The False Promise of Gentle Parenting

A Brief Expose 

The term “gentle parenting” was first coined around 2015 by a British author named Sarah Ockwell-Smith (although it is likely not original to her). This author was undoubtedly well-intentioned and attempted to provide an alternative to methods that, to many in today’s society, seem harsh and uncompromising. But what exactly is gentle parenting? And is this style a safe approach to raising children? What I found raised some questions and concerns in my mind that I felt to share here.  

Let’s start with a few definitions. Here is one taken from a parent coach: 

Gentle parenting, also known as collaborative parenting, is a style of parenting where parents do not compel children to behave by means of punishment or control, but rather use connection, communication, and other democratic methods to make decisions together as a family (Danielle Sullivan, parenting coach, Lafayette, Colorado). 

Here is another: 

Gentle parenting is a means of parenting without shame, blame, or punishment. It is centered on partnership as both parents and children have a say in this collaborative style. Gentle parenting is as it sounds; it is a softer, gentler approach to parenting, and parents and caregivers who practice gentle parenting do so by guiding their children with consistent, compassionate boundaries—not a firm hand (parents.com).

And finally: 

Gentle parenting is an approach to raising children that emphasizes empathy, respect, and understanding rather than punishment or authoritarian control. It focuses on nurturing a strong parent-child bond, encouraging positive communication, and teaching children emotional regulation and problem-solving skills. Instead of using harsh discipline, gentle parenting relies on setting clear boundaries with kindness and patience, guiding children through their emotions and behaviors. The benefits of this approach include fostering a secure attachment, promoting self-discipline, improving emotional intelligence, and building mutual respect between parent and child. It can also lead to more cooperative and confident children, as they feel supported and understood in their emotional and developmental growth (Dr. Ayush Saxena). 

As we can see from these definitions there are certainly ideas here that are good, commendable, and worthy of practice. We strive to connect mentally and emotionally with our children; we strive to nurture strong parent-child bonds; we strive to understand, listen, and communicate. We want to be patient, kind, and loving.  

On the other hand, there are aspects of these definitions that cause serious misgivings. Child-parental partnerships and democratic processes in the place of clear and well-defined leadership? Soft, gentle approaches instead of a firm hand? No punishment and no control? Will not even the best parenting techniques, when disobeyed or resisted, result in shame, guilt, or blame?  

From what I’ve observed, heard, and read, I have come to believe that gentle parenting is perhaps not so gentle. Indeed, the term sounds warm, cozy, and endearing; but why then do I feel a distinct chill in the air, a bitter edge, an icy draft? Why do I fear that children brought up under this style of parenting will be left adrift and out in the cold? I sense deception and deceit. Why? Because life on planet Earth, in many respects, is not gentle. It is not kind. Reality can be brutal, savage, and vicious.  

These new age elements say the old traditional methods are harsh, controlling, authoritarian, cruel, and uncompromising. Those traditional methods are not without their downfalls and risks, but they are the methods that produced the intrepid explorers and pioneers, the curious inventors and innovators, and the most effective leaders and legends in our nation’s history. Those methods, when done correctly, produce a strange something called grit, which is a fine mixture of courage, bravery, resilience, and strength.  

Were there, are there, abuses with the old methods? Of course, there will always be deviance, there will always be distortion, and there will always be ditches. That goes for many good and right things. The real problem here is that by doing away with the old methods we are in very real danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We do well to consider very carefully the reasons for the fences before we remove them. Children have been raised essentially the same way for thousands of years; that is, a biblically based way in many respects. Of course, cultures and religions vary greatly but children have been traditionally reared in a way that is foreign to the gentle parenting techniques. It is only in the last 15 to 20 years or so that liberal minds have introduced the thought that the old style constitutes abuse. And do we see a better world for it? Less crime, less addiction, less dysfunction? I think not.  

