What type of parent are you? A guide to decoding the different methods
At the start of this century, the unyielding regime of ex-maternity nurse Gina Ford was in vogue. The Contented Little Baby Book author advised letting your baby cry itself to sleep, and feeding it according to a strict schedule that suited you. While many of my friends swore by it, I realised – even as a novice mother – that deferring to my newborn’s needs, not the other way round, would make us both happier.
Perhaps attachment theory would have suited me better – the stone-cold antithesis of Ford’s working-parents-first method – first publicised in 1951. Its author, the paediatrician John Bowlby, proposed that warm, consistent maternal care in infancy and early childhood is essential for mental health. Or maybe Dr Spock – author of 1946’s The Common Sense Book Of Baby And Child Care – another softhearted expert, who believed babies should be fed when hungry, that parents should nurture their children, show them they’re loved.
Yet, for every fortunate child of the 60s or 70s, whose parents followed the laid-back approach of Spock, there are surely two more whose authoritarian parents believed children should be seen and not heard, smacked them soundly and sent them to bed. And, today, it seems there are more ways to raise a child than ever before.
From “helicopter” parents (anxiously buzzing, ever-present, sweating the fine detail of their kids’ lives) to “tiger” mothers (strict, demanding, pushing their children to excel) and “data-driven” parenting (its guru, Cribsheet author Emily Oster, is an American economist), many of us put more thought, structure and strategy into our children’s upbringing than our parents did. But are we getting it right?
Educate yourself, she says – but don’t ignore your own instincts, says social scientist and researcher Matilda Gosling, author of Evidence-Based Parenting: From Toddler To Pre-Teen. She references work from the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent on the decline in parenting authority. “Through people setting themselves up as ‘experts’, there is a risk that they’re removing parents’ sense that they can make decisions based on what’s best for them and their families.”
New York-based “free-range” parent advocate Lenore Skenazy believes that our reliance on data and experts is damaging family life. Harking back to an era of “benign neglect”, her philosophy includes allowing children to spend more time on their own and become self-reliant. Her tribe is “fighting the belief that our children are in constant danger from creeps, kidnapping, germs, grades, flashers, frustration, failure, baby snatchers, bugs, bullies, men, sleepovers and/or the perils of a non-organic grape”.
A small step away perhaps from the free-range approach is permissive parenting – where boundaries are a dirty word and parents rarely, if ever, says, “No,” to their offspring. This might appear to be the best thing for a conflict-free family life – but research suggests it may contribute to “a longer-term lack of resilience, greater fragility, an inability to handle problems”, says Gosling. “If you have edges, if you have boundaries and limits, it creates a sense of security and safety.” Its lack can leave a child feeling “quite lost in the chaos of the world”.
The opposite of permissive parenting? Authoritarian – cold, draconian and deservedly out of style. Research finds it can result in children having low-self esteem, poor decision-making skills and behavioural and emotional problems. But, interestingly, studies have found that its rigidity can lead to better outcomes for children who grow up in chaotic neighbourhoods – with a gang culture, for example. “I wonder if, by having a very strict home regime where your child has a curfew and very strict rules, you are potentially preventing your child being drawn in to what their peers are doing, because they’ll be more reliant on the family unit,” says Gosling.
Not only can the white noise of too many self-styled parenting authorities undermine individuals’ belief that they can work it out for themselves, Gosling suspects it could be partly why parenting styles sweep in and out of fashion. “It’s this constant search for somebody to give the answers.” As she notes, we’d traditionally learn from our parents and grandparents, “but it’s a lot less possible than it was in the past.”
New to the parenting scene is the “lighthouse parent”, named by an American paediatrician to characterise the mother or father who’s a beacon of light and strength, rock solid, offering emotional support and impeccable guidance when needed, but wisely allows their child to find their own way, solve their own problems, to feel and grow competent.
Is this really a novel parenting style or just a recent label for a confident, emotionally intelligent, sensible parent? When my kids were little, I was helicopter-ish through fear. But I was inspired to be calmer and more grounded, by a deeply affecting fictionalised example of what essentially was lighthouse parenting.
It featured in the semi-autobiographical novel When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit by Judith Kerr, published in 1971. Her German Jewish family fled the Nazis, ending up in Paris. Despite the horror, stress and grief of their experience, her parents chose to present it to their children as an adventure – and so the kids weren’t frightened. They flourished. It resonated – what a lesson.
“The lighthouse parent has some overlap with authoritative parenting,” says Gosling, “which describes a close, communicative, nurturing relationship with your child, inclusive of firm but fair boundary setting, and encouraging of independence. This parenting style is generally believed to lead to healthiest outcomes for children.”
Freedom to explore is essential, she says, especially in adolescence. “A lot of research suggests we’re not letting children take enough risks and have enough independence. A balance of taking healthy risks supports resilience and development, and allows children to apply the skills they’ve learned from one tricky situation to another.”
Gosling – who carried out an analysis of parenting techniques and research for her two books, Evidence-Based Parenting and Teenagers: The Evidence Base, isn’t a fan of helicopter parenting or its other iterations – a “snowplough” or “lawnmower” parent (“so intensely involved”, constantly clearing their child’s path of difficulties). Research finds that children need to experience problems and manageable stress to develop resilience and strength, says Gosling. Plus, such parents exhaust themselves, when their own wellbeing should be a priority. “If they haven’t sorted their stuff out first, it will have a massive impact on their children.”
I aspire to be a lighthouse parent, but when I saw that my son, 20, had left for college and his sandwich remained at home, my reflex thought was, “I’m going into town – I could drop it off.” Helicoptering or being kind? As Sarah Ockwell-Smith, author of The Gentle Parenting Book, recently said to me, “Would you do it for your friend? Or husband? They don’t call it helicopter friendship! Or helicopter marriage!”
We do our best. As Gosling says, “You need the flexibility to change your parenting approach, and the self-confidence to believe it’s the right thing to do, as your child changes, and as you change, and as the situations around them change – not thinking there is one right way to approach things. There really isn’t.”
You Might Also Like
