In another episode of Call With Dads, the hosts E. A. Maynard and Mr. Pancakes engaged with guest Luke Adsit, a proponent of gentle or peaceful parenting. The primary goal was to understand this parenting approach better and ideally find some common ground. However, the interview highlighted several points of contention, with Adsit often avoiding direct questions and resorting to emotional manipulation, leaving the hosts more skeptical of gentle parenting than before.
From the onset, Adsit struggled to provide clear and direct answers. His definition of discipline—focused on correction and instruction without punishment—was convoluted and seemed to dance around the hosts’ core concerns about teaching children consequences and the practical applications of such methods . This set a tone of frustration as Maynard and Mr. Pancakes tried to extract straightforward answers about how gentle parenting can address immediate and real-world disciplinary challenges.
Adsit’s avoidance of direct responses extended to his explanations about handling dangerous behaviors in children. For instance, Mr. Pancakes recounted multiple instances where his daughter repeatedly engaged in dangerous activities, despite understanding and experiencing the consequences. Instead of offering practical solutions, Adsit suggested eliminating all potential dangers—a proposition the hosts found neither feasible nor beneficial in teaching real-world consequences .
Throughout the interview, Adsit frequently employed emotional manipulation to bolster his arguments. A particularly egregious instance was his comparison of banning spanking to the abolition of slavery. This analogy was not only extreme but also felt like an attempt to evoke an emotional reaction rather than provide a rational, evidence-based argument . This tactic did not go over well with the hosts, who called out Adsit for what they perceived as manipulative rhetoric rather than a meaningful discussion.
Maynard and Mr. Pancakes expressed concerns that Adsit’s emotional appeals lacked practical relevance. They pointed out that despite Adsit’s broad claims about the immorality of spanking and the non-aggression principle, he failed to address everyday parenting dilemmas realistically. His assertion that removing all dangerous situations would suffice came across as naive and impractical. This approach did little to assuage the hosts’ fears that gentle parenting techniques might remove opportunities for children to learn essential life skills .
The interview also highlighted a deeper ideological divide concerning children’s motives and understanding. Adsit argued that parents often misinterpret their children’s actions and should always seek to understand the underlying motives. However, Maynard and Mr. Pancakes, who felt confident in their ability to gauge their children’s motives, saw this as another deflection from addressing real behavioral issues .
Adsit’s stance that parents should avoid using firm or scary tones also failed to resonate with the hosts. Mr. Pancakes explained that sometimes, a stern voice is effective and necessary to get a child’s immediate compliance in dangerous or urgent situations. Adsit’s suggestion to always let the heat of the moment pass seemed impractical for everyday parenting, further cementing the hosts’ view that gentle parenting lacks pragmatic tools .
Another point of contention arose from Adsit’s rigid interpretation of the non-aggression principle as it relates to spanking. Mr. Pancakes provided the counterpoint that occasional spanking, used as a last resort after all other methods have failed, contributes to better-behaved and well-adjusted children . Adsit’s response, which again leaned heavily on moral absolutism, did little to address the nuanced real-world scenarios presented by the hosts.
The conversation culminated in a growing mistrust of gentle parenting by the hosts. Adsit’s methods, described as peaceful parenting, seemed detached from the practical realities of raising children in a world filled with potential dangers and consequences. The hosts found Adsit’s avoidance of direct answers and reliance on emotional arguments to be off-putting . They were particularly wary of any parenting philosophy that seemed to undermine their authority or ability to teach their children about consequences meaningfully .
The interview with Luke Adsit did not bridge the gap between the proponents of gentle parenting and traditional parenting advocates. Instead, it highlighted significant divergences in philosophy and practice. Adsit’s lack of direct, practical answers and his reliance on emotional manipulation left the hosts more skeptical than ever about the feasibility and effectiveness of gentle parenting. Ultimately, Maynard and Mr. Pancakes remained committed to their traditional methods, viewing them as more grounded and effective in raising well-rounded and disciplined children .
