Does 'gentle parenting' work ?

[flowermo]

Let me start by saying that I am not an expert at parenting styles.

I know bits and bobs from reading articles, books, talking to other mums/ grandmas and a lot of reading on Mumsnet.

I understand there are a lot of misconceptions about gentle parenting. However let me summarise my understanding- it's about firm boundaries, but doesn't promote shouting and hitting etc and generally using fear to get your kids to behave. It encourages understanding a child's development phases and what can and cannot be expected of them at any particular stage. Helping them understand and validate feelings, negative and positive ones etc.

Another style of parenting, perhaps the authoritarian style or ' traditional ' style that was used a lot in our parents generation, is a lot more shouty. Perhaps even hitting. Children are scolded for having tantrums and punished. Parents rule with fear of shouting / hitting / scolding. Kids are often scared of their parents. I remember growing up in this kind of household, as did all of my friends really.

I would say I use something in between the two styles with my children. But more on the gentler side. I don't hit but sometimes I do shout for example. I try to understand the stage of development they're at and what I can reasonably expect from their behaviour. I try to use consequences like taking toys away or denying them treats they wanted. I don't think my kids are afraid of me. I don't think I'm a particularly good parent. Or that I'm doing things right. They misbehave and I'm often stressed out. They're still small, 2 and 4 and I'm just trying to find my way.

Anyway what I'm trying to say is. I've been speaking to some other mums of slightly older kids who are also teachers. They really think that the gentle parenting approach is hurting kids and kids are out of control more than they were in the past. More authoritarian methods work better apparently and kids should be scared of their parents and should be worried about getting in trouble ( not violence ) at home, if they mess around at school. Teachers are leaving the profession because kids are so badly behaved and parents have no control over their kids.

What do you think about this? Is gentle parenting working ? Is it true that kids are so badly behaved now ? ( doesn't every generation say that about the new generation? ).

One thing I've noticed is that if I discipline my kids in public, by slightly raising my voice, people do stare. I never see any parents doing that nowadays. It was normal to get a telling off if you messed around in public when I was a child.

I'm not trying to be divisive or judge either side of the debate. I don't know what I'm doing or whether it's right. I guess I spend most of my time thinking I should be firmer, then feeling abusive when I do shout at them. I'm also lost. I really don't want to piss anyone off. So please be kind.

Nah not for me. Not carrying, not putting up with wet socks: tears on way to wherever. Shoes on. End. Firm but fair parenting. Mine are adult now. It worked.

I would have handled this by offering a fixed choice. Do you want to wear your Crocs or your trainers? Or making it a game "last one to get their shoes on is a pair of pants" (making sure I am last of course), or "I bet you can't get your shoes on before I can count to ten!" Or distracting/deflecting "Let's get your shoes on and in to the car. What music should we play on the way to the shops? You can choose. Should we have the ABC song?"

All else fails, child in one arm shoes in the other.

I avoided forcing by the direct forceful imposition of my will over theirs. There's no need, 90 percent of the time.

They need to know that you mean it. That you will follow through with consequences every single time. That’s what will happen at nursery and school. Warm but strict works for me.

The reasons for avoiding time out is that sending a child away to be on forced on their own when they are feeling ‘big’ feelings that they often need help with teaches them that their emotions are bad and they are unlovable/ likeable. However, having a space to calm down in where and adult can also be there to support them (even just by sitting near them) or having a space where they can choose to be alone is great- if they are at a stage where they recognise they want and need to be along to calm down, that’s great. They are learning what they need to regulate themselves!

my 5 year old does one of three things when he’s cross: 1, calms down pretty much immediately without any tantrum because he is 5 and now understands that a tantrum won’t change anything and emotionally he knows it’s a small thing and doesn’t require a big reaction.
2) request to got to the calm down space with me where he can blow bubbles, colour with me whilst we talk it through when he’s ready, read a book, just sit.
3) walk away to go be on his own - which I allow. When he is ready he will come back. If he’s gone a while I check on him but don’t force him to come back until he’s ready.

this is a five year old maturing emotionally and regulating independently.

I agree, covering up your emotions is going to be very confusing for a child and won't help them in learning to manage their own emotions. There's nothing wrong with being firm and saying they've upset you but it needs to be in a calm and controlled way. The same way you would expect someone to communicate at work with someone who upset them. Not shouting, not going on long rants, not hitting. Just straight to the point with an explanation as to why it upset you.

this is a five year old maturing emotionally and regulating independently
By 5, my DS had also regulated most of his anger, but before then? None of your 3 options would have remotely worked with him.

