To think "gentle parents" are setting their kids up for a lifetime of friendlessness and struggling to hold down a job?

[ForestGoblin]

You get one chance to build the neural pathways that guide you for the rest of your life and if you don't learn that you're not the centre of anyone else's universe as a young kid you never will.

Oh it's 'the evidence base' is it? Oh well I couldn't possibly argue with such ever so sciencey science. You know, when I said that gentle parenting is disproportionately attractive to people who avoid conflict, this is the kind of behaviour I mean. This kind of passive aggressive 'ring any bells for anyone?' stuff. Grow a spine and say what you want to say directly.

Ironically, you accidentally have a point. Many people on this thread have said they find gentle parenting attractive because they're dealing with the consequences of being raised by authoritarian or even abusive parents. Others had parents who raised them using gentle parenting as a response to their abusive childhoods. The results seem to be somewhat mixed, but almost all were agreed it's a huge improvement on the alternative. Consciously going to the other extreme is probably a very useful response when you own role models were that bad.

Now, sorry, I think you were trying to passive aggressively call me a fascist while maintaining deniability when challenged. Do carry on, it's entertaining.

I know you think you are describing right wing thinking here, but this describes left wing authoritarianism equally (of which we have numerous current examples). Gentle parenting is not likely to bring about some sort of socialist utopia, you know, if that’s part of the theory behind it.

Yes, there is obviously a significant evidence base on authoritarianism and parenting,

No, I was thinking about several posts. I was making a general point about authoritarian Vs liberal personal types as for my money one of the most interesting thing about this thread has been the attitudes towards society that people are peparing children for.

I have asked MN to remove my post as it was not my intention to call you a fascist.

I'm not sure how you think you know this, but you are projecting. (Wildly).

I was discussing psychological ideas about different attitudes to hierarchical obediance.

As you're being polite now, I'll discuss. Psychology as a discipline (and I include educational psychology here) is one of the most left-leaning of all and has been since at least the 1960's. Any survey of the political views of academics in the social sciences broadly will demonstrate that their self-described politics are very far to the left of the rest of the society. One of the consequences of that is extreme bias in the 'science' they produce. Many of them are even quite open about this, because of course they consider their views to simply be the truth, which is terribly convenient. Others simply don't notice the influence of their personal beliefs on their work. This would be treated as a self-evident problem if the political compass of such an influential institution as academia instead skewed to the far right.

It's not an accident that another poster identified your list as intended to be a description of right wing authoritarianism, and that you don't recognize it as such. What you described is absolutely not an objective description of 'different attitudes to hierarchical obedience'. It's a list produced by leftists attempting to analyze their enemies, leftists who have a blind spot about left wing authoritarianism. The social sciences spent most of the 20th century acting as useful idiots for the Soviets and their offspring and have never taken any responsibility for that behaviour, John Dewey being just the most prominent in education.

Way beyond the politically-motivated bias, psychology as a field should have had its reputation largely destroyed by the replication crisis (with some honourable exemptions certainly). It should, if it were an honest discipline, have responded to that by spending a good, long time reflecting on itself, addressing the problems, and taking responsibility for the damage that its shoddy work has caused. The fact that its output is still treated as an authority by the general public, and above all by the education profession, is testament to the irrational faith in scientism of 'educated' 21st century westerners.

Not sure what you think I am projecting. Do you think I'm right wing with hurt feelings about being called authoritarian? Sorry, you are wrong. Right wing = authoritarian, left wing = love and peace for all men is a common political trope. GP, from how it is described as an ideological way of parenting on this thread, seems to be rooted firmly in a socialist idyll. And just like socialism, it's great on paper, but doesn't necessarily work in practice, because human nature tends to get in the way, and even liberal ideas can be imposed on others in an authoritarian manner, as history has thrown up time and time again.

I think it's naive to think authoritarianism doesn't exist on both sides of the political spectrum; the horseshoe model applies. What I don't see is the relevance to this discussion. Is @Pollyputhekettleon saying that current best practice on parenting must be wrong because psychologists can be left wing and that therefore we should return to harsh methods? That doesn't stack up. Permissive parenting is bad. Harsh parenting is just as bad. There is plenty of evidence that a happy medium is good. That shouldn't be controversial.

Having read more about GP and with now grown up successful well balanced children I now feel I did practice GP naturally. There were differences such as they were in no doubt I was in charge in a Teacher type way. I also had no issue with raising my voice if pushed, always with an explanation as to why. My children were always encouraged to talk from an early age and express themselves. Above all we laughed & had fun.

On a totally different topic, I fear many young children today become 'locked in' with the incessant use of online entertainment to the point of becoming addicted & staring ahead as if hypnotised when the device is removed. I agree there are many advantages, especially as a learning tool although we have yet to see the future consequences.

If I had wanted to say that 'current best practice on parenting must be wrong because psychologists can be left wing and that therefore we should return to harsh methods?' don't you think I would have said that? Have you noticed that I tend to say exactly what I think, as clearly as I can? Of course in reality you don't believe for a moment that that's what I was saying. Because I know you can read perfectly well, if you wanted to. I said exactly what I said and nothing else, and that's what I meant. You should try it.

@Pollyputhekettleon as someone who works in mental health (non clinical) I do wonder what the root cause is for your deep loathing of psychology. I don't know any psychologist who claims it's an exact science either.

