Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren't Growing Up

In October 2018, Chloe, a Jewish student, joked with two friends over a text about the worst possible costumes for a Halloween party. Since there were three of them, they created suggestions in threes, such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin or racism, sexism, and antisemitism. Later, Chloe posted the exchange to her private Instagram account. Other students took screen shots and complained to school administrators, who convened two assemblies to discuss the incident and publicly accused Chloe, who was not present, of racist conduct. Unable to empathize with an unfairly accused teen, administrators acted upon the hurt feelings of accusers. Chloe then became friendless in the tenth grade.

Shrier argues that all the focus on self and feelings causes children to find that someone in the class is making them unhappy. All students live under the tyranny of the feelings of others. Punishments are doled out without facts and evidence to satisfy aggrieved parties. Such injustice and cruelty are predictable given the priority placed on empathy. It is not possible to empathize with more than two people at once. School administrators choose to empathize with marginalized students and treat undesirable students cruelly. One set of feelings is validated and nurtured and another treated indifferently. Instead of prioritizing empathy, fairness should be the guide, with all students treated equally.

Given the constant monitoring of children and the ingrained assumption that they need psychological assistance, the children behave as citizens do in a totalitarian regime. They tattle on their friends and teachers. It is common for students to save incriminating screenshots just in case they need to retaliate against an accuser. Universities sometimes rescind admissions offers to students when such screenshots from years ago are forwarded to them. 

For Generation X, adolescence was challenging. The parents of Generation X spanked, yelled at, and punished their children. Commonly, a “masculine” style of parenting was invoked with children told to “knock it off” and “shake it off” (167). When told to knock it off, children had to determine what was wrong with their behavior. Parents additionally encouraged children to shake off minor discomforts and inconveniences and not dwell upon them. Later in life, millions in Generation X entered therapy and denounced this form of parenting. For their children, they adopted a gentle and empathetic approach, using positive incentives, relying on consequences, and pleading with children to behave. Shrier argues that this style of parenting does not work and reflects an insecurity among parents.

When children engage in bad behavior, parents adopt a therapeutic and non-judgmental approach. Instead of requiring the child to control impulses, parents seek to understand the child’s anger and frustration. Punishments are not used. Even in response to violent outbursts, there is no correction or judgment. The impact on siblings, other children, or innocent bystanders is completely ignored. Shrier maintains that this approach not only does not work but causes parents to be exhausted and not “all that fond of the kids they’ve raised” (176).

Shrier cites Keith Gessen’s Raising Raffi as an example of this gentle approach going very wrong. Avoiding yelling, punishment, and rulemaking, Gessen made a sticker chart to reward his son when he refrained from hitting others. The violence continued. On one occasion, Gessen caught Raffi attacking his newborn brother. In the moment, Gessen slapped Raffi’s hand. However, Gessen felt guilty for his action and apologized to his son, who claimed that his father was not nice. Shrier concludes that Raffi is craving an adult to take charge, and his parents are setting him up for interpersonal failure. Indeed, the broader attempt to create a frictionless environment for children does not prepare them for the world. It creates miserable adults.

Parental authority is critical to children’s welfare. For thousands of years, parents taught their children their values. Generation X has changed that goal to ensuring the emotional well-being of their children. In so doing, they have demoted themselves and elevated therapists as the experts in raising children. Shrier identifies three parenting approaches. The first is the commonly invoked permissive one, which avoids punishments and affirms a child’s impulses. The one advantage of this approach is that provides children with autonomy and independence. However, Generation X does not allow for that advantage because they “smother and micromanage” their children (184). A second approach is authoritarian, in which children must demonstrate obedience. They are kept in their place, have very restricted autonomy, and cannot ever negotiate rules. This approach is not common in the US. Neither of these approaches to parenting work.

A third approach is authoritative, which is rule-based but grounded in love. There is some negotiation over rules, but the parent retains control, and children are held to high standards. Children are expected to contribute to the household and are punished when their behavior does not meet standards. Shrier argues that this form of parenting creates the most successful and happiest children, yet “it flies in the face of virtually everything therapists and parenting books now exhort” (183). Children are miserable when placed in charge. They need punishments to learn boundaries and an awareness and respect of others’ feelings. The parental denouncement of authority has, per Shrier, frightened children. They do not believe parents can help them, and no one seems to be in charge.

Mental health experts have taken advantage of those in Generation X by exploiting their fears of losing the affection of their children. Parents want their children to confide in them and be best friends, but Shrier explains that no one wants a needy friend. As a result, there is more estrangement between young adults and parents in the 21st century. When asked why, young adults report feeling “crushed by the burden of serving as the buttress for their parents’ emotional lives” (186). Previously, when a child was about to do something with risk, a parent would note the potential negative consequence for the child. Generation X parents, in contrast, beg the child not to take the risk because of the effect it would have on their lives.

It is difficult to raise children in American culture, where the onus is on parents to ensure their child’s behavior. When a child misbehaves, a parent will be judged if they react negatively to the child. When parents do not pass down values to their children and assert authority, some of those children will seek it elsewhere. For example, Shrier cites children from liberal families being recruited into extremist cults. Such cults satisfy their hunger for authority and give them a script. It is neglectful, in her view, for parents not to act as the final authority on right and wrong. Instead, children are too often given trivial freedoms, and their wrong or bad behavior is rationalized. The children arrive at school utterly unprepared to conform to a teacher’s rules and end up with a mental health evaluation.

Fifteen percent of boys in the US are said to have ADHD, with symptoms of high energy, inattentiveness at school, and disorganization. However, Shrier argues that ADHD does not meet the definition of a disorder, as a disorder interferes with the ability to lead a normal life. An inability to sit still for a long time does not fit that bill. These children are prescribed stimulant medications, such as Ritalin, which are “powerful, psychoactive drugs that cross the blood-brain barrier” (198-99). Such drugs have the risk of creating dependency and addiction and do nothing to cure the alleged affliction. Once a patient stops taking these drugs, the condition returns.

Given that the brains of adolescents are not fully developed, drugs like anti-anxiety medication pose unknown risks. Anti-anxiety drugs also do not cure the affliction, and they prevent adolescents from developing coping mechanisms and determining if they can handle life on their own. Anxiety and depression both have benefits, which such drugs erase. Anxiety is an anticipatory fear about a potential danger and can protect people in perilous situations. It is also linked to creativity and intelligence. Depression shuts people down when overpowered. It is a protective response that allows humans to withdraw from a source of harm and retool. It can additionally lead to a form of deep analytical thought. Only when anxiety or depression becomes chronic and prevents people from functioning is medication warranted. Such medications should not be used to protect children and adolescents from discomfort when nothing is physically wrong with them. Indeed, anti-depressants can “transform a short-term, acute pain into a low-grade chronic one” (203).

Parents often express relief when a child who has been violent is given a diagnosis and medication, but then side effects occur. Providing an example of an individual who refused to give his son medication for ADHD, Shrier explains how the problem was treated with more rules, chores, and structure. As a result, the parent enjoyed his child more. In contrast, she observes that American parents are more often harried and not enjoying their children. Parenting, in her view, is not a skill but a relationship. Mental health experts have erred in resorting to medications so quickly, but they are unlikely to acknowledge their error.