Are We Losing Our Parenting Will?


Some time ago, a pediatrician that I respect greatly stopped by my office to chat.  In the midst of the conversation, he smiled, and spontaneously mentioned that he had seen a rash of a particular condition lately.  When I inquired what it was, he stated Helpless Parent Syndrome.  

Over the weeks and months that followed, I have found myself coming back to that conversation often.  Sometimes, it is in reflection on my own parenting decisions.  Other times, it is during my interactions with parents both in session and through various community connections as they acknowledge feeling rather powerless in stemming a negative tide at home.  But what remains consistent, and what I feel is supported through the scientific literature and current trends, is that parents of this current age feel less equipped to manage the onslaught of demands that their children bring.  If in fact this is the case, it is ironic for a few reasons.  The first of which is that never before in the history of the United States have we had so few children, which theoretically should make it easier to manage their demands.  Secondly, we have tools and knowledge at our fingertips that parents of previous generations would have never imagined.  In 1960, there were six parenting books written (Curtis, 2013).  Today, the number easily ranges in the thousands and more.  Thirdly, as a generation, we pride ourselves on the fact that the Flynn Effect says we are smarter than generations before.

But I would suggest that many parents today do not feel they have evolved in a positive direction.   A recent poll supports this idea.  Seventy five percent of parents reported that it was better to be a parent when they were growing up; even more strikingly, almost 80% believe it was better to be a kid when they grew up.  Parents I speak to regularly bemoan the fact that their will, and their resolve, is being challenged in daily ways that have caused parenting to lose the joy that they had hoped for.  In speaking of will, I want to be clear.  Will is not synonymous with the parenting style “It’s my way or the highway.”  Data on outcomes of authoritarian parenting is no better than that of permissive parenting.

What I mean by will are the collectively conscious, authoritative, intentional acts that allow us to significantly impact our children’s lives in positive ways so that ultimately we give them a framework to pursue a contented, productive, meaningful, and empathic existence as adults.  It is the feeling that what we do really matters for our kids, both now and in the future.  I worry that increasingly, parents are losing this will, and as my pediatric colleague noted, are feeling helpless in the noblest profession of all.  Below I will explore eight reasons that I sense this is occurring, in no particular order.  I by no means feel that I can capture the breadth or depth needed for this topic in this article, but rather I hope to stir further discussion in pivotal areas.  In some of the sections, I have also included dates of articles from my column where relevant topics are explored in greater detail.

Immersion in Media/Technology at Increasingly Younger Ages:  Beneath all the incessant hype and exponential growth lies an ominous story about the health of our youth tied to the technological age.  Although research indicates that media/technology used strategically can have benefits, the unabashed reality is that this is largely not how it is being used.  Over the last fifty years, the preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that the technological revolution is playing a significant role in the increased psychological and physical difficulties with our youth.  But just as much of a story is the remarkable influence that this revolution has had on kids, who today often look (and sound) like walking advertisements.  Both in overt and unconscious ways, parental influence is being challenged by ever present media/technology, often creating distractions and pathways that run contrary to important values, ideals, and future goals (January/September 2013).

Decentralization:  Televisions in bedrooms, mobile devices for elementary school-age kids, portable gaming devices, and much more tie into media immersion.  But this issue is one of parental access and awareness.  Never before have our youth had so many opportunities to receive input and give output, whether it is through conversations with peers or downloading pornography on their mobile devices, than they do today.  As entertainment and socialization move away from the home (and family room) and becomes less about direct interaction, parents are faced with the monumental challenge of trying to keep tabs on it all.  In the meantime, their will is being tested as eight-year-old children increasingly misconstrue having a cell phone as being synonymous with a divinely-granted right to “privacy, ” which defies the supervision and monitoring needed for healthy youth maturation (January 2013).

Use of Quandary Ethics versus Character Ethics (or Limited Teaching of Ethics At All):   Researchers including Edmund Pincoffs have noted a Westerner trend that is new in the last forty years.  Previous to this, youth were first instructed on ethical decision-making through the use of character ethics, which was based on virtues such as courage, justice, wisdom, and temperance, that almost all considered vital for a healthy existence. Although these could be misconstrued in practice, they provided a clear pathway for the types of behaviors that were acceptable. But over the past forty years, the focus has switched to quandary ethics, which emphasizes using specific examples/dilemmas, and then discussing with youth about how they should be handled.  Pincoffs and others have expressed worries that this has not only left youth in a significant state of uncertainty, but it has also compromised parents ability to influence youth in clear ways that have been proven to make a difference, even for those children from significantly deprived and at-risk populations, such as those kids educated at KIPP academies through the United States (October 2013).

