Talk:Slow parenting

Useful material

 * What is to blame for the 'death of childhood'?

"I would single out the symbiotic relationship between firms and rapid developing media in targeting 'children as consumers' as a particularly pernicious source of division in society and families. It is this relationship that drives (among others but the most benign that I could think of) pester power, the demise of the parent-given treat, expensive and argumentative christmases, confusion in young minds between fact and fiction, a belief in young minds in the ir rights as proto-adults without any of the responsibilities, a belief in young minds that the world is designed for them and that parents represent a barrier to that world and so should be avoided, etc, etc." -- Tim Bender. Many other points in responses to that article. Rixs (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting
You may want to nuance the application of this style because "letting nature take its course" may not be recommended in cases of significant and confirmed learning deficits. cheers Doncorto 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncorto (talk • contribs)


 * The article does say that SP makes recommendations and has goals, so it is not what Diana Baumrind would call "neglectful". If you think this needs explicit words, please feel free to add them. -- Rixs (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is POV
This article is clearly not neutral, as it cherry-picks it's evidence from virtually one source and seems to propose Slow Parenting as a verified superior method of parenting, something that is not supported by the quality or quantity of it's sources. It could also use a criticism section of the article, as a parent engaging in Slow Parenting could be also described as a "Strict Parent". While on the surface it appears that a parent using this method is allowing more freedom for their children, they're actually being highly restrictive and imposing their own beliefs (television is harmful to their child's psychological development, expensive gifts are unnecessary, complex toys are not needed, etc) on their children. Such restrictions may better harbor the creative development of a child, but could have harmful social repercussions amongst other children, who do not understand why the child is not allowed to watch TV, doesn't possess new toys, etc, etc. I'm not saying the entire concept is incorrect, but this article definitely needs some higher-quality (meaning neutral) sources. 174.112.7.16 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Please add such material. Although to an extent it's responding to the established status quo. Finding a good neutral source that considers why things are the way they currently are, is always hard. Rixs (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is very low quality
Was interested in this subject. Wanted to get a general overview. This article is so low quality though. It's clearly intensely biased, full of normative assertions and unjustified claims. It's also stylistically not what I'd expect from wikipedia. Idk how this stuff works but is the article possibly a candidate for deletion if it's not being well maintained? Fpaulw (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)