# Supernanny Sucks



## User101

For liability purposes I am speaking of the show, not jolly old "Jo Jo".

She has now graduated from the naughty step to the naughty freaking corner.

While I personally consider timeout to be an effective tool in my discipline tool box, I do not believ in humiliating a child by forcing them to face a wall.

She is very, very naughty.

Annette


----------



## monkey's mom

The bedtime stuff was horrible, too. The mom saying that they should give every new parent a manual getting your kids to sleep that way broke my heart.

I did like how Jo advocated for the older brother.

The corner time out was so shaming. You're right, so much worse than the stair step. Sad.


----------



## User101

I do agree that Scary Poppins was right on the money with that little boy.

Otherwise.... <<shudder>>


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Scary Poppins

Bwahahahaha! :LOL


----------



## MuseMom

Last night's episode broke my heart too when the four year old was crying/begging her Mommy to "lay with me" in bed. I don't know why I still watch this show







It's like a train wreck.


----------



## PuppyFluffer

Reading stuff like this makes me so glad I don't have a tv to subject myself to.


----------



## Ponoma

My mom came to visit this past weekend to help out while
ds was in for day surgery. She keep saying that Super Nanny
was great and that the only parents who wouldn't want to hear
her or see her were ones who her advice would
"hit to close to home". Ah yes, my mom's way of saying
our co-sleeping ways are ridicolous. THANK GOD we don't
have a tv. While in a book store where Super Nanny was
omniously looking down from the shelves, I turned the
cover around on all her books......tee. .....hhee.


----------



## mackinsiesmom

My 20 month old was crying because she wanted to run and I wouldn't let her run at that moment in time. I was sitting down and holding her and some lady walking by said "Someone needs Supper Nanny". I couldn't believe that anyone would say that not knowing the situation. Now some people think that children crying no matter what age needs Supper Nanny. I would hate to see what that woman thought when we all left playtime and almost all the kids were walking out of the building crying because they still wanted to play.


----------



## mainegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mackinsiesmom*
My 20 month old was crying because she wanted to run and I wouldn't let her run at that moment in time. I was sitting down and holding her and some lady walking by said "Someone needs Supper Nanny".

Did you trip her?

*ahem* Sorry...gut reaction


----------



## LunaMom

I haven't seen this show, but she sounds awful! "Scary Poppins," very funny!

The stranger saying "Someone needs Super Nanny" - what an idiot! Great, just as shows like "Extememe Makeover" have made the general public think that everyone needs surgery to fix themselves, now they will also think every child who isn't perfect needs Super Nanny...

I worry that those shows, even Nanny 911, which is much gentler than what this Super Nanny show sounds like, will just reinforce the idea that parents are all incompetent morons who have no idea how to deal with their spoiled brat kids.







It makes everyone look bad.


----------



## User101

Actually that would have been a great comeback- look the mean lady up and down really slow and say "Looks like someone needs an EXTREME MAKEOVER"


----------



## LunaMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Actually that would have been a great comeback- look the mean lady up and down really slow and say "Looks like someone needs an EXTREME MAKEOVER"









:


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Actually that would have been a great comeback- look the mean lady up and down really slow and say "Looks like someone needs an EXTREME MAKEOVER"
















:


----------



## root*children

I've only watched one of those episodes. Sickens me about to the extent of Wife Swap or The Swan. It's not so much that I disapprove of her methods (although I haven't seen the standing in the corner). I more so despise the show and nannies thinking that they can completely understand a family by hovering over them for a day. And then thinking they can miraculously cure everything in like 2 days. yay right! Don't the parents ever wonder why the nannies themselves have no children if they claim to be so wonderful at child-rearing?


----------



## Girl Named Sandoz

Sounds like she is the same one that we have here in the UK.

I never liked to watch that show, and I've read interviews with participants that said it was all heavily edited to make Jo Jo appear more helpful than she actually was (i.e. portrayed the family as more dysfuctional than they were before her interference through clever cutting and editing of footage - say, the toddler has two tantrums a day, they would be cut together to make it appear that that was all he did all day) etc. Even if some of her methods actually work, I always ask myself at what cost to the child (like time outs in a corner). The methods might 'train' the children to be compliant but at what cost, and for how long?


----------



## Mamid

we have decided to hate supernanny. Sure some of the parenting techniques are good ideas etc but what really bugs the pee out of us is:

Every single family we have seen there so far is unrealistic to our point of view. Not only are their houses are too clean, *they have houses* with yards and with enough rooms for a master suite, each kid to have a room (or twins sharing) AND a spare/guest room! Its pretty obvious that the family has some resources or they wouldn't even have a house, let alone a yard for the kids to play in - especially tonight's family.

How is a family on low income living in a cramped appartment supposed to deal with this? Especially one where, if they are lucky, they have a second bedroom. Renting in our area is ridiculous and 2 bedrooms are now going for more than what we are currently paying.

ps.. Gotta love the dad telling jojo off tonight. I loved that.


----------



## Bradley

I honestly can't believe I'm reading all these negative responses to this great show. She doesn't advocate spanking, talking rudely or belittling or anything. She simply shows how disresptful behavior is not tolerated toward a parent and therefore shows by example of how to teach your child (those that are out of control mind you) of where there place is in the household and how to behave like a mindful child should. She nips bad behavior in the bud in an age appropriate fashion. Those of you who haven't seen this, should watch one episode before you start labeling her "Scary" ... getting down to their level and speaking in a serious tone (not yelling or losing your cool) is GREAT advise and having them sit out and take a break for the amount of minutes their age is, is not asking that much. And, it appears to work week after week.

Bradley Mom!


----------



## hotmamacita

Bradley...

Well, I can understand why many don't like supernanny...sure she has some great ideas and techniques but the naughty room/step/corner thing is REALLY shaming, imo, and i don't like how, albeit ever so slightly, supernanny elicits a powerstruggle b/n parent and CHILD....

jmo


----------



## FreeSpiritMama

I seriously can't watch the show, it upsets me too much. Having a child face the wall, how awfully humiliating









Did anyone read this article Science Shows Up Super Nanny


----------



## saintmom

So this woman has never been a mother and is telling others how to parent? Somehow i don't think I need a weekly dose of Nazi nanny


----------



## paganmommy

Some of her techniques I agree with. I think timeout is ok and it works for my kids. Yelling like a maniac doesn't work for us, just kidding. Anyway, the sleep stuff was horrible. It works I know but it is so sad. Everyone made fun of my kids because they were so attached, but now they are older and so much more independent and unafraid. My youngest was very attached but he is the only kid the first day of school who isn't crying or clinging. He knows I will be home when he gets home and if I say I will pick him up I will. He trusts me. That is what we are talking about, trust.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

I have endless problems with these shows…


----------



## dawningmama

I watched last night's episode and I really don't know why. The entire concept of the show really bothers me. The whole idea just furthers this "us-vs-them" attitude of parenting. She just has some new ways of manipulating both parents and kids into tiny little boxes of acceptable behavior.

On last night's episode, I just for the life of me could not understand why that little girl had to give up the bed in the hallway. I mean, I'm not sure I'm down with the reason the parents first set that bed up for her, but at this point, what damage was the second bed doing? Why, in the midst of so many strangers in her house and changes going on in her parents' behavior, did she have to give up something that so obviously provided her with comfort? That whole thing was really what this show is about for me----random, arbitrary rules for the sake of having rules. Saying no loud and often so that children will know they have no free will.


----------



## monkey's mom

See, I think time-outs work in the same way that the sleep stuff works. It's a short term fix that has potential negative consequences farther down the line.

The children in last night's show were acting their worst out of frustration. The mom gave the 2 yr. old wood blocks and he started to throw them into the hallway. She told him, "No! Don't throw the blocks, Billy." so he threw the plastic container. Then she wrenched the blocks out of his hands and he freaked. DUH. Then she put him a time-out.

If throwing the blocks were a problem, why couldn't you give the kid something soft to throw and make that a fun game to play together? "Billy, we can't throw the hard blocks--someone could get an owie! Buuuuuut, [dramatic flourish] we can throw THEEEEESE! TA-DA!" and produce something soft and harmless. Or at a minimum, give the kid a chance to hand over the blocks himself, or remove them gently.

And seriously, the kid DID stop throwing the blocks. He threw an empty plastic container. I didn't see the problem with that. But, I think it was more about the power struggle at that point.

The daughter was punished because she was upset the little brother picked up a toy that she had brought down to play with. She wasn't using it at the time, so the mother just told her basically, "Too bad." Why couldn't they have at least listened to the girls' reasoning? I understand that feeling of wanting to use something first that you've gotten out. I just don't get why they couldn't have talked that situation out. The girl got frustrated and threw down the keyboard she was playing with and the mom accused her of throwing it AT the brother and put her in the naughty room. I didn't think she was aiming at the brother at all--she could've totally clocked him if she'd wanted to.









I just watched all the self-soothing behavior the girl exhibited while in time-out (thumb sucking, hair twirling) and thought it was pretty profound. When she came out of that room she was desperate to re-connect with the mother. I think that's the violation of trust that damages attachment.

And basically setting up a jail cell in my house that can ONLY be used for punishment is something I would run screaming from.


----------



## Mamid

I don't like the jailhouse room concept. We've tried it here but got complaints from our neighbours that our son screamed too much in them.

see.... all this only works if you don't have nosey neighbours above and beside you. It only works if you have the spare rooms (we don't). I'd be too afraid that our son would throw things around in that room and destroy it (he has even when he wasn't in a time out and just playing).

But because we have nosey neighbours, we can't let him scream or throw tantrums. We got an eviction threat because of his screams and because we weren't being evicted, they called the cops on us two days ago and CPS showed up. Like WTF? we were bloody well doing a spring purge because DD is now mobile ala Hammish Mcphearson and the social worker called my housekeeping a pig sty etc etc etc. Yet that arse upstairs is allowed to snore so loud my baby can't sleep in bed even beside me? I swear they hate children up there.

Anyway, we have been trying the time out corner. No, we don't force DS to stand facing the wall, but we do require him to stay in that corner till the timer goes off. And, of course, he screams those ear piercing i-am-an-abused-kid-getting-the-hell-beaten-out-of-me type screams during his entire time out. Once the timer goes off he is suddenly oh so happy but that doesn't correct his behaviour. And yes, we are getting down to his level and all that.

But once again, my point is that the families Jojo is supposedly helping all have the room to spare. I'd like to see her deal with a family living in cramped living conditions where mom and dad can barely move in their tiny bedroom because the dresser is inches from the bed, and two or more children have to share one room and there is no yard for them to play in.

And yes, the social worker told us we have to get a bigger place. Again.







:


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Don't worry, Mamid...There's hope for you yet. With all the editing they can still make it _look_ like all your problems have been solved and then some.


----------



## Mamid

One thing I noticed about Jojo is that she's doing the same pop psyche that Dr Pill is doing. Tears the adults down in two sentences then tells them "this is how you fix it or else."







And if the parents relapse, oh they are such naughty parents and she goes and rescues them.







:

It takes time to change old habits. It simply can not be done in a day or even a week. We've been working at it for two years and we still fall back into the ways our parents raised us.

But again, I have yet to see Jojo deal with a family in a cramped condition - 2 bedroom appartment and family of 4. If she can take a child like the 4yo boy from last week and calm him down in that cramped quarters, then I'll take her more seriously.

As it is right now, watching it is like watching Fear Factor or a train wreck - Horrible yet fascinating.

As for the "emergency social worker" .... We're contemplating calling up the man who was our social worker and bitching at him for letting us fall through the cracks. Who knows.. maybe we can get a letter from them to speed us into a low income housing place?

And thanks IDCMama. Watching Supernanny also makes us realize that our child is "normal" because if higher income families can have children like our son, then ours is normal even with his "developmental delays" and hearing loss.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
And thanks IDCMama.

Just wanted to be 100% clear ~ I was making a crack at this show and how they can make anything look however they want, yk?

The end point being that it's all a bunch of crap :LOL

Sorry to hear that things aren't going well for you. Winter is hard enough but being in a cramped apartment must make it even more challenging. May spring come your way soon.


----------



## MamaOui

So many comments, so little time. What was up with JoJo expecting a 2 year old to get through a game of CandyLand? And why was he punished for not having the attention span to deal with it?


----------



## Ary99

I also thought the expectation of a two year old playing Candy Land wasn't developmentally appropriate.

I think she has some useful tools quite frankly, such as getting on the child's level and changing tone of voice to get attention, and I think there is something to be said for routine. I also like the fact that she's been very direct with overworked parents in telling them they need to cut down their schedules to spend more time with the kids, and she explains to children why it is not ok to throw or hit, etc. I'm not too keen on the "naughty" concept as I was a very sensitive child and would have been mortified to be sent to Naughty Land.

Some behavior os blown way out of proportion though. I also didn't know what the big deal was about the little girl having the extra bed.

I could sit here and pretend to bash Super Nanny, but I find peeks into the lives of other parents fascinating. I'll be watching again next Monday night.


----------



## hotmamacita

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaOui*
So many comments, so little time. What was up with JoJo expecting a 2 year old to get through a game of CandyLand? And why was he punished for not having the attention span to deal with it?

Yeah, that was awful. And Monkey'sMom articulated our concerns well. Good to hear it from other parents.

I wish JoJO would have leaned into the dad and said more to him.


----------



## NYCVeg

I also found some aspects of the show appalling--but I did like that she told the dad that spanking was not only ineffective, but actually counter-productive; and that she told the mom that sending the daughter to the "naughty room" because of her feelings--rather than her behavior--was not okay, followed by something about how children need to be allowed to feel whatever they want to feel.

Why oh why do I watch this garbage???


----------



## dolphinkisser

I am so afraid that the mother is doing so much psychological trauma as a result of accepting supernanny's way. She turned this mother more into a rule setter than a nurturer. The kids see mom as robot and she says that the girl sleeping in the hallway is being treated like a pet. Jo is treating the kids like a pet with all her 'pavlov dog' experiment concepts.
What about dealing with the feelings underlying the behavior? What about helping them have coping strategies and learning more healthy ways to deal with anger and frustration. This girl was just put in the naughty room with no concern of how she was feeling and what was causing the behavior. The message she is getting is that i don't care , there is no excuse ...just don't do this. She still had so much frustration. Then mom demanded that she say sorry before she got out of the naughty room. Like what did that teach her? Only that she is going to have to be manipulative and say what mommy wants to hear so that she can have her own way.
I was also so put off by Jo's negativity...she was always saying " Don't do this! This is not asseptable!" ..every frigin thing was Don't or no! Those kids are going to have such a complex!! Jow about showing them or telling them what IS acceptable!! Gving them some positive alternatives. I saw no attention given to apppropriate behavior...it was like the kids could do nothing right. Neither the parents for that matter.
It was about time that someone stood up to Jo and say that she does not appreciate the way she judges them ( like the dad did)....she took such comfort in knocking down the parents and blaming them for everything. I take offence when people judge my situation and think that they know and have a solution for my situation which they know nothing about. Kids are kids...they are individuals and one size does NOT fit all.
I can go on...it is just so scary how so many people think she is such a savior...it is a rage.


----------



## Itlbokay

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mainegirl*
Did you trip her?

*ahem* Sorry...gut reaction









tee hee


----------



## Losgann

I just fired our behavior therapist. My son is 8 with Aspergers and he tantrums A LOT. So she was supposedly trying to help stop the tantrumming.

Her way of doing it was to come over, push all his buttons, set him off, and then plunk him in his room for over an hour while he screamed and then sobbed uncontrollably. She wouldn't "process him out" until he calmed down completely. I couldn't take it and told her to leave.

She mentioned "Do you watch Supernanny?" I told her "I've heard of it," in a derisive tone. She said "It's just like that."

We'd gone round and round about my being AP and then she spouts that nonsense at me.. Needless to say she won't be back. We're interviewing another therapist this afternoon.

All she did was torture my ds. He couldn't stand her, didn't trust her so how is his behavior supposed to get better? And if he never gained any trust in *her* with her methods, how was it supposed to work any different for us using them?

Same thing with Supernanny. It's a fad, and hopefully it will die a horrible yet quick death.


----------



## Deja

I read this thread with great interest. It would please me if I could respond in such a way that might create an openness to consider the techniques used by 'Super Nanny' from another perspective.

The mothers responding here obviously love their children very much and I can see how much it pains you to see your children or other children who are experiencing emotional upset. I ask you to consider the following;

Emotional upset causes pain, obviously. It is difficult to see your child experiencing pain, of course. What I have seen in my twenty two years working with preschool children and their parents has caused me to believe that there is a trend in parenting in which well meaning parents attempt to protect their children from any emotional distress whatsoever.

Naturally some types of emotional distress should be avoided and soothed, but what I've observed is a tendency to attempt to prevent ANY emotional distress. I would just ask you to consider the possibility that as parents, one of the most profound gifts that we can give our children is to teach them to develop the skills that will enable them to handled the upsets that they will inevitably experience throughout their lives in the most effective manner. This cannot happen if our strategies are designed to protect the child from upsets to the extent that I'm seeing today.

This extreme attention to detail in terms of protecting the children from distress has produced children who do not know how to cope with internal turmoil. In a nearby, very affluent community, this dynamic has tragically resulted in teenagers who, when finally confronted with situations that required the abilities that they were never required to develop as preschoolers, died in accidental overdoses in their attempts to soothe themselves once they were finally exposed to life obstacles in which their parents were not there to handle things for them.

My observations of 'Super Nanny's' techniques lead me to believe that her methods are respectful of the child. An adult sitting on a chair facing a wall would indeed be shamed. Please consider the possibility that in concluding that this is shameful to a child, perhaps there is an aspect of projecting adult responses into the young child's psyche.

Children rely on adults to establish clear boundaries. They lack the reasoning skills to discuss these issues with us, therefore adult attempts to reason with a child who is flooded emotionally and unable to listen are completely futile and serve the needs of the adults without addressing the needs of a child in the situation.

Children are not happy of course, when these boundaries are set. But they are relieved and greatly empowered. They become more confident and secure. Their world becomes a more predictable place, which develops a sense of efficacy in navigating through childhood. This enables your child to build coping skills and mechanisms that will serve him beautifully for a lifetime. There is no greater gift you can give to your precious child.


----------



## FancyPants

Quote:

It takes time to change old habits. It simply can not be done in a day or even a week. We've been working at it for two years and we still fall back into the ways our parents raised us.









I agree 100%

Mostly when I look at my kids I see what _I_ have to change and almost never is it something easy and quick. Usually it points to something long standing.

I worked on temper (mine) - rage really - for a long time. It's been a problem in my family (father's side) for _generations_. I've been aware of my problems with it since I was 4 years old when I smashed a riding toy on the cement ground outside so hard I broke it (trust me this was a pretty substantial well-built toy). I've been working on this for nearly 30 *years* before achieving true success.
But of course, I'm sure a pop pyschologist on t.v. could have made me all better in just one visit.








Even two years is not a long time to change ingrained patterns of responding.
Good on you Mamid. It sounds like you have it pretty rough right now.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
.
My observations of 'Super Nanny's' techniques lead me to believe that her methods are respectful of the child. An adult sitting on a chair facing a wall would indeed be shamed. Please consider the possibility that in concluding that this is shameful to a child, perhaps there is an aspect of projecting adult responses into the young child's psyche.

I was with you, or could at least see your point, until here.

What evidence do you have that a child sitting on a chair facing a wall does not feel shame? How would such a punishment work if the child did not feel shame? If seating the child separately in this way is intended only to help them calm down and cool off, why do they have to face the wall? Why does the Super Nanny send the child to the "Naughty Room" if not to employ shame?

The very premise that children don't have the same emotions as adults...what can I say, it's the most dehumanizing theory of child rearing I have encountered. (Perhaps you have not considered the implications of this statement, let me give you the benefit of that.) There is such an obvious difference between setting limits and boundaries that make a child feel secure, and humiliating them. I think it's possible to set limits that protect a child from harm and socialize them to good behavior without intentionally inflicting pain, even emotional pain.


----------



## candiland

Wow, Deja, great post. Lots of food for thought









Two of my friends... both who are totally AP, did child-led weaning, etc... were talking about this show last week. I went, "Aack! Isn't it terrible? I haven't seen it, but I've read all about it on my message board..." and they said, "Oh, no! I love it! They finally brought some sanity into these families' lives!"

I guess I'll have to watch and see for myself.


----------



## Deja

Captain Optimism;
I appreciate your comments and the ability to clarify what I was attempting to convey. My post was already so long, and the subject of child development is a complex one...it's simply impossible to convery every nuance that I would like to convey with any degree of conciseness. Your comments allow me to attempt to clear up any potential misunderstanding, and I do appreciate that.