I didn't stay with him when he calmed down because seeing me fuelled his anger. He was better off with no distractions at all to calm down quicker. He told me when he was older that he'd feel really bad afterwards, but that helped him understand consequences. We always talked afterwards about ways to help him not get so angry in the first place. He told me he never felt unloved or alone.

By the time he started school, he'd nipped it in the bud, until it resurfaced slightly during pre-teen years, but never outside of home. As a young adult, there is no sign of anger ever, on the opposite.

Time alone was definitely best for him. He had to learn to let go of it on his own.

We prefer authoritative parenting. Nurturing and close but with clear guidelines and expectations. Now they're older we also negotiate. Rooms for instance are tidied every week in their own time. This works. Rather than arbitrary commandments or prison guard nitpicking. Children also change as they grow.

A non-negotiable is general manners and behaviour, no swearing, door slamming, sulking or deliberate consistent malevolence towards siblings or us is tolerated. This has been a rule since the day they were born. The odd mood and sulk are expected but no slanging matches.
The toddler years are challenging, however, we took the approach of no helicopter-style parenting and generally didn't micro-manage. Tantrums at this age are to be expected.
Thankfully this has worked with our 2 children. It's a peaceful household.

Of course it does..

Yes, get wet feet or walk across the hurty gravel.
Or get carried.

Or, parent does not give this particular set of options if the child would have to walk 15 miles across broken glass and dog shit. They find another set of options instead.

You're the parent/guardian etc - so you set the boundaries/give the options/manage according to whats necessary and whats possible.

I've had similar experiences with gentle parenting. The issue for these kids is that society or the state won't take the time to communicate with them on their level and explain why certain behaviours are wrong. Instead, they come down hard on them.
I think by 5 if your child isn't socialised correctly the damage is done. I have friends whose children shout, tantrum, kick and bite them. It's tiresome to watch
Then they expect the education system and the workplace to tolerate this nonsense.

Yes to this, especially that parenting should be child-centred, not child-led. After all, if we as adults struggle to decide how to react in certain situations, how with a child with much less life experience, know?

It's fine to give appropriate choices so they feel they have autonomy over their lives - red jumper or blue jumper? But not to give them such a wide choice that they go out in a T-shirt in December. So it's our job to help them make appropriate choices within boundaries that are for their own good.

It's also appropriate to use the word no, just being careful that you only use it when you are going to see it through.

Time out can also be good for giving the child a bit of privacy/dignity from other children when they are dysregulated.

If you have several younger children together and one is having a tantrum, they actually feel embarrassed at causing a scene in front of their friends/siblings. It's kinder to let them have a moment apart, privately, to calm down away from the others.

I even remember feeling this way when I was a child. And I've seen it countless times with my own 3yo. Part of the upset is embarrassment at not being able to control her emotions in front of her peers.

This is partly why I hate Gentle Parenting. It's so absolutist with its arbitrary rules. On another similar thread last year, it was insisted that time outs, in all circumstances, give children abandonment complex. Ridiculous

It really is a misnomer.

Gentle Parenting - let your child get wet/sore feet so they learn to put on their shoes.
Gentle Parenting - let your child lose all their friends or abandon playdates till they learn not to hit them.
Gentle Parenting - let your child eat too many sweets until they vomit so they learn not to eat too many sweets.

Under these strange and uninstinctive rules, Gentle Parenting seems to put the onus on young children to keep themselves safe and comfortable, and to link consequences before they're able to. They must make all the right decisions, themselves, or come to harm.

I'm all for warnings. Warnings are great. "If you don't wear your shoes, you'll get wet and sore feet! If you eat all those sweets, you'll vomit!"

But then if the young child isn't old enough or sensible enough to make the right choice, I make it for them. I don't let them harm themselves or harm others. That's neglect.

1. I think it's hard to be gentle, non-permissive parent. The main criticism of gentle parenting I've seen is that it's hard to sustain, especially with more than 1 child and no help. Dr Becky Kennedy has school aged children, babysitter who cleans her home as well and hands on grandparents! It's easier to be gentle when you have the time and energy and are not just rushing from place to place the whole time.
2. As a result, what the teachers might be criticizing is permissive parenting, not gentle. I can't see how it can be good if children are used to being scared of adults and only do things because they're scared!
3. Also, consider whether teachers have the best interest of all children in mind, or whether their main goal is to make sure they can manage their class! I was a very shy, timid child and teachers loved me, because there were absolutely no issues with me. However, I had to unlearn this pattern, and it's a big disadvantage in life and in the workplace! I'd rather my child was loud spoken than shy. I feel for the teachers, because I can't imagine being responsible for so many children, of course, that can't treat them as individuals.

