Peter's description of his childhood sounds idyllic. I was raised, in the 80's, not by carefree parents. My parents held huge amounts of anxiety which I believe has been passed on through intergenerational trauma - from war, financial stress, addiction and domestic violence.
So whilst my home was free from physical violence (unlike the homes of my parents, raised in the 50's) it was not free from verbal and emotional violence.
The feeling you get as a child raised in an emotionally abusive home (for me at least) was that there was something wrong with me. So I became hypervigilant, I tried my best to be perfect. I developed the coping mechanism of having an eating disorder. My schooling system rewarded perfection and seemed to promote this unrealistic desire to "be perfect". So I became a people-pleaser... and parents who get their sense of value from pleasing others find it almost impossible to ignore the relentless commentary from society/family/friends on one's child and their behaviour and their appearance and the food you're providing... etc.
I managed to shut out that noise (because my middle son objected so strongly to being controlled, and I hated myself for being the parent that yelled at and shamed their child) and I spent years figuring out how to parent effectively without harming my child with judgement, fear and shame as my tools for control. I found the Parent Effectiveness Training book and course very helpful in changing my perspective from trying to control others' behaviour, to asking myself what I needed, what I felt... and sharing that. My kids began to feel respected, because I began asking them the same questions... what do you need, what are you feeling... and usually they said they needed autonomy and to be trusted, and said they felt stupid or bad when I was trying so hard to control them. So I became more of a sounding board. I learnt how to active listen and sometimes provide advice, should my kids ask. I have undoubtedly, in their early years, shaped my kids stress responses with my own learned/innate nervous system wiring, and my kids do not find this world easy... mainstream school did not work for them so they homeschool... this means my life is very heavily involved with theirs for the moment.
But I have let go of thinking I need to control them, and let go of linking my value as a person/mother to my kids' lives and the perception others have on how well we're doing. Peter Gray's book helped give me the confidence to walk a different path and for that I'm so grateful.
And it's worth noting that this process took me close to a decade of intentionallt healing my own inner child, of quitting my job and selling my house, so I could focus on the massive job of re-writing my ingrained blue print of what it means to be a parent.
I think many are stuck, without the CPI resources mentioned in the text... and so the pattern of harmful relationships between parent and child continues.
We in Australia have somewhat more financial support for parents ... but its only enough to keep you a touch away from poverty. We as a nation could also learn a lot from the Scandinavian model of how everyone in the community - in the country- benefits from properly funded social support systems for people needing help, be they families, elderly, or unwell.
I can only talk from my experience…but my parents were both raised in 50’s and whilst they experienced the freedom on which you described, their ability to deal with their emotional realm was seriously stunted. My father had no language for handling emotions and as a man knew only on ‘anger’ as self expression. My mother married unhappily as she did not have the emotional intelligence to advocate for herself (at the time). I am sure they are not alone. The ‘Work’ I do in raising my own children is investing in really getting to know themselves. Their full selves - physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
This tracks with my experience and I think you phrased it beautifully. I've been thinking there must be a way to be an "intentional" parent these days without being an "intensive" one? For me, this means being present during the caregiving moments (meals, bedtimes) pulling back during play, and providing a healthy dose of emotional literacy (while refraining from isolation: time outs) when things are heated.
I think it's extremely motivated reasoning and ignorant to blame intensive parenting as the reason why parents are stressed. I am a pretty intensive parent, and I love it.
You know what I don't love? Intensive working. And that's the thing I really don't have a choice on, and that's the thing the American government or the surgeon-general won't take a stand on. It's not unusual now to be working 12-15 hour days in white-collar salaried jobs. Maybe back in the Don Draper days, only the husband worked that much, but now both mom and dad work hours that are that long. That's a bigger reason for parental stress than any kind of work that parenting involves.
I was a SAHM for a while, and intensely parented and was highly supported by friends, grandparents, and neighbors. I was quite happy. Then I went back to work in my industry, and it's suddenly the norm to work very long hours, since it's now an employer's market and interest rates are higher. I don't have the bandwidth to "intensely parent" anymore, and guess what's happening? My toddler has to be in daycare all day, which leads to her being stressed out. She acts out, and we have to deal with behavioral issues. And when she comes home, I'm tired from my work day and I have no energy left to play. Hence, I overcompensate on weekends by stuffing it with all the activities I wanted to do during the week and giving her all the attention she has been missing during the week. And since she's not around me all day, I need to spend so much time learning her new world, the new references she makes, and recalibrate where she's at emotionally, understand what's bothering her. So I'm way more overcautious, because I don't know her new risk appetite and my own has changed because I'm at a desk all day, not catching a toddler as she jumps off a high structure at the park.
The driving force here is NOT intensive parenting. If I'm around my kid all day and taking her everywhere I go and have her socialize with other moms and their kids, and building volcanoes and spilling and destroying, I'm not stressed out. If however, I'm not able to spend time with a child who most definitely needs me, and acts out as a result, and I'm not able to make any changes because the roof over our heads is at stake, that for sure stresses me out.