I am not saying, nor do I believe in ANY WAY, that children have different emotions than adults do; no, of course not. What I am trying to express is that their context is different than ours.

As an adult, there are very few situations in which it would not be shameful and humiliating to have to literally obey another person without understanding the reasons that this is required of me. A child however, must obey another person even when he is incapable of understanding the reasons that this behavior is required of him. An example; my daughter, at the age of two, had a terrible habit of attempting to get away from me and run through crowded parking lots. She was quite small and I was terrified that she would get hit by a car. She was quite independent and abhorred being carried through the parking lot. In this situation, it is clear that the child MUST obey the adult regardless of whether she could fully comprehend the reasons why. There are MANY examples of greater subtlety in which the issues are interapersonal, not physical safety, in which a child must learn to obey behaviors for reasons that he cannot understand, developmentally.

I am attempting to establish that the context is often quite different for a child. Now, obviously there are a great many examples of how a child's responses will be the same as the responses of an adult. There is a high degree of complexity to these issues, subtleties of nuance that require a great deal of distinction. In other words, it ain't easy to be a parent and to do it right. ;-)

These nuances come into play in this 'child facing a wall' scenario. Not all children are the same, I think that all mothers here will agree with that. Some children are so sensitive that they burst into tears at the gentlest rebuke, and those children could very well be shamed by facing a wall. Other children have temperaments that require an approach that strengthens the boundaries. I do not find, for those types of temperaments, that sitting them in a chair and having them face the wall, is a shameful experience as long as the discipline is not accompanied by shaming talk. With those spirited children, who I respect and adore for their spunk and independence, it is an issue of self-control They do not yet have it. It is a skill that they must develop. The adult must exert the control where the child can and will not, with gradually development of the child's own abilities to regulate her behaviors. In time, it will become less and less necessary for the adult to establish these external controls and one day the child is an adult empowered with the skills that she needs to be happy and successful in her life.

I hope that helps somewhat in clarifying what I intended to say.

Now, you say that you believe that "it is possible to set limits and boundaries that protect a child from harm and socialize them to good behavior without intentionally inflicting pain, even emotional pain."

First, I would never have as my motive in my strategy with any child, the intent to inflict emotional pain. Perhaps this is exactly what needs to be teased out in with this issue. I don't like for children to feel emotional pain, and know that this is true of the community here. What I am saying is this; there are times when I do know that my strategy will upset the child, because the child only wants what he wants, and not getting it upsets him and causes him real pain. I know that his inability to get what he wants will cause him emotional pain. Does the establishment of boundaries then constitute intentional infliction of emotional pain?

I ask you to just consider the possibility that the pain I avoid in choosing not to firmly establish those boundaries, is my own pain in doing what is best for the child but which upsets him.

Learning to tolerate our own discomfort when our children are upset is appropriate; we are the adults in the situation. It is hard. We love our children and don't want them to feel pain, emotional or otherwise. But it is in learning to deal with what is a shattering disappointment as a small child (not getting what you want) that critical life skills are born and developed.

You won't be able to protect your child forever. But you CAN provide your child will skills which will enable her to cope with the unavoidable pain and distress of life, and those skills WILL last a lifetime.

As I said before, this is an amazingly powerful gift of love from a parent to a child. And it requires some sacrifice on our parts to give it. As my own mother often told me, "When you are faced with a dilemma and you don't know what's righ, the right thing is usually the hardest thing to do."


----------



## Deja

Candiland,
Thank you so much for your kind words. I very much appreciate them.


----------



## wasabi

I haven't watched the show. The ads I've seen made it seem reasonable. However then a friend emailed me about her method for getting a child into its own bed (we were going to see if DD wanted to move to her own bed in our room but it was not a priority for us at all) and I was horrified. I mean really and truly horrified. Don't talk to the child? Don't make eye contact? Just put them back in bed without a word, a look or a touch? Ack! No thanks!


----------



## Deja

I was so concerned about the growing length of my post that I neglected to add something of importance.

I didn't see the episode in question, with the chair being turned to the wall, so my comments were confined to the discipline technique itself. I thought it might help to explain why for some children this is a more effective technique.

Some personality types are so agitated by sensory stimuli that they have a difficult if not impossible time regaining self-control unless external stimuli are reduced. Turning the chair to the wall achieves this purpose. Therefore, the reason for turning the chair is not to inflict pain on the child, but to respect that individual child's unique response to sensory stimuli and then create conditions more optimal for that child to gain control of herself.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Ary99

Deja, I am impressed with your gift with words. I was actually thinking about this thread as I showered this morning because I was haunted with the nagging question that I am uncomfortable with:

Is feeling shame for negative behavior a bad thing?

I don't like the idea of shaming my child any more than I like the idea of slapping him. But, I do think the idea that my child may grow up with the ability to shame himself as a means of self control and judgement may make him a happy, healthy adult.

An interesting discussion, friends. Gotta go, DS needs his mom.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
First, I would never have as my motive in my strategy with any child, the intent to inflict emotional pain. Perhaps this is exactly what needs to be teased out in with this issue. I don't like for children to feel emotional pain, and know that this is true of the community here. What I am saying is this; there are times when I do know that my strategy will upset the child, because the child only wants what he wants, and not getting it upsets him and causes him real pain. I know that his inability to get what he wants will cause him emotional pain. Does the establishment of boundaries then constitute intentional infliction of emotional pain?

Okay, your example was good. There are some situations in which a parent has to say no, and not allow the child's feelings to influence the decision. A toddler can't run in a parking lot, whether or not they understand why. So you pick them up and carry them, and if they cry, you soothe them but you don't put them down, okay.

There are some things that children want that are bad for them. I don't want my son to find out that the stove is hot by burning himself, and I will physically prevent him from touching the hot stove. That's a boundary, I'm setting it. I'm not permissive here, you understand, I think it's my job to keep him safe.

I still don't understand how a naughty room or a naughty chair or sitting in the corner is anything but a humiliation. How else could such a thing work? What's the child's motivation to avoid the punishment if it's not a punishment?

I think there is a crucial difference between children learning that they can't have everything they want and learning to simulate total obedience, the same difference that I pointed to before between setting limits and humiliating children. The problem is that I haven't seen this television show and you have, so I might be fighting with a straw person a bit. I just don't like that whole naughty chair, naughty stair, naughty room schtick. My son is not a puppy.


----------



## jenais

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
we have decided to hate supernanny. Sure some of the parenting techniques are good ideas etc but what really bugs the pee out of us is:

Every single family we have seen there so far is unrealistic to our point of view. Not only are their houses are too clean, *they have houses* with yards and with enough rooms for a master suite, each kid to have a room (or twins sharing) AND a spare/guest room! Its pretty obvious that the family has some resources or they wouldn't even have a house, let alone a yard for the kids to play in - especially tonight's family.

How is a family on low income living in a cramped appartment supposed to deal with this? Especially one where, if they are lucky, they have a second bedroom. Renting in our area is ridiculous and 2 bedrooms are now going for more than what we are currently paying.

ps.. Gotta love the dad telling jojo off tonight. I loved that.










My friend saw this show and said "The problem is their houses are all too big! There you go, problem solved." I thoought that was funny. Probably because our house is very small.


----------



## wasabi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
I think there is a crucial difference between children learning that they can't have everything they want and learning to simulate total obedience, the same difference that I pointed to before between setting limits and humiliating children. The problem is that I haven't seen this television show and you have, so I might be fighting with a straw person a bit. I just don't like that whole naughty chair, naughty stair, naughty room schtick. My son is not a puppy.

Exactly. In a discussion on another board about spanking someone was talking about a spanking her mother gave her and said she was crying not because it hurt but because she was embarassed and shamed. I thought she meant she felt badly that she had been caught lying to her mother so I pointed out that the spanking had really been beside the point. I asked if the spanking didn't hurt as so many advocates like to say they don't spank to the point of hurting then really what was the point? If it doesn't hurt how does it work? She clarified that she was crying because she was embarassed at being spanked or punished. So basically I'm left with a means of discipline that either works through pain or shame. Yeah I'll pass.

Now I will admit that I do use timeout and I can freely admit they're more for me than DD. Unfortunately I grew up in a home heavy on physical punishments and lack of temper control. I do not hit my child ever but there are times when I lose my temper. When she is hitting me is a particularly difficult issue for me. And so I do put her in timeout for that because for one thing it gives me those two minutes to compose myself and remind myself of all the reasons why no it would not be ok to just smack her back. I'm not perfect but it's so much better than the alternative that I'm ok with it. I don't shame her though and there's no naughty room and I only use it for causing others physical harm.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Does anyone know the legal rights of the children on this show? This would be my first issue. Does the child have a contract that easily allows them to exit should a problem occur? Does the child 'own' any compensation given to the family? Does the child have control over their image when they're adults?

Personally, I don't much care if this show's advice is good. The fact remains that this show is a lie. The goal is cash ~ it's not about helping you or the guest families. They mislead us by telling us this is 'reality tv'. They pretend that they're unbiased when we all know that they need entertainment.

An average family with average problems who isn't helped much by the nanny doesn't get ratings. They need families who have 'issues' weather these are real, made up or a combination. Then they need the nanny to seem like she 'fixed' everything.

How hard would that be with modern editing? Well, I heard there weren't any real horses used in the filming of the movie Braveheart.

Deja, Jenais ~ Welcome to MDC!


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*

Learning to tolerate our own discomfort when our children are upset is appropriate; we are the adults in the situation. It is hard. We love our children and don't want them to feel pain, emotional or otherwise. But it is in learning to deal with what is a shattering disappointment as a small child (not getting what you want) that critical life skills are born and developed.

You won't be able to protect your child forever. But you CAN provide your child will skills which will enable her to cope with the unavoidable pain and distress of life, and those skills WILL last a lifetime.

As I said before, this is an amazingly powerful gift of love from a parent to a child. And it requires some sacrifice on our parts to give it. As my own mother often told me, "When you are faced with a dilemma and you don't know what's righ, the right thing is usually the hardest thing to do."

I just have to say that I've ended up being an AP parent because it was positively the path of least resistance. It was way easier than all the supposedly "quick fix" things like CIO. and GD continues to be the most effectove and easist way to parent. Ive never felt the need to inflict suffering on myself or my child in the name of "it's good for you."

I get so irritated when people act like parents need to be cold while their children suffer and need to teach children to handle frustration by purposefully frustrating them.

Children are frustrated constantly. That is because life is hard when you are small. The way to help them learn to deal with it is to hold them close, help them calm down, and to empathize.

I don't need to create stupid rigid rules to help my child understand frustration. She knows frustration because she can't reach the counter, or drive a car, or touch the moon.

I am not laboring under the delusion that I create every one of my child's experiences.

My job as a disciplinarian is to teach her and help her deal with life- not orchestrate and micromanage her world.


----------



## NoraB

I like some of the techniques I've seen Jo use. One was when a 4 year old kept getting out of bed. After the second or third time, the parents were instructed to just calmly and gently walk him back to bed, but not to converse w/ him, etc. That seemed very gentle to me.

Her ideas about meal times bother me though. I firmly believe that it's the parents' job to provide a variety of healthy, nutritious fare throughout the day. It's the child's job, however, to eat. There's no need for power struggles or ridiculous "praise" to get through a meal.

She doesn't seem to focus on any of the underlying problems. She focuses on quick fixes only. If a child is constantly acting out, maybe there is a serious deficit in the amount of positive attention he's getting. Praises, such as "Good boy, you ate your hotdog," are simply not going to cut it. The child needs genuine time w/ his parents. He needs cuddling, talking, playing, etc. A child will get the attention he needs by whatever method he can, even if that attention is negative. I haven't seen Jo address this.

WRT causing emotional distress. I think most GD families understand that sometimes (maybe a lot, especially in the toddler years) a child is going to be distressed by parental decisions. The crawling baby wants to pull a plug out of an outlet. The parent says something like, "Danger! Hurt Baby!" and redirects the child. The child may be upset and that is okay. The parent can empathize w/ the child's feelings and help the child label those feelings. "You're crying. You sound frustrtated b/c you can't play w/ the plug. It's hard when you want something and can't have it." That's entirely different than the emotional distress inflicted by punishment. Even if the parent's concious intent is not to produce distress, punishment by it's very nature is deliberate infliction of distress. Punishment is not punishment by definition if it doesn't make the child feel bad somehow. This cannot be equated w/ a child feeling bad after natural or judiciously used logical consequences. W/ GD, the parent's intent is NOT to punish, but to teach. Sometimes that teaching can be painful. A child can learn (and I say they can learn better) w/o punishment. Perhaps it sounds like splitting hairs, but the difference is very real (IMO at least).


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
An average family with average problems who isn't helped much by the nanny doesn't get ratings. They need families who have 'issues' weather these are real, made up or a combination. Then they need the nanny to seem like she 'fixed' everything.

I keep thinking "what if there were a GD reality program?"

And then I realize how boring that would be, lol. Families working together, solving problems as they come up, and no "quick fixes"....the episode would have to be about 15 years long: "and, presto! A mature, well adjusted, capable adult!" :LOL :LOL :LOL


----------



## User101

Quote:

I didn't see the episode in question, with the chair being turned to the wall, so my comments were confined to the discipline technique itself. I thought it might help to explain why for some children this is a more effective technique.
I saw the show, and do not believe it was an '"effective" technique. It was a technique which was meant to subjegate the child to the parents' (and the nanny's) will. It was not discipline, meant to teach. It was punishment.

Furthermore, as we have discussed many times on this board, just because something is supposedly effective does not make it right.

Quote:

Some personality types are so agitated by sensory stimuli that they have a difficult if not impossible time regaining self-control unless external stimuli are reduced. Turning the chair to the wall achieves this purpose. Therefore, the reason for turning the chair is not to inflict pain on the child, but to respect that individual child's unique response to sensory stimuli and then create conditions more optimal for that child to gain control of herself.
Again, we are still dealing with punishment verses discipline. The child was not placed on the chair with the understanding that this was a calming down time. The child was told "That is not acceptable. Go to the naughty corner" and then forced to stand facing the wall.

If a child has sensory issues and needs discipline, I can think of many, many alternative ways to do so.

I have many problems with this show. IDCMama points out one- it's fake. You can't solve an out-of-control-family (note- not child, family) in 60 minutes without some pretty good editing. The parents are not empowered at all in these shows. She does not ask them about their children, or their feelings, or their thoughts. She is the "expert" based on one days' observation, and the parents are expected to do what she says. This is about as far away from attachment parenting as you can get. Finally, I question her methods. They are strongly based on behaviorist theory, and I do not feel she has a good grasp of developmetally appropriate behavior or consequences.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

oh, that's whether...maybe I need the naughty chair :LOL


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
It would please me if I could respond in such a way that might create an openness to consider the techniques used by 'Super Nanny' from another perspective.

I was raised with those techniques (for the most part), I see them everyday, I am told that children must be treated this way to become upstanding/law-abiding/contributing-to-society people quite a bit, and I used to believe that. The SuperNanny perspective is pervasive. I can't help but consider those techniques all the time.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
The mothers responding here obviously love their children very much and I can see how much it pains you to see your children or other children who are experiencing emotional upset. I ask you to consider the following;

Emotional upset causes pain, obviously. It is difficult to see your child experiencing pain, of course. What I have seen in my twenty two years working with preschool children and their parents has caused me to believe that there is a trend in parenting in which well meaning parents attempt to protect their children from any emotional distress whatsoever.

I have no problem with children experiencing a wide range of emotions. I think it is absolutely vital. However, I strongly believe that they experience those emotions in a safe and nurturing environment--comforting my child is not an attempt to curtail his emotions.

Putting a child into time-out for being angry or frustrated and not having a socially appropriate way to express those feelings (tantrums) does seem to attempt to prevent those emotions. And the "sorry" elicited at the end of that time-out could be confused as needing to apologize for those strong feelings. Tantrums are not something that need to be "fixed" in my view. Nearly every episode of SuperNanny, however, lists tantrums as one of the behavioral "problems" for the nanny to address.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
This extreme attention to detail in terms of protecting the children from distress has produced children who do not know how to cope with internal turmoil.

The children I have seen on SuperNanny cope with internal turmoil in forced solitude. What's the coping skill being taught there? I don't know why those children can't be prompted and shown to express their internal turmoils in healthy, constructive ways. Six year olds sucking their thumbs in the fetal position on a bed in a room isn't something that's going to help a person come up with a plan for what to do at 30 when they have internal turmoil.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
In a nearby, very affluent community, this dynamic has tragically resulted in teenagers who, when finally confronted with situations that required the abilities that they were never required to develop as preschoolers, died in accidental overdoses in their attempts to soothe themselves once they were finally exposed to life obstacles in which their parents were not there to handle things for them.

Were these AP families? Were these gentle discipline families? Were there other factors? I don't think anyone here is "handling" "life obstacles" *for* their children. That's not really what attachment parenting and gd are about.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
My observations of 'Super Nanny's' techniques lead me to believe that her methods are respectful of the child. An adult sitting on a chair facing a wall would indeed be shamed. Please consider the possibility that in concluding that this is shameful to a child, perhaps there is an aspect of projecting adult responses into the young child's psyche.

Children who are not feeling shame and who are experiencing respect don't typically act the way the children on that show do. And the Golden Rule should apply to everyone--not just adults.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
They lack the reasoning skills to discuss these issues with us, therefore adult attempts to reason with a child who is flooded emotionally and unable to listen are completely futile and serve the needs of the adults without addressing the needs of a child in the situation.

According to whom? THere are countless threads in this forum that contradict this. Children are perfectly able to reason and discuss--obviously not mid-tantrum, but no one's advocating that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Children are not happy of course, when these boundaries are set. But they are relieved and greatly empowered. They become more confident and secure. Their world becomes a more predictable place, which develops a sense of efficacy in navigating through childhood. This enables your child to build coping skills and mechanisms that will serve him beautifully for a lifetime. There is no greater gift you can give to your precious child.

The children in that show last night didn't look relieved, empowered, confident, secure, or like anyone had given them a gift when they were avoiding their parents' eyes and muttering, "sorry" after their time-outs were over.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
Does anyone know the legal rights of the children on this show? This would be my first issue. Does the child have a contract that easily allows them to exit should a problem occur? Does the child 'own' any compensation given to the family? Does the child have control over their image when they're adults?

Personally, I don't much care if this show's advice is good. The fact remains that this show is a lie. The goal is cash ~ it's not about helping you or the guest families. They mislead us by telling us this is 'reality tv'. They pretend that they're unbiased when we all know that they need entertainment.

Children have no rights as it is. Even if they are asked to consent to this, which I am sure they are not, they are unable to give consent because they are minors. (I was a paralegal in a previous life.) Parents consent for children.

I very much aggree with your arguements against this show.

I disaggree with some of the methods, and others are not that bad.

But the thing is that reality television is not reality. This is the worst kind of packaging and selling of quack advice. It's not so much the caliber of advice, but that they can make the story and editing say whatever they want. It creates a false image.

I wish these kids would grow up and sue the pants off whatever network makes this show. Why? Because they are taking these kid's childhoods and families and toying with them on public tv for the entertainment of the masses and to make money.

That is messed up.


----------



## Mom4tot

Wouldn't it be funny for her to come in to an extended nursing, cosleeping, unschooling family?? :LOL

Dolphinkisser~ "asseptable", :LOL I nearly spit my drink!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
And then I realize how boring that would be, lol.


Yea, really. I live my own discipline challenges and spend all day with my kid. *Why* would I want to watch this??? Seriously we're freakin' masochists.


----------



## monkey's mom

Don't get me wrong...I love this show!







:


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
Yea, really. I live my own discipline challenges and spend all day with my kid. *Why* would I want to watch this??? Seriously we're freakin' masochists.

I quit watching after the third show. CSI is much more realistic. :LOL


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
But the thing is that reality television is not reality. This is the worst kind of packaging and selling of quack advice. It's not so much the caliber of advice, but that they can make the story and editing say whatever they want. It creates a false image.

I wish these kids would grow up and sue the pants off whatever network makes this show. Why? Because they are taking these kid's childhoods and families and toying with them on public tv for the entertainment of the masses and to make money.

That is messed up.

Sing it!

Anybody see the "Reality TV" thread in TV? I'll bump it...


----------



## Deja

Originally Posted by captain optimism
I think there is a crucial difference between children learning that they can't have everything they want and learning to simulate total obedience, the same difference that I pointed to before between setting limits and humiliating children. The problem is that I haven't seen this television show and you have, so I might be fighting with a straw person a bit. I just don't like that whole naughty chair, naughty stair, naughty room schtick. My son is not a puppy.

In response to the excerpt above:
Captain Optimism, first let me thank you for a very enjoyable exchange of thoughts and ideas. I very much enjoy it.

