Am I being unreasonable to think parents who use “gentle parenting” are just making rods for their own backs?

[jasonandhannahbush]

I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but I just can’t keep quiet anymore. It seems like every parent I know is hopping on the “gentle parenting” bandwagon these days, and frankly, I don’t get it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we should be shouting at our kids 24/7 or smacking them (before anyone tries to accuse me of that), but is it really so bad to say “no” every now and then? Or to expect kids to, you know, actually listen without needing a full 15 minute discussion about their feelings?

I’ve got a neighbour whose child throws tantrums every single day. Instead of saying, “Enough, let’s move on,” she sits there trying to “validate their emotions” while the kid screams their head off. I’m sorry, but life doesn’t work like that. Sometimes you’re told to stop, and you just stop. What’s next? Negotiating bedtime? Asking if it’s OK to give them broccoli?

And let’s not even get started on “natural consequences.” If my child tried to climb on the dining table, the “natural consequence” wouldn’t be letting them fall off it would be me telling them to get down before they break their neck!

AIBU to think this whole trend is just a bit soft? Kids need structure, rules, and discipline, not endless “discussions” about why hitting their sibling is wrong. I don’t want to raise kids who think the world will coddle them every time they throw a wobbly.

Anyway, feel free to tell me I’m horrible, but I can’t be the only one who feels like this, right?

(Posting here because if I said this in real life, I’d probably get lynched at the school gates!)

No, that's what I thought too. They're making excuses for their children's bad behaviour.

I gentle parent but I do say 'no'. A lot. But it's done calmly and kindly. I don't believe in the mini therapy sessions but I do believe in keeping my voice calm, explaining my reasons and giving them space to get through tantrums rather than ordering them to behave while expressing themselves. That said, if the tantrum gets to hurting or any other violence, they go in the timeout corner (calmly, no shouting or threats, just take them there, explain why they're there and walk away). It does work and I find my stress levels are a lot lower than they were when I was not doing gentle parenting. I do agree that passive parenting is bad but I think you have the two confused.

Which is exactly what the "system" is. Get them through the tantrum safely without reprimand. Noone said you have to talk to them etc. just do what works without resorting to shouting, getting angry or hitting etc

I think you just chose your battles IMO. Boundaries yes, shouting at and frightening, no. Kids allowed to run feral / rule the roost - no
Kindness and explaining - yes
Consequences - yes
Punishment - no

There's a thread like this every couple of weeks and it's so irritating that people misunderstand gentle parenting so completely.

If there are no boundaries then that's not gentle parenting at all - it's passive and neglectful.

No one is saying you can only use natural consequences. Where safety is concerned you have to use logical ones instead. It's just that natural consequences teach children more effectively than logical and especially illogical consequences (i.e. you broke something so you can't go to your friend's party).

There was nothing shit or neglectful about mine or my friend’s parenting in the 80’s.
We were the first generation to have car seats, to not allow smoking near the dc, to not smack and to try and understand our dc’s tantrums.
I used terry nappies for environmental reasons, we had an allotment for fresh food, our dc had to walk because most families only had one car, the dc weren’t glued to tablets because technology was not available for small dc.
Clothing was expensive so I didn’t buy loads of outfits.

As for the public information films there will always be some neglectful parenting but today the soaps act as public information with their different themes. Most nights we get a ‘ if you’ve been affected by blah blah.’
coupled with the fact that the Tories didn’t give a shit so wouldn’t have financed the films anyway.

YANBU. Kids need boundaries. All the kids I know that have been bought up like this have massive attitude issues and are nasty bullies. On the occasions that they have misbehaved their parents have basically whispered to them about "why we need to be nice" which has had zero effect and they continue to be little shits.

I think it surely depends.

My kids are no trouble - bedtimes are smooth (and have been since eldest was about 3.5), homework is no hassle, they do as they're told as a rule.