Decreasing Psychological and Physical Health of Parents:  As detailed in Anatomy of an Epidemic and other significant areas of study, the psychological health of our population is declining in conjunction with large increases in physical issues such as obesity and diabetes.  As parents increasingly experience a myriad of psychological issues, especially increased anxiety, it is little surprise that their ability to make timely, conscious decisions and regulate their own emotions becomes compromised.  In the process, children test their parents’ will even more, resulting in a struggle to respond in ways that will provide a lasting, positive effect for their youth.

Confusion of Demographic Diversity for Moral Diversity:  One of the best trends of the last century, despite continued areas of needed growth, is our embracing of those from different ethnic, cultural, and experiential backgrounds. But beneath all of our differences, research has always been clear that we share more similarities than divergences. However, it appears that we have begun to confuse two very different ideas: demographic diversity versus moral diversity. In his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathon Haidt notes that in our noble and necessary attempt to promote greater rights for people of all backgrounds, what he calls demographic diversity, evidence suggests over the past century that we have slipped into moral diversity. He characterizes moral diversity as a “lack of consensus on moral norms and values.” Values such as self-restraint, sacrifice for the public good, and delayed gratification, which previously were held dear by the masses, no longer seem to be promoted consistently throughout our communities and homes.  This issue ties into the ethics dilemma, and appears to have left many parents confused about how to teach their children to embrace those of different backgrounds while remaining committed to critical moral practices (November 2013).

Increased Reliance on Psychiatric Drugs (especially for subclinical, developmental issues):  As the use of psychiatric (and all) drugs increase both for children and adults, many argue that the drugs are being employed for issues that could be seen as increasingly minor, societally driven, and developmental in nature.  Although others may argue that many parents are being proactive in acknowledging their weaknesses, and seeking out treatment, all can agree that the heightened use of drugs signifies that parents, teachers, extended family members, clergy, etc… do not feel that they can manage psychological issues appropriately through more natural, collaborative means.  In the process, I worry that for children especially, pharmaceuticals have become increasingly seen as a first line of defense despite limited data that long-term outcomes are better (and may even be worse) than for those who do not use drugs.  The other significant concern is that many parents see psychiatric drugs as a cure-all, and do not necessarily invest time, money, and willful pursuits in finding therapeutic, holistic ways (both for themselves and their children), which ultimately may give them tools and methods to have a lifelong positive influence.

Fracturing of the Family/Spousal Unit:  The significant rise of divorce since the late 50’s has been well-documented, and although there has been a degree of leveling of this trend in the past twenty years, a corresponding rise in single and non-married families has occurred.  Especially in urban populations, the demise of the father has led to tremendous hardships for many children, mothers, and extended family members.  Anyone that has children knows just how tough it can be to provide firm, consistent, yet critical guidance when there are two parents in the household.  But maintaining healthy parental will with just one parent is especially challenging, as the sobering data on children raised by single parents reveals in regard to social, educational, psychological, and behavioral outcomes (August 2012).

Trend of Early Indulging:  One of the most critical things that all parents must have in their arsenal is leverage.  Yes, leverage.  Leverage starts early, when the choice between giving children one jelly bean or three sets the stage for just what children will come to expect.  Every day, parents have opportunities to decide just what, and how many privileges their children will have, even as pressure from outside forces remains.  But if parents indulge their kids early, and children come to expect that they should be given privileges and goods rather than earning it through good behavior, chores, and other means, parents find that their will is increasingly tested, and their leverage quickly becomes compromised.  Leverage should not be misconstrued as sheltering or depriving, but rather as a conscious, calculated approach to raising children that are both grateful for what they are given and aware that privileges must be earned, not demanded.  It also remains a key to teaching self-control, which research indicates may be the most important malleable quality a child can acquire (November 2012).

In reflecting on these trends, it becomes very personal for me as a father and a psychologist.  At work, the only people I love more than the kids who walk in my office are the parents who bring them in.  For many of them, it takes a lot to get there, and I so appreciate those who are willing to acknowledge that they (as we all are) may be part of the problem.  But what pains me the most is when parents admit that they are chronically overwhelmed by parenting their children, and even worse, when parents have come to fear the time they spend with their own kids.  We all know the fear that comes with taking young children into public places, but for many parents, this type of fear never recedes and their will only grows weaker as their children grow older.  But as with all challenges, the potential for change always remains even if the course that must be taken is sustained counter-culturalism.  I  for one am happy to leave the trends behind in search of much greater goals, none more important than to find love in my life at home in hope that my children someday will do the same as parents themselves.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. As a mother of 6 grown up “children” and as somebody who has just finished reading “January First” by Michael Schofield and “When love is not enough” by Cherry Willoughby , I find your article extremely interesting. I pity the children of today mainly because of the lack of freedom and all the pressure they are under. They are not allowed to develop freely on one hand; on the other children have often become little gods and they know it. Very unhealthy in my view.

