To think that gentle parenting only works with kids that were easygoing anyway

A one liner doesn't change the underlying tone of the post, whether you wrote it in that tone deliberately or not is a different matter. It's a very common tone amongst 'gentle parents' and one I don't think is warranted.

I didn't ask you to lecture me about your parenting style in response. This may work for you and your children. Great. It wouldn't work for mine and I'm happy I'm doing it my way - there is no need to convince me to consider changing it and equally, I'm happy for you you're doing it your way and it works.

I didn't ask you to lecture me about your parenting style in response. This may work for you and your children. Great. It wouldn't work for mine and I'm happy I'm doing it my way - there is no need to convince me to consider changing it and equally, I'm happy for you you're doing it your way and it works.

I’m not a gentle parenting purist and not evangelical about it either as I think there are multiple routes to being a good parent with well adjusted, considerate and confident children. The philosophy has given me a lot, though, in terms of parenting without shaming, helping my children to learn to self regulate and understand why their behaviour is wrong rather than just complying because I punish them if they don’t. It also helps me with my own emotional regulation, which can only be a positive example to them. It doesn’t need to involve lengthy explanations, especially for young children for whom it is developmentally inappropriate anyway. For a young child, something like “we put on our seat belts to stay safe” or “No, I can’t let you hit” and moving the child away will suffice. A discussion when a child is highly dysregulated is never a good idea and isn’t something I’ve seen promoted.

Tonight my young daughter received a present which was a pretty bag but she got upset because there was nothing in it. I could have shamed her by telling her she was ungrateful and getting into a power struggle by insisting she apologise and say thank you in the moment. That’s what my parents would have done and I would probably have been punished at home too. But, I do agree with the idea that an insincere apology doesn’t teach that much, except social etiquette. This is important, but I think discipline is about more than conforming to expectations. Instead, I removed her in a non angry way, acknowledged that she was sad because there wasn’t anything in the bag and then we had a quick age appropriate conversation about gifts. Sometimes, we don’t get what we want, it’s normal to feel disappointed, but that behaviour is not ok and can make the gift giver sad when they have done something kind. Of her own accord, she then went and thanked the person. Within a while, she was appreciating the gift more and she did eventually apologise too. In the future, I’ll try and make an effort to model the desired behaviour to her and remind her in situations where there might be gifts. I prefer that to more punitive methods as I think there is more learning, especially in the long run.

i don’t give that example to pretend I’m a perfect parent who never raises my voice or makes mistakes. Far from it! It was just an example of how I handled a situation without a huge amount of unnecessary engagement and how I think acknowledgement of feelings can help with self regulation for both their benefit and that of other people. That has all come from my research into gentle parenting.

I think some people can take some aspects of it to extremes, especially in some of the suggested ‘scripts’ I’ve seen in parenting groups. That’s the kind of thing that seems to garner most attention. That, plus it being mistaken for permissive parenting. I also think ‘natural consequences’ can sometimes be quite harsh in all honesty. However, I think it’s important not to paint it all with the same brush or make blanket statements. The one thing it is not about, though, is appeasing children and bending over backwards to accommodate them!

@GrooveArmada
I just fundamentally do not believe we are there to explain everything to the point of life being sucked out of us to appease our children. Gentle parenting involves too much engagement in my view, it's unnecessary. Children learn through exposure to society and boundaries, as they mature, not through endless discussions that are frequently not developmentally appropriate and unsettling, and they create unhealthy focus on individual needs at the expense of others.

Explanations behind parental decisions are not appeasement. In addition, many children with SEN, especially an autistic one like mine, cannot learn through exposure to society. That’s part of their disability. Discussions are always on an age appropriate level, there is nothing in gentle parenting that is inappropriate. It gives children guidance on how to meet their needs in a way that isn’t at the expense of others.

Reading through the replies, maybe I wasn’t gentle parenting!
I absolutely would not have allowed him to bite or kick people. I’d have physically removed him. I wouldn’t have shouted at him after though, it wouldn’t work to stop him doing same again.

