In my role as a therapist for adolescents and young adults, I’ve observed a growing trend that concerns me deeply: the embrace of overly affectionate, “lovey-dovey” therapeutic practices. This approach is inadvertently harming the very individuals it seeks to protect.
The rise in depression and anxiety among our youth is alarming, a phenomenon supported by numerous studies and evident in my experiences within the Orthodox Jewish community. The prevailing therapeutic method, which zeroes in on patients’ traumatic experiences—often involving harsh parental discipline—has led to a significant shift in how we understand and address child-rearing and discipline.
Gone are the days when a misbehaving child might be disciplined through corporal punishment or strict reprimand. Such practices have fallen out of favor, viewed as potentially causing lifelong harm, including depression, anxieties, and a fraught parent-child relationship. Instead, modern parenting and therapeutic advice champion an unending stream of love and verbal consolation as the cure-all for misbehavior, under the belief that any form of stress or adversity could cause irreparable damage.
But let’s examine the outcomes of this shift. Are our children happier, more resilient? The evidence suggests otherwise.
Let me be clear: physical and emotional abuse are unequivocally harmful and unacceptable. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, fostering a belief that children should be shielded from any form of adversity. This mindset is deeply misguided. Just as with the body’s immune response, where exposure to allergens like peanuts in early childhood can prevent severe allergies, exposure to measured adversity is essential for developing emotional resilience.
The case of peanut allergies in Israel versus other countries illustrates this beautifully. Israeli children, introduced early to peanut products, show markedly lower rates of peanut allergies. This phenomenon suggests that early exposure to potential stressors, in a controlled manner, can fortify rather than weaken.
Similarly, shielding children from every conceivable form of discomfort does them a disservice. It prepares them for a world that simply doesn’t exist—one devoid of challenges and adversity. By avoiding real discipline and the teaching of coping mechanisms for minor adversities, we risk sending our children into the world ill-equipped to handle its inevitable stresses and strains.
Parenting and therapy should strive for balance. Discipline, when applied judiciously and lovingly, does not have to be damaging. On the contrary, it can be a crucial component of raising emotionally robust and resilient children. Far from advocating a return to harsh and abusive practices, I am calling for a reevaluation of our current approach. It’s possible—and necessary—to be both loving and firm, to prepare our children for the complexities of life without sacrificing their emotional well-being.
The current trend, with its avoidance of any discomfort for children, is not just ineffective; it’s harmful. It’s time to reconsider our approach, to find a middle ground that fosters resilience while providing the love and support every child needs. Only then can we hope to raise a generation capable of navigating the challenges of life with confidence and emotional health.
A Disturbed Therapist
P.S. I chose to remain anonymous in penning this piece because I am not seeking to “stir the pot” or drum up more clientele for myself. My motivation stems from a genuine concern over a pressing issue that many are hesitant to address directly – a reluctance that often comes from a place of our innate unwillingness to face uncomfortable truths.
NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
16 Responses
I don’t know where you are hearing these lovey dovey ideas, but leading parenting classes such as rebtzn spetner, Machon Yedidya/R Yechiel yaakovson and many others address giving children both tons of love, and the important need for discipline as well. I don’t believe any mechanchim say not to discipline. If so they aren’t real mechanchim
In addition It is dangerous to connote not to hug our children. Who should hug them if not us? Then they’ll surely look for other ways to receive warmth and love and it most definitely won’t be in the way we want them to get it
Then there is the child who responds to neither love nor discipline. That’s the one who becomes another OTD statistic. Parents of these kids agonize and flagellate themselves over what they could’ve done differently. The answer is, “Nothing”. Those parents need to go easier on themselves. The situation was beshert.
Hasn’t the חכם מכל אדם proclaimed thatחושך שבטו שונא בנו? What has changed? Has the Torah changed? Has our מסורה changed? Perhaps our new way of raising our children may be in sync with the יוונים to some degree. I’m not advocating beating a child as may have been custom in yesteryear, but what is wrong with an occasional potch? Would today’s parents hug and kiss a two year old who runs into the street or, perhaps, have a sit down meeting over some ice cream and discuss the dangers of going into the Gutter be more effective? Any parent who loves his/her child would give the pitch so the child learns the “reward” for such an action!
