolutely follow through with the task even when he kicks up a fuss, rather than spending ages trying to convince/persuade him to do it. I do it calmly as much as possible, I might make it a bit silly, and if there is something that is often causing a lot of friction and getting us both frustrated and angry (tooth brushing...) I try and find a different way of doing it. But part of the reason there was not much fuss about the clothes this morning is because when I say time to get dressed he knows I mean it.

I think where gentle parenting gets stuck is that people think that naming emotions and offering choices is all you need. With a lot of children it's not. And as the parent, you have the big picture knowledge about what is important (not being late, having clean healthy teeth, playing in a way that builds friendships, getting hated mundane tasks done), so you also have the responsibility to teach your child how do those things.

I think they should, yes. But many don't because that seems like a punishment (they'd rather keep playing) or shaming (other children notice), or isolation (from their friends).

This is what I mean by the wacky absolutist rules. When you try to follow them to the letter, it looks a lot like being permissive

Aren’t they supposed to remove a child of they hit someone etc. That was my understanding. I think I’m confused about parenting styles.

I stopped shouting
I stopped using the naughty step. I do still use time outs very occasionally but I don't use for for general disobedience. I focused on gaining compliance through connection and collaboration rather than using punishments for disobedience.
I wouldn't really describe myself as gentle parent but I think I sway more towards that side now.

I think that the problem with gentle parenting is that the workplace/ school is not like that. It's follow the rules or there are harsh sanctions. Not necessarily good but it's the reality.

Yanbu. Kids do needs hugs and love etc but they also need a firm telling off when they bite their sister, moan constantly, are rude or spoilt, scream in restaraunts and draw on the walls..

Can’t we just let people parent how they want as long as they are not harming their children.

It's not just about your own child coming to harm. Parents have a duty to prevent their child from hurting other children. IME this is the main situation where Gentle Parenting (as generally pushed) fails. When a Gently Parented child (often boy) hits or pushes another child, the parent shrugs it off with "that's developmentally expected" or have ineffectual chats about feelings and other children come to harm. We've all come across That Child. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it may be your child.

Of course, of course, not True gentle parenting etc

Can’t we just let people parent how they want as long as they are not harming their children.

I think the reason people get so het up about parenting is that if you buy into a particular theory or style, it’s because you see it as better for various reasons, and then by inference those people see the other ways (cry-it-out, for example) as being actively harmful rather than neutral.

Having read the full thread, I think we do a mix of permissive, gentle and authorative parenting. It's not unlike how I was parented myself tbh. A toddler whining for a biscuit, I'd just give the biscuit then adjust in their diet for that later in the day and not rebuy those particularly nice biscuits. We only have rich tea in the house for that reason. Definitely do naughty step and it works very well for us. We basically never shout and definititly would apologise to the kids if I ever lost my temper. Most families we see are much like this with very lovely, well behaved, happy children.