BUT, I can be persuaded (within limits, hours of wheedling are not acceptable), I am reasonable, and I expect them to be reasonable back - even when they were little. And that meant that yes, I did explain reasons for things, and I did answer questions rather than just laying down the law, and frankly, I rarely had to say a flat 'no' because I explain why whatever it was wasn't going to happen (and interestingly, neither went through a 'no' phase when toddlers) and they understood and we got on with our day.

I'm definitely not saying that this is my fabulous parenting (DS2 vs DS1 taught me that the kids personalities matters far more than me), but, I assume that the general culture (for want of a better word) of everyone being expected to be reasonable in the family must have paid off somehow. And my kids are very different - one is easy going and co-operative. The other, you give him an inch, he takes a mile - he's voted most likely to burn the house down getting up to something he shouldn't secretly.

But every generation thinks that.
Philip Larkin was born in 1922 and wrote This Be The Verse in 1971.

You tend to rarely notice the gentle parenting parents in the real world because most gentle parenting parents don't end up feeling the need to justify their parenting or children's behaviour by saying they are gentle parenting. It is the more passive, don't have boundary parents who kids are running riot who end up justifying their parenting hence why those who don't know what gentle parenting truly is get a warped view.

100% agree, from an ex-gentle parent!

Kids need stronger consequences than "natural consequences". Apparently time outs don't work according to gentle parenting experts. Time outs have worked a charm for my 5 year old who turned from sweet easy going toddler (easy to "gentle parent") to feral goblin at about 3/4. Her behaviour has VASTLY improved since we introduced warnings and time outs.

@Didimum i agree with everything you wrote.

@AmethystRuby it is all very well saying “don’t judge”, but will you feel the same when your dc is unable to get the education you hope for, because of classroom evacuations, disruption, violence, disobedience, racism, overtly sexual and adult language because 10 years are watching porn and Squid Games ... And the parents of those kids just shrug it off… and the school only does “therapeutic” /reward-based behaviour management which very frequently does NOT WORK…?

It is harder not to feel very angry at parents who think “gentle” means “never say no, never provide boundaries, ignore consequences because “naturally” kids will figure out their behaviour led to something bad“ . Bad gentle parenting is as awful as bad strict parenting. I object to gentle parenting because it is SO easily done badly, by lazy parents.

I've been told that it's neglectful to do that and that I should be helping them regulate their emotions during a tantrum. When I tried that it just led to my own emotions becoming dysregulated which is why I gave it up.

I'm not a fan of hitting but I've never met a person that hasn't got angry or shouted. I know you get them on here all the time but it's one of those things that doesn't match real life.

i dont think gentle parents would allow their child to watch squid games. get a grip. i was talking about parents who try their best, not parents who turn a blind eye to their kids watching porn. get some perspective.

@flyinghen I agree. Since my dd went there, my ds’s preschool abandoned time-outs . They also wouldn’t label bad behaviour and instead said dc were “choosing not to play”. Nonsense-speak that confused ds who was definitely choosing to play, but sometimes being selfish, unreasonable and violent. he chose to bite his friend on the cheek, he chose to steal bricks off a little girl and throw them at someone who had wound him up, and he chose to run around until he had a bad accident and needed stitches over his eyebrow.

Learning to step away and cool down is a huge part of time-outs - that’s part of learning emotional regulation. When I’m seeing red, the last thing I want is some patronising tw*t lecturing me about calming down. I need space to breathe and let the anger dissipate.

I do not understand why time outs have fallen out of favour.

This isn’t some controversial hot new take OP. People are always going on about this on MN. Turns out there is no one parenting technique that works. Focus on your own child(ren) and find what works for them.

Agree. I was a relaxed parent but I didn’t stand for nonesense. My SIL (who i get along well with so not bashing her for the sake of it) had to phone my brother to come and collect her and 2yrs old as he wouldn’t cross the road and they stood there for 40 mins. A passer by tried to intervene. She was telling me the story and I didn’t say anything but i’d have picked mine up like a rugby ball and carried them over the road. Also he won’t go in the pushchair so he doesn’t, i remember the old knee trick to hold them in whilst you strap them in fast.