The goal that both you and Jonathan Haidt seem to share is to point to parents to say we are the problem, when in fact the problem is parents not having enough time to parent in a way that's in their kids' best interest. It could be that being men, you have NO CLUE of the amount of emotional work that goes into building a child's confidence, which is almost always the domain of women. And it's probably not the domain of the women who end up in academia either, because they often have had to be working towards tenure right when they become moms, and don't know the difference a present mom can make in the life of an infant or toddler. In any case, it's probably not kosher in your neck of the woods to say that parents, especially moms, having more time at home, makes a positive difference to children. Irrespective, you folks seem to be doing whatever it takes to avoid considering the actual issue, which is that children don't have much 1-1 care as they used to. It's more fun to argue, I suppose, whether the problem is phones or outside time.
It seems like all these arguments - that screens are the problem, that not playing outside is the problem, that not being able to leave your kid to run around the city is the problem, that parents spending too much time with their kids is the problem - are all ways for parents to absolve themselves of their own guilt of not being able to spend enough time with their kids. Notice that all these problems have their solutions in governments and big tech fixing things for you, or schools fixing things for you, or laws fixing things for you. The simple solution to all these things seems to be parents spending more time with their kids. But anyone saying that will probably be tarred and feathered in academia, so I get why you guys don't say it.
I feel the frustration in your voice and wish I could give you a hug! This is a tough gig, figuring out how we want to do this with our kids. I am and have always been a stay at home mom, for 12 years now. We live not quite in, but often very near poverty. We struggle. We had to choose our hard: both working, kids in school, can more easily pay the bills... or I stay home, we struggle, have very little to work with, frequently require bailouts from our parents, but the kids can be free.
I want to say that I hear you. The financial issues and lack of time with children, particularly babies and toddlers are both extremely stressful problems. My husband struggles with it because he’d rather be home with them, but one of us does have to work.
I wonder if you have any older children, say above 5 or 6? I ask because I think that’s around about the time there is a big shift. They don’t necessarily need close contact with their primary care giver all day. They start to benefit from progressively more freedom. The way I handle making sure (as a sahm) they get enough of me is just that I’m there, allowing them to join in whatever it is I’m doing. Sometimes that might be housework, but more often it’s things I’m doing because I love to do them. They might see me crafting or drawing or hanging out with our goats, relaxing in the hammock or heading out for a walk. If they want, they join me. But more often than not, that’s only for 10-30 minutes, maybe up to an hour or so, then they’re off playing by themselves or with neighbors for hours. They stalk creatures at the ponds edge, build legos, practice archery, build forts, play long involved games of hide and seek with neighbors, or get into mischief (which I don’t necessarily think is always bad).
I know there are obstacles keeping many parents from staying home with their kids to allow this type of freedom. But I STILL believe that more freedom, less helicoptery parenting, more risk and freedom to make mistakes without our judgement, all these things Peter and those he mentions espouse, are what’s right for kids. There are just a lot of issues in our society keeping kids (and parents) from their best lives. I wonder if you struggle to credit any of these ideas/issues because circumstance has not dealt you the chance to even have to deal with them because you’re stuck working and crave nothing but that which you cannot have? Does that make any sense? I say this because from my position, all of these problems they discuss really seem on point. But I’m lucky enough to be free to see the truth of it in my children’s, and my life.
I was very into attachment parenting and was with my boys all the time, myself, until they were around 4. But even by then I started allowing them freedoms, and they were ready for them. They’re now very confident and capable kids at 12 and 8. When we get involved in too many activities now, we all get short with each other. We need space to be ourselves. Then they benefit from a mother whose life doesn’t revolve solely around them. The example of how to be a person that I am setting is well rounded and values my own needs and desires and much as my families. Whenever I feel myself slipping into forgetting to tend to those things, I become a worse person to those I love.
So here's the thing - to have my kid develop independence, she needs an adult who is around her and helping her do what she plans to do. Right now I'm typing out this comment while the 4yo tries to bake a cake. She doesn't want my help. She likes taking initiative and doing things but wants one of us to be around bearing witness.
If she was all day at daycare from 8mo like most kids in our socioeconomic strata, she wouldn't have been able to be this confident and high-agency. She wouldn't have spent several hours a day climbing up stairs and going down slides that were for kids twice her age, starting at 18mo. She'd have been problematized and I'd have been told to medicate her for ADHD just because she loves to take initiative and enjoys physical play and creating more than passive consumption. There would have been much less room for her to learn things on her own or decide what to do with her time from an early age. She wouldn't even get to nap when she wanted.
Giving kids a lot of freedom to take initiative means more work for the grownups early on. If you want your kid to get out the door all by himself, you can't be impatient everyday with how he puts his shoes on. And that's not going to happen if you need to be in daycare at 7am. It's not going to happen in the highly structured compliance-driven uniformity-enforced environment of a daycare where there's no room for individuality, simply because the teachers are stretched too thin.
If you're familiar with how your kid navigates risk, which you will be if you spend a lot of time with them, you'll feel more confident letting them take risks on their own. If you walk your kid to the park daily, you'll feel confident with them going by themselves some days. If they help you shop for groceries, you'll be more comfortable letting them run errands. If I'm at home at 3pm, then my kid can run out and play. But if I'm not home till 5pm, then my kid has to go to some kind of aftercare which is usually also structured.
However, if all you see is their reports from daycare or school, that's what you'll work on optimizing.
