The Case for Gentle Parenting: A Response to Abigail Shrier

First, I want to acknowledge that I agree with many of Shrier’s points. I agree that humans are resilient or better said, adaptable (although what happens to them definitely has an impact and sometimes that impact manifests in painful ways). I agree that therapy carries risks and that it's a good idea for medication to be a last resort. I will be the first one to say that therapists aren’t the ultimate experts — no one is, in my opinion. I also agree that kids benefit from responsibilities and contributing to the family. I also think it’s beneficial when parents take the lead, though I prefer the term "leader" to "in charge" as it has a connotation, to me, of being more inclusive of our children's input.

However, where things get confusing is in her characterization of gentle parenting.

Shrier references Diana Baumrind's research, stating that authoritative parenting had the best results, but she overlooks a crucial detail: gentle parenting is considered to be a version of authoritative parenting

(Incidentally and interestingly, in Baumrind’s research, another group, though small, did just as well as the authoritative group, although most aren't even aware of Baumrind’s research on them. She called them harmonious parents and they worked collaboratively with their children, focusing on meeting everyone's needs rather than controlling their children. To me, this proves that children don’t need parents who use their power over their children as much as they need a parent to be engaged and stand firmly for important needs. I would consider my approach to align more closely with harmonious parenting although it also resembles authoritative parenting.)

Shrier also discusses the idea of parents trying to buy their children's love, which I agree is very burdensome. However, this is the opposite of gentle parenting. Gentle parenting is not about trying to appease our children so they meet our needs for love and affection. It's about being aware of our own needs and finding ways to meet them instead of making our children responsible for meeting them.

She claims that gentle parents are afraid to set limits because they want their children to like them. However, we are not afraid to set limits or boundaries; we set them firmly while welcoming our children's unpleasant feelings around them. If and when we choose to work together with our children, it’s not out of fear but out of a desire to respect them.

Another point Shrier raises is the idea that gentle parenting is about ensuring children are always happy. This is a tragic misconception. Gentle parenting advocates for being okay with whatever children feel and supporting them through their distress. It is not about shielding or rescuing our children from discomfort but about accompanying them through it. It's about support.

Shrier also suggests that gentle parenting overemphasizes feelings, treating them as the most important thing. In reality, we give children the message that feelings don’t dictate our lives but they are an important part of our lives. That’s a very important distinction. We let them know that their feelings matter and that it’s okay to feel them and express them. 

Many of us were raised with the experience that our (usually unpleasant) feelings didn't matter or that they were too scary, that we couldn't feel them or express them. And that had many devastating impacts.

With gentle parenting we are saying: Feelings are important (they let us know about our needs). We want to welcome them and be with them but we don't have to tiptoe around them, obey them or change reality because of them. We are bigger than our feelings.

This is why we set limits and then accompany the child in their mourning and sadness. This communicates that their feelings matter but won’t change an important limit. In my understanding, that's what builds resilience.

She also mentions that it's bad to constantly ask kids how they feel, noting that humans aren't always happy; this could inadvertently draw attention to their unhappiness. I find this confusing because she advocates for children experiencing unpleasantness. However, her stance seems to reinforce the idea that children should not experience unpleasantness, or at least they shouldn’t believe they do.

In conclusion, it appears that while Shrier may not be afraid for children to experience unpleasant emotions, she seems afraid for them to be acknowledged, worrying that it makes it hard for kids to cope.

Gentle parents, on the other hand, aren't afraid of either. We trust that acknowledging unpleasant feelings, without panicking, ruminating, managing, or fixing, sends a powerful message: You are okay. All your feelings are okay. I am not afraid you won’t cope if I acknowledge your unpleasant experience. Also, I am here. You are not alone. (Again, the crucial idea of support, which Shrier agrees is beneficial.)

This ties into her views on trauma. Shrier questions whether trauma exists as prevalently as we think and suggests that acknowledging it may do more harm than good. However, the real issue may not be whether trauma is real or not, but rather how we perceive it. If we view trauma as something that dooms us or renders us irreparable, it might be damaging to acknowledge it. Yet, what if acknowledging trauma, like our feelings, actually empowers us? What if it validates our pain and encourages us to seek support, assuring us that we will ultimately be okay?

Either way, I can’t remember the last time I asked my children how they are feeling. Because to me, this approach is not about constantly asking them about their feelings but attuning to their feelings. That means sensing when a child is sad or confused or excited and meeting them there.

On the topic of happiness, while children (all humans) may not always be happy, and that's not even our goal, they can be content. In my experience, children whose parents give them a voice, stand firmly for needs and attune to feelings, and give them opportunities to contribute, often feel a deep sense of contentment.

Regarding Shrier’s claim that avoiding saying "no" or not punishing children undermines their judgment, gentle parenting does, in fact, involve saying no. I say no all the time. Just ask my children :).

We do avoid punishment though, but here’s where my experience comes in. I have not punished my children and I would argue that I can trust their judgement because of it, not in spite of it. Because instead of simply controlling their choices through punishments, I speak to them and explain things to them and we find ways to work things out. This supports them in developing their judgement and the skills to make good choices.

To me, it seems clear that Shrier is referring to a certain type of parent - not a gentle parent but an anxious parent. A parent who is worried their child won't be able to handle any distress, hardship, unpleasant emotion or pain and therefore tries to shield them from it in all possible ways.

I have a lot of compassion for a parent like that but the philosophy of gentle parenting does not stem from anxiety. It stems from a desire to respect the full humanity of children, to meet their needs, especially the ones for significance, connection and autonomy. 

However, even if you are a parent who struggles with this kind of anxiety, I trust there's a beautiful reason why. You deserve compassion and support. Growth is possible, gently and gradually, one day at a time.