Like the writer states, I concur, we’ve taken it a bit too far.
Hasn’t the חכם מכל אדם proclaimed that חושך שבטו שונא בנו? What has changed? Has the Torah changed? Has our מסורה changed? Perhaps our new way of raising our children may be in sync with the יוונים to some degree. I’m not advocating beating a child as may have been custom in yesteryear, but what is wrong with an occasional potch? Would today’s parents hug and kiss a two year old who runs into the street or, perhaps, have a sit down meeting over some ice cream and discuss the dangers of going into the Gutter be more effective? Any parent who loves his/her child would give the potch so the child learns the “reward” for such an action!
Like the writer states, I concur, we’ve taken it a bit too far.
“But let’s examine the outcomes of this shift. Are our children happier, more resilient? The evidence suggests otherwise.”
Correlation does not connote causation.
@arizona, you are right that love and discipline may not be enough. Families may also need to have discussions with their child before the child starts acting out. Children need to understand WHY it’s wrong to go off and what it entails not just that’s its wrong. They need to understand why it’s wrong to hang around next to mechitzah…etc.
Unfortunately this is the missing part from our kids education but it’s so important to include it.
Finally some common sense! BH!
We should focus on raising our kids to be NORMAL people. Not snowflakes who just like liberals get triggered by every thing they don’t like.
This does not cause anyone to go off. Ppl who go off are doing so because of low self esteem and self hate, which is exactly what you create when you teach kids to be cry babies.
Could we agree that there is A LOT of grey area, and every child and family is unique.
I would say that more damaging than hugs is our generation’s compulsive need to paint all kids with the same brush.
Kids that go off are losers. Instead of talking about them like reshayim we should talk about them like meshugayim, weirdos who no one wants to be like.
A kid in his rebellious phase might want to be like the bad guy to show his parents he wants to be a rebel. But no one in their right mind wants be like a meshugenah.
That’s what my rebbi said
This article leaves out The One main point.
Because its not either or. Both are vital!
Hugs are a Must on a daily basis, more than we can imagine! We must Search & Find opportunities to do them, continually and constantly.
But, we Must always make sure to discipline with firmness when needed.
IT IS ONLY WHEN THE PARENT ALWAYS HUGS, THAT THE CHILD GETS THE HEALTHY DOSE WHEN FIRMLY DISCIPLINED.
One Hug at a Time
This author is guilty of a sin. No, not one of our Taryag Mitzvos. He simply lacks training in science, and he proceeds to reach conclusions that are supposedly scientific. The Ramban is clear that clinical practice of medicine involves requisite training. Otherwise, the treatments provided are irresponsible, and such a “doctor” is liable for malpractice. This is written on a Mishnah in Bava Kama.
We are constantly confronted with deluges of information, and we apply our cognitive skills to organize it. We categorize things, we number them, we count them, etc. We also connect them by identifying causal relationships. A causes B. This principle is a foundation of science. And it works. It enables discoveries, fuels technology. It is the rock upon which medicine sits. However, it comes with inaccuracies. We are always at risk of connecting dots that are not related. This author has done precisely that, and he bases his conclusions on his vast experience dealing with mental health. I haven’t a clue whether he is a master in his profession, and I make no implication at all. But his essay here is off the wall.
Perhaps he should speak of the sequence of space exploration, and then how there is a proliferation of drug abuse, depression, and anxiety that followed. Maybe the divorce rate, the singles crisis, and other ills affecting our community have such origin? The inference from his observed correlation is without support, and it will not be found rational by the critical thinker.
I might not know the precise causes either. But I do tune in to the words of Gedolei Yisroel to glean from them the guidance on matters of chinuch and discipline. The obsession with discipline is problematic. It ignores the needs of the child, and it considers only the needs of the parent or mechanech to maintain control. Our wisest Chachomim told us that this is not chinuch. I would urge the author, and anyone reading his essay, to peruse the growing treasure of seforim on chinuch, many available in your favorite seforim store. You know, like those with the words of the Chasam Sofer, Chazon Ish, Rav Shteinman, Brisker Rov, and many others. None of them approved of the discipline approach. Yes, a potch has its place. But in true Torah chinuch, it appears rarely. Their words, not mine. Do words of shaming and degradation help or hurt? Do they teach or crush?