Now, in the excerpt I've posted above, you say that there is a crucial difference in children learning that they can't have everything they want and simulating total obedience.

What I ask you to consider is how far apart those two extremes are, and how much nuance separates them. It's not a question of one or the other. Because a parent imposes limits and boundaries, limits and boundaries that the child does not want and would not choose, that does not automatically translate into a parenting style which demands total control and simulated obedience.

You say that you don't see how a naughty chair or a naughty room is anything but a humiliation, and that you don't see the child's motivation to avoid the 'punishment if it is not a punishment'.

First, I do not advocate 'punishment' as much as I advocate 'discipline'. Discipline entails creating an awareness of right and wrong, good and bad behaviors. This is awareness that to a large extent a child must learn, and it is the responsibility of the parent to create this awareness in a child. The purpose of the naughty chair is to identify that a BEHAVIOR is naughty and that the behavior has consequences that the child doesn't like. The consequence that the child doesn't like is almost always the loss of control. From my own experience, for most children, the motivation that they have to learn to avoid behaviors that land them in a naughty chair, is to avoid the loss of control that occurs when they are forced to sit in the chair.

Therefore, the motivation is a positive; do as you are being taught to do, and you remain in control of where your body is and you retain choice in your activities.

Some form of guidance beyond what is required for physical safety is absolutely necessary for a child's development. Children lack the reasoning abilities to determine that a certain behavior will create lifelong problems for them, and there are many behaviors which become habitual and which impact the children in ways that not only harm them in life, but make them selfish and unpleasant human beings. I have seen this happen. Lovely, beautiful, creative and hilariously amusing children who become extremely unpleasant to be around due to their behaviors.

I am myself a free spirit. My daughter is a free spirit. If there was a free spirits club, we'd belong to it.  The goal is to shape the fires of individuality in ways that enhance the child's very being, and her life. Not to extinguish it.


----------



## Mamame

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wasabi*
I haven't watched the show. The ads I've seen made it seem reasonable. However then a friend emailed me about her method for getting a child into its own bed (we were going to see if DD wanted to move to her own bed in our room but it was not a priority for us at all) and I was horrified. I mean really and truly horrified. Don't talk to the child? Don't make eye contact? Just put them back in bed without a word, a look or a touch? Ack! No thanks!

No, that's not how she does it. When I've watched, she's had the parent walk the child back into their bed (carrying them or whatever), lay them down telling them "It's time to go to bed. I love you. Good night." and give a kiss (or something like that - I'm not quoting exactly) the first time they get up. The second time you walk them back to bed and tell them that it's time for bed and put them in bed. The third and subsequent times, there's no more talking but just putting the child back in bed - not allowing the child to engage you in anger, frustration, or anything. She doesn't have the parent do that the first time but the third time and after. This was also in a 3 year old (I think).

Ann


----------



## User101

My husband once preached a sermon on the evils of reality television...


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I quit watching after the third show. CSI is much more realistic. :LOL


Seriously, I told my SIL (who likes the Nanny) that I'd much rather get my parenting advice from Malcolm ~ a show I actually respect and that seems to respect me at least a touch.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mom4tot*
Wouldn't it be funny for her to come in to an extended nursing, cosleeping, unschooling family?? :LOL










That would be priceless. I would love to see her face!


----------



## hotmamacita

Deja--nice name







WELCOME to MDC or should I say, welcome back. My gut tells me that you are either JoJo or a MDC member in disguise....I am pretty sure I know who you are.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=249834


----------



## Deja

Ary99, thank you for your comments.  I too have to run, having spent more time with this than I would have ever imagined, but it was fun and interesting and I enjoyed it.

I would just say one thing about your comments regarding shame. I think that particular type of shame, shame for doing something that one knows was wrong, comes from the conscience. By utilizing techniques that heighten awareness of good and bad behavior, this enables the child to develop that critically needed conscience in the future.

Initially the discipline strategies only clarify for a child what is acceptable and will be tolerated, and what is not acceptable and what will not be tolerated. It is developmentally inappropriate to expect the child to be capable of understanding of right and wrong for it's own sake. That's why it is so critically important that parents do their jobs, by establishing those boundaries of behavior that do indeed guide the child.


----------



## Deja

Thank you for all of the welcomes. I am Deja because that is a name I use on any board in which I participate, but this is indeed my first time on this board, which I only discovered today, and I am not JoJo, but I am flattered that you thought I was.

Now I really have to run. Good afternoon ladies, and thank you for a wonderful discussion.


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
I would just say one thing about your comments regarding shame. I think that particular type of shame, shame for doing something that one knows was wrong, comes from the conscience. By utilizing techniques that heighten awareness of good and bad behavior, this enables the child to develop that critically needed conscience in the future.

Why is shame necessary at all? Why is it not enough to teach and guide and learn about right and wrong behavior?

Quote:

shame
n.

1.
1. A painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace.
2. Capacity for such a feeling: Have you no shame?
2. One that brings dishonor, disgrace, or condemnation.
3. A condition of disgrace or dishonor; ignominy.
4. A great disappointment.
I do not want or need my child to have a strong sense of guilt, embarassment, unworthiness, or disgrace. I do not feel that this is productive


----------



## wasabi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamame*
No, that's not how she does it. When I've watched, she's had the parent walk the child back into their bed (carrying them or whatever), lay them down telling them "It's time to go to bed. I love you. Good night." and give a kiss (or something like that - I'm not quoting exactly) the first time they get up. The second time you walk them back to bed and tell them that it's time for bed and put them in bed. The third and subsequent times, there's no more talking but just putting the child back in bed - not allowing the child to engage you in anger, frustration, or anything. She doesn't have the parent do that the first time but the third time and after. This was also in a 3 year old (I think).

Ann

Hmm that's not at all how it was described to me and this was by someone who thought it sounded like a great idea. Maybe she just forgot some of the steps.


----------



## Deja

Agh! You are too interesting. : /

Monkey's mom, I don't have time to respond to your comments but when I return I will.

Annettemarie;
I refered to internal shame, the shame that a person feels when he himself judges that he has done something that he believes is wrong, not an externally enforced sense of shame.


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
I would just say one thing about your comments regarding shame. I think that particular type of shame, shame for doing something that one knows was wrong, comes from the conscience. By utilizing techniques that heighten awareness of good and bad behavior, this enables the child to develop that critically needed conscience in the future.

I would actually argue that punishment hinders the development of the conscience. Having an external punishment reduces the need/inclination to feel badly about our actions.

Consider the following: child hits, mommy stops child and explains hitting is wrong and punishes child (child put in corner). Now child feels anger/shame about being put in the corner, and feels that the punishment (corner) pays for the crime (hitting). Child must be forced to apologize. Conscience hindered.

Or: child hits, mommy stops the hitting and explains hitting is wrong. Mommy helps child come up with better ways of expressing emotions. Child has not been punished, and feels badly about hitting. Child naturally apologizes. Conscience develops.

Ok, that is an idealistic scenario







. But that is actually an important reason that I seek to avoid punishment: development of a conscience.


----------



## User101

I prefer to think of internal shame as a conscience, and I think it is developed by time, patience, and gentle discipline, not punishment.


----------



## captain optimism

(Welcome to MDC, by the way! If you want to quote someone's post, an easy way to do it is to press the quote button on the lower right corner of the post box. It will automatically put in the whole post of the person you are quoting, which you can then edit.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
First, I do not advocate 'punishment' as much as I advocate 'discipline'. Discipline entails creating an awareness of right and wrong, good and bad behaviors. This is awareness that to a large extent a child must learn, and it is the responsibility of the parent to create this awareness in a child.

All good, so far!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
The purpose of the naughty chair is to identify that a BEHAVIOR is naughty and that the behavior has consequences that the child doesn't like. The consequence that the child doesn't like is almost always the loss of control. From my own experience, for most children, the motivation that they have to learn to avoid behaviors that land them in a naughty chair, is to avoid the loss of control that occurs when they are forced to sit in the chair.

How does being forced to sit in the chair tell the child anything about the behavior? It just tells them that if they do what you don't like, you will make them sit in the chair. What I don't get is, how does this assist the child in the gradual process of developing self-control and learning to identify good and bad behavior for herself?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Therefore, the motivation is a positive; do as you are being taught to do, and you remain in control of where your body is and you retain choice in your activities.

No, that's not positive motivation, you are kidding yourself here. That's avoiding punishment by obedience, which is not my goal and apparently not yours either.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Some form of guidance beyond what is required for physical safety is absolutely necessary for a child's development. Children lack the reasoning abilities to determine that a certain behavior will create lifelong problems for them, and there are many behaviors which become habitual and which impact the children in ways that not only harm them in life, but make them selfish and unpleasant human beings. I have seen this happen. Lovely, beautiful, creative and hilariously amusing children who become extremely unpleasant to be around due to their behaviors.

Children may lack some reasoning abilities that they later develop, or so says Piaget. An example: my son does not understand conservation of volumes, so even though he can pour water very accurately, he often pours more than a container can hold. But that doesn't mean that my son is going to develop the lifelong habit of spilling water! If I try to train him out of this behavior through punishment (even though a punishment like making him sit still) it's not going to help him be less messy later in life. Right?

Or more to the point, he might also currently love the word no, but I don't think that means he is learning this as a habit. He's two years old, and two year olds say no. I don't think he's going to be a negative or even "selfish and unpleasant" human being in the future if he says no now. I will still be here to provide him with additional age-appropriate guidance if it turns out that his negativity persists beyond the normal age.


----------



## Mamame

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
I would actually argue that punishment hinders the development of the conscience. Having an external punishment reduces the need/inclination to feel badly about our actions.

Consider the following: child hits, mommy stops child and explains hitting is wrong and punishes child (child put in corner). Now child feels anger/shame about being put in the corner, and feels that the punishment (corner) pays for the crime (hitting). Child must be forced to apologize. Conscience hindered.

Or: child hits, mommy stops the hitting and explains hitting is wrong. Mommy helps child come up with better ways of expressing emotions. Child has not been punished, and feels badly about hitting. Child naturally apologizes. Conscience develops.

Ok, that is an idealistic scenario







. But that is actually an important reason that I seek to avoid punishment: development of a conscience.

Yet what if you have a child who's stronger willed and decides that they want to hit anyway and continue to do it? They know it's wrong, know better ways of expressing emotions but don't feel bad about it and are going to do it anyway. Sometimes I think it's OK to have outside consequences from the parent to help the child. Some kids need it, some kids don't. I think that's what's most important - what will work for this particular child?

Ann


----------



## Britishmum

This is such an interesting discussion.

Whenever I watch the show, it reminds me of my work with special needs children, many of whom were way out of control at home and in school. Their behaviour was often way beyond that of the children on the show - I mean, you would not believe it if I told you.

My point is that these children are not like ours at home. Things have got soooo bad that these parents actually *need a quick fix*. An easy to follow, basic method of disciplining. A clear idea of what is acceptable and what isn't. (although I wish nanny would learn to pronounce the word 'acceptable







) I didnt see the chair in the corner, and suspect it was unnecessary. But as for a time out chair, maybe it is necessary to nip the behaviour in the bud.

The problem is that these parents obviously do not have good strategies for dealing with behaviour issues. Things have progressed to the point that they need a black and white answer.

Personally, I dont agree with rewards or punishments. I dont use them in my own family.

But yes, I sure as heck used them with the children I worked with. And I encouraged the parents to use them too! I also used more direct consequences than I'd need to use with my own children. But these children had gone so far that they had little concept of what was right and wrong. And they were deeply disturbed and unhappy, partly due to the lack of clear boundaries. They did not know which end was up, like many of the children on that show.

What was different, though, was that we used these strategies with the express purpose of getting to the stage of *not needing them* within a very short time. IE parents were given help with the overall parenting issues. Therapy if they needed it, and long term support.

I could bet that within a few weeks those 'cured' children on the show are back to square one. Reward charts, marbles in jars, routines etc only work for so long, and sustained behaviour modification is only achieved if work is done at the grass roots, along with the quick fix strategies.

So, my feeling is that supernanny has some things right. What is missing is long term intervention for these families in crisis. This is what makes me sad - they air the show and move on, leaving these families to fall back into their old ways.

If they really cared, they'd give them long term support and help, not just imply that you can turn around a family in two weeks like this.


----------



## User101

Britishmum, I think I agree with you!


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*

Or: child hits, mommy stops the hitting and explains hitting is wrong. Mommy helps child come up with better ways of expressing emotions. Child has not been punished, and feels badly about hitting. Child naturally apologizes. Conscience develops.
.

Can I get an Amen!


----------



## moondiapers

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
My observations of 'Super Nanny's' techniques lead me to believe that her methods are respectful of the child. An adult sitting on a chair facing a wall would indeed be shamed. Please consider the possibility that in concluding that this is shameful to a child, perhaps there is an aspect of projecting adult responses into the young child's psyche.

I wanted to say...my 3yo told me that this was embarrasing and made him angry if other people were around to see him in the corner. Time outs are still effective for him occasionally. He's a very well behaved considerate child. When he needs a time out it's usually because he's become so involved in what he's doing that I can't get him to stop in other ways. He has a one track mind so to speak. So a time out helps him get his mind off of the track it's stuck on. He likes privacy when he's on time out, so he goes to the end of the hallway and sits or lays down on a pillow with a couple of books to look at. He's 5 years old now and this is how we still do it. Like I said though, I only use time out when I can't get him to stop the behavior....or if he keeps going back to it. It's our way or stoppng the cycle. The rest of the time gentle reminders or redirection are still the way to go.

Something else important to bring up........The state of California considers using a "naughty" corner or chair to be humiliating and it isn't allowed in state licensed child care homes or daycare centers. That says a lot to me.

-Heather


----------



## User101

We discussed timeouts/calm down spots at our family meeting, and each of our children chose a comfortable spot where they choose to go if they need it. Michael chose on the sofa with a book, Katie Grace goes on a soft chair with a stuffed animal. Both want to be in the living room. Michael has, on occasion, said "I just need a break from you" and gone up to his room. In our family, allowing a child some say without giving them complete control has really eliminated a lot of the power struggles. We can say, "What did we agree to do if you needed to calm down?" or "What did we agree would be the consequence if (insert reoccurring problem here)".


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
My husband once preached a sermon on the evils of reality television...

...pulling out soap box....

Who are these parents?

Clearly they have some money. Most likely enough to buy a book or two on discipline. Certainly enough to solve their parenting problems in private.

They decide that a good? or fast? or lucrative? way to solve their family's problems is to go on Supernanny or Nanny 911.

So they pocket $50,000 or whatever. In exchange they promise to subject themselves to public humiliation and subject their powerless children to the whims of a stranger. They are not allowed to go against her, even if they feel that their child is hurting. And they know in advance that this person will make their children cry- either a little or a lot.

I don't watch animal planet- but do they even have a show like this about training dogs? More often I've come across shows on animal planet trying to UNDERSTAND dogs. But do we have a tv show that compassionately tries to understand children? No. That wouldn't sell.

Reality TV is stupid at best, but this type of show is evil on a fairly grand scale.

...Stepping off soapbox...
...I'll put it away now...


----------



## gossamer

Quote:

Emotional upset causes pain, obviously. It is difficult to see your child experiencing pain, of course. What I have seen in my twenty two years working with preschool children and their parents has caused me to believe that there is a trend in parenting in which well meaning parents attempt to protect their children from any emotional distress whatsoever.
I think there is a difference between wanting to protect your child from emotional distress and deciding to not cause your child emotional distress. Shouldn't the mother and the family be a soft place to fall when the rest of the world is snapping at your feet? Why should a preschooler feel emotional distress. In my opinion, a preschoolers job is to play and have fun and be a kid. With a firm joyful foundation, children can then handle distress. But what do I know, I don't have any surviving children








Gossamer


----------



## sunnmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamame*
Yet what if you have a child who's stronger willed and decides that they want to hit anyway and continue to do it? They know it's wrong, know better ways of expressing emotions but don't feel bad about it and are going to do it anyway. Sometimes I think it's OK to have outside consequences from the parent to help the child. Some kids need it, some kids don't. I think that's what's most important - what will work for this particular child?

This is interesting, cause you (I think) are saying that the strong willed child might need a consequence. I have found the opposite to be the case....they don't *get* much stronger willed than dd! Punishment/consequences/etc failed so miserably that we found GD out of desperation, lol.

I tend to think that punishment is doable with a child that is flexible. That child may learn to go with the path of least resistance, and avoid behaviors that result in punishment. For my spirited kid--punishment is a power struggle! A challenge! She just digs in those heels and holds on for the ride







.


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
Reality TV is stupid at best, but this type of show is evil on a fairly grand scale.

Oh, I agree completely. I think it exploits children. I will have to show my hubby your post- you two are kindred spirits!

I, on the other hand, watch Big Brother, the Bachelor, Survivor, and The Amazing Race.

Annette


----------



## Bradley

Okay, so I'm a new mom and obviously not as experienced as you all are. Please tell me what techniques work for you since you think Super Nanny ones are way out of line. I really thought her methods were kind and obviously worked ASAP. But it sounds like I'm off my rocker when I read all yours posts. I seriously want to know what works for you all. I have a 14 month old and the discplining stage is just starting to be something I'm encountering. I'm trying to learn all that I can so I can be the best mother I can. Please, tell me what you do that is far superior to her techniques? Thanks!







:


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
This is interesting, cause you (I think) are saying that the strong willed child might need a consequence. I have found the opposite to be the case....they don't *get* much stronger willed than dd! Punishment/consequences/etc failed so miserably that we found GD out of desperation, lol.

I tend to think that punishment is doable with a child that is flexible. That child may learn to go with the path of least resistance, and avoid behaviors that result in punishment. For my spirited kid--punishment is a power struggle! A challenge! She just digs in those heels and holds on for the ride







.

I completely agree. The less punishmet we use with my dd , who'd pretty strong willed, the better things go. She understands consequences a bit, but she HATES the power struggle of being made an example of.

Strangely, strong willed children are often very sensitive. I find that my dd is suprisingly sensitive to reprimands, even to "business like" reprimands. She sometimes even takes a firm "no" really hard, hanging her head in shame and getting scared. This is a place where she needs a bit of comfort and support, not a punishment.

The more I work WITH her, the better off we all are.


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
or my spirited kid--punishment is a power struggle! A challenge! She just digs in those heels and holds on for the ride







.

I LOVE this description. Not only does it describe my oldest son, but me as well. And let me tell you, when you have a spirited mama and a spirited child, the sparks fly. That is why we avoid power struggles- no one wins, even when the technically win.


----------



## NoraB

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamame*
Yet what if you have a child who's stronger willed and decides that they want to hit anyway and continue to do it? They know it's wrong, know better ways of expressing emotions but don't feel bad about it and are going to do it anyway. Sometimes I think it's OK to have outside consequences from the parent to help the child. Some kids need it, some kids don't. I think that's what's most important - what will work for this particular child?

Ann

I have a strong-willed child. Actually, I like to call her "determined," "focused," "intense," etc. She knows her own mind and isn't afraid to speak up for herself. She also has all the normal developmental behaviour of the average 2.5 year old! Sometimes it really makes me want to tear my hair out. There are days when I have to repeat lessons over and over and over. Omigosh, I hate days like that!

However, just b/c I have to keep reitterating our family values ("ppl are not for hitting," "hard toys are not for throwing," "we say excuse me when we pass somebody or want to get around them," etc), that doesn't mean that the lesson isn't getting home. Toddlers by nature are testers. They are seeking their own place in the world and exercising their ability to make their own decisions. Some children have this drive more intensely than others. 2 things I keep in mind on those "bad" days: This ability of Dd's to be persistant, to be courageous, and to speak her mind will serve her well in life (especially if she learns how to keep all of these traits and express them in a way that's respectful to both herself and others); second, she's a toddler and this kind of testing is a normal, healthy part of her development. She's trying to see if the rules stay the same in different conditions (different locations, w/ different ppl, or when DH or I am in a different mood).

I continue to do what I always do. I state the family value/rule or ask DD to tell me the rule. I intervene to stop her from doing something that is dangerous to herself or others. If she's hitting, I gently stop her hand. I say, "Ppl are not for hitting" or "what is the rule about hitting?" I also usually tell her that if she needs to hit she can hit the soft chair or throw her soft ball, or stomp, or yell, etc. If she's throwing hard toys, I ask her and/or reitterate the rule that we don't throw hard toys. I will usually offer her a soft alternative to throw. If that isn't effective, I will removed the hard toys and tell her, "Right now it seems like you're having a hard time not throwing the hard toys. I'm going to put them away for a little while and you can try again later to play w/ them safely."