There's been numerous studies which have examined the 4 categories which all parenting styles fall into.

Authoritarian
Authoritative
Permissive
Neglectful

We know, without any doubt, that authoritative parenting yields the best results. The "creator" of gentle parenting has been clear that gentle parenting is a type of authoritative parenting.

My key issue with it is it's unrealistic. It assumes that parents are able to be ever-nurturing wells of patience and comfort, never losing their patience with their children and living a life without deadlines, stress or places to be. Empathising with your child and discussing their feelings whilst holding firm to the boundary, as well as being exhausting and frustrating, is time consuming and doesn't work when you're running a busy household, getting them to school and getting yourself to work on a short timeline. Also, millennial parents have never seen it modelled, being brought up ourselves by an authoritarian generation, so we've got no roadmap to follow.

The result is that most people trying to gentle parent end up being permissive, which is easy because you just give your child whatever they want, but results in tyrannical children with no respect for anyone. And, as with anything on the internet, it's been blown up to its cartoonish extreme by gentle parenting groups, making it even less realistic and leading to parents tying them up in knots trying to validate every emotion their children have.

I'd describe my husband and I as "gentle-ish". We don't hit and we try not to shout, and we try to make space for emotions, but sometimes I don't care if she wants to put on her shoes, we're leaving in the next 5 minutes and they need to go on.

@Mumoftwo1316

Gentle Parenting - let your child get wet/sore feet so they learn to put on their shoes.
Gentle Parenting - let your child lose all their friends or abandon playdates till they learn not to hit them.
Gentle Parenting - let your child eat too many sweets until they vomit so they learn not to eat too many sweet

I totally agree - you cannot expect a young child to be able to make these decisions and learn about those consequences.

I hate to say this as it annoys me myself when people say this, but I don't think the above is actually gentle parenting. Gentle parenting is about you deciding a boundary and holding it. So, ' you're going to get wet feet if you go outside, I'm not going to let you get wet feet because you'll get sick. I'm going to put your shoes on for you? As I can see you don't want to put them on today '.

Hitting : ' I won't let you hit, so I'm going to move you away from your friend until you calm down and don't hit. ' if the hitting continues, you should tell the child that it will result in leaving the play date.

Sweets : ' I won't let you eat all these sweets because you'll get a stomach ache. Here, this is the amount of sweets you can have. ' if they cry for more, you don't give it but stay firm.

I'm not saying I use these techniques religiously by the way. I'll say it nicely a couple of times and then maybe say in a stern voice ' if you don't stop hitting, we are leaving ' ' one more time and we are going ' or ' I won't take you to the soft play if you keep hitting ' or ' put on your shoes RIGHT now or I'm going to shout'.

I do raise my voice but only really at night when I’m tired & have asked calmly ‘please do teeth, toilet & pj’s’ about 8 times & I’m still being ignored & asked if I want to see her backwards walkover.

I would say I’m more gentle with a little rattiness when pushed! I have never & will never smack, even though I got smacked as a child.

ime of my wider group, gentle parenting does not work but this is my experience.

flowermo

Actually, I'd see the natural consequence of refusing to put shoes on to play outside is that you don't go outside to play.

That is the natural consequence of the choice that they have made.

If you do it for them, there has been no consequence to their refusal.

Letting them go outside anyway and get wet feet is neglectful.

Putting their shoes on for them hasn't taught them anything other than if I refuse to do something I don't want to do, mummy will do it for me, and I still get what I want!

I'm not talking about when you're going outside to play.

I mean when you have to get out of the door to nursery or school.

Yes of course if it's to play, it's either shoes on or no play.

Where I deviate from Gentle parenting, as I understand it, is in the use of disapproval.

Children are hard wired to want approval. They want to be liked and praised.

If my child hits another, which has happened maybe once or twice ever, I'm going to show a bit of disapproving astonishment, in my facial expression and in words. A tiny bit goes a long way. "Did you...just...hit your friend? Never ever do that!"

I got absolutely flamed for this on another thread about gentle parenting. Apparently showing disapproval of your child's behaviour causes lifelong trauma or ruins their sense of self or something. It's better, according to gentle parenting advocates, to allow your child to hit other children with impunity, repeatedly, until they are old enough to understand empathy, which can take years. Never mind the poor kids who are getting hit. At the most you smilingly sing some "gentle hands" or similar, totally normalising violence and turning it into some delightful game.