Your use of the word 'leftists' is really telling here. Are you suggesting that right wing people in research are able to be unbiased, but left wing people are not? Why is left worse than right (extremists of either flavour aside)? What exactly do you see as 'left wing' about the current psychological establishment, and do you think people working in the sciences shouldn't have political leanings at all? I am intrigued at the intensity of your loathing for psychology and where it's coming from.

@pointythings As someone who deeply loathes dishonesty I do wonder what the root cause is of your dishonest question: 'Is @Pollyputhekettleon saying that current best practice on parenting must be wrong because psychologists can be left wing and that therefore we should return to harsh methods?'. You've followed it up with a few more disingenuous questions for good measure.

Your attempt to change the subject to psychoanalyzing my motives is really telling here, as is your ascription to me of intense feelings of loathing. Are you suggesting that people who point out your dishonesty must be motivated by some kind of deeply rooted psychological issue? I'd like to say I'm intrigued by that, because I'm a very curious person, but I'm not.

As an aside, there are very few people who are capable of having an objective discussion about their chosen field of work and you're demonstrably not one of them. As the famous saying goes, it's difficult for a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

@Pollyputhekettleon well, that's the longest non answer I've ever had.

Come on, your screed about psychology was full of loathing. I just wonder why. I also wonder what parenting methods you support. I apologise for jumping to conclusions, but my questions stand.

Are you now going to apologise for your personal attack against me?

Apologize for saying your question was dishonest? Absolutely not. It was. Apparently you're not intending to acknowledge that, yet you expect me to engage in further discussion with you. Intriguing.

I do not understand what you consider dishonest about my question. You seem very angry, so it's probably best not to pursue this discussion.

As a psychologist I would’ve thought you know anger is a totally normal and healthy emotion for women, but no she doesn’t sound angry at all.

I'm not a psychologist and haven't said I am. I just asked why the politely worded rant against the entire field of psychology and how that was relevant to this discussion on parenting with all its typical conflation of gentle parenting and permissive parenting.

You said you know what I think. You demonstrably don't.

I was teasing out differences between socialising to individuate Vs socialising to acheive compliance within social hierarchies.

I haven't said anything whatsoever about mapping this to left or right wing values - that is entirely your projection.

In real life you need a balance of doing both in any case - it's about raising individuals who can function in society and also act as strong individuals when it's needed. That's pragmatism, not rocket science, and it isn't political.

(This is me agreeing with you).

Thank you.

So by 'gentle parenting', you mean basically you have invented a term for what about 99% of people do out of instinct ,common sense and normal parental love for their children

So by 'gentle parenting', you mean basically you have invented a term for what about 99% of people do out of instinct ,common sense and normal parental love for their children

Pretty much, though I'm not sure it's 99%. That's the problem with this debate. Gentle parenting = practical, common sense parenting with good boundaries.
Other methods are available, but they're a bit shit.

@charlotte361 I didn't invent any term at all, for anything.

I have read parenting information, advice, books, forums etc, probably much like anyone else, and I like the things that are associated with gentle parenting. In my experience, the things I describe are NOT how "most" people parent; my parents certainly didn't, my DH's parents certainly didn't, and most of my friends seem to use a mixture of authoritative punishments combined with bribery to parent their children.

"Mainstream" parenting, including advice given on courses run by Sure Start centres and early intervention workers, such as Triple P and 1, 2, 3 Magic, uses things like reward charts and naughty steps and grow clocks and sleep training to disciple/control/guide young kids. I choose not to, and the term most closely matching how I choose to parent is Gentle Parenting.

I am just doing what feels right to me, and am happy for others to do the same. I commented because the OP asked for opinions on whether Gentle Parenting was causing struggling entitled kids who are unprepared for the world. I answered because I thought she was describing very permissive parenting rather than gentle parenting, and to disagree that actual gentle parenting was unlikely to lead to the type of kids she described.

You think that the Soviet Union was particularly sympathetic to psychology, including the study of child development? Only for brief periods at most. Stalin had pretty much the same attitude to psychology, or indeed any academic study, that didn't follow his supremacy and caprices, as religious fundamentalists have to 'secular humanism'. Most academic psychologists, even those who started out in his favour, ended up censored at best, purged at worst. The writings of L.S. Vygotsky, probably the most famous Russian developmental psychologist, were suppressed for decades.

Yes, authoritarianism is authoritarianism; and there was nothing gentle about the Soviet leaders, any more than their current successor Putin.

No I don't think the Soviet Union was particularly sympathetic to psychology. I'm pretty sure I didn't say or imply that. Although, it should be said that Stalin is not the Soviet Union, and I also referred not just to the Soviet Union but also to its many copycats and satellite states. I was talking about the wilful ignorance, apologism and complicity of western academics, particularly those in the social sciences, not how academics inside the Soviet Union lived.

As you're being polite now, I'll discuss. Psychology as a discipline (and I include educational psychology here) is one of the most left-leaning of all and has been since at least the 1960's. Any survey of the political views of academics in the social sciences broadly will demonstrate that their self-described politics are very far to the left of the rest of the society. One of the consequences of that is extreme bias in the 'science' they produce. Many of them are even quite open about this, because of course they consider their views to simply be the truth, which is terribly convenient. Others simply don't notice the influence of their personal beliefs on their work. This would be treated as a self-evident problem if the political compass of such an influential institution as academia instead skewed to the far right.

@Pollyputhekettleon what you posted above does worry me. How they analyse children or people and their word is right rather than just an opinion could that be dangerous and harmful to who they are analysing?

Age and experience helps people to grow and mature.