Same here, and I agree the intention of most gentle parenting as I understand it isn't to not provide any structure and never say no. It's more that when you need to say no you explain why, direct them towards positive behaviour and do so with empathy. But the parents we worked with who parented this way certainly thought this was what strictly following gentle parenting meant. They had interpreted it to mean that their parenting must never provoke negative emotions in their child and they slavishly followed the idea that saying no is bad. A conflation with permissive parenting in my opinion, but these parents were adamant it was "gentle". I think this conflation is not uncommon.

Perhaps a better word to use than "purist" would be "absolutist" - and by that I mean absolutist in sticking to their own interpretation of gentle parenting, not necessarily the original intentions set out in most of the literature on it.

That process is incompatible with a purist gentle parenting approach, because it does require the adults to impose structure and parents need to say no and withhold things a child may want because it's not good for them

Would you mind explaining what you mean a little more? I’ve read quite a lot around gentle parenting and haven’t come across the idea of no structure, not saying no and not withholding things a child may want but aren’t good for them.

My experience in CAMHS probably aligns with some of this, but not all. My first CAMHS ed psych role was in an economically deprived inner city area, and gentle parenting was definitely not the cause of child and adolescent MH and behavioural issues there. However, in a more affluent, leafy middle class suburban type area, I'd say it was more of an issue. I'm not sure I'd exactly say it was "gentle" parenting, more a strange mix of permissive and helicopter parenting that often contributed, particularly to anxiety, teens not able to cope with small things like getting a bad mark on a piece of homework or falling out with a friend. Parents who couldn't tolerate their child having any negative emotion and run in to fix every situation that could make them sad or frustrated, no matter how minor. Kids with no confidence in their own agency or capability.

I don't think it's the reason why there's more SEN or ADHD diagnoses. That's a multi factored phenomenon. However, the wrong mix of parenting style and SEN child, with parents who are so fixed on one way of doing things and can't adapt, undoubtedly has an impact on how ADHD traits are expressed and exacerbates problematic behaviours. One thing I will say is that ADHD kids who are given unlimited screen time, have a lot of UPF and sugar in their diet and little outdoor play/physical activity such as sports tend to show more of the problematic behaviours associated with ADHD, and to a more severe degree, and in every case where families were able to implement changes in those areas, problem behaviours reduced after an adjustment period. That process is incompatible with a purist gentle parenting approach, because it does require the adults to impose structure and parents need to say no and withhold things a child may want because it's not good for them.

I am going to say this. Its not going to be popular. Gentle parenting is more successful with more affluent, intelligent parents.

It takes more attention to the child's actions. It takes more communication. It takes less digital devices. It takes more outside activities. It takes a child to be higher intelligence (Due to parental intelligence) than others. It even takes a better diet for the child and the family. It takes consistency. It takes rules and time.

Compare that with what most 'gentle parenting' is in this country where its a family rushed off their feet. Stressed. Financially struggling. Children are fed a mix of Ultra Processed Foods and given an ipad for entertainment. Time in the fresh air is the mother opening the back door so they can play in the garden. Dad is at work and gets home tired and grumpy. They are then gentle parented and turn into horrible little bastards to everyone. By the time they get to 13 they have most of their behavioural habits ingrained and starting to become too big to introduce any discipline. That's when the parents come on here and ask where it went wrong.

I don't think the majority of the population can make gentle parenting work. I am not saying it doesnt work but for the majority discipline, rules, actions and consequences will result in a much better outcome. I absolutely think this is one of the reasons for all these SEN/ADHD diagnosis. The percentage increases are getting ridiculous

No. What I mean is that I do not necessarily engage in discussions with him. I do when the time is right, but often if he's behaving in a way that isn't right, I'll be straight and firm with him and I will not be engaging in explanations, choices, options or discussions. I don't consider his age or personality to always lend itself to this approach. I also fundamentally believe that as parents we don't always need to explain ourselves. We are here to set safe boundaries for them and sometimes that's all they need, there is no need to constantly engage and elaborate.