I think wanting to spend any amount of time with your kid is now called intensive parenting. Some parents with anxiety issues might be using their time with their kids to pressure them into doing more math or sports or whatever, but that's a mental health issue on the part of those specific parents. It's not what 90% of parents do.
I 100% agree with you that kids needing to be put in school or daycare is problematic. I’m just saying that’s not the only problem. It doesn’t discount the other things suggested as problems. I do not believe that Peter is suggesting you ignore or turn outside your infant, toddler, or very little kid. As I mentioned before, little kids do need a lot more of us. But as they grow, they need more and more space from us over time. I still spend a large amount of time with my boys. Even on days they’re mostly running around with neighbors we still eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner together. We still spend several hours after dinner mostly together, at least sharing the same space. We still cuddle up and read together before bed. So yes, if you give your time early on, they feel confident to step away later. And surely that’s something that requires your frequent presence early on and not being able to give it is an issue. I’m just saying it’s ONE of the many issues.
I think it's the root issue. If you're not spending time around your children and only know them from what their teachers say about them or how many accolades they get (or don't), you're not going to help them do things that actually make them happy and you're instead going to pressure them to succeed. If everyone is working all day, no one's out to keep an eye on kids running around freely and they need to be in some kind of structured care. If they are all in structured care, there's no ecosystem around letting a child run free.
I get what you mean. It makes sense that it is a root problem for those in that situation. But as everyone’s situation varies, I say it is merely of the problems facing parents and children and doesn't supersede or discount the others. For example, My children and I don’t suffer from this. But we are all only our happiest when I’m not over scheduling, allowing ample autonomy and freedom and space to make mistakes… all of the other things you discounted very much apply in our situation.
Peter, a cautionary note when you discuss the topic of parenting.
I think you need to emphasize that babies and babyhood are different from childhood. Adults blend them together. Parents are advised to detach from their babies and their signals (e.g., leave them untouched most of the day and night, sleep train them, put them on an adult-convenient schedule, etc). These are violations of our species' evolved nest that impair their neurobiological development and comprise early toxic stress. Too many adults lump babies together with children and then justify the undercare of babies with the need for children to be independent etc. Well-raised (evolved nested) babies will grow into independence through the course of well-supported (nested) development.
YES. Great point. Even young kids are very different from older kids, and older kids from teens. I’ve thought about this a lot… people just say “parenting” and “children” as if it’s super simple!
I'm very supportive of this work and way of thinking. I think it also connects to the Surgeon General's report about the epidemic of loneliness. Parents feel very alone in raising children and do not feel like there is a community that has their back in any way. As a Pediatrician, I encourage parents to build community and the necessity of helping hands and eyes. As well as social subsidies, social connectedness will help parents relax to everyone's benefit.
I’m inspired by the question of what “being a parent” could look and feel like without the heavy job/work connotation!
I have experienced motherhood as the most joyful relationship of my life, which is very different to most parents I know. I do think it has a lot to do with having a gardener mentality.
But I identify with “intensive” parenting in that I feel profoundly responsible for my kid—not for who he turns out to be, but for the environment around him. I don’t feel a need to control *him*, but I do feel a strong desire to control the quality of his relationships, education, and spaces to the best of my ability.
As the parent of an only child with no extended family support, who doesn’t trust public schools, living in a US neighborhood of rental condos, in a new town… “gardening” still feels like a lot of work! I want to actively find and cultivate alternative spaces (like the forest kindergarten he attends) where can learn and play and just be. Hanging out alone at home with two tired parents all day does not seem good enough.
My husband and I often fantasize about moving to Scandinavia. For now, he is always pushing for our son to operate more independently at home as a solution to how intense parenting feels sometimes. I feel very ambivalent about that. It feels like putting the burden of a systemic problem on my son. But taking on the burden of a systemic problem on myself is not sustainable either!
Curious what other under-supported parents have done to make living & growing with kids feel less intense? (I have an intuition that trusting my kid to thrive within the limits of what we have is probably an important piece of the puzzle…)
“Is trustful, relaxed, joyful parenting possible?”…As a former career nanny, a Montessori guide, and now a child therapist I *want* to believe this is possible. Unfortunately our culture actively works against it. Recently a colleague shared that she recommended a client drop a sport for some more free time and the parent immediately quipped that there would be no one around for the child to play with, as every other child is in activities after school. Every interest a child has is commodified. I work with a first grader who some nights eats dinner at 8 pm following soccer practice.
Would anyone like to join my campaign for a weekly “DO NOTHING DAY” for children?
We have avoided being overly busy but having a good balance of alone and friend time, by combining unschooling with participation in a homeschool group that just gets together to play. Like board games day once a week, park days for several hours offered a couple times a week, art clubs, hikes... but you don’t have to pay anything except a $25 a year dues for supplies... we don’t do organized sports or anything like that.
It is easier to garden, and carpenter for that matter, without gov’t interference. Govt is a major source of most of the problem here and will do nothing to help parents or children in any way.
Your work and the work of those you site here is wonderful and has already gone a long way towards moving parents and schools back to sanity. I’m always delighted when someone recommends Peter Gray,John Holt, & etc., which happens fairly often, most recently by a group of teachers speaking to a school board.