Over time, I've watched these techniques really work w/ my DD. On a day to day basis, I may get discouraged, but when I step back I see that she has made progress. GD does work...it's just more work in the beginning! LOL.

BTW, I totally believe in the judicial use of logical consequences. Sometimes natural consequences are unreasonable or dangerous to the child/others. Sometimes the natural consequences are too subtle or far off for the child to understand (like why it's not okay to open the front door whenever she hears the doorbell). In these cases, logical consequences may be the best thing. Removing the hard toys, as I stated above, if the throwing doesn't stop and alternatives have been presented is what I would consider a logical consequence. Sometimes logical consequences are used when teaching or preventative measures (like baby proofing) could/should have been used instead. In those cases, logical consequences can drift into the realm of punishment.

What differentiates punishment and logical consequences, IMO is the intent and consideration given to alternatives. Logical consequences do not aim to shame or cause a child undue suffering. The intent is to protect the child/others/property while remaining respectful to the child. Punishment, by definition, aims to make the child feel bad.

Take the example of the taking away of the hard toys...

Parent A, sees her child throwing the hard toys. She says, "Stop that!" The child doesn't stop or throws something else. The parent then takes the toys away, maybe saying, "I told you not to throw the toys!" The child might also receive a slap on the hand, a time-out and/or a scolding. This is punishment. First of all, the child is told what not to do, but isn't told what to do instead. No explanation for why the toys shouldn't be thrown is given, nor is there any kind of consistant rule layed out. Then, the toys are taken w/o getting down on the child's level and helping them to understand that the toys aren't taken b/c they're "being bad." They are in essence told they _are_ bad.

Parent B sees her child throwing the hard toys. She gets down on the child's level. She says, "What's the rule about hard toys?" or "We don't thow hard toys, they can hurt someone or break something." She then says, "You can thow this soft doll or ball instead." Her tone of voice is non accusatory and non shaming. She doesn't regard this as a show of misbehaviour or defiance. She sees it as developmentally appropriate behaviour that needs correction and guidance. If the child continues to throw the hard toys, the parent again gets down on the child's level and says something like, "It seems like you're having a hard time not throwing the hard toys. I'm going to put them up for a little while but you can try to play w/ them safely again later." The child might still get upset at the removal of the toys (in which case, the parent can empathize and help the child label her feelings), but the parent won't have added shame and misery onto the lesson. This is GD and the use of logical consequences.

IMHO, NO child in the world NEEDS to be punished.

These may not be the greatest examples, but they come from my own experience. I am not as articulate as I wish I could be, but I hope I've made some kind of sense.


----------



## wasabi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamame*
Yet what if you have a child who's stronger willed and decides that they want to hit anyway and continue to do it? They know it's wrong, know better ways of expressing emotions but don't feel bad about it and are going to do it anyway. Sometimes I think it's OK to have outside consequences from the parent to help the child. Some kids need it, some kids don't. I think that's what's most important - what will work for this particular child?

Ann

This is where I am with my DD. I told her over and over again that she could not hit people etc etc. I did not punish her at all only redirected and stated that hitting was not allowed. At some point though I felt like I had to start doing something. Just telling her not to do it was not doing anything. I didn't feel like I could take my child out among other children all while waiting for her natural empathy to take effect. She did not feel bad when I told her she should not hit. She did not care. She usually just laughed and more often than not just hit again. Particularly with a new baby on the way I felt I did have to start doing something that was stronger than just telling her not to hit and letting her go about her merry way. If we're out and she's hitting then we can leave and that's a logical consequence of not behaving but what do I do at home when she's literally beating on me? In that circumstance I feel like a timeout is not really different than leaving the park.


----------



## User101

Just thought of one other thing- good parenting takes time. It takes repitition, it takes thought, it takes trying different things. A cookie cutter approach to parenting is disrespectful to both the parent and the child- it assumes the parent is too stupid to take the time to figure out the family dynamics and child's temperament, and it assumes the child is not an individual. I think Supernanny advocates lazy parenting, just like that wheel of discipline. I mean, it's not as lazy as letting your kids walk all over you, but it's still pretty mindless. It doesn't involve the parents getting to the root of things.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Oh, I agree completely. I think it exploits children. I will have to show my hubby your post- you two are kindred spirits!

I, on the other hand, watch Big Brother, the Bachelor, Survivor, and The Amazing Race.

Annette

Yeah, I watched a bit of Idol with my dh last night. So I'm no angel here.

I figure at least the adults subject themselves to this. The kids have no choice. I'm actually suprised they allow it.

More than anything, I'm really bothered by the tendency to make the private realm public domain. For example- sitting in a naughty chair is humiliating. IMO there's no arguemnt. But sitting in a naughty chair ON TELEVISION is disgusting. We don't do that to criminals. Is it any less humilating because we think the kids don't understand the public nature of their humiliation?

Then theire's the fact that the shows purposefully undermine the natural impulses of the parents. IMO that's destabilizing to the family unit. (And I am as liberal as they come.)

...Ooops, what's that I'm standing on? Where'd that soapbox come from?...


----------



## NoraB

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
For my spirited kid--punishment is a power struggle! A challenge! She just digs in those heels and holds on for the ride







.

Another ditto here! I do my best to stay away from power struggles. I am rather sprited (and especially was as a child). Punishment never had the intended effect on me. It might have made me appear more obediant, but I was seething inside and plotting revenge (literally) which I was usually able to carry out undetected. Much of the time, no amount of punishment could induce me to do what I didn't want to do. In a situation where I might have done the thing in question otherwise, a threat of punishment was a guarantee I wouldn't. I'd just get enormously stubborn and flat out refuse. Drove my mother crazy. LOL. I don't even want to go down that road w/ DD.


----------



## bamamom

Yikes, I am in over my head here and don't know how to swim!! I never thought a time out corner or whatever could be detrimental!! Good grief!! I was just glad she didn't show up with a box of paddles, one for every room, ya know?? I am so new to all this.......


----------



## Deja

Something else important to bring up........The state of California considers using a "naughty" corner or chair to be humiliating and it isn't allowed in state licensed child care homes or daycare centers. That says a lot to me.

-Heather[/QUOTE]

Heather,
I lived in California for 12 years. Lovely state and I thoroughly enjoyed living there. The trends in education in California leave a lot to be desired though. My opinion is that the judgement of the bureacracies that affect children in the state of California is extremely poor. The bananas and condoms in Kindergarten is a perfect example of this. : / Not that Bush's 'Abstainance' program is a good example of sex education for children, but KINDERGARTEN??? Bananas and condoms?

Man. : /


----------



## NoraB

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wasabi*
This is where I am with my DD. I told her over and over again that she could not hit people etc etc. I did not punish her at all only redirected and stated that hitting was not allowed. At some point though I felt like I had to start doing something. Just telling her not to do it was not doing anything. I didn't feel like I could take my child out among other children all while waiting for her natural empathy to take effect. She did not feel bad when I told her she should not hit. She did not care. She usually just laughed and more often than not just hit again. Particularly with a new baby on the way I felt I did have to start doing something that was stronger than just telling her not to hit and letting her go about her merry way. If we're out and she's hitting then we can leave and that's a logical consequence of not behaving but what do I do at home when she's literally beating on me? In that circumstance I feel like a timeout is not really different than leaving the park.









DD went through a fairly intense hitting phase. It sucked! What I did was pretty much, "lather, rinse, repeat." Our family rule is "ppl and animals are not for hurting. You need to keep [the cat, mommy, the baby, etc] safe." When DD hits, we ask her the rule and/or reitterate ourselves. We gently stop her hands, block our own bodies, or removed the in danger party (like the cat). We show by our faces our distress and even anger. I did say on more than one occassion, "I'm really angry right now b/c you are hitting the cat. That hurts him and I don't like to see him hurt. Animals are not for hurting!" One of the key things that helped, IMO, was the redirect. We told her she couldn't hurt ppl or animals, but she could hit the soft chair, throw stuffed animals around, or whack the upright punching bag we have. Sometimes, I'd get up and walk away, saying, "I don't like being hit. I'm going over here where I feel safe." We also tried to get to the bottom of _why_ she was hitting. Was she angry? We'd say, "It looks like you're really angry and want to hit something. You can show me how angry you are using this teddy bear," or something to that effect. If it seemed like she was just being really aggressive during play, we'd talk a bit about rough play. Rough play in our family is okay as long as everyone involved is okay w/ it and nobody is actually hurting anybody else. If she seems to be experimenting w/ cause and effect of hitting, we talk about how hitting hurts.

In general, I don't think you can expect a toddler (especially a young toddler) to have a whole lot of empathy when it comes to connecting their actions w/ somebody else's pain. All you can really do is keep reitterating the message. They will learn eventually. DD rarely hits now. I've even seen her redirect herself in mid-hit. It takes a lot more than telling them hitting is unacceptable. They must learn new ways of expressing themselves and new ways of interacting socially. These can then take the place of the hitting.

Amends is also another way that a toddler can begin to learn empathy. If they are expected to help attend to the injured party (giving a boo-boo a kiss, getting an ice-pack, applying a band-aid, etc), they can have a more tangible experience of the effects of hurting somebody else. They also get to experience being part of the solution rather than being "the bad kid who hurts ppl." KWIM?


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom*
Yikes, I am in over my head here and don't know how to swim!! I never thought a time out corner or whatever could be detrimental!! Good grief!! I was just glad she didn't show up with a box of paddles, one for every room, ya know?? I am so new to all this.......









Don't worry about it.

Anyway- when you think about the big picture, much of the advice given on Supernanny is a vast improvement to the parenting of most parents in America.

2/3 of Americans think spanking is OK, and 1/3 think spanking with a spoon or belt, etc is OK. So relatively speaking supernanny's advice is not that bad.

I object strongly to some of her methods- but that's just my OP. Mostly I object to them making discipline a commodity and degrading children. Which is a whole separate issue.

Keep reading and learning! That's what I'm doing, and it's working great!


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
Anyway- when you think about the big picture, much of the advice given on Supernanny is a vast improvement to the parenting of most parents in America.

2/3 of Americans think spanking is OK, and 1/3 think spanking with a spoon or belt, etc is OK. So relatively speaking supernanny's advice is not that bad.

Probably true--good point--bummer.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
Probably true--good point--bummer.










It really is sad.

The thing that annoys me is that I feel like shows like this contribute to people being stupid and insensitive. They offer quick and simple answers and discourage people from better understanding themselves and their children.


----------



## oddeebean

I hate the fact that these children are exploited on TV by their parents but I do think that SuperNanny has some good ideas. These parents have absoluty NO control over their kids so I think getting some structure back into these kid's lives is good and Supernanny tries to provide that. I can't hate her completly! :LOL


----------



## wasabi

NoraB thanks for the response. I wish your post had contained something that would have leapt out and said "ah I didn't try that" but unfortunately not. We tried the redirecting. We tired saying that hurts me or I can't play with you if you're going to hurt me. I tried saying that we hugged people not hurt them. We tired giving hugs and kisses to make the booboo better. It seemed DD usually felt as you (or someone else indicated) that the kiss was then payment for the hitting and made it ok. Absolved from causing that booboo she would cause another one just seconds later. Even now DD is not very verbal. She can't tell me why she's hitting but I can tell you that often it's not because she's angry. She does it because she's excited. She does it because she thinks it's funny when you say ow. I can show her other ways to show her excitement or anger but how do I address her hitting because she thinks it's funny? There was really a long period of trying redirecting especially with my poor tormented cats. It just didn't work. It didn't even work when the cat would scratch her. At some point I felt I had to do something if for no other reason than as I said I am not perfect and at some point a child biting and kicking and hitting me was just not ok with me. I know she doesn't have empathy but I can't allow her to run around kicking, hitting, scratching and pinching until that development happens.

I never shame her however. If she starts hitting etc I first remind her that it's not nice to hit and try to redirect her and I warn her that she will have to go to a timeout if she continues. Often that's enough. If she keeps it up however she does go up to her room. I give her one of her blankies and I remind her that me can not hit/hurt people and that it's not ok. When we go out to play I start out with a positive statement that we're going to play nicely and have fun. Then I remind her we can't hit or shove and that we cannot stay if she hits and pushes. When she comes over to me throughout her playtime I repeat what playing nicely is and praise her for doing it so far and when we leave I talk about how much fun we have when we play nicely. Some days it works some days it doesn't. Dh has wanted to extend timeouts to other things but I refuse to do it for anything that does not involve causing harm to someone else. Maybe your DD was exactly like mine I don't know but I was not seeing any improvements at all and I felt I had to do something else. And she has been doing better. Usually we go days without a timeout. Which is not to say that we go days without hitting or pushing but that usually now we can just say no hitting that hurts me etc.

Sorry to hijack the thread. This is something I've really been struggling with along with being 7 months pg and going through prepartum depression. I'm really just doing the best that I can and maybe in a more ideal situation I could do better and work through it more but most days I feel like just hanging on is the best I can do and so for now I have to accept that kwim?


----------



## NoraB

Wasabi: I totally feel for you. I can't give that much advice b/c I don't know what it's like to walk in your shoes. I can tell you that my DD gets pretty exuberant (sp?) sometimes. She does hit in excitement. That's hard to curb. We're trying to get her to hug instead. I do trust that it will change over time. Toddlerhood can be so challenging. Perhaps a more experienced mommy can give better advice. HUGS.


----------



## Deja

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
(Welcome to MDC, by the way! If you want to quote someone's post, an easy way to do it is to press the quote button on the lower right corner of the post box. It will automatically put in the whole post of the person you are quoting, which you can then edit.)

THANK YOU. I really appreciate that tip. I am familiar with MSN message boards but this format is new to me and I appreciate your help.[/FONT]

How does being forced to sit in the chair tell the child anything about the behavior? It just tells them that if they do what you don't like, you will make them sit in the chair. What I don't get is, how does this assist the child in the gradual process of developing self-control and learning to identify good and bad behavior for herself?

What it tells the child is that there are some behaviors that you will not tolerate. I am speaking for myself here, and from what I have observed, with no intention of condemning anyone else's choices. For me personally, there are indeed certain behaviors that I will not tolerate, and not just physically violent or destructive behaviors. I expected my daughter to treat me with respect, as I treated her with respect. I never belittled my daughter in any way, and always spoke to her with respect. By setting the expectations for how I expected to be treated in return, I believe that I set the stage for her to acquire critical communication and interpersonal skills.

Please understand that in many ways my parenting was very much in alignment with AP parenting. My daughter was self-weaned, although to my sadness she self-weaned at only nine months. She slept in my bed until she was 4 and 1/2, at which time she began awakening in the wee hours of the morning and kicking me, demanding the bed to herself. : /

I also homeschooled my daughter, not because of religious beliefs but because I didn't trust the school with her. You want to talk about shame and humiliation, start a thread about the public school system.

And while I did establish clear ground rules and expectations of behavior, I respected her individuality, her tastes, preferences and needs. I selected my battles carefully, I did not expect subservience from my daughter but I did expect respect and for her to follow the established rules and guidelines.

She was a handful, very willful and spirited and wild. She was a beautiful red headed sprite, and I left the workforce to open a daycare so that I could care for her myself because I didn't trust anyone else to handle her defiant and firey nature in a manner that didn't break her spirit. While the boundaries where clear and firm, there was a lot of room inside those boundaries for her to truly be herself. As she grew older, and her reasoning abilities increased and most importantly, her EMOTIONAL MATURITY increased, there were fewer and fewer conflicts and by the time she was 10 years old, I really never had a reason to impose any serious consequences. She was a really great kid, despite the firey preschool years, and she has grown into a wonderful, wonderful woman.

I tell you this to give you a little context and background so that maybe you will have a clearer picture of where I am coming from. I tell you about my daycare experience because I found I had a gift for caring for and teaching children, and I have helped to raise dozens and dozens of children, all different.[/FONT]

No, that's not positive motivation, you are kidding yourself here. That's avoiding punishment by obedience, which is not my goal and apparently not yours either. 

In the manner in which I employed this, it was indeed a positive motivation. I articulated the reasoning clearly and in a way that conveyed to the child that I would not take control from them if they remained within the boundaries of the established rules for behavior. Bear in mind, those boundaries were wide. When the child refused to respect those boundaries, they experienced the consequence of a lack of control, a natural consequence. It was a natural consequence because by demonstrating unacceptable behaviors after they were warned of the consequences, they made a choice. Choices have consequences, and that's a valuable lesson to learn as early as possible.

Children may lack some reasoning abilities that they later develop, or so says Piaget. An example: my son does not understand conservation of volumes, so even though he can pour water very accurately, he often pours more than a container can hold. But that doesn't mean that my son is going to develop the lifelong habit of spilling water! If I try to train him out of this behavior through punishment (even though a punishment like making him sit still) it's not going to help him be less messy later in life. Right?

The types of behaviors that I am referring to are emotionally driven. This example is not an example of an emotionally driven behavior. There are many, many adults who suffer from arrested development because they haven't mastered the simplest, most basic skills of emotional maturity. I'm very serious, I ask you to look around you and note the times you see adults displaying behaviors that one would only expect to see in small children. I have seen disciplinary strategies in which the extreme attention to the feelings and desires in the children resulted in adults who expected everyone to cater to their feelings and desires, without any concern for the feelings and desires of others. What those children learned from those strategies was to habitually put their own wants and needs first and to disregard the wants and needs of other people. I do not say that this will be your result, or the result of anyone else here. I merely express that I have seen this happen. A lot.

Or more to the point, he might also currently love the word no, but I don't think that means he is learning this as a habit. He's two years old, and two year olds say no. I don't think he's going to be a negative or even "selfish and unpleasant" human being in the future if he says no now. I will still be here to provide him with additional age-appropriate guidance if it turns out that his negativity persists beyond the normal age.






I merely hope to point out that your son will eventually need skills that enable him to deal with situations and experiences without your help.

In that vein, and not directed towards you personally, children will eventually need to self-soothe. People who do not acquire the ability to self-soothe have a much higher chance of turning to food to self-soothe, or to drugs, or to end up in destructive, codependent relationships rather than being alone.

Just wanted to throw in my two cents from another perspective. Thank you for being so polite and enjoyable in this discussion. I have found it to be quite a pleasure. I hope you can read this post. I've found this unfamiliar format to be quite a challenge.


----------



## NoraB

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
In that vein, and not directed towards you personally, children will eventually need to self-soothe. People who do not acquire the ability to self-soothe have a much higher chance of turning to food to self-soothe, or to drugs, or to end up in destructive, codependent relationships rather than being alone.

Just wanted to throw in my two cents from another perspective. Thank you for being so polite and enjoyable in this discussion. I have found it to be quite a pleasure.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Can't imagine any GD'r who would disagree w/ you. However, I think most GD'rs could give clear examples of how they used GD and their children developed the ability to self-sooth. I don't think punishment can teach self-soothing any mor than it can really teach anything else. I'm not sure if you can _teach_ self-soothing anyway. I think a child trully learns self-soothing when he has had a lifetime experience of having his needs met in a developmentally appropriate way. In other words, responding immediately to a newborns cries and communications. Never trying to force a child to independance he's trully not ready for (CIO, etc).

I think a responsive parent gives a child lots of opportunities to help himself, but is ready to step in when the child gets overwhelmed. For example, whenever my DD falls down, I dont' immediately rush to her and say in a panicked voice, "Oh no! YOu fell down! Where are you hurt?" I hang back observe. If she cries, I comfort her. If she's injured, I patch her up. If she just needs helps getting to her feet, I do that. She rarely makes a fuss when falling down and never freaks when she isn't hurt (unless something scared her).

Past the early months, I began to hang back a little when DD would fuss. I'd wait a moment to see if she'd resettle herself and only move in when I knew I was needed. She has definitely developed the ability to help herself. If she needs me, she comes and gets me.

DD was able to comfort nurse whenver she needed. Ppl told me that she'd never learn to self-sooth if I kept "that" up. She still nurses, but she also is able to be comforted w/ kisses and hugs. She can even comfort herself by kissing her own booboos. LOL.

I think that, by and large, those that turn to food, drugs, etc for comfort did not receive _enough_ healthy comfort growing up. It's more likely that they were given _things_ (a security blanket, teddy bear, paci, cookies, a movie, etc) to use as comfort rather than human touch. Instead of their feelings being accepted, they were probably squashed ("how dare you get mad at mommy! Go to your room!"). Maybe they were even left to CIO or suffer in silence when they were hurting.

I'm not clear on exactly how a lack of punishment would lead to a child that doesn't know how to self-soothe.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

In order to learn to self soothe, a child needs to have experienced soothing.

I think we expect kids to self soothe way too early. It's normal for babies to need help with this and I would say toddlers too.

You wouldn't neglect to feed a child with the arguement that at some point the child will have to feed itself, so you should try to "wean" them from your help.

