Opinions on this "soft parenting" approach article

[LaineyB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2101786/My-soft-parenting-monsters-children.html

[iaineasy]

86 views and no one wants to give an opinion?

Well here goes (gulp)...

The article's title leads one to believe that it's going to be a critique on "soft parenting", but when you read deeper, soft parenting isn't really the cause of the author's problem. The author and her husband have a 5, 4 and 2 year old, and they fully admit that they don't spend enough time with them. That is the root of the problem right there. ANY parenting technique is subject to fail if you don't actually spend enough time applying it, in person, to your own children!

Three other issues that spring up are (1) the children may be overscheduled, (2) the parents may be passing their own stresses to their children, and (3) the author is parenting on the assumption that children are mini-adults with full capacities for rational thought and treating them as such.

Now, while I do believe in giving children respect the same as adults, there are no credible psychological theories of which I am aware that ascribe the same funtional ability for rational thought to children as to adults. Rather, the ability to reason appears to take shape in a series of fundamental developmental leaps that are not completed until puberty is fully completed. Therefore, although you can reason with children, it's only going to be effective and successful if it's actually on par with their developmental level. Children are not mini-adults in this aspect.

Reasoning with children in the context of so-called soft parenting can be successful, but it needs to be done at a developmental level on which the children can actually understand it.

It's unfair to criticise any parenting technique, when there are fundamental problems in other areas of the child-parent relationship. I don't think the author will be successfull in changing her parenting approach until she addresses these other issues.

(Saffron... sorry, logged in to Hubbie's account)

[Saffron]

(Sorry, forum. That's obviously my post above. I was logged in my account, but then had to reset the router. So apparently that makes the browser default to his loggin. Well you learn something new everyday! I'm off to do some hopeless, misguided, guilt-ridden parenting to my own toddler. No, wait... she's still napping. Ah, maybe just another cup to of tea then...Saff xx)

[ican'thearyou]

Blah blah blah.......oh and while you have professed very clearly that you have a fountain of wisdom on parenting matters why is your child napping at 5:25pm???????

[Saffron]

Nope, never prof'd myself to be a foutain of parenting wisdom. ;-)

(And my child is sleeping b/c she is ill. xx)

Oh, btw did you have an opinion on the actual article???

[Vickster]

Interesting first post ican'thearyou - really going to endear yourself to people....

Back to the article, and totally agree with Saffron regarding the underlying issues in the parent/child relationship. I can speak from experience too, working full time after the birth of my first. It is very easy to be a soft parent (whether you intend to or not) when the time you spend with your child is limited.

[sillywoman]

I think the article is - in mumsnet parlance - a troll. Surely no-one in their right mind would announce so readily to the world their complete ineffectiveness as parents? I think it's an article designed, and probably commissioned, to provoke controversy and debate. This is surely not a real family? All the clues are there - the children, Hugo, Oscar & Imogen, at the tender ages of 5,4 and 2 attend between them gymnastics, ballet, swimming, piano, football, music, & baby-yoga - really? Nah. Mark my words this is a DM made up family designed purely to provoke or I'll eat my M&S woolly hat.

[Ruth_Baldock]

I agree with Sillywoman. Bad scene, Daily Fail.

Saffron; even when they're not ill, we sometimes get our two to have a late pm catnap if it all getting Too Much. You did the right thing. *nods*

[ican'thearyou]

Yes vickster this is my first post and sorry it's a negative, however when something sparks you getting involved is the whole idea of the forum. I am a parent who tries to parent for my child's best interests in the long term not just short term and being a firm but fair parent I felt that this family being open about their failures which when strolling around Dulwich everyone will have noticed the softly softly approach a large majority seem to take and I felt with the immediate disagreance from mothers it showed that people nowadays aren't willing to imagine any other parenting than what they themselves feel is fit.

I just think they admitted they got it wrong and I think it's a growing problem

[LaineyB]

Oh dear I wasn't quite sure if this thread would get a response as I'm not sure I've ever initiated a thread before!

Oh well I suppose this is a healthy debate and mums are always very passionate!

I fully understand why people are sceptical about the actuality of the article but I did respect their openness as the youth gets a lot of negative press now and finding the source is of high significance to everyone as they will lead the way soon

[Dudley]

I agree with Sillywoman.

