To think “gentle parenting” is just a rebrand of being too afraid to say no?

In fairness strapping them in a buggy isn’t going to work at 14/15 either, is it?

Oh well I won’t sleep tonight.

spoiler: I will because I’ve steered clear of gentle parenting and my kids have very clear and strong boundaries, can behave and are familiar with the word no.

But back in the real world- at 14/15 that's not going to work is it ? It's setting them up for failure and entitlement.

I'm a 'gentle ' parent, but I don't do that guff. When mine were that age, if hysterical behaviour did occur such as what you're describing, I'd completely ignore them (no words of any kind) the only thing I might have said is "mummy will talk to you when you're calm" strapped them in a buggy seat, let them cry, then carried on what I had to do. Then the minute there was a break in their wailing, then I'd start talking to them normally. "Oh look is that Timmy from your class over there ?". That way they weren't "punished" for their emotional outburst, but they learnt that similarly screaming because they couldn't have a chocolate bar at the till wasn't going to work. When they're toddlers and very small you cannot reason with a 'tantrumming' child. It's literally impossible. Lengthy monologues of cause and effect are for adolescents, not toddlers. They'll hear white noise and have learnt unreasonable behaviour still gets mummy bending down on her knees and acknowledging them with lots of "sweethearts" chucked in. It's ridiculous. Be the parent.

It'd not a rough council estate walloping, abusive name calling parenting style Vs good insightful middle class perfection you know ?

I'm extremely insightful, reflective, analytical and thoughtful of how I bring up my children (due to 'faults' in the way I as a girl was raised ) but I still don't compromise with 'sweetheart' toddler who's kicking off because they can't get the dinosaur in the shop....

Except it was a .and concept in the 90s when the gentlest parenting anyone had seen was super nanny holding screaming children on steps parroting 'this is unasseptable' in their faces.

It's not just not abusive parenting either though, it's holding boundaries without punishment and focusing on long term development not just behaviour in the moment. It's letting kids express being upset even though it can be extremely annoying. 'wah I'm wildly upset about not getting a toy' could easily be met by 'stop crying in the shop right now, stop being a baby's which is unintentionally harmful while something more like 'yesh, you're disappointed you can't get a toy, that's hard, im going to have to keep shopping, can you get up yourself or do you need picked up?'

Using as an insult 'this person aligns themselves with parenting in a way that takes their kids feelings into account when holding boundaries' isn't the gotcha you think it is

I know! This is what I was thinking reading all the replies! From the descriptions here, it just sounds like non-abusive parenting - which, I think most of us responding I hope actually do. You don't need to call it a fancy name: aka "gentle parenting" 🫩

^^ This is spot on.
The people who don’t want to parent use the term as an excuse to why they aren’t going to deal with their child’s behaviour.

But that’s not what natural consequences are meant to be though. True natural consequences are things that happen without anyone else intervening.
So a child plays too rough with a toy. The toy breaks. That is a natural consequence. If the adult gets involved and removes the toy it isn’t natural anymore. The natural consequence of eating too many sweets could be the child feels or gets sick. The natural consequence of hitting other children would be the child doesn’t have any friends. I’m not saying all these things should be allowed to happen. But these are the actual natural consequences.
Natural consequences are meant to allow the child to figure out and learn what happens if they do things they shouldn’t. You break your toy by throwing it and now you don’t have your toy anymore. A linked consequence would be removing the toy because there was adult intervention. Whether you want to call it a punishment or not is a grey area. Someone removing the toy could say they use consequences. Some might call it a punishment. But not natural consequences.

If I roamed about the Maasai Mara and got eaten by a lion that’s a natural consequence. If I got arrested then that’s a linked consequence.

But you've just redefined punishment here in a way that makes it seem arbitrary, which isn't inherent in the meaning at all.

Yes, I'm saying that is the only type of decision they should be required to make.

As for 'letting them know their voice matters' yeah, I have no time for that sort of navel gazing nonsense. Especially when applied to small children.

But that's the only level of choice they should be offered - do you want to play with your lego or watch Bluey? Do you want to wear the red t shirt or the blue t shirt.?

It's not about giving them complete autonomy but about recognising that they might have a preference and letting them know that their voice matters.

WE HAVE A GENTLE PARENTER!! 👆🏻

A natural consequence is directly linked
That's a logical consequence.
A natural consequence is getting run over, losing your teeth to fillings and extractions, nobody at school liking you if you are mean to them.
Younger children, and older ones with SEN, don't link actions to natural consequences.

Immediate consequences are more likely to prevent the behaviour in the future (and no, I don't like it when my DC hits me so I don't want them to do it again, of COURSE I disapprove and yes my child should be ashamed. There is such a thing as good shame).
But negative consequences aren't that effective for some children so reinforcement of positive behaviours (staying calm when things are tricky, helping round the house) and no reaction to negative behaviours (no "how does that make you feel" or "gosh that must be hard for you", just no response) makes them happen less.

As I say, there is something other than relentless unhelpful empathy and shouting at your children.

Natural consequences can be effective in those examples.

What about refusing to go to bed (so the natural consequence is you will be tired) or refusing to brush teeth or hitting your sister / friends? They are trickier to manage naturally.