The idea was born long ago that somehow kid's won't grow up if you don't force them to by holding back. And while I aggree that overbearing parents can hinder development, responding to a child under the age of four seems like it's always appropriate.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoraB*
I'm not clear on exactly how a lack of punishment would lead to a child that doesn't know how to self-soothe.

You have to create problems for your kids then withold affection if you want them to turn out ok. Don'tcha know?

(This is sarcasm BTW)


----------



## Deja

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
You have to create problems for your kids then withold affection if you want them to turn out ok. Don'tcha know?

(This is sarcasm BTW)


Ma'am,
This has been a very enjoyable discussion between strangers, exchanging philosophies, thoughts and ideas. I have tried to show you the respect that I would like to receive from another when engaging in conversation in which there is a difference of opinion. Respectful exchanges where opinions may differ requires effort, where sarcastic and derogatory remarks are not difficult to pen.


----------



## Deja

*I think most GD'rs could give clear examples of how they used GD and their children developed the ability to self-sooth.*

I appreciate the desire for more concrete examples and enjoy such exchanges. I have an aversion to sarcasm and negative exchange. I don't know this forum well enough to know whether this is common or rare, and while I had been very much enjoying this dialogue, I do not want to engage in any hostile exchanges nor do I want to expose myself to them.

Thank you for your well thought out, insightful post. I enjoyed reading it and I appreciate the depth of caring the women on this site exhibit for their children's best interests. The world would be a better place if everyone put as much thought into their children as you do, and I have enjoyed the experience.

Thank you.


----------



## captain optimism

Well, Deja, I hope you will stick around long enough to get the hang of the HTML tags!









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
I merely hope to point out that your son will eventually need skills that enable him to deal with situations and experiences without your help.

In that vein, and not directed towards you personally, children will eventually need to self-soothe. People who do not acquire the ability to self-soothe have a much higher chance of turning to food to self-soothe, or to drugs, or to end up in destructive, codependent relationships rather than being alone.

I tend to agree with mommyofschmoo on the whole self-soothing thing. I think the basic problem with "self-soothing" as a parenting philosophy is that we get advice to allow children to self-soothe at really young ages, on the premise that this is the only way to teach them to do so when they are older.

The premise of attachment parenting is that by consciously behaving in a way to promote attachment, we are promoting resilience.

I look at my parents. My father was raised by parents who hugged and kissed him a lot, and my mom by parents who did not. At least I presume they didn't, because she has always been uncomfortable giving hugs and kisses to us. My dad is very sensitive to other people's feelings, and my mom is emotionally immature and had to learn tact from my dad as an adult. She is emotionally tone deaf. It's not that my paternal grandparents were so perfect and my dad has no problems. It's just that to raise a giver, you have to give.

Not that I think you didn't do so. (It sounds like your daughter is somewhat older.) I just think that if I'm trying to make my son into a mature person, I have to put up with childish behavior when he's a child, and not expect him to soothe himself just now.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
I just think that if I'm trying to make my son into a mature person, I have to put up with childish behavior when he's a child, and not expect him to soothe himself just now.

Nicely said, Capt. O!

Lots and lots of children self-soothe as they are left to CIO, etc. Dr. Sear's has a very nice passage about this in his Discipline Book--how these self-soothing behaviors quickly turn into neurotic bahaviors later.

"Hardening" up my children is not one of my parenting goals. They will hear all sorts of positive "self-talk" and coping mechanisms while they are little--hopefully, these will be the tools they carry into adulthood when they need to "self-soothe" then (in fact, it's almost ridiculous to talk about *adults* self-soothing--one more phrase we save for children, and not in a good way, imo).


----------



## Deja

Monkey's Mom,
Self-soothing is indeed a skill that is required by adults and in it's absence personalities tend to develop problematically. The terminology is not used in the lay community, but self-soothing is a term used in the field of psychology. It would talk forever to go into it at length; these are not simple issues and cannot easily be reduced to the brevity this forum requires. If you are interested, here are just a couple of examples of self-soothing as it relates to adults.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...sonality/24650

http://jppr.psychiatryonline.org/cgi...t/full/7/2/102

http://www.psyke.org/coping/self_soothing/

I want to emphasize that there is a great deal that is being said here that I absolutely agree with, wholeheartedly. I simply offer the opinion that there are nuances and shadings of complexity that may be being missed. As I said before, I so highly respect women who put this much thought and effort into raising their children, and the entire world would be a better place if everyone did the same.


----------



## Deja

I tend to agree with mommyofschmoo on the whole self-soothing thing. I think the basic problem with "self-soothing" as a parenting philosophy is that we get advice to allow children to self-soothe at really young ages, on the premise that this is the only way to teach them to do so when they are older.

The premise of attachment parenting is that by consciously behaving in a way to promote attachment, we are promoting resilience.

Not that I think you didn't do so. (It sounds like your daughter is somewhat older.) I just think that if I'm trying to make my son into a mature person, I have to put up with childish behavior when he's a child, and not expect him to soothe himself just now.[/QUOTE]

Captain Optimism;
I thoroughly agree with you that attachment promotes resilience. We do not differ in opinion in this regard. I do not believe that infants and toddlers should be expected to be able to self-soothe. I think perhaps that is where the difference in our thinking begins.

I want to be clear that I am generalizing, because children are all different. Generally speaking, a child needs to begin to learn to self-soothe in the preschool years. I say, BEGIN to learn. It is best if a mother is able to understand when her child is overwhelmed, responds compassionately even while drawing firm limits.

These discussions involve so many degrees of complexity. I wish I had more time for them, but alas, the work day awaits.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Deja, would you consider bringing up some of these issues in the main Gentle Discipline or Parenting Forum? I think you’ve said some interesting things but it’s difficult to address them in relation to the Supernanny, yk?


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Ma'am,
This has been a very enjoyable discussion between strangers, exchanging philosophies, thoughts and ideas. I have tried to show you the respect that I would like to receive from another when engaging in conversation in which there is a difference of opinion. Respectful exchanges where opinions may differ requires effort, where sarcastic and derogatory remarks are not difficult to pen.

I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked by my comment. I tend to be sarcastic a lot (IRL not on the internet) and generally mean it in a joking way, not to be mean. I know you are the one person defending that particular "side" of the parenting arguement on this thread. However, I really was referring to a general parenting philosophy, not to your comments per se.

The idea that children need to be pushed into self soothing by removal of external soothing is commonplace in the US. I disagree with it, but that is not to say I have any ill feelings towards you or that I don't think you have any valid points. I was simply illustrating an arguement.

To be truthful, I think witholding comfort is silly, whether it's comforting my husband, my child, my dog or my friend. I'm sorry to make light of what some people think of as a serious parenting "tool", but I think it's silly. That's my opinion and I'll stand by it.


----------



## User101

Deja, it would also be helpful if you told us a little about yourself so we knew where exactly it is you are coming from. Are you a parent? A researcher? A psychologist? Are you coming here to share your own personal experiences or to "teach" us?


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Monkey's Mom,
Self-soothing is indeed a skill that is required by adults and in it's absence personalities tend to develop problematically. The terminology is not used in the lay community, but self-soothing is a term used in the field of psychology.

No, I get that adults utilize "self-soothing" techniques. And you're right, it's not a term that we use--we call them "coping skills" or label it as "taking care of ourselves."

And as you've said, it is a SKILL. Babies and children need to be taught skills. These are not inherent developmental milestones. Leaving them to figure them out on their own is a disservice, in my opinion--and flies in the face of what I see the crux of GD: teaching.

My initial point was that SuperNanny *routinely* promotes leaving children in the position to self-soothe while a punishment is being imposed upon them. I think this is as terrible a message as Ezzo's one of cry it out.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
If you are interested, here are just a couple of examples of self-soothing as it relates to adults.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...sonality/24650

http://jppr.psychiatryonline.org/cgi...t/full/7/2/102

http://www.psyke.org/coping/self_soothing/

Thanks, I was interested and checked these out. What I found profound was that none of these articles were about "normal" adults. There were boderline personalities, bulemics, and people who self-injure. I've not studied much psychology, so perhaps the term is used with psychologically "healthy" adults, too. But, it does seem to fit a pattern of reserving terms/techniques/abilities/ etc. to children and "marginal" adults. Which I find, historically, to be a slippery slope of creating "Otherness" to justify some very negative and dangerous treatment.

(My apologies for all the use of quotes and loaded terminology like "normal" and "marginal." I don't mean to offend.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
As I said before, I so highly respect women who put this much thought and effort into raising their children, and the entire world would be a better place if everyone did the same.

It is a wonderful compliment and I thank you. And perhaps that is why folks here react *so* strongly to SuperNanny--because a huge part of the population is seeing something on TV "work" and not really thinking about the broader implications of it. Nor are we seeing any non-punitive measures widely promoted.

And there surely are complexities and nuances, but you have to understand that even though there have been many great proactive posts and ideas here, this thread is largely a backlash against that show and how much it embodies mainstream parenting--something that most of us are swimming against upstream.


----------



## mainegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *piscean_mama*
She mentioned "Do you watch Supernanny?" I told her "I've heard of it," in a derisive tone. She said "It's just like that."

Geez, then why were you bothering to pay HER when you could watch it on teevee for FREE?

"Professionals" get SO personally affronted when you don't agree with their educated/maybenotso opinions.








:


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Generally speaking, a child needs to begin to learn to self-soothe in the preschool years. I say, BEGIN to learn. It is best if a mother is able to understand when her child is overwhelmed, responds compassionately even while drawing firm limits.

Okay, that sounds good to me, especially the compassion part, but I don't think it's beneficial to teach self-soothing in the context of punishment. Your sequence, at least as you articulated it originally, goes like this:

1. child misbehaves (in some unspecified way)
2. parent forces child, through moral authority I presume, to sit in a chair (facing the wall?) for some short period of time
3. Child has negative feelings about punishment
4. child learns to self-soothe to calm down
5. somehow, child learns to self-soothe rather than act out in the first place, in order to avoid punishment (I'm vague on this part.)

So then you are inculcating self-soothing in a situation in which you have purposely inflicted discomfort in order to discourage misbehavior.

I'm not saying that a time-out isn't a good remedy when someone can't control themselves, or is so angry that they don't want to. But I guess a time-out in the sense that I originally understood it, the first time I heard about it--a breather for the child to calm down, not a punishment.

I guess I would also want to teach my son to soothe himself in response to various discomforts that I don't purposely inflict on him!


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Don't get me wrong, but "self soothing" is indeed a term used by the "lay public" at least in parenting books.

Studies have shown that kids who experience increased stress during childhood are more prone to anxiety disorders later in life (ie difficulty self soothing.) Furthermore, it has been documented that maternal attachment during the first three years promotes resilience (and self-soothing is certainly an aspect of resilience.)

Therefore, the arguement that adults need self soothing skills does not in any way justify not comforting children. If anything, comforting children would seem to promote self soothing skills in adults.

Are there any studies out there showing that children whose parents withold comfort are better self soothers as adults than other kids? I have never seen any, and I do research for a living- so I come accross a lot of random information.

I want to state, however, that I beleive there is a difference between comforting a child as needed and being overbearing and suffocating. Clearly overbearing parents can be just as implicated in the development of anxiety disorders as distant or emotionally negligent parents.

The parenting philosophy that advocates witholding help or comfort or whatever in order to teach very small children self reliance is that it ignores the basic truth that a child's entire drive is towards growth, learning, and independence.

Or to be clear- Kids want to grow up! They want to learn to do things themselves, and that includes handling their emotions. They can't wait to get out of our homes and go live with friends or lovers or wives. We don't need to "trick" or "train" them to become adults. They are doing the best they can and growing up as fast as they can without our pushing.

That's my beleif at least. And that is why I think it's dumb when people say "if you pick him up, he'll never walk" or "if you try to understand her grunts, she'll never learn to talk." It's silly. It's not backed by any kind of research. It's based on fantastical thinking that somehow humans would never come to maturity if parents behaved in a loving and natural fashion.

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, and I am not trying to attack you as a person, deja. However, the premise that children are driven to learn, and that our help is necessary and helpful in that endeavor is one of the main tennants of attachment parenting.


----------



## monkey's mom

I was just doing some research for something else, found the following, and thought it might be interesting to throw into the conversation:

Quote:

One implication is that cultures that train for independence, and therefore self-responsibility,risk having more PTSD later in life. That is because these cultures do not support infants (nor adults) during stressful and traumatic events to the same extent as do cultures that emphasize dependence and mutual support. Whether distressed or not, Individuals are isolated or separated and do not experience as much physical contact, which is known to be soothing (it has been shown to reduce blood pressure and so on). Early stressful practices may produce lasting effects, as these areas of the brain are still developing. As has been suggested by numerous investigators, the pathways that remain in place after early development are very determined by experience (as summarized in Todd et al., 1995). There may therefore be permanent alterations in stress-related neurotransmitter systems (such as the release of higher levels of cortisol).

It is also the case that even later on, these individualistic cultures do not make coping with stress and trauma easy, as they tend to view trauma as shameful, something the individual should have controlled or avoided as part of their independence, and typically something to be dealt with alone. Because of the shameful nature of most trauma, it is not openly discussed, which seems to worse its effects.
Emotional Learning in Infants: A Cross-Cultural Examination
Commons and ******


----------



## Deja

I am unsure as to where to continue this discussion now. I want to respond to the many well thought out replies, but I don't know where to do it and don't want to disrespect the format of the forum.

What should I do?


----------



## Deja

Monkey's Mom;
The information that you posted is consistent with my observations and why I said that self-soothing is a skill that children should begin to learn as preschoolers, not as infants.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Hey, Deja...you're sure getting a lot of attention as a new member, ha? I'm sorry if I seemed like I thought you shouldn't post here.

You're just pretty intense for the Supernanny thread :LOL (no offence to the thread AM!)

Normally, I think new members introduce themselves (there's a section for that). I say continue on like you see fit but also maybe make an intro.

Welcome, sorry if my post seemed rude or unwelcoming.


----------



## DaednuSO

RE: I worry that those shows, even Nanny 911, which is much gentler than what this Super Nanny show sounds like, will just reinforce the idea that parents are all incompetent morons who have no idea how to deal with their spoiled brat kids.

Listen, everyone here is probably the exception to this, but unfortunately, that appears to be the case in the Western world.

Problem is most of these people see the kids as as much an accessory to their lives as, say, the couch or the color-matched art on the walls. So when there's something "wrong" with them, they call in an expert to "fix" it.


----------



## Mamid

The problem with western world is that parents are not given the tools to raise their children with before they become parents. Then, when CPS becomes involved, they find out that anything they have been doing can and probably will be declared abusive including GD parenting. All because some bleeding hearts decided that "child abuse must be stopped" but gave no definition of abuse.

Suddenly, they have no way to punish or redirect bad behaviour because all the tools they had were taken away as bad. And worse yet? kids are trained from the moment the start school that if mommy or daddy yells at them or hits them or denies them anything they should tell an adult and everything will be fixed and made better. It doesn't matter if it is the truth or not either because they will be believed. After all, children must be believed because they never tell lies. *rollseyes*

Some of the stuff Supernanny does CPS would consider extremely abusive. But, what is a parent going to do? If our children aren't under control, we are abusive. If they run wild and do damage, we are responsible and neglectful. Yet at the same time, any tools we have to keep them under control have been removed and the courts demand that we take responsibility for children we have no control over because those same courts have taken over our rights to discipline as we choose.

Parents are being set up to fail in North American societies. And CPS is running like a wild rabid wolf devouring our families. Shows like Supernanny just reinforce my belief that the system gone nuts.


----------



## Deja

An intro:
I am a 53 year old mother of one. When my daughter was a preschooler, I opened my own in home childcare out of desperation; I couldn't find even halfway decent childcare that I could afford, so I went into childcare so that I could be home with her myself. I was a single mother with no real formal education to speak of, so this alternative was a lifesaver to me.

I ran an in home childcare for 16 years, encountering a wide variety of children, families, situations and childrearing strategies. I found that I had an unexpected and surprising (to me) affinity for raising children. And I discovered a gift for teaching them. I developed my own preschool curriculum and eventually I opened my own childcare center that I ran until about a year and a half ago when the licensing laws in my state changed. I am no longer qualified to serve as the director of my child care center because of my lack of formal education. I had to hire a woman to fill that role, but she has to do whatever I tell her to do because I am the owner of the center. I find it ridiculous and it angers me, so I went back to school at around the same time that these new licensing regulations went into effect. Now I am studying for a bachelor's degree in child development.

Before I had ever entered a college in my life, I had a habit of reading textbooks. I particularly like psychology textbooks, but I am not a psychologist and I have no credentials in that field whatsoever. I have considered pursuing a therapy practice, but at the current time I am undecided as to how long I might choose to remain in school.

I've always been self-taught, up until and year and a half ago, and I'm proud of that. I think that because my education never formally began, it never ended.

In the years during which I ran my in home childcare, I had the opportunity to participate in raising a few nieces and nephews, which was a rare opportunity in this day and age. So, I am a parent, mother of one, who has had the opportunity to interact with, observe and participate in the upbringing of many different children from many different backgrounds.

I don't see my opinions as being in conflict with attachment parenting at all. It is a little disconcerting when I read replies which seem to defend attachment parenting as though I were critical of it. When my daughter was born, it was common for the hospital to insist that the child be separated from the mother. In my day, the mother was 'allowed' to have the baby for certain hours of the day. I was outraged when told this after delivery. Which was natural, through no choice of my own btw. My daughter had no patience for such things and was not cooperative enough for me to receive pain medication. She burst onto the planet with drama and energy. ;-)

After her birth, I demanded that she remain with me. The nurses argued with me until at last I insisted that my daughter and I were going home, release or no release, I didn't wake up in Russia the day that my daughter was born.

Only then did they cave in, and they actually had the nerve to tell me that I was 'responsible' for the situation. Exactly my point, was my reply.

What I wish to convey is my dedication to my daughter. At that time in my life I had never heard of anything called 'attachment parenting'. It seemed to me to be a matter of common sense that the baby would need the scent, sound and feel of her mother right away and as much as possible. The whole Ferber approach to childrearing is quite horrible to me, and I hope in this introduction to have distinguished myself and my thoughts from that kind of parenting.

I wouldn't presume to 'teach' you, and I claim no authority to do so. I'm just sharing as a woman who has raised her own child, and who has participated in the upbringing of dozens, hundreds probably, of other children. I enjoy dialogues such as these, and over these past few years they have contributed to my education ENORMOUSLY, and that didn't happen because I talked only with those who agreed with my perspectives on things, and it couldn't have happened if I was unable to modify my perspective as I gained new information. So while I am a natural teacher, it really is my basic nature, I am not here to teach but to learn.

I hope that helps in seeing where I am coming from. I would like to respond to some of these very interesting posts, but I am out of time. I'll return later and respond at that time.

Sorry for being so 'intense'. I can't seem to help it. ;-)


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Hey Deja-

I want to apologize a bit for my intensity. My dd is very sick right now and since I'm PG as well I'm really feeling the strain.

I realize I'm argueing very sweeping concepts, whereas many of your arguements are about shades of grey. I tend to take a very broad view when I'm overtired.

I hope you continue to visit here.


----------



## Deja

Thank you ma'am. I really appreciate that, and I think I can imagine how you feel. I hope you feel less stressed and things get better very soon.


----------



## Deja

Mamid said:


> The problem with western world is that parents are not given the tools to raise their children with before they become parents.
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed your whole post ma'am, and thought that you had many excellent points. I have two questions.
> 
> One, is there a non-western society that you would point to as an example of parents who are given the tools they need for parenting before becoming parents?
> 
> And two, is it normal in Canada for CPS to become involved in GD? Where I live, CPS doesn't get involved in anything except physical and sexual abuse. At least, that's my understanding.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
And two, is it normal in Canada for CPS to become involved in GD?

I would highly, highly doubt this. Highly.

In fact, the Canadian gov't. seems to have lots of info against hitting children. Most of the Canadian sites I looked at catagorize abuse as we, in the States, do: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect.


----------



## Deja

Monkey's Mom,
I saw that Mamid is located in British Columbia and made reference to North American societies, so I thought she was probably from Canada and speaking of Canadian culture.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Actually that would have been a great comeback- look the mean lady up and down really slow and say "Looks like someone needs an EXTREME MAKEOVER"

:LOL

Now I wish I had a quick tongue like that.

There is a show in the UK called "Who rules the roost" or something. It's horrible. I can't believe all the bed time fuss and how parents force their kids to go back to their rooms crying over and over again until they quit and stay in bed.

But the worse of these shows is children can't consent being on TV and probably don't even know they are being humilliated in public view.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wasabi*
I can show her other ways to show her excitement or anger but how do I address her hitting because she thinks it's funny?

