Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren't Growing Up

Shrier is criticizing the members of Generation X for the adoption of a permissive and gentle style of parenting. Claiming that members of this generation are over-reacting to the more authoritarian styles of their parents, Shrier argues that they have failed their children. Because of their parenting style, their children are less resilient, more dependent, and unhappy. Given the resultant behavioral and psychological problems, this generation has turned to mental health experts, who have made things worse. Shrier strongly recommends that these parents give their children more independence and refrain from taking their children to therapists in all but the most dire cases. Claiming that The Role of Parents in Childrearing is now subordinate to mental health experts, Shrier wants this generation to take back its rightful authority.

Born between 1965 and 1980, Generation X is said to be resourceful, independent, resilient, and possessive of a good work-life balance. Some in this generation are the children of Baby Boomers, not known for an authoritarian style of parenting, while others are children of previous generations. Shrier does not delve into the differences among Generation X, whether they be racial, class, age, religious, regional, or ethnic ones. She assumes that the generation practices mainly one style of parenting.

Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2012) are both potentially the children of Generation X parents. Shrier alludes to Generation Z, but her discussions would include some Millennials as well. Claiming that children raised by Generation X have been harmed by an overreliance on therapy, mental health checks, and gentle parenting, she describes them as dependent, unhappy, selfish, ill-behaved, and not prepared for the adult world. They perceive their peers to be on the verge of psychological breakdowns or suicidal. Those who have gone to therapy define themselves by their diagnoses. Generation Z, per Shrier, has been overprotected and as a result, its members are less likely to be successful in life.

While Millennials have been accused of delaying major life milestones as a generation, they are also described as travelers, tech-savvy, and socially conscious. A Stanford University study found that Generation Z was not coddled, but rather “highly collaborative, self-reliant, and pragmatic” (Katz, Roberta, et. al. “Gen Z Are Not ‘Coddled.’” Stanford Report). Shrier does not draw distinctions between those in these generations raised by Generation X and those raised by members of other generations. She cites some statistics about generational characteristics; however, her characterization of mainly Generation Z is controversial and simplistic.

Shrier blames mental health professionals for increasing rates of anxiety and depression among children and adolescents. Highlighting the potential for negative side effects from a child’s enrollment in therapy, Shrier argues that such children can lose faith in their parents, develop a negative self-esteem, fail to develop resilience, ruminate in their own feelings, and therefore fail to excel academically. She chastises mental health professionals for being too quick to prescribe medications with serious side effects.

The focus of mental health professionals on feelings is harmful. Fixated on sentiments and feelings, children and adolescents become passive and easily take offense. One of the real dangers for children and adolescents, per Shrier, is social media, yet mental health experts have not taken a stand advocating for reduced access to it. Shrier allows for a role for such experts only in dire cases. Otherwise, she calls for most of them to be fired. Claiming that these professionals have usurped The Role of Parents in Childrearing, she advises parents to stay away from them whenever possible. This broad condemnation of professionals dedicated to ensuring the mental health of clients is extremely controversial.

Maintaining that therapy has gone “airborne” (67), Shrier criticizes educators for the incorporation of social-emotional learning in the classroom and for the use of school counselors. In Shrier’s view, it is damaging to start a lesson or day in the classroom with questions about traumatic experiences. It does not necessarily help children to speak about such trauma, and it could be harmful. Teachers have no training in counseling. Most children have not endured trauma, yet the educational system assumes they have. The use of mental health surveys is particularly egregious to Shrier, as such surveys normalize dangerous behaviors and give students false ideas of reality. Schools are at the forefront of Shrier’s Critique of the Normalization of Mental Health Awareness.

Shrier argues that school counselors are in violation of a professional ethics code that prevents dual relationships. Therapists are not supposed to treat those in a relationship with one of their clients, but school counselors regularly treat a student’s friends and teammates, for example. She accuses educators and counselors of undermining parental authority and the parental relationship, as they question students about family practices and how the students feel about them. Because Shrier admits that most children—approximately 70 percent—are not and never have been in therapy, this criticism of educators is essential to her argument.