Gentle parenting—how did this seemingly wholesome phrase come to elicit such strong negative reactions as contempt, sarcasm, and condescension?
I recently came across an illustrated book, supposedly for children, which recounts the tale of a young boy who becomes a “ne’er-do-well” [sic] due to his mother’s consistent gentle responses to his emotional outbursts.
In reality, the book presents four episodes of tantrums by a preschooler, concluding that the mother’s lack of reprimand and exclusive focus on the child’s feelings, who “does not know how to express himself”, have caused these tantrums. It also suggests that this is why the world is full of dissatisfied children (and adults).
A more careful definition of a tantrum would probably call this logical progression into question. However, it was the ironic couplet that prompted me to study the book’s premises more closely: “But this theory (of gentleness, ed.) / Although the mother liked it…”
Here, we have a confrontation between two ways of understanding parental authority, care, and responsibility. For this confrontation to be fruitful, however, we must move beyond irony and labels, asking ourselves what the actual positions are and whether they ever converge in their true form, rather than in their simplified or caricatured versions.
The first natural step from here is to clarify who is talking about parenting and the framework of thought they are using. Only then can we ensure that each side recognises itself in the other’s description, and that the debate is between real perspectives with their own premises, limits, and intentions, rather than imaginary extremes.
Who is talking about parenting, and what are they saying?
Every generation has experienced the difficulty of distinguishing between authority and harshness, or care and weakness. This is where the first spark of friction appears between contemporary parenting styles.
While not the first thing we consider when presented with a parenting theory, each narrative about how we should raise our children is based on assumptions that cannot be proven factually but are accepted as beliefs. It is interesting to note that the range of parenting styles includes more than just gentle or traditional parenting, as suggested in the aforementioned book.
When it comes to raising children, we now see many more frameworks from which parents often borrow elements without strictly adhering to one framework or another. Let’s take a look at them one by one.
Attachment parenting
In attachment parenting, it is believed that a child’s long-term emotional health depends on forming a secure attachment with their parents, who must be willing to respond promptly to their child’s needs and always be there for them.
Proponents of attachment theory emphasise sensitivity, emotional synchronisation, and emotional co-regulation in their discourse. Those who embrace this type of parenting generally discourage letting a child cry it out, sleeping alone from infancy, or being put on a strict schedule. What makes attachment theory extremely attractive today is its alignment with the therapeutic culture that characterises Western societies.
Attachment theory draws heavily on recent studies in developmental psychology and neuroscience. It is therefore a theory with strong scientific support. Furthermore, it offers parents a simple moral rule: parents must always be attentive. However, critics of attachment theory argue that it intensifies parental guilt when things go wrong and consumes an enormous amount of time and emotional resources.
Gentle parenting
Attachment parenting is often confused with gentle parenting, but the latter is a distinct theory. According to this theory, children deserve the same respect as adults. Within this framework, discipline cannot involve adults punishing children; rather, children must be taught discipline. Gentle parenting rejects the idea of educating children through punishment, threats, and rewards. Instead, it emphasises empathy, emotional validation, and collaboration between parent and child in problem solving.
What makes gentle parenting appealing is that it is based on egalitarian values and has a strong ethic of non-violence. Why? Because it recognises that behavioural problems are the result of a lack of skills or unmet needs. However, this approach attracts criticism for being too permissive or unclear about setting boundaries for the child.
Authoritarian parenting
Most criticism of gentle parenting comes from proponents of authoritarian parenting, which gentle parenting criticises just as much. Authoritarian parenting is an umbrella term for traditional child-rearing models based on the idea that discipline and respect can only be developed through firm authority.
Advocates of this approach emphasise obedience, hierarchy, and parental control, viewing discipline as a form of moral instruction. Authoritarian parenting has its roots in cultural continuity, tradition, and sometimes religion. It is popular with parents who value the clarity, structure, and predictability that this approach provides. However, critics say that it achieves obedience through fear and reduces the child’s autonomy.
Authoritative parenting
Due to its name, authoritarian parenting is often confused with another theory: authoritative parenting. The main premise of this theory is the need to strike a balance between emotional warmth and firm, consistent boundaries. This balance is intended to encourage clarity about expectations, consequences, and emotional support. Authoritative parenting is widely embraced in developmental psychology research and is considered pragmatic and evidence-based. However, critics reproach its abstract nature and the fact that it offers parents too little guidance in emotional conflicts with their children.