Could you pick up any instance your child got hurt and make her remember how it wasn't fun? You could ask her "How do you think you would feel if someone hit you? Would it make you laugh? If you fell and went "ouch" should I laugh at you or kiss you?".

If this is too verbal for the child to understand, you could try other things. For instance, if your child hits you, get away from her, ignore her, instead of making her go away. If you get into a confrontation the child might think it's a game. Don't be nice to her for a while so she understands you're not having fun or allowing her to have fun at your expense. If she asks you to read you a story after she hit you, say "no, you just hurt me, I don't feel like being nice to you now".

The child might also be bored and seeking attention (and she gets it because all of the fuss surrounding the violent situations). Maybe you should play more physical games together?

You can also find something she could hit that gives out a rewarding noise. Some toys where you hammer stuff. Drums and xilophones are great, you can hit them with sticks and they make better noises than "ow".

Oh, and I forgot to mention this book, it's great.
Yucky Stuff
I bet your child would love to splat people in the book.









Just some random ideas I try myself.


----------



## Mamid

Actually, Western included all of North America. I was on several anti-cps or cps support email lists and read lots of horror stories from all over North America. Look them up - you'll be shocked.

Abuse is also subjective. What one social worker would consider abusive, another would simple say that the parent was stressed. We're hoping the one who was here on Sunday was one who understood we were stressed.

And we have a directive from our Lawyer - if and when she shows, I am to leave and not talk to her. I can't stand them because they always come in, throw a family into upheaveal (I can spell tonight) and don't actually help. And if you don't do what they demand immediately - which is always done verbally - they can use that as an excuse to apprehend. They expect lower income people to live like they are middle income which is completely unreasonable.

damn.. ds is up and he's sick. If I remember to, I'll post more later.


----------



## monkey's mom

Mamid, if I recall correctly, you and your partner have very vocally supported *non* gentle discipling methods.

I hope that people will not misunderstand your situation as one directly resulting from the use of gentle discipline, as I don't think that's the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.


----------



## mom2alicia

i actually don't watch it. but i watched an oprah show in which it was about supernanny. it showed clips from the show. i was so disappointed because oprah is so powerful and well respected. i was so disappointed that she basically endorsed her. a lot of moms i know are really into the supernanny and thinks she is great and are already talking about a naughty mat for when the kids are older (they are almost two now). frankly, the last person i would want parenting advice is from a nanny. think about their perspective. it is all about how to take care of other peoples kids. kids who are easy to take care of. quick fixes. when i saw her interviewed, she acknowledged that she has no formal education and no children. she is coming strictly from the perspective of a nanny. if you are familiar with Bowlby's work. One of the motivations for his research in child development was his childhood upbringing (raised by a series of nannies)and his negative views about the common practice of employing nannies to raise the children and later send them off to boarding school- creating a detachment between parent and child, a practice that breeds good behavior, but a cold detached interpersonal style.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

I think you are very right in that children respond very differently to their parents than they do to a nanny. That's one reason the show is a lie, kids behave far better for strangers and caregivers than they do for their parents.

But I also agree that the show promotes cold and detached parenting. While I'm glad she endorses talking to kids on their level and doesn't endorse hitting, I still think it promotes detachment.

The show is about "training" kids and families, not treating people with kindness and respect.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
When my daughter was born, it was common for the hospital to insist that the child be separated from the mother. In my day, the mother was 'allowed' to have the baby for certain hours of the day. I was outraged when told this after delivery. Which was natural, through no choice of my own btw. My daughter had no patience for such things and was not cooperative enough for me to receive pain medication. She burst onto the planet with drama and energy. ;-)

After her birth, I demanded that she remain with me. The nurses argued with me until at last I insisted that my daughter and I were going home, release or no release, I didn't wake up in Russia the day that my daughter was born.

I loved your intro post, but especially this part, "I didn't wake up in Russia the day that my daughter was born." Hah! I hope you will hang around here.

I get that you aren't in opposition to attachment parenting. I think this is just a matter of priorities. It's my first priority, especially with a child my son's age, to foster attachment, security, and trust. When he's older, I will want to move on to emphasizing independence. I do try to think well about what he can do for himself now. I try not to "baby" him (well he is kind of still a baby though, he's only two!). I mean though that if he can do something for himself safely, I want him to do that.

I don't know if we can be a no-punishment household, but I would like that. I've never thought that would be me, but I also can't figure out what I would accomplish by the method of time-outs or whatever you call them. I can't relate to the model of parenting that people here have described as the super nanny style. (I will have to trust that this is accurate as I have no plans to acquire a TV set to watch reality programs.)










My mom likes the reality shows in which people's houses get a makeover. If there is a thread about one of those I will certainly lurk appreciatively.


----------



## NoraB

Deja, welcome to the boards! I think you'll find that many of the parents here are very passionate about the subjects of discipline, GD, and AP. I think that many of us get so defensive and quick to argue b/c we (at least from my perspective) are so accustomed to being treated w/ intense skepticsm (and sometimes downright hostility) from the "mainstream" (the general parenting culutre that seems to largely support methods such as CIO, physical punishment, pushing independance at too early an age, etc). Sometimes it's hard to step back and see that somebody is not criticizing, but coming at the issue from a slightly different perspective. I think you'll enjoy these boards once you get the hang of them though.


----------



## mom2alicia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Monkey's Mom;
The information that you posted is consistent with my observations and why I said that self-soothing is a skill that children should begin to learn as preschoolers, not as infants.


i agree with this point. i am continually baffled by magazine articles and books that mention that infants need to "self soothe". one must experience soothing again and again and again before internalizing this and being able to soothe oneself. It amazes me how misunderstood self soothing is. often a childs defense mechanisms kick in when they are not soothed and they rock themselves or stroke themselves or bang their head or something and this is mistaken as "self soothing". it certainly is an attempt at self soothing but not a healthy form of self soothing.

case in point: i'm digressing here but i'm just reading an article in "Child" on the "colic sleep connection" and a pediatrician, Dr. Barbara Howard says "parents of colicky babies pick them up more when they're awake potentially interfering with their learning to self-soothe during the day and the inevitable night wakings." Boy, now you can't even pick them up during the day!


----------



## User101

And really, isn't a big part of self-soothing knowing what you need? I am an adult, capable of self-soothing. Sometimes I soothe myself by going to my husband or friend and asking them to help me feel better. Isn't that what our children are doing when they come to us- they are telling us what they need. Why would we interfere with that process my pushing them away in the name of teaching them important self-soothing skills. All we're really teaching them is not to trust themselves or their feelings.

On a side note, never in a million years did I think a thread with the title "Supernanny Sucks" would garner eight pages worth of intelligent conversation.


----------



## mom2alicia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
And really, isn't a big part of self-soothing knowing what you need? I am an adult, capable of self-soothing. Sometimes I soothe myself by going to my husband or friend and asking them to help me feel better. Isn't that what our children are doing when they come to us- they are telling us what they need. Why would we interfere with that process my pushing them away in the name of teaching them important self-soothing skills.


Absolutely! One very healthy way to "self soothe" is to reach out to another person! people who are raised to be very "independent" (a.k.a. emotionally cut off) have a difficult time connecting intimately with other people, they can be very self sufficient but can be very lousy parents and partners.


----------



## Deja

Good evening ladies! 

First, thank you all for the warmth of your welcome. This community is very warm, which makes participation very pleasurable.

I've been very busy with work and school, but I have read more of the conversations on this site when I had a moment or two, and they have been very thought provoking.

NoraB said that she thought GD parents could give very specific examples of how their use of GD taught their children to self-soothe. I have to remind you that I am culling those examples up from memory, and they have required a depth of analysis that I haven't had time for as of yet. I just want NoraB to know that I am not ducking the question of how my own approach can be shown to have taught self-soothing skills. I will respond on that note when I am able to calm my racing mind and give the question the proper attention. I do not dodge or evade tough questions or challenges. I actually quite love them.

Captain Optimism said that she believes that attachment parenting promotes resilience in children. I do not disagree with that statement; in fact, I wholeheartedly agree.

I do, however, find that statement to be a sweeping statement. I just want to express that in my many years of working with families and children, I've seen a LOT of different situations. This has led me to conclude that children's personalities are immeasurably complex. I've never met two children who were identical in terms of psychological make-up, and the differences have been a source of fascination for me.

IMO, no discipline style works for all children. I have seen children so sensitive that even when they committed a major infraction of the rules, I was extremely gentle with them, knowing that they were more upset at themselves for their behavior than I would ever be, and knowing how far compassion and gentleness can go at such a moment.

I've met other children who came from homes that did not attempt to restrain the children from hurting one another. They only punished when children got hurt. I've seen children who seemed to be very low on empathy and I've seen children who were tender-hearted old souls who taught me more lessons that any adult could hope to offer.

I have tremendous respect for children, and I take great joy in working with them. I have been especially successful in rearing children who displayed serious behavioral problems. I have cared for a young boy who was adopted at age 2. Gradually I began to suspect that his behavioral problems might not stem from the trauma of the adoption, but that he might suffer from some kind of neurological disorder. He had Asperger's syndrome.

I've cared for children from so many different backgrounds and cultures and parenting styles, you just would not believe the things I've seen in the years I've been in business.

As I contemplated this discussion, I realized that therein lies the difference between you and I. I am thinking in terms of strategies to deal with groups of children from varying backgrounds and disciplinary styles. You are thinking in terms of how to raise your own children. I think that colors my approach and perception a great deal.

The children I have known who came from terribly permissive homes were usually very self-centered, spoiled and unpleasant children. But in those homes there did not exist the focus and attention that you describe here. In those homes, the parents felt very guilty (often for good reason) and they gave in to the demands of the child rather than to employ a strategy which might have been hard but that they believed firmly to be in the best interests of the child.

I think that may be a critical difference in what I've observed and in what I'm observing here.

I would caution you though, that I have seen another type of very permissive parenting in which the permissiveness served to assuage the rebelliousness of the parent, and to meet the parent's emotional needs rather than the child's emotional needs. I do not mean to imply that you are this type of parents, please understand me. I am only telling you what I have seen.

I have seen parent's who's close attachment to their child was intended to soothe away the parent's emotional baggage more than to truly provide the child with the respect that so many of you describe here. In those situations, there is a lot of attachment going on, to the extent that the child's individuality is actually smothered.

I personally know one woman who's son slept in her bed (she was a single parent) until he was almost 14 years old. That boy is now about to turn 16 years old, and his mother has done so much to infantilize him, because to do so meets her own emotional needs. She sometimes does his homework for him, because she cannot tolerate his emotional distress in any way. This woman has truly retarded her child's emotional growth, and he seems more like 11 years old than 16 years old. She is making choices right now that seem to assure that this boy will never move out on his own. This child exists to fulfill his mother's needs, and I feel great sorrow and pity for him.

His mother is not a bad woman. She is shy, withdrawn and actually quite sweethearted, if not a little bit neurotic. I don't think she woke up one morning and decided to craft a plan to emotionally cripple her son. Her motivations are probably entirely subconscious, but the fact remains that her son will have an impossible task fitting into society to the extent that he can hold down an job and create an autonomous existence for himself.

Suffice it to say, that I strongly believe in equipping a child with the tools to create a happy, loving, productive autonomous existence from his parent. I also think that part of being a happy person is learning to respect the needs of others. This is a skill that I believe should begin to be taught very early, and it almost seems to me that there might be a window of opportunity for that type of development to take place. Over and over again, I've seen situations in which a child was treated so much like he was the center of the universe with everything revolving around him, that he became very thoroughly convinced that this was the case. In those cases that I have seen, those children have a very hard time losing this self-centeredness that has become a very integral part of their personality. Caring and compassion for the wants and needs of others is a trait that has evade them, even though they have known nothing but caring and compassion from the adults in their lives.

Whew. I think I'll take a breather at this time. I want to say it again, because I can't say it enough...if the rest of the population took the time and attention that the women here are focusing on their children, we'd live in such a different world.

It is an honor and a pleasure to enjoy discourse with you ladies. I thank you very much for making me think.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Deja- I think you are right that the people on this board are pretty focused on their own children and their own situation, rather than a wide range of children. It' s like the difference between a public health perspective and a personal health perspective. Apples and oranges.

Your post made me think, though, about the potential results of our parenting. "Discipline" is all about getting children to behave correctly- mainly IMO to make parents' lives easier. Many people beleive that discipline in childhood has everything to do with self control, happiness, success, etc. later in life.

I don't necessarily beleive that's true.

I was talking to a friend recently and we were discussing how some of the worst behaved kids we know turned out to be quite nice, normal, gainfully employed adults.

I think from a "public health" perspective, lack of discipline in childhood may lead to trouble later in life. However, it seems like kids who came from somewhat functional families with some degree of support and stability manage to get their act together, even if they don't end up getting along with their parents as adults.

I beleive it's because these kids have an example of a normal life that they will eventually try to emulate.

So I figure, the best way to raise a kind, empathetic, self motivated child is to behave that way. Kids don't always do what their parent's say, but they never fail to imitate them.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense. I guess my point is that we don't really know what our kids will become and there are no promises nomatter what we do to "guide" their behavior. I figure I want my children to see me being a good person, and maybe that's the best thing I can do for them long term.


----------



## captain optimism

I do want to make a distinction between not punishing and being permissive. We keep having to go over this in this forum all the time. Gentle discipline is still discipline, it's not being totally permissive.

I think we run the gamut of parenting philosophies under the rubric of "gentle discipline" but there are a lot of us here who would not just let a bad behavior go by without some kind of response and guidance to a better direction. There are a few moms here who are totally amazing because they are so persistent and careful in challenging bad behavior without using punishment.

Now I'm obviously at a very early stage--one baby, he's only two, it's pretty easy so far--so I don't have a lot of personal experience. But it does seem, from my IRL observations of other families and from my reading, that it's possible to be fully engaged and guide children without imposing punishment and without taking away a child's ability to become independent.

Deja, you give the example of the mom who treats her 16 year old like a baby. This is perfect, though. My idea is that you treat a baby like a baby, a toddler like a toddler, a preschooler like a preschooler--all the way up. You have to read about what to expect at each stage, observe the child's behavior closely, and try to allow them room to develop.

I cannot think of any stage at which it would be appropriate to stick the kid in the naughty chair, or the naughty room, or force them to face the wall. If it happens that somehow I wind up using this technique instead of all the stuff I've carefully learned about in advance, I'll write in to ask that my GD license be revoked.


----------



## Deja

Your post made me think, though, about the potential results of our parenting. "Discipline" is all about getting children to behave correctly- mainly IMO to make parents' lives easier.

Laws are all about getting adults to behave correctly, mainly to make society's job easier. I see no fault in that.  I really do think that it is pernicious and short sighted for a parent to fail to establish that his or her own needs are important and to be taken into consideration.

I personally think that there is a need for a context in which it is clearly established that the parent is in control and that the parent sets the context and boundaries of the behaviors that are and are not acceptable.

Having been exposed to many, many different kinds of people who defined control in pernicious and egotistical ways, I can understand where the word 'control' might raise some hackles. I believe in treating children with respect, and I know that the way my daughter speaks to me today is a reflection of the way that she was always spoken to throughout her life.

It is my opinion that control should be considered very carefully, as it is actually an integral part of the parent/child relationship. Personally, I strove to transfer control to my daughter incrementally as she matured. In my case, my daughter matured into an incredibly responsible, level headed young woman who deserved the control that she had earned at a pretty early age. I don't take too much credit for this. I know that her personality style was very compatible with mine. I understood her, therefore we meshed very well. After the age of about 10, the only forms of 'punishment' or consequences I had to impose were extra chores for messiness of an inconsiderate nature.

I do very much believe that, for most personality styles, it is unwise to fail to make clear to the child that the parent is the authority figure and that the authority figure is indeed in control. Not controlling arbitrarily or egotisitically, but imposing the nature control that comes from being more fully developed psychologically and emotionally.

Now, whether or not it would be appropriate to 'stick a child into a naughty room' or to have them face the wall, this is in my mind entirely dependent upon the individual personality of the child. I can't overemphasize this; children are all different, and what works for one child may not work for another. What shames or upsets one child may be water off a duck's back for another. In your context, what matters is what is appropriate to the personalities of your children (born and unborn). In my context, I think about what is appropriate across a much wider spectrum.

Which leads to me a thought that has been lingering in my mind. Are most of you stay at home moms? If not, I would imagine that the approach used by your daycare providers or centers are quite different, necessarily, from your own. I have been wondering how that worked, if it worked. Do you agree with the approach of your center or provider? Do you think your child is confused by the differences in expectations between you and your provider? And do you think that your approach hinders your children's abilities to adapt to the expectations he meets outside the home.

To be very clear, I realize that the differing expectations constitute rushing the child. I also realize, from my many years in the childcare business, that in order to avoid these expectations centers would have to charge much more money to accomodate extra training for their staffs. They would also have to enlarge their staffs considerably.

My question is, who pays for that? Quality childcare is very, very expensive to provide. Our government here in America will squander unfathomable amounts of money on the most inconsequential things, but money to improve childcare and to create more affordable childcare is scarce. That is another subject, and one that we can't change overnight.

In the meantime, how do children raised in such households respond to centers and daycares that do employ punishment and that tolerate far less than their parents would?

That's something I would very much like to know.


----------



## Deja

Deja, you give the example of the mom who treats her 16 year old like a baby. This is perfect, though. My idea is that you treat a baby like a baby, a toddler like a toddler, a preschooler like a preschooler--all the way up. You have to read about what to expect at each stage, observe the child's behavior closely, and try to allow them room to develop.

I don't disagree with you in this summary, but I am very much aware that the devil is in the details. There are quite numerous subjects for debate just in determining things like, "Just what IS a teenager and how should she be treated when..."


----------



## Mamid

Actually, we advocate for both "going with what works" and for the right to choose which style to use.

And we have found that the corner, or rather the threat of the corner (and no, we don't turn our son into the wall and we use the microwave to time him) works.

We also praise him for taking his medicine and even bribing him to do so, although we have to wrestle him to the ground to do it. Poor little guy is sick as a dog right now. He's on antibiotics, steroids AND his asthma meds. He takes his asthma stuff without much problems, but anything else.....

Yes, children do act better around strangers and respond better to their discipline than their parents, but not all do.

Good news... our sw is on the case and has borrowed two of my mothering mags for his office.


----------



## Leonor

Repeated post, sorry.


----------



## Leonor

Hello Deja,

You are a very polite and articulate person, and that is certainly conquering mothers here on the forums. You are a very good attention seeker.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
But in those homes there did not exist the focus and attention that you describe here. In those homes, the parents felt very guilty (often for good reason) and they gave in to the demands of the child rather than to employ a strategy which might have been hard but that they believed firmly to be in the best interests of the child.

I think is an improper explanation to how exactly a self-centred person comes to be. I think the term "permissive" parent is often misleading, as it assumes parents are authorities by default and that control is a sucessful way to parent. It also assumes that only parents that don't control their children enough "create" self-centred children. But I have seen the opposite too often. Over controlling parents that undermine the children's free will, children that have their lives sheduled by their parents, are very likely to be to be self-centred sooner or later, because they need to explode "I exist!".

Unefective parents should be called neglectful.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
I personally know one woman

If you know her personally maybe it's not right to come here and talk about her life in public? Even if you don't mention her name, imagine she happens to come to the forums, how would she feel if you were talking about her and her personal life to strangers on her back? She will know it's her you're analysing if she reads this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
who's son slept in her bed (she was a single parent) until he was almost 14 years old.

Did her son ever complain about it to you?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
That boy is now about to turn 16 years old, and his mother has done so much to infantilize him, because to do so meets her own emotional needs.

What do you mean by infatilize him?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
She sometimes does his homework for him, because she cannot tolerate his emotional distress in any way.

I don't know if you're married, but would you tolerate the emotional distress of your husband? Or your mother? Wouldn't you step in and try to help? You think people have to suffer to learn about real life?

That woman actually sounds like a well intended person, the problem being she probably doesn't have the knowledge to find good solutions for her son's distress. There are better ways of not having her son distress over school homework. Unschooling for instance.

Do you really believe she would be a better mother if only she forced her child to do homework?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
She is making choices right now that seem to assure that this boy will never move out on his own.

This is weird, what kind of choices do you believe can stop a child from moving out on their own permanently?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
the fact remains that her son will have an impossible task fitting into society to the extent that he can hold down an job and create an autonomous existence for himself.

Sounds to me this is a very pessimistic future prediction for a 16 year old! Are you serious? What do you believe makes it impossible for him to have a job in the future? Her mother doing his homework?