I certainly wish I had done better with letting my boys be. But they both recently and independently told me how much they appreciated the freedom they had to make their own way, much much more than their friends according to them. They aren’t married yet but I’m sure they will be much better gardeners than I was.
The tide seems to be turning and in a few generations “parenting” will fade like a bad dream.
This is a really fascinating topic for me mostly because my second child has been for more clingy and attached to me, less confident in playing independently and less social than her older sibling. I think their births and early start were similar - relaxed, unrushed, lots of outdoor time. But the main difference was the lack of community post-Covid. Ironically I had better friendships when my second was born because I'd lived in the same place longer. But the attitudes towards gathering and socialising had shifted monumentally. People did not pop round in the same way and conversations while following two+ children around a playground means a parents conversation rarely has any flow (alllll the interruptions!!) A lot of volunteer-run stay & plays did not re-open in 2021-2022. There was a big divide and a lot of public conversation about those who chose not to be vaccinated.... I like the comparisons from the 50s to now because I find social change interesting. But I also find it frustrating and unhelpful because it went can't travel back in time!! We need more examples of micro-community building in modern day challenges and this current pace of life. I see online & hear a lot of parents say forest school stay&plays are great for finding families going against the grain but they are often paid for groups, not on bus routes and therefore (unintentionally) elitist or monied and not always the community we feel comfortable being part of. Take me back to the 50s!!
It is definitely possible to create a nurturing environment that allows us to watch our children grow into themselves. But first you have to have the courage to ignore the fear mongers, to do things differently, to intentionally avoid the average public school dogma, to find or build little corners with like minded parents. And this conscious work must to on through young childhood, the early school years, middle school, and high school. It takes an enormous amount of work and confidence that you're making the right choice.
Now, I've walked to the beat of my own drummer my whole life. It doesn't bother me if everyone else is pushing their kids. I know that making sure they are in a place that nurtures the love of learning within them is the critical thing that lets them tap their own internal motivation and ownership. I've moved my kids to new schools several times and when in the right place they blossom. And in these places you find other parents who get it. But I've also watched my kids' friends stay stuck in bad schools because the parents think it has to be that way. They fear doing something different. That in doing so they will fail their kids.
It all comes back to parental fear for their kid's future and the misguided idea that the parent is responsible for making it all come out okay. And all of it is arrayed against a world in which parents are scraping by and fearing for the future. Your average non-iconoclast will need a world that feels economically safer before they'll be willing to risk letting their kid run literally and metaphorically free. We save childhood by creating safety nets for adults. Thus the happy Scandinavean parents leading to more free childhood.
I definitely think joyful and relaxed parenting is possible, but I think we need communities of people/relationships who believe the things that make it possible. For me, it's much easier to be kind, consistent and empowering when my relationship with my husband is doing well. My family of origin also believes that children are very valuable and need time and space to play and work and contribute to the family and community. They accept that they are a lot of work (yes, I do disagree with you there, I think kids are a lot of work, at least until they are three.)
I personally find that my younger children are much less work much earlier though, because they want to go play with the older kids and I don't need to entertain them like I did with the older kids! And my older kids are at the level where they give back so much. But you need a community that values these things or you won't even know they are possible.
This is nice. I think my parents had the idea of reaching for a goal, but not the clear idea of what the goal was, so even though my siblings and I turned out perfectly fine, we were all instilled with the idea that some intangible thing was deeply unsatisfactory about us.
I want to do better with my own kids. They show you from infancy that they are their own people, not simply reflections of yourself; I want to accept them and help them grow.
I think the Goldilocks parent and the “non-intensive” parent are antithetical. The parent who aims to have just the right amount of supervision, worried that too much will lead to child anxiety etc and too little will lead to danger, is just as concerned with producing a particular outcome through parental action and the parent who aims to have their child in a bunch of extracurriculars to produce a good college application. Both are aiming at a particular product.
There doesn’t seem to be a fixed definition of intensive parenting within research articles and more general pieces. Is intensive parenting a specific set of actions? Is it an attitude towards parenting? Is it going over a certain time or expenditure threshold? Is it having a particular goal for one’s child?
Yep there isn't. It's just like saying children are "spoiled". There's no clear definition and it's all based on the eyes of the beholder.
No one in the research also considers some children just need more hand-holding than others. Though I did come across one piece of research where the calm parents took over the kids of more hands-on parents and vice versa and it was the child's personality that determined how much the parent had to do than the parent's personality or parenting philosophy.
Just a quick comment to say yes to all of this--and that you and Alison Gopnik have always been my north stars in helping me understand how I wanted to be a different sort of mother. I learned to trust my intuition as a mother, and the writings of both of you have long helped me solidify that intuition and have faith in it. So, thank you!
Loved the post. I think better parenting practices are possible. But I also think people are going to have to rebuild the kinds of communities in which that parenting thrives. You need a village-type web of relationships, which many don't have today. But I do think it's possible for people to build that back as well.
Peter's description of his childhood sounds idyllic. I was raised, in the 80's, not by carefree parents. My parents held huge amounts of anxiety which I believe has been passed on through intergenerational trauma - from war, financial stress, addiction and domestic violence.