It's not fair to the hitting victims and this is a parenting hill I'll die on tbh. I'm so fed up of hearing that my dd has been pushed over at nursery, or seeing it happen at the soft play. Children must be actively prevented from being violent to others.

Ah, fair enough.

When my daughter was younger, there were a few times she couldn't go out to play because of shoe refusal.

It really irked her.

When she was in reception, she tried it again.

I didn't raise my voice, didn't get cross, just said as normal to put her shoes on to get ready to leave. She refused. I asked her again. She refused again. So I left it.

As the time arrived when we needed to leave for school, I asked her again and explained that, if she didn't put them on, we'd be late and I'd have to call school to explain why we were going to be late.

She was (and still is!) a defiant little thing and felt pretty confident I wouldn't actually do it. So she sat there. No shoes.

Anyway, I rang school and explained we were going to be a few minutes late and why. School said, no problem. Daughter was horrified but after a few more mins, put her shoes on and stood by the door ready to go. I didn't make a big deal out of it. It didn't happen again.

No raised voices, no punishments. No repeat offences.

Anyway, I rang school and explained we were going to be a few minutes late and why. School said, no problem. Daughter was horrified but after a few more mins, put her shoes on and stood by the door ready to go.

The reason why this bit worked, imo, was because of approval/disapproval. Your dd didn't want her teachers to disapprove of her behaviour: she would have felt (mildly) embarrassed/ashamed that her teachers knew she was refusing to put on her shoes. You deferred the disapproval to her teachers rather than expressing it yourself, which is a valid way of doing it, but it's still utilising disapproval.

Disapproval is so powerful in steering behaviour and, in my opinion, is truly gentle as opposed to Gentle Parenting.

Haven't read through the whole thread, but I think the use of the word scared is a difficult one. I was scared my parents would discipline me if I did something wrong at school so I behaved. But I wasn't scared of my parents. My parents loved me and told me and showed me this, but rightly I was told off if I misbehaved. They weren't violent or scary with the discipline most likely I would have been grounded for an evening or something but as I knew there would be consequences I made sure my behaviour was acceptable

I totally agree with this and this is the only ' scared ' I actually meant in the OP.

Scared there are going to be consequences for your behaviour from your parents. Not scared of your actual parents.

She was testing me. That was the whole point of it. She was trying to find out where the boundaries lay and how far she could push them. Because she was a small child and that's what they do.

I didn't mock her or humiliate her. I wasn't asking the school to be cross. I called and said I was just letting them know we'd be a few mins late because she hadn't got her shoes on yet. Like you might say you were running late because the car wouldn't start. The school understood why that was without me saying.

I wasn't cross, I didn't shout or threaten punishments (that's the 'gentle' part) but I did explain that if she didn't put them on, (the consequence would be) we couldn't leave on time and (the consequences of that would be) that we would be late and (the consequences of that would be) I'd have to call school to explain.

She was actually in control of the narrative the whole time. Not because she was allowed to do what she wanted and she was in 'control' (which some people think it means) but because she understood things worked in her favour if she stuck to the boundaries, followed the rules and did what was required of her. And she wasn't just doing them because an adult told her to.

She then learnt that, if she said "Mummy. If I wash my face, brush my teeth and get ready for bed first, can I stay up a bit later and watch Monsters Inc?" Or whatever. And, if she did, she was allowed. And, if it wasn't possible, I'd explain why and we'd do it the following night instead.

So I never had to do the chasing around, shouting, threats and punishments because she learnt to discipline and manage herself.

She was a very wilfull child and is a wilfull adult now! No one would ever describe her as docile or compliant. But she has also never been in trouble, is self motivated and self disciplined, kind and respectful and knows that only she is responsible for her choices and her actions. I've never had to stand over her to make sure she does her homework. Although, her bedroom could do with being a bit tidier... but that's literally the only issue I've ever had.

If I'd let her, she'd have been the small child running around in restaurants, shouting "No!" all the time and I'd have been tearing my hair out in her teenage years, shrugging my shoulders, throwing up my hands in despair and exclaiming, "What can you do? Kids'll be kids!"

Another example is that, when she was small, if she strayed too far in the park (for example) and I called her back and she refused, I'd do a countdown from 3. If, after 3, she hadn't come closer, I'd go and get her. If I had to get her, we'd go home because I needed to trust that she would come back when called for her own safety.

She quickly learnt that, and I could just hold 3 fingers up and call her name and she'd come back so there was never any need for shouting.