In some instances I did the homework of some friends at school, and it enabled them not to be forced to be stuck in the same school year again studying stuf that didn't interest them and move on with their lives. I met some of them later and they were doing better than me!









I believe there is a general confusion bettween what autonomy and independence mean.

All human beings are born autonomous, in which they have their own minds and their own free will controlling their lives. This autonomy is often undermined in childhood by authoritarian parents and helps little for the autonomy of the adult. A child that is not helped make her own decisions will have a hard time making decisions in the future.

Independence is purely an economical aspect which refers to being able to trade in our capitalist society. Many independent people, people with jobs, are not autonomous because they live to do what others tell them to do and are not doing what they really want. It's like their lives are programmed by others. It's a bit sad, don't you think?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
I also think that part of being a happy person is learning to respect the needs of others. This is a skill that I believe should begin to be taught very early

How do you believe that skill should be taught?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Over and over again, I've seen situations in which a child was treated so much like he was the center of the universe with everything revolving around him, that he became very thoroughly convinced that this was the case.

Unless he becomes very sucessful and rich in life, turning into a pop star for instance, he will soon realise that other people will not freely serve him like his parents did.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Caring and compassion for the wants and needs of others is a trait that has evade them, even though they have known nothing but caring and compassion from the adults in their lives.

This might happen with parents that sacrifice themselves too much and believe that example alone is a infalible tool of education.


----------



## Deja

Lenor;
Ironically, permissive parenting and authoritarian parenting styles do tend to have many of the same results. I've seen this first hand.

I am not sure whether your post is hostile. You say that I am a very good attention seeker, which is a hurtful thing to say in my opinion. So I believe I'll just refrain from exchange in this instance, as I do not wish to spread or to receive hostility.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

I beleive I was unclear in my previous post in a way.

Deja- I meant to say that unless you followed up with all the children you had at your preschool into adulthood. unless you tracked them down at 30 or 40 years old, you have no idea how what their parents did or didn't do has affected them as adults.

As for the 4 year old in mom's bed, a friends told me about his brother sleeping in his parent's bed till 12 as a cautionary tale. He then conceeded that his brother is actually quite successful.

Anyway- I've grown weary of this arguement.

Like supernanny, you've raised a lot of other people's kids so you think you have all the answers. I can't blame you for that, it's tough raising children, especially strangers children. And I don't doubt you were a good mother.

I'm starting to feel like you're "training" the people in this discussion to follow your rules, and I'm not sure I'm interested in that kind of dialogue.


----------



## Deja

mommyofshmo;
I didn't know you were arguing. I thought we were having a discussion, an exchange of ideas and perspectives. Removing yourself from an argumentative exchange is probably a wise thing to do.

Many people have expressed frustration over condemnation for their parenting choices, and I would not want to contribute to that sense of being attacked. It's important to me to try to respect other people's point of view and to understand where their context may be different from my own. I would like to think that exchange is possible in such a context, without personally attacking a person who views things differently. It seems to be not only unnecessary, but to close off any avenue for understanding and learning. The openmindedness that you desire from others, the listening without condemnation with which you'd like to have your opinions received, cannot really occur unless you can extend that same graciousness to others yourself.

I meant what I said about this discussion making me think. The conversation has caused me to realize that I'm viewing things from the perspective of a childcare provider and not a parent, which is I think a very different place to be coming from. This causes me to be more cautious in my evaluations and to question them.

I like that, and consider it a wonderful opportunity to raise my awareness. I'm hoping that some one might have some responses to my questions about GD and how it factors in when a child is going to daycare. I am truly curious, which is why I asked those questions. Maybe Captain Optimism will have something to say.


----------



## Deja

I just want to make one thing very clear. While I have been involved in the upbringing of many, many children, the one thing I DON'T think I know is YOUR CHILD. My experience with children has taught me that no two are alike and that what works with one doesn't necessarily even impact another.

You are the one who knows your child. Not me. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, that would be ludicrous. I'm only telling you some of the things that I've seen. I would not invalidate your perspective, but I see some efforts here to invalidate my own. If that is because you don't like me, something about my personality or communication style annoys you, that's fine. These discussions are completely voluntary in nature and there are personalities which annoy me and that I avoid myself.

But it's interesting to me that you should attack me personally, when your whole premise is gentleness as a means of teaching. That just seems off, it really does.


----------



## monkey's mom

I'm having a hard time staying in this conversation because it seems like the most extreme situations are being brought up--ones that aren't even first hand.

Re. treating children differently: I think AP parents are most likely to do this anyhow--when you are tuned into *your* child and his needs, it makes shows like SuperNanny seem even more ridiculous. Her methods never vary. With GD, however, the methods vary widely--keep readiing here for proof of that.

However, there is a bottom line of respect and trust that is universal. Just because a child may not feel shame for getting spanked, does not make the spanking OK.

Re. daycare: First of all, I'm not raising my child to fit in at daycare or help keep their costs lower. I would hope that if a daycare provider were to attempt to spank or humiliate my kid he would stand up for himself in the strongest possible way.

I've got to go.....sorry to leave mid-thought......


----------



## User101

Why is it that every time someone is questioned on this forum, gentle discipline mothers are accused of not being gentle? Deja, I cannot find anywhere where you have been attacked personally. You have been questioned.

I also have worked with many children, although not as long as you have. I have also done masters degree level work in early childhood education. Gentle discipline can and does work in a childcare setting. I know- I did it. I worked with inner-city children from many cultural, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds, using gentle discipline. If anything, I find it was much easier to do with other people's children than with my own.









I was doing some research and found this:

Quote:

Discipline is a positive parenting approach to teach a child self-control and confidence. As opposed to punishment, discipline techniques focus on what it is we want the child to learn, and what the child is capable of learning. Discipline is a process, not a single act. It is the basis for teaching children how to be in harmony with themselves and get along with other people. The ultimate goal of discipline is for children to understand their own behavior, take initiative and be responsible for their choices, and respect themselves and others. In other words, they will internalize this positive process of thinking and behaving.

Punishment, on the other hand, focuses on the misbehavior and may do little or nothing to help a child behave better in the future. The adult who punishes the child teaches the child that the adult, rather than the child, is responsible for the way the child behaves. Punishment has negative effects on children, such as inducing shame, guilt, anxiety, increased aggression, lack of independence and/or lack of caring for others, and greater problems with parents or caregivers and other children.
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/sm...discipline.htm

Discipline is not a once and done thing, or a reaction to a single incident. It is an ongoing process.

According to NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children) one of their requirements for certification and a sign that a childcare is using developmentally appropriate practice is that "Techniques of discipline shall not humiliate, shame, or frighten a child."

A good, quality child care center would not use the techniques advocated by Supernanny.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that attachment parenting are (a) using a formulaic approach to parenting their children and (b) practicing permissive parenting. If this is what someone believes attachment parenting is, then they need to be educated.

This thread has gotten to the point where I am not even clear on what the argument is about anymore.

Are you arguing against my original premise, that supernanny sucks?

Are you arguing (or discussing if you rather) that shame is an OK discipline tactic?

Are you arguing the dangers of gentle discipline and attachment parenting?

Are you arguing that gentle discipline and attachment parenting may work for individual parents, but that, as ideals, they are inattainable in a child care setting?

I am not asking these things to be antagonistic. I really want to know.

Annette


----------



## Deja

Ma'am,
To me, being told that I am a very good attention seeker who thinks she knows everything is a personal attack. These statements have nothing to do with gentle discipline or parenting, they are soley directed at me as a person.

To those individuals who were respectful, your exchanges were enlightening and you really did cause me to think about my approaches. I enjoyed that very much.

I have developed a very strong aversion to hostile exchanges. It's really hard not to respond in kind, and then you become that which you dislike. I don't want to go there, so I'm going to unjoin this site.


----------



## Deja

If I can ever figure out how to unjoin. : /


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Ma'am,
To me, being told that I am a very good attention seeker who thinks she knows everything is a personal attack. These statements have nothing to do with gentle discipline or parenting, they are soley directed at me as a person.


I had actually forgotten about that one.


----------



## MomInFlux

I'm sleep deprived, so if I'm not entirely clear or if I'm repeating what's been said before, I apologize in advance...

I was thinking (at 4:30 this morning, while my DD was NOT sleeping), that the "problem", if it can be summed up to a single thing, is that the goals of the Nanny/Child Care Provider and the goals of the Attachment Parent are NOT the same. The Nanny isn't the parent; her goal is not attachment to the child. I would think the goal of the Nanny/Child Care Provider is, largely, obedience. It would follow then, that trying to apply the techniques used by the Nanny to the Parent would be an exercise in futility, at least to the parent who has AP/GD as a goal.

I guess I'm saying that it seems like an apples-oranges discussion to me.









And FTR - and to keep this on topic - I think Supernanny Sucks.


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MomInFlux*
And FTR - and to keep this on topic - I think Supernanny Sucks.











And, FTR, I completely agree- it is apples and oranges!


----------



## hotmamacita

Did someone say that Supernanny sucks?










Deja--I hope you stay at MDC. THere are MANY other places here than this particular thread. Please check it out before you judge the entire site.


----------



## Leonor

Hello Deja,

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
I am not sure whether your post is hostile. You say that I am a very good attention seeker, which is a hurtful thing to say in my opinion.

It wasn't meant to be hostile. It's an expression that is used so often with kids.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
So I believe I'll just refrain from exchange in this instance, as I do not wish to spread or to receive hostility.

All right, but do realise that when children do that it's called pouting.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
Deja- I meant to say that unless you followed up with all the children you had at your preschool into adulthood. unless you tracked them down at 30 or 40 years old, you have no idea how what their parents did or didn't do has affected them as adults.











Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
I'm starting to feel like you're "training" the people in this discussion to follow your rules, and I'm not sure I'm interested in that kind of dialogue.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Why is it that every time someone is questioned on this forum, gentle discipline mothers are accused of not being gentle?


----------



## mama ganoush

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
The problem with western world is that parents are not given the tools to raise their children with before they become parents. Then, when CPS becomes involved, they find out that anything they have been doing can and probably will be declared abusive including GD parenting. All because some bleeding hearts decided that "child abuse must be stopped" but gave no definition of abuse.

Suddenly, they have no way to punish or redirect bad behaviour because all the tools they had were taken away as bad. And worse yet? kids are trained from the moment the start school that if mommy or daddy yells at them or hits them or denies them anything they should tell an adult and everything will be fixed and made better. It doesn't matter if it is the truth or not either because they will be believed. After all, children must be believed because they never tell lies. *rollseyes*

Some of the stuff Supernanny does CPS would consider extremely abusive. But, what is a parent going to do? If our children aren't under control, we are abusive. If they run wild and do damage, we are responsible and neglectful. Yet at the same time, any tools we have to keep them under control have been removed and the courts demand that we take responsibility for children we have no control over because those same courts have taken over our rights to discipline as we choose.

Parents are being set up to fail in North American societies. And CPS is running like a wild rabid wolf devouring our families. Shows like Supernanny just reinforce my belief that the system gone nuts.


please tell me that you are not, yet again, advocating for the "rights" of parents to hit their children?????







:


----------



## hotmamacita

Whoa, MAMID. Is it bad to be a bleeding heart? Other than its literal translation? And how do you know that a bleeding heart wanted child abuse to stop and failed to give a definition. I mean child abuse is a reality and it needs to stop. Period.

I find your summation of the CPS system to be simplisitc. Hey, I am NOT a fan (putting it lightly) of CPS at all. I find some of their practices and legal jurisdictions to be unconstitutional and racist but that's another thread....anyway, I just can't swing with what you said though.


----------



## Mamid

that's not what my post warns about.

Re-read it a few times. No where in it did I say anything about physical discipline.

I said :_Then, when CPS becomes involved, they find out that anything they have been doing can and probably will be declared abusive including GD parenting. All because some bleeding hearts decided that "child abuse must be stopped" but gave no definition of abuse._

You simply decided that I meant physical discipline. I was including all parenting types. All it takes is a social worker who wants to rescue the poor, abused child to show up and make your life hell. They are the souless minions of orthodoxy who decide on the spot that parents are good/bad based on their own opinions on what a "good parent" should be doing with their child.

Just one small example: emergency social worker shows up at my house on Sunday because the neighbours upstairs heard screaming. (gee.. ds has pneumonia.. think he might have been acting out cause he was sick? he's also partially deaf too... think that might have something to do with it?) She gets on a tirade that >>I<< am an abusive parent because DD is sleeping in our bed without a crib because the SW "recently attended a death where the baby was slept on." Yet, our real SW cosleeps and isn't concerned.

It doesn't matter how you parent or what sort of discipline technique you use, if someone decides it is bad, you the parent loose.

Our "child development" specialist told me that the Supernanny corner technique was "abusive" even with the time set at a minute per child's age and using her techniques of getting to their level etc. Canadian Supreme Court has given directives on what can be used to physically disciplined, yet others consider it abuse. I know of this one family that does GD religiously and yet others have complained to me about how out of control the children actually are. FIL has decided that DS "needs more discipline" and his definition is way beyond anything we'd ever think of using. DS had a tantrum in a store so DP picked him up and carried him back to the car. Two people laughed about it, but what I found both amusing and worrysome was the security guard who took off and tailed DP because DS was in full tantrum. All the reasons above are "neglect" or "abuse" to someone's definition. Maybe not yours but it is.

It doesn't seem to matter what sort of discipline a set of parents decide to use on their children. Someone *will* find it abusive or neglectful.

I simply advocate for going with what works. The threat of the corner works with DS right now. So does the loss of priviledges (removal to car if tantrum occurs while shopping or being restrained in a cart so he doesn't hurt himself falling out) and giving him a warning.

They work right now, so we're using them.

Now, if you'll excuse me... if you want to debate the merits or lack thereof of types of discipline, you're going to have to wait till DP comes home from the hospital with DS. I need to spend my energy keeping both my kids happy and healthy and not debate the merits of what is or isn't considered abuse. That's Penalt's job.


----------



## Dal

I think Deja has had such interesting and insightful things to say in this thread and she is so eloquent and kind. I really hope she doesn't leave, if she hasn't already! That would be such a shame.


----------



## Deja

Thank you Dal.

Unfortunately, I was cursed with a sharp tongue, and it has taken a great deal of work to learn not to use it. Whenever I feel tempted to do so, I remove myself from the situation if at all possible, knowing that if I resort to sharp-tongued tactics I will feel so badly about myself for doing so, and that I will have resorted to bullying rather than discussion, something I will not allow myself to do. I deleted the link to this site, intending to refrain from further communication.

But then when I got the 'newsletter' in my inbox yesterday I was weak willed, ;-) , and I ended up reading what was written here, as well as some of the other threads.

Captain Optimism wrote;
There are a few moms here who are totally amazing because they are so persistent and careful in challenging bad behavior without using punishment.

I write;
Yes, I have seen this in some of the threads that I read, and I am also very much amazed and inspired by such women.

In regards to the sixteen year old boy that I mentioned earlier; he did not complain about sleeping with his mother, no. He is my step-son, (I am married to a much younger man). I observe this young man when he visits his father. I do not try to discipline him, as I don't consider it to be my place. Besides he really doesn't do anything wrong, he just suffers from the most acute separation anxiety when he is away from his mother. He can barely function in school, so they do not plan to send him back after he finishes out the school year. They intend to homeschool him. At the current time, he is functionally illiterate.

At the age of 14, during his first visit since his father and I married, he stepped from the shower and called me to the bathroom to towel him dry. I did not, as I do not feel this appropriate and I am in no way comfortable with that scenario. What astonished me was that he did not consider attempting to do so himself before calling me, a woman with whom he was fairly unfamiliar at the time, to do so for him.

For those who do not find this concerning, that's your perogative. I find it extremely concerning, even alarming. And I recognize that my views have been influenced by what I have seen in my life. Had I seen other things, I may very well have developed other opinions and thoughts.

I realize that this situation is extreme, and as such it has limited value as an example. But what I do think has value is the recognition that every parent, no matter what style of discipline that parent chooses, benefits from seriously considering whether the choices he or she makes are really for the benefit of the child, or are those choices meant to meet the emotional needs of the parent?

The parent who spanks, whose motivation is truly the best interests of the child, is in my view probably going to have a better outcome with her children than the parent who spanks because it expresses her anger and frustration. These are just two different places to be coming from and generally speaking, the physical act will be different as a result of the differences in the emotional states of the parents when this punishment is administered.

To be clear, I spanked my daughter twice when she was young, and I just didn't feel right about it. I never spanked her again and I do not personally believe that spanking teaches the children anything except to fear their parent.

GD, administered with this very conscious focus that I am seeing here on this site, is likely very different from the permissive parenting that I have seen, as Captain Optimism noted and as I have expressed myself.

Anyway, I am not 'arguing' anything. There is nothing wrong with vigorous debate, but I do not go in for debate much at this point in my life. Debate has a 'winner' and 'loser' mentality that contradicts my cherished philosophies about how human beings should treat one another.

I am just wondering how children who are being taught in this manner adjust to day care environments which do not utilize the same techniques. I am not suggesting that children should be raised to 'fit into daycare'. I am noting that most daycares do not use this technique, and I am asking how do children who are raised this way adapt to the differing expectations and methods of daycare?

Yes, obedience is one of the goals of daycare personnel. It is not the only goal of course, certainly not of any decent daycare. But all of the other goals of a childcare would be difficult to accomplish if children were extremely disobedient. Even one or two very disobedient children can be enormously disruptive of the activities of the whole group. For right now, I am just focused on how children transition to daycare, not whether or not GD can be utilized effectively in daycare.

Do your children go to daycare? Do they have difficulty adjusting to the techniques of discipline used by your daycares? That is my question.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Deja,

I think the problem is that you're talking about several different issues and coming from several different perspectives on a thread about the Supernanny.

Blended families, like your stepson have their own unique challenges. From what I'm reading about this situation leaves me feeling like there's quite a bit going on and missing from this story ~ like your husbands role in this child's life.

I guess I'm just confused about what point this example is trying to illustrate or what exactly you're trying to say.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*

I am just wondering how children who are being taught in this manner adjust to day care environments which do not utilize the same techniques. I am not suggesting that children should be raised to 'fit into daycare'. I am noting that most daycares do not use this technique, and I am asking how do children who are raised this way adapt to the differing expectations and methods of daycare?

Well, I can tell you that most the daycares in my area do use something that I would describe as GD. This was also true of the daycare in California. That is not to say that all daycare uses the same style but that the styles all fall under the category of GD.

I think most children can learn quite well how to behave with different expectations. If you take a look around MDC I think you'll find that most GD children adapt quite well to different expectations in care. You'll hear mothers and fathers commenting on how well their children "behave" with their care providers. You'll also find that the majority of parents here spend lots of time and energy finding the absolute best care fit for their children. I don't think you'll find a single parent here that wouldn't take every level of prevention within their values to be sure their child is a generally happy, healthy and positive part of their care structure.

If I may be blunt, it seems like you're reacting to poor behavior of the children in your care and unsuccessful or dysfunctional parenting with the people in your life. It's fine to work out those issues, even here at MDC but it's not all that relevant, IMO, to Gentle Discipline.

GD has nothing to do with letting your child terrorize their daycare, or creating a co-dependence with your teenage son.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deja*
Do your children go to daycare? Do they have difficulty adjusting to the techniques of discipline used by your daycares? That is my question.

You'll get a much better answer to your question if you post this in the main GD forum (if the question is specifically about GD in relation to daycare) or in the Learning at School Forum (which I think you'll find really interesting).


----------



## User101

I think you are asking two questions here.
*1. Can GD be done effectively in a group child care setting.*
Absolutely, yes. Not only can, but should, if the center is following developmentally appropriate practice.
Please see my above post that includes links.
I would also like to share these links as well
Guidelines for Implementing Constructivist Alternatives to Discipline
http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralE...e1devries.html
Developmental Discipline
http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralE...ce2watson.html
*2. Can a child whose parents use GD at home successfully fit into a child care center that does not use GD.*
Again, absolutely. I am trying to find citations, but children do something called "framing" from a very young age. They understand that rules are different, depending on where they are. In my personal experience, it was the children who came from punitive, overcontrolling homes that had trouble fitting into my classroom. Their parents controlled them through fear and pain, and I was unable and unwilling to do that.

Is this what you were asking?


----------



## pfamilygal

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mackinsiesmom*
"Someone needs Supper Nanny".

I could totally use SUPPER Nanny - does she cook something other than PB&J and Hamburger Helper?

Just thought that was funny - and I misspell words all the time too!