So whilst my home was free from physical violence (unlike the homes of my parents, raised in the 50's) it was not free from verbal and emotional violence.
The feeling you get as a child raised in an emotionally abusive home (for me at least) was that there was something wrong with me. So I became hypervigilant, I tried my best to be perfect. I developed the coping mechanism of having an eating disorder. My schooling system rewarded perfection and seemed to promote this unrealistic desire to "be perfect". So I became a people-pleaser... and parents who get their sense of value from pleasing others find it almost impossible to ignore the relentless commentary from society/family/friends on one's child and their behaviour and their appearance and the food you're providing... etc.
I managed to shut out that noise (because my middle son objected so strongly to being controlled, and I hated myself for being the parent that yelled at and shamed their child) and I spent years figuring out how to parent effectively without harming my child with judgement, fear and shame as my tools for control. I found the Parent Effectiveness Training book and course very helpful in changing my perspective from trying to control others' behaviour, to asking myself what I needed, what I felt... and sharing that. My kids began to feel respected, because I began asking them the same questions... what do you need, what are you feeling... and usually they said they needed autonomy and to be trusted, and said they felt stupid or bad when I was trying so hard to control them. So I became more of a sounding board. I learnt how to active listen and sometimes provide advice, should my kids ask. I have undoubtedly, in their early years, shaped my kids stress responses with my own learned/innate nervous system wiring, and my kids do not find this world easy... mainstream school did not work for them so they homeschool... this means my life is very heavily involved with theirs for the moment.
But I have let go of thinking I need to control them, and let go of linking my value as a person/mother to my kids' lives and the perception others have on how well we're doing. Peter Gray's book helped give me the confidence to walk a different path and for that I'm so grateful.
And it's worth noting that this process took me close to a decade of intentionallt healing my own inner child, of quitting my job and selling my house, so I could focus on the massive job of re-writing my ingrained blue print of what it means to be a parent.
I think many are stuck, without the CPI resources mentioned in the text... and so the pattern of harmful relationships between parent and child continues.
We in Australia have somewhat more financial support for parents ... but its only enough to keep you a touch away from poverty. We as a nation could also learn a lot from the Scandinavian model of how everyone in the community - in the country- benefits from properly funded social support systems for people needing help, be they families, elderly, or unwell.
I can only talk from my experience…but my parents were both raised in 50’s and whilst they experienced the freedom on which you described, their ability to deal with their emotional realm was seriously stunted. My father had no language for handling emotions and as a man knew only on ‘anger’ as self expression. My mother married unhappily as she did not have the emotional intelligence to advocate for herself (at the time). I am sure they are not alone. The ‘Work’ I do in raising my own children is investing in really getting to know themselves. Their full selves - physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
This tracks with my experience and I think you phrased it beautifully. I've been thinking there must be a way to be an "intentional" parent these days without being an "intensive" one? For me, this means being present during the caregiving moments (meals, bedtimes) pulling back during play, and providing a healthy dose of emotional literacy (while refraining from isolation: time outs) when things are heated.
I think it's extremely motivated reasoning and ignorant to blame intensive parenting as the reason why parents are stressed. I am a pretty intensive parent, and I love it.
You know what I don't love? Intensive working. And that's the thing I really don't have a choice on, and that's the thing the American government or the surgeon-general won't take a stand on. It's not unusual now to be working 12-15 hour days in white-collar salaried jobs. Maybe back in the Don Draper days, only the husband worked that much, but now both mom and dad work hours that are that long. That's a bigger reason for parental stress than any kind of work that parenting involves.
I was a SAHM for a while, and intensely parented and was highly supported by friends, grandparents, and neighbors. I was quite happy. Then I went back to work in my industry, and it's suddenly the norm to work very long hours, since it's now an employer's market and interest rates are higher. I don't have the bandwidth to "intensely parent" anymore, and guess what's happening? My toddler has to be in daycare all day, which leads to her being stressed out. She acts out, and we have to deal with behavioral issues. And when she comes home, I'm tired from my work day and I have no energy left to play. Hence, I overcompensate on weekends by stuffing it with all the activities I wanted to do during the week and giving her all the attention she has been missing during the week. And since she's not around me all day, I need to spend so much time learning her new world, the new references she makes, and recalibrate where she's at emotionally, understand what's bothering her. So I'm way more overcautious, because I don't know her new risk appetite and my own has changed because I'm at a desk all day, not catching a toddler as she jumps off a high structure at the park.
The driving force here is NOT intensive parenting. If I'm around my kid all day and taking her everywhere I go and have her socialize with other moms and their kids, and building volcanoes and spilling and destroying, I'm not stressed out. If however, I'm not able to spend time with a child who most definitely needs me, and acts out as a result, and I'm not able to make any changes because the roof over our heads is at stake, that for sure stresses me out.
The goal that both you and Jonathan Haidt seem to share is to point to parents to say we are the problem, when in fact the problem is parents not having enough time to parent in a way that's in their kids' best interest. It could be that being men, you have NO CLUE of the amount of emotional work that goes into building a child's confidence, which is almost always the domain of women. And it's probably not the domain of the women who end up in academia either, because they often have had to be working towards tenure right when they become moms, and don't know the difference a present mom can make in the life of an infant or toddler. In any case, it's probably not kosher in your neck of the woods to say that parents, especially moms, having more time at home, makes a positive difference to children. Irrespective, you folks seem to be doing whatever it takes to avoid considering the actual issue, which is that children don't have much 1-1 care as they used to. It's more fun to argue, I suppose, whether the problem is phones or outside time.