I would describe my parenting as gentle (no shouting household) but my kids didn’t do what they wanted. I took a firm line on cheek / backchat, again not shouting but very firmly told from young age not to talk to me like that. They are 20 and 17 now, amazing kids, couldn’t tell you the last time I told them off, and they haven’t been rude to me in a very long time. I guess gentle parenting has multi facets, mine was largely no shouting due to how I was raised and I think having a calm household has benefitted my kids no end.

@AmethystRuby I think you misread my post.

I did NOT say parents “let” their kids watch porn or Squid Games. I said they shrugged it off. The kids know what’s permitted but they find ways to do what they want knowing the “natural consequence” is non existent.

Some parents, when they realise their kids broke the rules, found a way around the passwords, or watched inappropriate material at a friend’s house, would then go ahead and discipline - have a strong conversation with the child about the behaviour and then impose a sanction eg remove the phone; impose a penalty eg loss of TV privileges/ ban play dates for several weeks.

Gentle parents will have a discussion and encourage the child not to do it again, explaining why it’s wrong. What’s the natural consequence of watching Squid Games or nasty porn? Nothing truly meaningful to a young child.

My dd went to a “naice” state school. There were Year 6 pupils making wank gestures at the class teacher. And some boys asking girls for oral sex. Someone’s arm was broken in a fight in the loos during class.

No child was expelled. There was a suspension for violence, but the approach was to reward the kids for improved behaviour. It didn’t really work and my dd felt unhappy and unsafe.

I do think this gentle approach isn’t effective and a lot of kids figure out they can do largely what want effectively with impunity.

The biggest problem is that people (like you) don't really know what gentle parenting is and think it's something where you can't say no, can't have firm boundaries and must spend hours 'validating feelings'. That's not it at all.

It's calm, consistent, confident parenting with clear boundaries. It's just basically really good parenting that you have to put time and effort into.

Yes basically. I can see you are cross because you don't like what auntie sue has served for dinner. Wasn't she kind to make us all dinner. Let's use our words to ask if I can make you some pasta instead. Do you want to sit quietly while I do that or come to the kitchen with me?

So essentially you feelings are valid but so are other people's.

I admit it's been some years since I had tantrumming toddlers but I don't ever recall "Enough, move on" being the key stopping them! I don't think there is a one size fits all 'cure' for tantrums.

I do think children need structure, boundaries and it's absolutely fine to say no.
Equally I'm fine with reasonable negotiations at bedtime, letting my DC decide if they want broccoli and I absolutely have named their feelings and had discussions about why hitting is wrong.
My youngest is a teenager and my eldest is mid twenties and I like to think they are polite, well rounded individuals. They all love broccoli, get plenty of sleep and don't go around hitting anyone or having tantrums.

Natural consequences are not what you think they are. Falling off the table is a natural consequence. Being banned from the dining room and by extension from using the toys kept there is not. The real reason to keep a child off a dining room table is that the child could damage the table - leaves could be broken, the surface could be scratched, etc. It's perfectly fine to tell a child that they can't climb onto the table because you can't let him damage the family table.

Why wouldn't you offer other veg? Because you're not a short order cook, is the answer. Your children are not ordering lunch in a restaurant. How exactly would your shrug work if you had more than one child? Close your eyes and imagine the scene at dinner time when five siblings all want something different for dinner. Would you be happy to do this seven days a week for five children?

If you're British, you're sending your children off to school at four where they will be expected to wear a uniform and footwear that are designed with appearance as the primary value, and do phonics at a level that was originally designed for five year olds. They will be expected to do exactly what everyone else is doing and their preferences won't matter. I'm not saying any of this is right or evidence based. It is reality though.

You probably would ruffle some gentle parenting feathers if your description was anything close to gentle parenting but it's not.

There's nothing wrong with holding firm boundaries whilst also understanding that young children lack the ability for many of the rational thought processes and emotional regulation that took adults years to learn.

I don't understand how people can be insistent that someone's behaviour is wrong and at the same time be insistent that their label for it is right despite evidence to the contrary/

Well, that's not true is it? Schools will make reasonable adjustments for children. And that may include them wearing slightly different uniforms etc