That's quite true. However, the article doesn't describe parents as such, it describes the actually style of parenting that took place, whatever were the reasons things went that way rather than another.
The article is almost entirely about the fact that parenting is terribly stressfulamd parents are actually far less happy than they seem to be able to admit to themselves.
The only bit that attempts to redeem parenting is right near the end, in a way that always to me felt like rationalization, in the way a parent might rationalize their choice just as previously described in the article.
This meta nature to me, given it was written by a parent, seems to highlight that very conflict: its a written embodiment of the mental contradiction parents experience.
The article is far from complete enough to make a judgement of the parents, but it's possible to be a bad/impatient/non-understanding/etc. parent while still being loving, trying to do the best, and not being abusive in any sense that would be considered by a court.
I've always found that piece to be interesting in that it spends the majority of the article citing studies and illustrating examples for how difficult child rearing is and how unhappy parents are. In the process the author raises the disconnect between that reality versus the contradictory feelings parents espouse... How they can be so much less happy yet will claim the opposite.
And then right at the end the author makes an about face and goes out of their way to defend parenthood... Seeming to inadvertently demonstrate that very delusion.
and from my own experience i would concur. parenting styles define the relationship parents have with their kids, and that relationship absolutely matters.
i find it worth considering however that when discussing parenting styles it gives the impression that the chosen style is a deliberate choice that parents can switch around at will, when in reality i believe most parenting styles are defined by circumstances and by the experience of the parents themselves.
But for the most part, the new parenting efforts seemed effective. Dr. Doepke and Dr. Zilibotti can’t prove causality (to do that, you’d have to randomly assign parenting styles to different families). But when they analyzed the 2012 PISA, an academic test of 15-year-olds around the world, along with reports from the teenagers and their parents about how they interact, they found that an “intensive parenting style” correlated with higher scores on the test. This was true even among teenagers whose parents had similar levels of education.
The most effective parents, according to the authors, are “authoritative.” They use reasoning to persuade kids to do things that are good for them. Instead of strict obedience, they emphasize adaptability, problem-solving and independence — skills that will help their offspring in future workplaces that we can’t even imagine yet.
Can't prove causality, and relying on teenagers to define the style of parenting they're subjected to, I'd guess that almost 100% would respond with "intense".
So their definition of 'Helicopter Parenting' is actually 'Authoritative and Rational, Reasoned Explanatory Parenting' (which I'd refer to as 'good' parenting) and the author is also referring to it as "new parenting". This definition differs significantly from my experience of being parented, and of those I'd consider to be 'Helicopter' parents who are those that stand over their child not letting them fall over or take any risks or hold sharp things from the ages of zero to thirteen, although these same 'Helicopter' parents frequently give their spawn soft drinks, sugary lollies, and abundant screen-time so that their little prince or princess SHUTS THE FUCK UP when Tattoo Nightmares is on.
'Helicopter' parenting is 'Short-Term Anxiety' parenting and 'Parental Love is not allowing exposure to anything that may be ultra-short-term painful' parenting.
'Helicopter' parenting is not:
use reasoning to persuade kids to do things that are good for them. Instead of strict obedience, they emphasize adaptability, problem-solving and independence
You were lucky enough to have parents who pushed through and made sacrifices. Not everyone is so lucky. That is exactly the point the article is making. You're blaming the children for having inadequate parents.
That's exactly it. This piece was written to describe a parent's interaction with the child, whereas I've only ever read about/seen helicopter parenting in terms of the relationship with everyone else.
I'm 100% convinced they are not the same things. This article used that phrase either out of context, or just to get the grabby headline. Not sure which.
I think it's not quite literally true, but if you wanted to evaluate parenting strategies and were not a parent, you would have to put a lot of effort into observing parents (as opposed to just thinking about it a lot).
"The most effective parents, according to the authors, are “authoritative.” They use reasoning to persuade kids to do things that are good for them. Instead of strict obedience, they emphasize adaptability, problem-solving and independence — skills that will help their offspring in future workplaces that we can’t even imagine yet."
Aside: Knowing nothing about theoretical parenting styles, this doesn't sound "authoritative". Authoritative <anything> wouldn't give you sound reasoning. Authoritative sounds like strict obedience, given that they are practically synonyms but the article says the opposite.
It's a pretty poorly written article to be honest. I don't see how the author clubs in "authoritative" parenting style under "helicopter parenting" because it is pretty much the opposite.
From the article:
> The most effective parents, according to the authors, are “authoritative.” They use reasoning to persuade kids to do things that are good for them. Instead of strict obedience, they emphasize adaptability, problem-solving and independence — skills that will help their offspring in future workplaces that we can’t even imagine yet.
That's hardly helicoptering. That's just positive parenting that isn't completely hands-off.
It's not really clear to me why your comment is being downvoted. You're expressing a constructive opinion.
It seems to me that children can thrive under a wide variety of parenting styles. I consider that my own upbringing was a bit "rough around the edges", but with age I respect and understand my parents more and more.
In retrospect, I wouldn't have it any other way. I respect my parents a lot more than I used to.
It seems this article's point is debunking a myth that parents have no impact on their children, and I'm sure that's not true, It's not a coincidence both my parents were in tech and I'm in tech. It doesn't seem this article is really emphasizing or trying to make a point about good parenting. I think that parents impact on their children is particularly tru at the extreme ends of parenting where there are some extreme outcomes, as someone who is about to become a parent, I think my philosophy is going to be, do my best, work on myself, try to learn from my mistakes and don't obsess about it. I think like most things in life, trying too hard is just as bad as not trying hard enough. I doubt most of us are even capable of the discipline it would require to be "perfect parents" anyways.
On the contrary, the chart in the article shows that "permissive" parenting produced lower achievement than "authoritative" parenting. The distinction in the article isn't about letting kids "be kids" but whether parents are responsive/warm versus cold.
Sure, that's true. And in past times that was a stronger critique. But in the modern Western world, this only applies to a tiny fraction of parents. The vast majority of parents today willingly chose to become parents.
reply