It seems like all these arguments - that screens are the problem, that not playing outside is the problem, that not being able to leave your kid to run around the city is the problem, that parents spending too much time with their kids is the problem - are all ways for parents to absolve themselves of their own guilt of not being able to spend enough time with their kids. Notice that all these problems have their solutions in governments and big tech fixing things for you, or schools fixing things for you, or laws fixing things for you. The simple solution to all these things seems to be parents spending more time with their kids. But anyone saying that will probably be tarred and feathered in academia, so I get why you guys don't say it.
I feel the frustration in your voice and wish I could give you a hug! This is a tough gig, figuring out how we want to do this with our kids. I am and have always been a stay at home mom, for 12 years now. We live not quite in, but often very near poverty. We struggle. We had to choose our hard: both working, kids in school, can more easily pay the bills... or I stay home, we struggle, have very little to work with, frequently require bailouts from our parents, but the kids can be free.
I want to say that I hear you. The financial issues and lack of time with children, particularly babies and toddlers are both extremely stressful problems. My husband struggles with it because he’d rather be home with them, but one of us does have to work.
I wonder if you have any older children, say above 5 or 6? I ask because I think that’s around about the time there is a big shift. They don’t necessarily need close contact with their primary care giver all day. They start to benefit from progressively more freedom. The way I handle making sure (as a sahm) they get enough of me is just that I’m there, allowing them to join in whatever it is I’m doing. Sometimes that might be housework, but more often it’s things I’m doing because I love to do them. They might see me crafting or drawing or hanging out with our goats, relaxing in the hammock or heading out for a walk. If they want, they join me. But more often than not, that’s only for 10-30 minutes, maybe up to an hour or so, then they’re off playing by themselves or with neighbors for hours. They stalk creatures at the ponds edge, build legos, practice archery, build forts, play long involved games of hide and seek with neighbors, or get into mischief (which I don’t necessarily think is always bad).
I know there are obstacles keeping many parents from staying home with their kids to allow this type of freedom. But I STILL believe that more freedom, less helicoptery parenting, more risk and freedom to make mistakes without our judgement, all these things Peter and those he mentions espouse, are what’s right for kids. There are just a lot of issues in our society keeping kids (and parents) from their best lives. I wonder if you struggle to credit any of these ideas/issues because circumstance has not dealt you the chance to even have to deal with them because you’re stuck working and crave nothing but that which you cannot have? Does that make any sense? I say this because from my position, all of these problems they discuss really seem on point. But I’m lucky enough to be free to see the truth of it in my children’s, and my life.
I was very into attachment parenting and was with my boys all the time, myself, until they were around 4. But even by then I started allowing them freedoms, and they were ready for them. They’re now very confident and capable kids at 12 and 8. When we get involved in too many activities now, we all get short with each other. We need space to be ourselves. Then they benefit from a mother whose life doesn’t revolve solely around them. The example of how to be a person that I am setting is well rounded and values my own needs and desires and much as my families. Whenever I feel myself slipping into forgetting to tend to those things, I become a worse person to those I love.
I hope this makes sense.
So here's the thing - to have my kid develop independence, she needs an adult who is around her and helping her do what she plans to do. Right now I'm typing out this comment while the 4yo tries to bake a cake. She doesn't want my help. She likes taking initiative and doing things but wants one of us to be around bearing witness.
If she was all day at daycare from 8mo like most kids in our socioeconomic strata, she wouldn't have been able to be this confident and high-agency. She wouldn't have spent several hours a day climbing up stairs and going down slides that were for kids twice her age, starting at 18mo. She'd have been problematized and I'd have been told to medicate her for ADHD just because she loves to take initiative and enjoys physical play and creating more than passive consumption. There would have been much less room for her to learn things on her own or decide what to do with her time from an early age. She wouldn't even get to nap when she wanted.
Giving kids a lot of freedom to take initiative means more work for the grownups early on. If you want your kid to get out the door all by himself, you can't be impatient everyday with how he puts his shoes on. And that's not going to happen if you need to be in daycare at 7am. It's not going to happen in the highly structured compliance-driven uniformity-enforced environment of a daycare where there's no room for individuality, simply because the teachers are stretched too thin.
If you're familiar with how your kid navigates risk, which you will be if you spend a lot of time with them, you'll feel more confident letting them take risks on their own. If you walk your kid to the park daily, you'll feel confident with them going by themselves some days. If they help you shop for groceries, you'll be more comfortable letting them run errands. If I'm at home at 3pm, then my kid can run out and play. But if I'm not home till 5pm, then my kid has to go to some kind of aftercare which is usually also structured.
However, if all you see is their reports from daycare or school, that's what you'll work on optimizing.
I think wanting to spend any amount of time with your kid is now called intensive parenting. Some parents with anxiety issues might be using their time with their kids to pressure them into doing more math or sports or whatever, but that's a mental health issue on the part of those specific parents. It's not what 90% of parents do.