    Report comment

    • I echo your concerns, and am curious about the two books that you mentioned. It remains a strange paradox that many children of today have more than their predecessors could have ever imagined, and yet in psychological terms, often feel more constrained than ever before. The same goes for parents, and ultimately the price of lost parental influence could have serious detrimental outcomes in the areas of public health, global economics, and overall societal viability.

      I appreciate your interest in the matter.

      Report comment

  2. You wrote: “But I would suggest that many parents today do not feel they have evolved in a positive direction.” Every person evolves. In the same way, every generation is responsible for its own evolution of consciousness. So there is an agreement of relationship between the generations. Each contributes its own unique insights to the ongoing evolution of consciousness. The center of gravity for my father’s generation was modernity. It has its dignity and its disasters. The center of gravity for my generation was post-modernity. It has its dignity and its disasters. The center for today’s parents is po-po-mo and, again, it has its dignity and its disasters. When I was developed to the stage of magical faith development, my father’s modernity meant very little to my spiritual and moral development. The best position for influence is one stage above the child’s stage. When I was at the conventional stage of development, modernity had a great deal of influence on my development. So, when I had a daughter, my father got smart. He chose to regress to one level ahead of her and he related from always one level ahead, until she passed him by, much to his delight. The goal of the evolution of consciousness is the evolution of love. It is a pretty positive goal for parents, in my humble opinion. “Critical moral practices” also evolve. When you are aware and awake, you do better. The po-po-mo generation is on its way to unique self perspective. They are going to evolve to a post-egoic nondual realization of unique perspective. They are going to do better, if the other generations keep their relational contract.

    Report comment

  3. “Critical moral practices” also evolve. When you are aware and awake, you do better. The po-po-mo generation is on its way to unique self perspective. They are going to evolve to a post-egoic nondual realization of unique perspective. They are going to do better, if the other generations keep their relational contract.”

    I am intrigued by your analysis of this, but would love more clarity on this final piece, especially what you mean by relational contract. I have some thoughts regarding yours, but wanted to make sure I was understanding you clearly before you responded.

    Report comment

  4. In an evolutionary analysis of parenting, development is a matter of pull, not push. We are pulled forward by the evolutionary impulse of the future, not so much pushed by the past. The task of parents is to create the environment in which the child feels safe in their aloneness. And we need to integrate and transcendent the level to which the past generation evolved. As a Boomer, I think my generation had a great deal of difficulty with including the dignity of the previous generation. There was more of an allergy to the past generation. Gaffni writes, “You join the great symphony of Being and Becoming–first by mastering your own instrument, and second by listening deeply to all the other instruments.” Basically, I was agreeing with what you wrote but with a more positive and hope-filled perspective.

    Report comment

    • I always appreciate optimism, or at least realism with a hopeful perspective. I definitely consider myself an optimist person by nature, which hopefully my articles convey at least to some degree. I think there is much potential for gain from unique self-perspective, but only in the context of ethical teachings, as CS Lewis spent much time discussing in the “Abolition of Man” that have not really changed much for thousands of years. That is, until more recently, and that I think is what tends to temper my optimism. As far the evolution of consciousness, I certainly concur with the constant evolution in this area, although in certain periods of history, I am not sure that we evolved in a positive direction. And like the dodo bird, I just hope that the way we are evolving doesn’t end up being a factor in our demise.

      Thanks again for your interest. Whatever it takes, I hope we are just doing it right for our kids.

      Report comment

      • James,
        A non-egoic non-dual realization of unique perspective includes and transcends all the ethical contexts of former generations. I am encouraged that today’s generation has an ethical context that includes and transcends the anthropomorphic ethics of former generations.
        I appreciate the writings of C.S. Lewis. As this is a website challenging the medical model and its use with children, I would like to note that when we had a stillborn son, Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia were the center of bibliotherapy that we did with our surviving grieving children. Several years later, we added another child to the family and when I pulled out the Chronicles to read to her, the elder siblings joined us to continue the tradition of reading them aloud together.

        Report comment

  5. I just read a piece about billionaire Warren Buffet this morning which reminded me of our covenant with the next generation: Buffet reports that his dad gave him a wonderful gift: “He told me, both verbally and by his behavior, that he cared only about the values I had, not the particular path I chose. He simply said that he had unlimited confidence in me and that I should follow my dreams.” Buffet chose to raise his own children with that example. Their “It’s your life” message to their kids had an interesting consequence: not one of their three children completed college.

    Report comment