Also missing from the author’s focus is the shift in the children of our generation. Many adults never saw a cell phone as a child, and even more of us never saw a computer. We remember phone booths, telephone books, transistor radios, and the advances of electric typewriters. Different era, different people. Shall we relate the youth’s issues today to the long aisles of junk food in our groceries? Maybe there is correlation. But causal relationships need to be proven, not assumed. One needs far more basis to infer causality. And it simply doesn’t exist.
Might our children be more sensitive? Perhaps. Might we be failing at providing the emotional nurturing that our children need? Perhaps. Are we more easily frustrated and driven towards control instead of teaching? Perhaps. Might Hashem be sending neshamos to us to nurture, involving nisyonos that are greater than previous generations? If so, does discipline fulfill our responsibility?
The love for children might not be a halacha. But from all angles in Torah, it is a fact. We beseech Hashem in our tefilos constantly in referring to Him as Avinu.
I would agree that we are likely not as successful as parents and mechanchim as we should be. But the embracing of our children is not the cause of the problem. Yes, when our children misbehave, mostly it’s their cry for help, not rebellion or plain evil. And we need to recognize the efficiency of the hug. It will produce many more mitzvos and Ahavas hashem than the potch. The embrace is effective, and goes very far. It follows the direction of our Gedolei Yisroel, many who suggested this long ago, when we didn’t listen.
@2qwerty, as if Rashi in Chumash was mistaken about the dichotomy between Yaacov and Eisav while they were still in the womb. Some children are simply born bad. While every effort should be made to save him or her, it will have been for naught. I’ve always said that the louder the voices in a tzibbur saying Tehillim for choleh, the higher the certainty that the choleh would succumb. That’s not cynicism. It happens without fail. That’s what beshert means.
@Yanky1998 I’m glad I didn’t have your rebbe. And if my son came home and told me his rebbe said that, I’d pull him out of the class. What a horrifying hashkafah towards kids who go off the derech. Good luck with that one. Gosh.
BH I have a rebbi that taught me the right hashkafah how to look at these kids. They are LOSERS. Why else would they go off? If a guy wants to be more chilled fine so don’t wear a hat by davening or whatever. But to become frei means that these people are self hating Jews, no better than ppl like Bernie sanders
Yes they are meshugayim (kids who go off) since how could any person who is normal choose to hate Yiddishkeit, the Torah is pure good and Chesed and how could these people choose to go against it
Arizona: “as if Rashi in Chumash was mistaken about the dichotomy between Yaacov and Eisav while they were still in the womb. Some children are simply born bad. While every effort should be made to save him or her, it will have been for naught”
To say that Hashem creates some people with no ability to be a good person goes against one of the basic principles of Judaism – bechira chofshis.
Eisav wasn’t BAD in the womb. He had bad TEMPTATIONS.
How do you know that no effort would have saved Eisav from bad behavior practically? Do those of us who are drawn to bad things from the womb have no control to stay away from those bad things?
You must have missed Rashi on Bereishis 32:23 that Eisav COULD HAVE done teshuva (וְדִינָה הֵיכָן הָיְתָה? נְתָנָהּ בְּתֵבָה וְנָעַל בְּפָנֶיהָ, שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן בָּהּ עֵשָׂו עֵינָיו, וּלְכָךְ נֶעֱנַשׁ יַעֲקֹב שֶׁמְּנָעָהּ מֵאָחִיו, שֶׁמָּא תַּחֲזִירֶנּוּ לַמּוּטָב, וְנָפְלָה בְּיַד שְׁכֶם).
See Rambam Shmona Prokim ch. 6 regarding חסיד המעולה vs כובש את יצרו.
See also Tanya ch. 13 & 27.
Regarding Yaakov and Eisav, see Likkutei Sichos vol. 20 pg. 118 & vol. 30 pg. 114