Is ‘gentle parenting’ just a fast way to ruin your child?

My parents love my brother and me very much, and they show it constantly. They are the opposite of cold people. Nothing I am about to say should be read as a complaint about affection. They believed that love was most essential — and also that limits and discipline were both part of the job. They did not seem to believe there was any conflict between the two.

My brother and I did not talk back, negotiate or say no to our parents. I am not sure the word “no” was legally available to us. My brother calls our father “Sir.” We helped around the house because that was simply what we did. We never received an allowance.

So I was naturally curious, but also skeptical, when I heard my husband repeat some popular lines about “connection before correction” when it comes to our one-year-old son’s future parenting experience. This phrase is one of the mantras of what people call “gentle parenting.” So I did what any reasonable academic, wife or new mother would do — I opened some books.

The most influential framework for parenting comes from psychologist Diana Baumrind, who in the 1960s sorted parenting along dimensions of warmth and demands. Maccoby and Martin added a fourth style — neglectful or uninvolved parenting — in 1983. The result is the familiar four-part typology for parenting: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful.

The pattern across the meta-analyses is very consistent. A 2018 review found that an authoritative parenting style, emphasizing both responsiveness and making demands of children, is superior in fostering higher academic performance and less negative psychological outcomes.

A second-order meta-analysis of 22 earlier reviews found that only authoritative parenting — not authoritarian, neglectful, or permissive — was positively associated with children’s academic outcomes. By........

© The Hill