Do I raise my voice? Sometimes I do. I avoid it, but it happens sometimes. I also disengage at times. I don't sit with him in the room if he tantrums for comfort (fortunately that's very, very rare now). I don't debate with him if he's moody and stubborn for the sake of it. He knows when he's pushed too far. I don't suffocate him with my constant presence and never have, we never co-slept, never spent hours in the night getting up to attend to him or sleep on the floor. Never bent over backwards to please him even when he was going through tantrums when he was younger. I rarely negotiate. I value my time and his time, we do things together but also separately.

I just fundamentally do not believe we are there to explain everything to the point of life being sucked out of us to appease our children. Gentle parenting involves too much engagement in my view, it's unnecessary. Children learn through exposure to society and boundaries, as they mature, not through endless discussions that are frequently not developmentally appropriate and unsettling, and they create unhealthy focus on individual needs at the expense of others.

These are not loving things to say. If you said similar “stop whining you’re not a manchild” to a work colleague, you’d be disciplined.

Is it? From a loving parent? I don’t think kids should be shielded from the realities of their behaviour personally. Children shouldn’t frequently be told they’re lazy, but they won’t explode if they hear it once, when thy refuse to follow instructions.

When you read about "gentle parenting", it is often describe as a method that does not punish but worst does not "shame".

I don't know any parent who "shame" their children, so the whole concept is mainly nonsense.

Interesting! I have a SEN child and absolutely the punishment model didn't work for him either.

When I talk about 'Gentle Parenting' by the way I don't mean just being gentle. I mean the parenting methodology enshrined in Sarah Rockwell-Smith's books amongst others. A lot about choices and autonomy and definitely never under any circumstances using the word 'no'.

We had to do a totally different thing entirely which was proactive parenting - trying to basically guess when he was going to do something crazy and distracting him from doing it in the first place so he'd be prevented from doing stuff he wasn't allowed to. Weirdly, it worked.

Gentle parenting with very young dc who have limited vocabulary simply won’t work. They don’t understand the concepts and cannot express how they feel. There certainly are times when “no” is required - not a discussion! Older dc who have acquired language can argue back of course. At length. It’s wearing.

Never smack or humiliate (why do parents feel it’s ok to use the word “feral” about dc? I use that about animals. It’s humiliation in print). It’s wrong for parents to assume all dc respond to gentle parenting. It’s obvious and inevitable that not all dc are the same or can respond as desired. The job of parents is to modify their techniques and be aware their dc need a form of parenting to ensure dc are pleasant to be around.

I think the term “gentle parenting” is basically meaningless as it is used to mean so many different things.

I think permissive parenting is the problem these days - too many parents afraid to say no or have consistent boundaries for their kids, then complaining on here when the kids grow into ungrateful inconsiderate teenagers!

I hate the “SEND kids can’t be parented firmly” approach too - my ADHD/PDA son responds much better to firm boundaries and expectations, and an overly permissive approach would just mean he ran riot and did whatever he wanted instead of learning to be respectful of others and finding ways to handle his emotions and frustration better.

I also think that 'natural consequences' is a misnomer because, as you say, removing your child isn't a natural consequences, it's just a consequence.

But a consequence isn't the same as a punishment.

The way I see it, a consequence is a necessary action to teach and protect the child from the negative outcomes of their actions eg removing them from a play activiity because they're throwing toys at other children because that's not socially acceptable. The toys might be damaged and someone else might be hurt, whereas the natural consequence would be that toy is now broken and no one wants to play with you.

But a punishment comes from adult emotions eg I'm wound up/angry/upset/frustrated/embarrassed by your behaviour and so I'm going to redess the balance by making you feel similarly.

So you've never heard anyone say something like "You're six, Eva, you're not a baby, stop whining?" or "Don't be so lazy, pick up your toys!" or "I've had just about enough of you today"?? All those are shaming language. It's not literally pointing and laughing at them or shouting "Shame on you!"