To me, punishment is about exerting authority. You did this and I didn't like it so now you can't have/do something you were looking forward to or you lose this completely unrelated privilege for the next 2 weeks for maximum emotional pain.

A natural consequence is directly linked. So, if I discover you lied, you lose the right to be trusted; if you don't clean the kitchen after baking, you lose the right to bake when you like; if you don't put your shoes on or get dressed then you're taken to school in your pyjamas.

Thebexamples you give are natural conseqinces. If you can't play nicely with a toy, you lose the toy. If you can't walk sensibly, you have to hold my hand, if you won't get dressed or put your coat on when it's cold and you want to go outside, you don't go outside.

A punishment would be being sent to bed early or not being able to have pudding after dinner. Completely unrelated and have no bearing on each other.

Absolutely. And constantly negotiating with your small child, constantly giving them choices, constantly evaluating the feelz with them Just. Makes. Them. Anxious.

Because they're overwhelmed and it frightens them that their parent appears indecisive and uncertain. Little children do not want agency over everything they do. They don't yet have the capacity to decide anything more than do they want to play with Lego or watch Bluey?

As someone who considers themselves a gentle parent I would t be trying to eason with a 2 yr old over a banana nor would I be reasoning with them because it's not age appropriate. OId either give them a safe space to play out their upset or give them a hug depending on what they needed. Noones discussing feelings over a banana with a 2 yr old 🙄

9/10 times if my kids ask for something in a shop and I say no we move on without incident, the odd time they express disappointment why wouldn't I give a hug? Also the question I was answering was about a child whose parents couldn't afford treats ever and I imagine that would be handled differently. My kids no no sweets now doesn't mean no sweets ever. They get to choose a magazine once a month. I'll say 'not magazine day' if they ask at other times and that's grand. But I imagine it's different if you've to always say no

What a sensible post. When my children were little in the 90s it was new to me to see parents asking their children all the time to make decisions about things which my parents would just have presented to me as a done deal. Nine times out of ten the parent wasn't genuinely asking because it was obvious what needed to be done (go home now, sit down and eat a meal, brush teeth afterwards) but some parents seemed to be quite scared of just saying calmly and cheerfully what was about to happen whether their child wanted it to or not. The same ones who struggled with saying no and meaning no, for the most part.

I know this is controversial but I think we're putting way too much stock in kids' "feelings". A child can be absolutely catatonic that their banana was peeled the wrong way and have completely forgotten about it five seconds later. A lot of these feelings in the early years are primal and habitual and they don't have the capacity to reflect on them in any meaningful way. Watching parents trying to reason and rationalise with a two year old (who has barely figured out that they're an individual being with agency) is infuriating.

Yes it is. Invariably the parents I know who did Gentle Parenting are ineffectual and wishy washy in all other aspects of their life too.

I find there are parents who are gentle, and then people who practice "gentle parenting" which is often just ineffective.

It's sometimes just an inability to say no, but what I find is that a lot of parents think that by discussing an issue, it makes it easier for the child and more respectful and equal. Which is not always the case at all. Sometimes it's much less stressful to the child to simply say, that's a no, and we won't discuss it, to model appropriate emotional responses, to assume resilience. Lots of children have to be told things before they are cognitively or emotionally capable of negotiating or understanding them. The goal at that age is often to create a good habit, understanding will come later.

I also think that trying to finesse children into going along with things can sometimes actually be an act of emotional manipulation by the parents. Sometimes kids don't want to do things and will be mad. That is ok, they can rage against us, but they still have to do it. Why pretend there is a "choice" about say, wearing shoes, when in fact their isn't? There will be enough of that when they get to voting age!

I more or less try to be a gentle parent (though prefer Janet Lansbury's formulation of it as 'respectful' rather than 'gentle' - i.e. I'm in charge, but I respect that my children's perspective is different to mine, and also valid). I'm a bit shit at it in the sweets example because, for an easy life, I might occasionally lie and say we don't have money for sweets.* However - I would (a) just say 'no, we can't get sweets', and I might only (b) say 'yes it's disappointing' if the child then complained about not getting sweets. You don't need to preempt and acknowledge the emotions till they're actually having them. We never get sweets so 9/10 times my kids would just accept the 'no' as normal and there's no need to say anything else. But if they were upset, as a gentle parent I'd be thinking tough shit, but also, not my place to say it's not upsetting to them. They still can't have them though.

Funnily enough I had this at a work event.

We ran out of a particular non-essential item, and my colleague was practically cringing as he explained this. I was jolly, self-deprecating, apologetic, but didn't treat it as a big deal.

The people I dealt with went away happy, the people he dealt with went away looking disappointed.

I think the problem is how people understand these named ‘parenting methods’

It's partly also that these things are, to varying degrees, a shot in the dark. They don't work in the same absolute way for every child, and yet people act like they do.

Attachment theory, gentle parenting, "don't call the child naughty, it's the behaviour" - none of it will work in exactly the same way for every child. Partly due to parents not being able to follow the technique exactly, partly because the disposition of the child or the exact circumstances aren't appropriate.