This must be made up. It is a not very thinly veiled attack on working parents, and working mothers in particular (and I am a SAHM).

"So we have been unavailable for long periods of time when our children needed us. Instead, they?ve been brought up by a succession of kind but professional childcare experts ? nannies and au pairs ? who are hardly a substitute for a loving mother and father."

Seriously this is laughable.

[Fuschia]

The mother in the article certainly has a busy life

Not only has she come to the mail's sttention as a 'soft parent' but is also a hampshire mother who made an amazing find:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072348/Toybox-tat-bought-just-20-turned-32-000-royal-gem-worn-Russian-Czarina.html

What a coincidence!

And look - here is her day job (not mentioned in either article)

http://www.jourdanagency.com/team.htm

[Belle]

I can vouch for her being a journalist - she worked on the Scotsman for years, before moving down here, and I've crossed paths with her professionaly and indirectly (she lived with a relative for a while) - as far as I know this is all genuine. But yes given the vehicle - the mail - it's written with a certain slant, as you'd expect.

[Belle]

ps don't understand why a child having a nap at any time is somehow bad parenting?!

[Fuschia]

Typical daily mail presenting one of their staff as a 'member of the public'

Makes it very misleading

Editor; 'thea - you have kids - rustle up something good for us will you?'

[Saila]

i like her.

i think she's open and honest about her choices and family life.

good on her to work hard and find time to start a business etc - it's inspiring to me anyway.

if she thinks she's made mistakes, then fine. dont we all make mistakes?

i think she sounds like a great mum and a great role model for her kids (espeically the girls!)

[Saffron]

I like her too. Despite my criticisms, I don't think she's a bad parent. I do think the article is written to cause debate, as it's certainly not well-written from a logical point of view.

You could just as easily substitute "harsh" parenting for "soft" parenting, and the same essential issues (which are not actually related to parenting style) would still crop up, ie parents not spending enough time w children, over-sched'd kids, parental stress, and the false assumption of rationality (I mean, c'mon how many rational 2 yos do you know? They are not mini-adults.) Surely these are problems most parents will struggle with more/less over their children's life times, and trying to change your parenting strategy will not minimise these issues unless it addresses them directly.

I also find the idea that firm parenting is fair (eg, the expression "firm but fair"), somehow implies that soft parenting is not fair. I don't personally agree with that. I think that both types of parenting can be fair, and that different parenting styles are suited to different family combinations. To tar a whole parenting genre with the same brush just seems odd to me, which brings me back to criticising the article as illogical. It certainly is emotive though!

[Belle]

just finished reading steve biddulph's book about contented children, and he writes about the need for both soft and firm love. He does it in a mildly annoying/almost trying to trademark the terms way but the general principles are good, in my opinion...

[Saffron]

It's an intersting article, but after mulling it over for a while, I've put my finger on the thing that rankles me about it. It certainly provokes debate (and gets people reading the DM), but debate alone doesn't generally change people's views on parenting or offer any real solutions for people who are struggling with parenting issues. So, does the article alone accomplish anything other than to get people reading the DM?

[Fuschia]

I think it probably further engrains a certain attitude in existing DM readers and will no doubt result in a fair bit of tutting at poor mothers in supermarkets handling 2 year olds who are just being two year olds...!

[prickle]

The article is the usual life style piece you get more and more of these days.

Quote one so called 'expert' and the rest is lazy, shallow journalism (if we can call it that)

"My children don?t spend hours playing online, but they don?t get a lot of time to wind down. Imogen started ballet when she was three and now learns swimming, gymnastics and piano. Hugo is about to start football, which we?ll fit around music class. Even Oscar goes to baby yoga and sing-along drop-in." and "We have two trampolines so they don?t have to share, we go on foreign holidays twice a year and they have all the latest toys in their large, airy playroom." What's that got to do with anything?

What she does not write about is what she is going to do to improve her children's behaviour. All we get is "Meanwhile, my husband and I are looking at ways to spend more quality time with the children. From now on, I?m going to use a little tough love and show my three that I?m firmly in control of the zoo." Tough love? Quality time? Do us a favour!

What a load of twaddle!