I 100% agree with you that kids needing to be put in school or daycare is problematic. I’m just saying that’s not the only problem. It doesn’t discount the other things suggested as problems. I do not believe that Peter is suggesting you ignore or turn outside your infant, toddler, or very little kid. As I mentioned before, little kids do need a lot more of us. But as they grow, they need more and more space from us over time. I still spend a large amount of time with my boys. Even on days they’re mostly running around with neighbors we still eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner together. We still spend several hours after dinner mostly together, at least sharing the same space. We still cuddle up and read together before bed. So yes, if you give your time early on, they feel confident to step away later. And surely that’s something that requires your frequent presence early on and not being able to give it is an issue. I’m just saying it’s ONE of the many issues.
I think it's the root issue. If you're not spending time around your children and only know them from what their teachers say about them or how many accolades they get (or don't), you're not going to help them do things that actually make them happy and you're instead going to pressure them to succeed. If everyone is working all day, no one's out to keep an eye on kids running around freely and they need to be in some kind of structured care. If they are all in structured care, there's no ecosystem around letting a child run free.
I get what you mean. It makes sense that it is a root problem for those in that situation. But as everyone’s situation varies, I say it is merely of the problems facing parents and children and doesn't supersede or discount the others. For example, My children and I don’t suffer from this. But we are all only our happiest when I’m not over scheduling, allowing ample autonomy and freedom and space to make mistakes… all of the other things you discounted very much apply in our situation.
You don't face this issue because your spend enough time with your children.
Yes, after all parentingseemas to be an enjoyable work even if it gets overwhelming. But having a job and being a mom, that's so hard.
Peter, a cautionary note when you discuss the topic of parenting.
I think you need to emphasize that babies and babyhood are different from childhood. Adults blend them together. Parents are advised to detach from their babies and their signals (e.g., leave them untouched most of the day and night, sleep train them, put them on an adult-convenient schedule, etc). These are violations of our species' evolved nest that impair their neurobiological development and comprise early toxic stress. Too many adults lump babies together with children and then justify the undercare of babies with the need for children to be independent etc. Well-raised (evolved nested) babies will grow into independence through the course of well-supported (nested) development.
Thanks for your wonderful work!
YES. Great point. Even young kids are very different from older kids, and older kids from teens. I’ve thought about this a lot… people just say “parenting” and “children” as if it’s super simple!
I'm very supportive of this work and way of thinking. I think it also connects to the Surgeon General's report about the epidemic of loneliness. Parents feel very alone in raising children and do not feel like there is a community that has their back in any way. As a Pediatrician, I encourage parents to build community and the necessity of helping hands and eyes. As well as social subsidies, social connectedness will help parents relax to everyone's benefit.
I’m inspired by the question of what “being a parent” could look and feel like without the heavy job/work connotation!
I have experienced motherhood as the most joyful relationship of my life, which is very different to most parents I know. I do think it has a lot to do with having a gardener mentality.
But I identify with “intensive” parenting in that I feel profoundly responsible for my kid—not for who he turns out to be, but for the environment around him. I don’t feel a need to control *him*, but I do feel a strong desire to control the quality of his relationships, education, and spaces to the best of my ability.
As the parent of an only child with no extended family support, who doesn’t trust public schools, living in a US neighborhood of rental condos, in a new town… “gardening” still feels like a lot of work! I want to actively find and cultivate alternative spaces (like the forest kindergarten he attends) where can learn and play and just be. Hanging out alone at home with two tired parents all day does not seem good enough.
My husband and I often fantasize about moving to Scandinavia. For now, he is always pushing for our son to operate more independently at home as a solution to how intense parenting feels sometimes. I feel very ambivalent about that. It feels like putting the burden of a systemic problem on my son. But taking on the burden of a systemic problem on myself is not sustainable either!
Curious what other under-supported parents have done to make living & growing with kids feel less intense? (I have an intuition that trusting my kid to thrive within the limits of what we have is probably an important piece of the puzzle…)
“Is trustful, relaxed, joyful parenting possible?”…As a former career nanny, a Montessori guide, and now a child therapist I *want* to believe this is possible. Unfortunately our culture actively works against it. Recently a colleague shared that she recommended a client drop a sport for some more free time and the parent immediately quipped that there would be no one around for the child to play with, as every other child is in activities after school. Every interest a child has is commodified. I work with a first grader who some nights eats dinner at 8 pm following soccer practice.
Would anyone like to join my campaign for a weekly “DO NOTHING DAY” for children?
We have avoided being overly busy but having a good balance of alone and friend time, by combining unschooling with participation in a homeschool group that just gets together to play. Like board games day once a week, park days for several hours offered a couple times a week, art clubs, hikes... but you don’t have to pay anything except a $25 a year dues for supplies... we don’t do organized sports or anything like that.
Yes, yes, yes!!!
Thank you, everyone who posted questions and comments to this letter. Rather than attempt to address them here, I have created a new post to address them. You can find it at https://petergray.substack.com/p/responses-to-comments-concerning-30a
.
It is easier to garden, and carpenter for that matter, without gov’t interference. Govt is a major source of most of the problem here and will do nothing to help parents or children in any way.