Behaviourist parenting
Like authoritative parenting, behaviourist parenting is results-oriented. However, unlike authoritative parenting, it focuses predominantly on the child’s observable behaviour rather than their emotions. It is based on the belief that the most effective method of shaping a child’s behaviour is to apply consequences: rewards for desirable behaviour and punishments for undesirable behaviour.
This theory makes extensive use of rewards, progress charts, and structured routines, making it clear, efficient, and practical. Behavioural parenting is often used in clinical contexts or in the therapy of children with special needs. Critics argue that it ignores the child’s emotions and destroys the child’s intrinsic motivation, as they learn to act either for reward or for fear of punishment.
Permissive parenting
Permissive parenting is a style that deserves special attention for two reasons. Firstly, it is often confused with gentle or attachment parenting by critics of these approaches. Secondly, even parents who adopt these styles in good faith may unintentionally end up practising permissive parenting when they encounter difficulties in balancing validating their child’s emotions with consistently applying limits.
Permissive parenting is based on the idea that giving the child maximum freedom, with minimal adult involvement, helps them to thrive. Therefore, it imposes few rules and consequences while encouraging autonomy and self-expression. Those who adopt this style resonate with its rejection of coercion and adult-centred norms. However, the main criticism of this style is that it fails to develop the child’s emotional self-regulation and lacks clear boundaries.
Free-range parenting
One aspect of permissive parenting is free-range parenting, which maintains that a child’s independence and resilience are fostered through unsupervised experiences. This parenting style encourages children to be autonomous, take risks, and trust their instincts. However, the different contexts of children and the different legal contexts of countries mean that this type of parenting is often criticised. However, it is essentially libertarian and the opposite of overprotecting children, making it attractive to parents who believe an alternative is needed to a childhood dominated by anxious parenting and micromanaging behaviour.
Achievement-oriented parenting
However, the micromanaging parent also adheres to a specific theoretical approach: achievement-oriented parenting. This style is based on the belief that maintaining high expectations and standards, as well as imposing discipline, leads to long-term success in raising children. Adherents of this style are often people who share the same cultural background as their peers, without necessarily being aware that they are following this theory.
Sometimes nicknamed “helicopter parents”, they prioritise their child’s academic excellence, effort, and skill development, and believe that sacrifice and pressure are expressions of love. In meritocratic, competition-based systems, this type of parenting is implied. However, critics accuse it of leading to burnout and anxiety and of cultivating the idea that a person is only worthy of respect if they have external achievements.
Theory meets real life
This array of theories offers a markedly different perspective to the black-and-white image constructed by the book mentioned at the beginning of this article.
In the book, the mother appears to have selected a parenting approach purely because she “likes” it, reducing her decision to a matter of personal preference, independent of any deliberations or constraints. It seems she chose this option because it was convenient, which makes her an easy target for ridicule.
In reality, however, the broader picture of contemporary parenting is different. Most parents do not strictly follow theories, but rather gather ideas, make adjustments, abandon them, and return to older ones. They do this because real-life situations show them that none of the options is sufficient on its own. In practice, the boundaries between styles are nowhere near as distinct as the controversy surrounding them suggests.
Of course, presenting this reality as an opposition between dedicated and superficial parents has its advantages. It simplifies the discussion and makes it easier to take sides. It quickly establishes who is right and who is wrong without requiring confrontation with the concrete, everyday ambiguities that actually define raising a child.
However, there are explanations for this antagonism, and they are not just about adherence to a particular parenting style.
The symbolic value of being the “right” kind of parent
In contemporary debates about parenting, the conflict between different schools of thought often seems disproportionate to the actual differences in practice. Public discussions are dominated by stark oppositions (gentleness versus discipline; attachment versus behaviour), although in everyday life, most parents instinctively combine elements from several models. This raises an even more interesting question than that of pedagogical effectiveness: why do parents end up antagonising each other over theories that they never actually follow in their pure form? One possible answer relates to the moral pressure exerted on adults.
The virtuous parent
In recent decades, parenting has become one of the few areas in which individuals are expected not only to be competent, but also to embody virtue. In a context of economic insecurity, weak community networks, and limited institutional support, parents are led to believe that their children’s success or failure depends almost entirely on the parents’ decisions.
In this context, a parenting theory provides not only practical guidance, but also moral reassurance, offering parents a way to affirm that they are doing the right thing, even when the outcome is uncertain or discouraging. Parents need to believe that they are good parents because believing otherwise offers no safety net. If they, as the ultimate source of support, fail, then everything collapses.