Some types of abuse are easy to define. Others not so much. Gentle parenting carries a very real potential for a type of abuse that is cloaked in subtlety and not clearly perceptible at first glance. To send a warrior into battle without adequate training or tools could be labeled as abuse. To send a child to school, a youth to their first job, or a young adult into marriage without tools to face life with all its disappointments, rigors, and realities seems like a type of abuse to me. With this in mind, gentle parenting becomes, at the very least, a disservice.  

Most of us are hardwired to learn the hard way. There may be adults who can learn from other’s mistakes but there are few children who do. Lessons learned best are often lessons served up through pain, shame, and guilt, the exact facets that gentle parenting strives to diminish and erase from the life of a child. The hard knocks that life brings are not easily forgotten. The hot stove, I think we can say, is never forgotten. An emotionally sedentary life focused on comfort with protection from struggle, sacrifice, conflict, and pain does not produce a disciplined adult capable of navigating the world in which we live. And I don’t believe it produces an adult capable of navigating our own inner world of selfish appetites, unreliable feelings, and fluid and fickle emotions.   

As has been said, if parents do not train their children, society will, and this route is more often than not the route of heartache, discomfort, and sadness.  

There are voices out there in society that have seen the negative effects of gentle parenting. Matt Walsh, a celebrity commentator and podcast host, has stated that “gentle parenting produces entitled, self-indulgent, and weak” individuals. He goes on to say that “old style parenting is proven and true. It helped us go from huts to high-rises. It produced children that became pioneers and warriors.” 

Gentle parenting is just now beginning to be studied by research psychologists and the preliminary findings so far are not positive. What they have found is parents adrift in ideology—that is, no clear guide or direction—while experiencing burnout and exhaustion. The researchers stated that “parents do so much with the best intentions, yet ironically, they may be doing a disservice with all the lavish care and heady, cerebral talk that they do with their kids… …The gentle parenting approach might be underserving their kids while also exhausting themselves” (Macalester College, 2024). These researchers also noted that the lofty ideals of gentle parenting, such as maintaining boundaries and making shared decisions, sound good, but were very difficult to explain, and even more difficult to carry out on a practical level.  

At this juncture in our discussion, I feel to insert an important caveat. I wonder if among our Christian culture and religious community there has been misunderstandings at times regarding a traditional versus a more gentle or connected approach to parenting. Those of us involved in mental and emotional health, having been involved with adopted and foster children, have encouraged child nurture that is heavy on connection and communication with a directive to steer away from most types of corporal punishment. It needs to be made clear that these directives were made in the context of trauma, abuse, and neglect. These are important distinctions. Often in children who have been subjected to abuse, a spanking, for example, is counterproductive and does not bring the desired result. In some children from hard places, it makes the behavior worse. I am not saying it is always that way, every child is different, and every child must be raised in the fear and nurture of the Lord. But the point here is that wisdom must be sought, and care must be taken when employing a harsher method of punishment. Children who have experienced trauma must be made to feel safe, secure, and loved before various methods of punishment, discipline, and training are explored.  

In conclusion. It seems that for parenting to be successful and to raise a well-regulated and adjusted individual, the challenging middle-of-the-road approach is best. It is imperative for a father and mother to connect emotionally with their children; it is imperative to show them kindness, mercy, and compassion for through this showing we define and model these qualities. But the middle road also holds judgment and justice, reward and punishment. For thereby these values, too, are introduced and made the inevitable part of life that they are. A well-adjusted child will know well, not only the feelings of guilt but also of redemption and forgiveness and the subsequent release of said guilt. Parents guiding their children through loss and disappointment, not coddling or protecting them, are doing their children a favor, and ultimately guiding them towards resilience and strength.  

Related article - Preparing Children for Battle - Teaching Resiliency

Ben Friesen

Wishing everyone blessings, beauty, and bounty in the New Year.

(Readers ask me if they can forward these articles. The answer is yes, you are free to comment, criticize, subscribe, and forward).