Your work and the work of those you site here is wonderful and has already gone a long way towards moving parents and schools back to sanity. I’m always delighted when someone recommends Peter Gray,John Holt, & etc., which happens fairly often, most recently by a group of teachers speaking to a school board.
I certainly wish I had done better with letting my boys be. But they both recently and independently told me how much they appreciated the freedom they had to make their own way, much much more than their friends according to them. They aren’t married yet but I’m sure they will be much better gardeners than I was.
The tide seems to be turning and in a few generations “parenting” will fade like a bad dream.
This is a really fascinating topic for me mostly because my second child has been for more clingy and attached to me, less confident in playing independently and less social than her older sibling. I think their births and early start were similar - relaxed, unrushed, lots of outdoor time. But the main difference was the lack of community post-Covid. Ironically I had better friendships when my second was born because I'd lived in the same place longer. But the attitudes towards gathering and socialising had shifted monumentally. People did not pop round in the same way and conversations while following two+ children around a playground means a parents conversation rarely has any flow (alllll the interruptions!!) A lot of volunteer-run stay & plays did not re-open in 2021-2022. There was a big divide and a lot of public conversation about those who chose not to be vaccinated.... I like the comparisons from the 50s to now because I find social change interesting. But I also find it frustrating and unhelpful because it went can't travel back in time!! We need more examples of micro-community building in modern day challenges and this current pace of life. I see online & hear a lot of parents say forest school stay&plays are great for finding families going against the grain but they are often paid for groups, not on bus routes and therefore (unintentionally) elitist or monied and not always the community we feel comfortable being part of. Take me back to the 50s!!
It is definitely possible to create a nurturing environment that allows us to watch our children grow into themselves. But first you have to have the courage to ignore the fear mongers, to do things differently, to intentionally avoid the average public school dogma, to find or build little corners with like minded parents. And this conscious work must to on through young childhood, the early school years, middle school, and high school. It takes an enormous amount of work and confidence that you're making the right choice.
Now, I've walked to the beat of my own drummer my whole life. It doesn't bother me if everyone else is pushing their kids. I know that making sure they are in a place that nurtures the love of learning within them is the critical thing that lets them tap their own internal motivation and ownership. I've moved my kids to new schools several times and when in the right place they blossom. And in these places you find other parents who get it. But I've also watched my kids' friends stay stuck in bad schools because the parents think it has to be that way. They fear doing something different. That in doing so they will fail their kids.
It all comes back to parental fear for their kid's future and the misguided idea that the parent is responsible for making it all come out okay. And all of it is arrayed against a world in which parents are scraping by and fearing for the future. Your average non-iconoclast will need a world that feels economically safer before they'll be willing to risk letting their kid run literally and metaphorically free. We save childhood by creating safety nets for adults. Thus the happy Scandinavean parents leading to more free childhood.
I definitely think joyful and relaxed parenting is possible, but I think we need communities of people/relationships who believe the things that make it possible. For me, it's much easier to be kind, consistent and empowering when my relationship with my husband is doing well. My family of origin also believes that children are very valuable and need time and space to play and work and contribute to the family and community. They accept that they are a lot of work (yes, I do disagree with you there, I think kids are a lot of work, at least until they are three.)
I personally find that my younger children are much less work much earlier though, because they want to go play with the older kids and I don't need to entertain them like I did with the older kids! And my older kids are at the level where they give back so much. But you need a community that values these things or you won't even know they are possible.
This is nice. I think my parents had the idea of reaching for a goal, but not the clear idea of what the goal was, so even though my siblings and I turned out perfectly fine, we were all instilled with the idea that some intangible thing was deeply unsatisfactory about us.
I want to do better with my own kids. They show you from infancy that they are their own people, not simply reflections of yourself; I want to accept them and help them grow.
I think the Goldilocks parent and the “non-intensive” parent are antithetical. The parent who aims to have just the right amount of supervision, worried that too much will lead to child anxiety etc and too little will lead to danger, is just as concerned with producing a particular outcome through parental action and the parent who aims to have their child in a bunch of extracurriculars to produce a good college application. Both are aiming at a particular product.
There doesn’t seem to be a fixed definition of intensive parenting within research articles and more general pieces. Is intensive parenting a specific set of actions? Is it an attitude towards parenting? Is it going over a certain time or expenditure threshold? Is it having a particular goal for one’s child?
Yep there isn't. It's just like saying children are "spoiled". There's no clear definition and it's all based on the eyes of the beholder.
No one in the research also considers some children just need more hand-holding than others. Though I did come across one piece of research where the calm parents took over the kids of more hands-on parents and vice versa and it was the child's personality that determined how much the parent had to do than the parent's personality or parenting philosophy.
Just a quick comment to say yes to all of this--and that you and Alison Gopnik have always been my north stars in helping me understand how I wanted to be a different sort of mother. I learned to trust my intuition as a mother, and the writings of both of you have long helped me solidify that intuition and have faith in it. So, thank you!
Loved the post. I think better parenting practices are possible. But I also think people are going to have to rebuild the kinds of communities in which that parenting thrives. You need a village-type web of relationships, which many don't have today. But I do think it's possible for people to build that back as well.