In Eastern Europe, this dynamic is accentuated by the still recent memory of authoritarian education and widespread distrust of the public education system. For some of the urban middle classes, gentle parenting and attachment-centred models have become a common language of modernity and a way of distancing themselves from the past. Adopting these models not only involves trying a different way of relating to the child, but also affirming a cultural and moral identity.
Conversely, harsh criticism of these models, including that formulated from a behaviourist perspective, often expresses the frustration of those who feel excluded or judged by an ideal that is perceived as being unattainable or unrealistic.
Adherents of gentleness, practitioners of compromise
The problem arises when these theories are presented as complete moral solutions, with their structural limitations being overlooked. Gentle parenting requires time, emotional energy, professional flexibility, and access to information—all of which are unevenly distributed resources. More behaviour-oriented models can provide structure and clarity in difficult contexts, but they can fail to respond to complex relational needs. Neither approach is sufficient on its own, and turning them into rigid identities produces polarisation rather than support.
In practice, even parents who publicly adhere to gentle ideals must negotiate harsh realities daily, such as rigid work schedules, a lack of institutional support, and pressure from school. However, this tension remains unspoken. The discrepancy between actions at home and claims online is a symptom of a culture that has shifted almost all responsibility for raising children onto parents, while the state, schools, and communities largely remain outside the equation. Is it fair to expect people to compensate for a lack of structural stability through personal virtue and intense emotional effort?
Parenting theories are successful because they offer meaning amidst the uncertainty that characterises parenting today. Antagonism between groups arises when this shared reality is denied and personal frustrations are projected onto other parents, who then become symbolic targets.
Who are we without our activist hats on?
The conflicts surrounding parenting theories are, in a sense, nothing more than immature expressions of overwhelming pressure. In the public sphere, these tensions manifest as irony, caricatures, and antagonism between “camps”. In the office, however, they manifest as vulnerability. There, parents do not come to defend a theory, but to find solutions to their fears.
Psychologist Monica Mereuţă has noticed an increasing trend of parental suffering: the fear that setting boundaries could damage the bond of love with a child.
Many parents are afraid to refuse their child’s requests because they feel that being emotionally firm is incompatible with secure attachment. This dissonance explains why gentle parenting is often perceived as the easy choice from the outside when, in reality, it involves one of the most challenging emotional tasks: remaining present and stable at times when a child’s emotions are most difficult to handle.
This is where the real challenge lies, bypassed by both caricatured criticism and naïve idealisation. The debate is not about choosing between empathy and boundaries, but about how difficult it is for parents not to neglect either. The psychologist’s response to this dilemma is reassuring.
Secure attachment can be maintained even when the child suffers as a result of a fair limit. According to Mereuţă, attachment breaks down when the adult becomes hesitant, unpredictable, or paralysed by their own fear. This is because limits are not walls erected against the child; rather, they are the framework that allows the child to not be alone in the face of their own impulses.
Echoes from another sphere
Regardless of theoretical school, research converges on one point: a lack of limits does not produce freer children, but more anxious ones. This is because an immature brain is not equipped to handle absolute freedom. Without clear limits, emotional control becomes a burden for children.
In this sense, calmly setting limits is one of the clearest forms of empathy. It conveys to the child: “I can manage your frustration; you don’t have to bear it alone.” A parent’s role is not to avoid their child’s suffering at all costs, but to be present while it occurs. The parent-child relationship is built through a repeated process of rupture and repair: the adult says “no” but does not disappear; they cause the child frustration but do not abandon them.
To have a more mature conversation about parenting, we need to shift the focus from identity to function, asking not “What kind of parent am I?” but “What kind of reference point do I provide for my child in difficult moments?” Accepting that empathy and boundaries are complementary dimensions of the same responsibility is not easy, either conceptually or emotionally.
However, the idea of boundaries that do not break the relationship is not foreign to our culture. It appears in another form in reflections that go beyond the psychological framework. Christians are already familiar with a framework that makes this tension more intelligible: the idea that God can be both loving and just.
Christianity teaches us that suffering is not always avoidable; sometimes it is even permitted or provoked. However, presence is never withdrawn. Similarly, on a human level, parents set rules, say “no”, and cause frustration but without suspending their love or relationship—even when it seems, from an outside perspective, that they are doing exactly the opposite.