----------



## pfamilygal

Possibly I'm an idiot, but I understand the time-out corner/stair. I want my son to think about his disobedience in a place free from distractions. It is only after he realizes that his actions were wrong/unacceptable that he can truly apologize, be forgiven, and change. I also use the stair to give him space and time to get control of himself before he says or does something he regrets (bitting, hitting, screaming, etc.). Usually after a time of introspection (usually around 5 minutes or so) he will come to me, able to tell me what he did and asking for forgiveness.

I know sometimes I need a "time-out" for myself when my dh and I are having a disagreement. If we can separate, get control of our emotions and really think about our actions and how they affect the other person it can really help. Sometimes I really need to think and pray that God will help me understand how I have hurt my dh so I can ask for forgiveness.

I don't want the step to make my son to feel shamed, but I do want him to feel guilty (shame=I am bad/wrong, guilt=what I did was bad/wrong). Does that make sense?

I think I was watching Super Nanny, but it might have been Nanny 911. The mother was sleeping on the floor next to her son's bed, and had been for 5 yrs. The husband was resentful and the nanny told her she needed to put him to bed and go sleep with her husband. I totally agreed with her. I'm not a cosleeper, but I don't have a problem with _it if the parents are in_ _agreement_. Kids get a lot of their security from the strength they see in their parents' relationship and disunity is a real problem.

And I'm new here, so again, maybe I don't get it. But can someone explain why obedience is wrong (that is, your child obeying because they fear punishment, such as time-out)? When they are adult there will be consequences for their behavior. If you throw tantrums at work (by not controlling your anger enough to solve problems) you will lose your job. If you say unkind things or lie people will not want to be around you (etc.) Why is it wrong to teach children that innapropriate behavior leads to negative consequences?


----------



## NoraB

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pfamilygal*
And I'm new here, so again, maybe I don't get it. But can someone explain why obedience is wrong (that is, your child obeying because they fear punishment, such as time-out)? When they are adult there will be consequences for their behavior. If you throw tantrums at work (by not controlling your anger enough to solve problems) you will lose your job. If you say unkind things or lie people will not want to be around you (etc.) Why is it wrong to teach children that innapropriate behavior leads to negative consequences?

Maybe I can tackle this one.

Teaching your child to obey b/c they fear punishment doesn't really work in the long term. The whole concept of discipline IMO, is to teach a child to do right b/c it is the right thing to do (whether or not it is the legal thing or socially acceptable thing to do). Fear of punishment often only works when the punisher is around to keep tabs on the child. That's why you'll often find a child behaving differently w/ each parent or family member (especially when one parent or family member is more of a "disciplinarian" and another is more "permissive"). Punishment teaches a child to be afraid of the punishment, it does absolutely NOTHING to teach a child WHY the act was wrong and nothing to teach a child what would have been acceptable instead. Of course, you can supplement a punishment w/ teaching, but often the feelings aroused by the punishment overshadow the subsequent lesson.

When our children go out into the world, they must function on their own, w/o our constant presence and guidance. They must learn how to govern THEMSELVES rather than be governed by external laws. Unfortunately, too many adults are still stuck in the avoidance of punishment state of their maturity. Witness all the ppl on the freeway who suddenly slow down when a police car pulls on. And how many ppl cheat when they're sure they won't get caught. That's what punishment trains us to do...to let the person in authority do the thinking and decide right from wrong, rather than learning to discern that for ourselves.

If we teach our children to obey out of fear of punishment, what happens when nobody is around to administer the punishment?

Yes, as adults there are very real punishments for certain misbehaviours. IMO, that's not a good reason to teach a child to fear punishment. It makes much more sense to teach a child to behave b/c it's just the right thing to do. Do we teach our children that they shouldn't steal b/c it's against the law and they could go to jail or do we teach them that they shouldn't steal b/c stealing is WRONG and it hurts another? I don't advocate abolishing our laws and the associated punishments for breaking them, but I'd rather teach my children to have a strong internal sense of right and wrong and a very strong concern for the welfare of others. This, rather than a fear of punishment, would guide my children to avoid harming others and generally obey the law.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pfamilygal*
I know sometimes I need a "time-out" for myself when my dh and I are having a disagreement. If we can separate, get control of our emotions and really think about our actions and how they affect the other person it can really help. Sometimes I really need to think and pray that God will help me understand how I have hurt my dh so I can ask for forgiveness.

I don't want the step to make my son to feel shamed, but I do want him to feel guilty (shame=I am bad/wrong, guilt=what I did was bad/wrong). Does that make sense?

I think there is a qualitative difference between the time-out you design for yourself and the time-out you design for your son. The first time I heard about time-out, I thought it was a great idea! (I am just a bit too old for my folks to have used it with me.) I thought it meant what you described for yourself, and not what people usually do--force the child to sit quietly for some period of time.

I like what some people have described here--time-out on the mom's lap or another safe place, time-out that is not punitive but is really a breather.

It's also true that you say you want your son not to be disobedient and you want for yourself to think about your actions and how they affect the other person. Shouldn't your son be able to do that?

I'm no big expert, I just have the one little guy and in general he's a pretty easy little guy, and too young for most kinds of misbehavior. But what you say about adults being motivated by fear of punishment--are you? Because I'm not!


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Hey-

I wanted to throw in about punishment. Sometimes people defend punative time outs by using the analogy that as adults when we break laws we go to jail (which is a big time out.) However, study after study shows that jails are ineffective at discouraging future criminal behavior. Jails are trying hard to become less punative and more "rehabilitation" because of this.

Also, studies of the "jail" model have shown that guards and prisoners become very mutually aantagonistic even in experimental models. This is to say that using this analogy- parents who regularly enforce punishments create a mutual antoagonism with their kids.

I'm certainly not saying behaviors shouldn't have consequences, but I think the overriding thrust of discipline should be towards helping kids act correctly and feel good about themselves. No one is worse behaved than a kid who has internalized that he or she is "bad". And no amount of punishment will convince a child like this that s/he is not bad. Because punishments are meant to inflict a sense of guilt and "badness."

That's why I'm finding myself moving more and more away from punative discipline.


----------



## NoraB

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
Also, studies of the "jail" model have shown that guards and prisoners become very mutually aantagonistic even in experimental models. This is to say that using this analogy- parents who regularly enforce punishments create a mutual antoagonism with their kids.

I remember one of those studies from psych. It was pretty scary actually. The guards became abusive in some cases and the prisoners often became withdrawn and completely submissive (hardly a positive reaction) or completely rebellious.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommyofshmoo*
I'm certainly not saying behaviors shouldn't have consequences, but I think the overriding thrust of discipline should be towards helping kids act correctly and feel good about themselves. No one is worse behaved than a kid who has internalized that he or she is "bad". And no amount of punishment will convince a child like this that s/he is not bad. Because punishments are meant to inflict a sense of guilt and "badness."

ITA. Children internalize our views about them. If we believe (spoken or unspoken) our children are capable, loving, considerate, etc ppl they will get that message and act accordingly (w/ mistakes of course). If we _think_ they are bad, they will likewise oblige. I've also seen studies on this kind of effect (it's called "self fufilling prophecy" if I recall correctly). The study I read was done in a classroom setting and related to academic acheivement, but you can see the similarities. Teachers were told that certain students in their classrooms tested above average, others below, and others at average. The actual test scores were all pretty much average, I think. At the end of the study, the students generally tested according to what the teacher had been told, even though the teacher nor the researchers had ever revealed the student's "test scores." The students performed according to the teacher's unspoken expectations.

Another thing about punishment that occurs to me is that it puts the focus in the wrong place. It focuses on the misbehaviour and on the child being "wrong." It doesn't focus on any kind of solution to the misbehaviour or the causes of the misbehaviour. Instead of looking at the misbehaviour as a mistake that can be learned from, it is cast in the light as an unacceptable failure. I'm not saying that very well, but KWIM? Instead of saying, "Wow. That didn't work. Let's figure out why and what to do instead," we're telling our children, "YOU are a screw up!" We may not say that in words or even mean to say that at all, but there it is.

Instead of approaching "misbehaviour" as deliberate disobediance that needs to be punished in order to assert our parental control, I personally think it's better to approach it as a challenge my child and I can solve together. We're still in the early years (my DD is 2.5), so I'm doing most of the work, but I believe I'm laying the foundation for her to gradually take over the governing of her own behaviour.

It irritates me to no end when ppl say, "Well, that may work for your child, but it would never work for mine." I want to say, "So your child is somehow intrinsically bad and mine is not?" Hardly. My DD is high spirited. She knows her own mind and goes after what she wants w/ an unbelievable focus. There are days when I think to myself that I wish she would just do what I say right that moment and never "misbehave" again. :LOL A cookie cutter approach most definitely does NOT work w/ every child, but I do believe that GD will work w/ every child b/c GD is not so much a discipline method as a philosophy on children. It's a way of seeing your child, not a set of rules on how to discipline. The discipline method each parent uses stems from this philosophy and probably every GD family does things differently.


----------



## pfamilygal

What do you do when your kid tells you straight up that the reason they are doing something is because they "choose to disobey." When I talk to ds and ask him why he did something he'll say, "I didn't want to obey you Mommy, I want to do it my way." Geez, at that point they are openly admitting being rebellious. Sometimes reasoning with him just doesn't work, so I can't talk him into doing things my way. Isn't one of my responsibilities to help him learn to practice self-control and not do everything he wants to do, the way he wants to do it?


----------



## mommyofshmoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pfamilygal*
When I talk to ds and ask him why he did something he'll say, "I didn't want to obey you Mommy, I want to do it my way." Geez, at that point they are openly admitting being rebellious. Sometimes reasoning with him just doesn't work, so I can't talk him into doing things my way. Isn't one of my responsibilities to help him learn to practice self-control and not do everything he wants to do, the way he wants to do it?


Hey, Frank Sinatra became famous because, as he said, "I did it my way!"

I guess I'm not threatened by Maddy being rebellious or not wanting to do what I want her to. I figure our relationship is a partnership, not a dictatorship. I feel her opinions have merit and I'm willing to make choices collaboratively.

Some things have to get done. sometimes dd complies easily and sometimes it takes a little convincing. But do I care that dd openly admits that she doesn't want to? Of course not!

There are rules I expect her to follow, and I hope she adopts these basic rules into her world view and value system. But "obedience" means that I expect her to do what I want, when I want it with no questions asked and I wouldn't expect that of anyone. I'd quit a job if a boss treated me that way. It's kinda demeaning. I guess I hope she'll be helpful and I encourage that, but obedient- what is she, my slave?

I guess some people feel very threatened by the idea that their children don't want to obey and openly admit it. But I feel that there will come a time when you won't be able to control your kids anymore with time-outs or punishments or even spanking. I beleive that in order to continue to have influence over your kids through adolescence you need to be able to have a two way relationship and respect a child or teen's desire to be independent minded.


----------



## onlyzombiecat

This has been an interesting thread to read.

On the original topic of the TV show- I won't watch it. I've caught the commercials and my almost 5 year old dd started trying to copy what she saw the kids doing in that short time. No way am I exposing my household to the full blown show. I was pretty turned off by the saviour-nanny concept and the overuse of the word naughty anyway. Doesn't sound very entertaining or enlightening for me. I think it would be more apealing to me if they took one of these families and showed her working with them for a series of shows- like 3-6 months worth- so you could see the improvement and learning taking place. But that would be boring to the target audience.

Quote:

Sometimes reasoning with him just doesn't work, so I can't talk him into doing things my way.
I think the problem with that the approach of demanding why or trying to talk someone into doing things your way is that it sets up a power struggle you can't win. I have a book that has helped me communicate more effectively & respectfully with my dd (and my dh). It takes longer than demanding she listen and always do things my way but it seems a lot more effective. It is called How To Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk
I think as parents we also have to pick our battles- some parents I know get caught up in the "my child must obey and listen to me always" mode that it doesn't matter if it is really just about something trivial.


----------



## calpurnia

Supernanny on the Radio

Discussing sleep & crying. I was only listening with half an ear & realised what was going on close to the end!

edit: oh, when you follow the link click on the "listen to the latest Woman's Hour" button. Supernanny isn't on straight away.


----------



## Mommay

Cool link, Ky'smama.


----------



## stafl

I usually try really hard to avoid threads like this. But I can't let this one pass by without comment. There is a huge difference between "control" and "discipline". Would you attempt, or even want to *control* another adult? That's usually considered domestic violence (with or without physical hitting, it's still abuse). Children are people too, and should not be controlled by other people, not even their parents. That breeds resentment and will eventually lead to rebellion. *Discipline* is about setting boundaries, consistent limits to behavior, drawing the line in the sand about what is and what is not appropriate, and making sure that line is drawn in the same place every time. When you say that kids are "out of control" it implies that you believe parents should be able to control their kids. This is not a healthy situation for the kids or their parents to be in. When people use physical violence in attempt to be in control of someone else it's abuse. You can take away the hitting, but if the control issues are still there, it's still abuse.


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stafl*
I usually try really hard to avoid threads like this. But I can't let this one pass by without comment. There is a huge difference between "control" and "discipline". Would you attempt, or even want to *control* another adult? That's usually considered domestic violence (with or without physical hitting, it's still abuse). Children are people too, and should not be controlled by other people, not even their parents. That breeds resentment and will eventually lead to rebellion. *Discipline* is about setting boundaries, consistent limits to behavior, drawing the line in the sand about what is and what is not appropriate, and making sure that line is drawn in the same place every time. When you say that kids are "out of control" it implies that you believe parents should be able to control their kids. This is not a healthy situation for the kids or their parents to be in. When people use physical violence in attempt to be in control of someone else it's abuse. You can take away the hitting, but if the control issues are still there, it's still abuse.


----------



## mommyofshmoo

I doubt anyone is still reading this thread, but I noticed that the Truman Show is on TV tonight.

For those who remember, it was a movie about a man who was raised on TV and whose life was orchestrated for a viewing audience.

The movie came out just at the beginning of the Reality TV craze and was like taking Reality TV to it's most extreme and absurd conclusion.

However seeing where reality TV is today, the Truman Show seems less extreme and absurd and more of a commentary on how immoral it is to turn someone's life into something for people to watch on TV.

This movie reminds me how very wrong Supernanny is. Turning a child's day to day activities into entertainment without the child's understanding or ability to consent? Artificially manipulating a child's emotions and parental interactions for dramatic effect?

It's like something out of a post-apocolyptic novel.


----------



## PuppyFluffer

Mommyofshmoo, I couldnt agree with your observations more!!!


----------



## JesseMomme

I changed my mind.


----------



## gentlestrengths

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita*
Bradley...

Well, I can understand why many don't like supernanny...sure she has some great ideas and techniques but the naughty room/step/corner thing is REALLY shaming, imo, and i don't like how, albeit ever so slightly, supernanny elicits a powerstruggle b/n parent and CHILD....

jmo

Personally, I don't think it is "shaming" for children to have time-outs. We use them whenever we need them in our house. We have a corner with a backsupport pillow - the kind with the arms. If one of the kids is out of control, or upset and not ready to be soothed - this is where they go and sit until they're ready to talk, or have calmed down. It always works for us. We don't do the nose in the corner thing, although my parents did do this to me, and I never felt "shamed" - just in trouble - and usually for good reason! lol. Oh - we also don't call our corner "the naughty corner". BUt there have been times when the behavior WAS inappropriate and the child was TOLD so - and then sat down in the corner to cool off.

And - imnsho - the children on that show are definitely portrayed as needing SOME kind of help. I'm glad they are getting SOMETHING - even if it's not *our* type of discipline. Maybe someone here should pitch a GBD/GD show to FOX?


----------



## User101

What I find shaming in the use of the term "naughty corner" as well as forcing a child to face a well and to apologize. I have, do, and will continue to use time-outs when appropriate for our family.


----------



## butterflyznbeez

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mackinsiesmom*
My 20 month old was crying because she wanted to run and I wouldn't let her run at that moment in time. I was sitting down and holding her and some lady walking by said "Someone needs Supper Nanny". I couldn't believe that anyone would say that not knowing the situation. Now some people think that children crying no matter what age needs Supper Nanny. I would hate to see what that woman thought when we all left playtime and almost all the kids were walking out of the building crying because they still wanted to play.

Im a mother of 7 children. I dont want to down play what you are feeling, however just because all the kids playing in the play area started crying when it was time to leave, dont mean that what super nanny is doing is wrong. What that women may have done, may have been wrong to judge like she did. However, looking at the facts that kids act this way when leaving a place such as this, well, I would say alot of the parents probably do need some sort of assistance. My kids have never acted this way, except the first time or so until they realized that I am boss "mommy". Things dont always go their way. Kids now aday seem to have it implanted in their heads that winning is the only thing. Many kids dont seem to learn that there can only be ONE winner and lose gracefully. Many years ago, we never had so many issues with kids. Our great grandparents had it easier in worse circumstances. No video games but they raised healthier kids with better morals. Now, I see in this area that parents pay for kids to play sports where all members receive trophies, not just 1st, 2nd and 3rd, but ALL players. Where is the "there is only one winner" Kids cant learn to cope with lifes disappointments if they never learn this rule. Maybe some might tell me that "oh, well you are just lucky to have well behaved kids" but how do you explain the fact that one of them has bipolar disorder major time and is now married for more than 2 years now successfully and not taking meds, has a job and is doing quite well? How do you explain that some of them have learning disabilities, yet others dont, yet ALL my kids are well behaved? Thats NOT luck!!! Its good parenting skills. I use the same techniques my dad used. He raised us four kids with out a mother cuz they got divorced. Yes, I come from a disfunctional family background too and i was abused. So tell me with my background, my skills, my kids hardships of a divorce too and a remarrying to have a stepfather, HOW tell me did i get sooooo lucky with SEVEN kids. I tell you, must be some luck but NO ONE gets THAT LUCKY. Maybe i sound like my head is going to explode and I am blowing my own horn, but i had everything against me, yet my kids didnt suffer one bit. The ones that are already out of the home are independent, have never come back home, are dedicated to me by calling home all the time to say hi, put themselves thru college, bought their own cars, and never asked for financial support. Strange you might say? I call it good parenting. Im not putting down others, but society today has taught parents of today wrong values. My brother has same techniques and his kids turned out with same moral values too. So its not luck. Well, I wish you well in your endeavors and hope that all goes well with the raising of your child. Take heart to what i say. I speak the truth. God has set us with rules, use the same rules for your kids. It helps. Sorry if i offend. Not meant that way. Please accept appology if I overstepped boundries.


----------



## jannan

i love supernanny!!!!!!!!!!! i love the show. me and dd are addicted to it.
that is all i'll say.............


----------



## Girl Named Sandoz

Alfie Kohn pretty much sums up my thoughts on Supernanny in his article 'Supernanny State':

http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/supernanny.htm


----------



## TinkerBelle

Quote:


Originally Posted by *butterflyznbeez*
Im a mother of 7 children. I dont want to down play what you are feeling, however just because all the kids playing in the play area started crying when it was time to leave, dont mean that what super nanny is doing is wrong. What that women may have done, may have been wrong to judge like she did. However, looking at the facts that kids act this way when leaving a place such as this, well, I would say alot of the parents probably do need some sort of assistance. My kids have never acted this way, except the first time or so until they realized that I am boss "mommy". Things dont always go their way. Kids now aday seem to have it implanted in their heads that winning is the only thing. Many kids dont seem to learn that there can only be ONE winner and lose gracefully. Many years ago, we never had so many issues with kids. Our great grandparents had it easier in worse circumstances. No video games but they raised healthier kids with better morals. Now, I see in this area that parents pay for kids to play sports where all members receive trophies, not just 1st, 2nd and 3rd, but ALL players. Where is the "there is only one winner" Kids cant learn to cope with lifes disappointments if they never learn this rule. Maybe some might tell me that "oh, well you are just lucky to have well behaved kids" but how do you explain the fact that one of them has bipolar disorder major time and is now married for more than 2 years now successfully and not taking meds, has a job and is doing quite well? How do you explain that some of them have learning disabilities, yet others dont, yet ALL my kids are well behaved? Thats NOT luck!!! Its good parenting skills. I use the same techniques my dad used. He raised us four kids with out a mother cuz they got divorced. Yes, I come from a disfunctional family background too and i was abused. So tell me with my background, my skills, my kids hardships of a divorce too and a remarrying to have a stepfather, HOW tell me did i get sooooo lucky with SEVEN kids. I tell you, must be some luck but NO ONE gets THAT LUCKY. Maybe i sound like my head is going to explode and I am blowing my own horn, but i had everything against me, yet my kids didnt suffer one bit. The ones that are already out of the home are independent, have never come back home, are dedicated to me by calling home all the time to say hi, put themselves thru college, bought their own cars, and never asked for financial support. Strange you might say? I call it good parenting. Im not putting down others, but society today has taught parents of today wrong values. My brother has same techniques and his kids turned out with same moral values too. So its not luck. Well, I wish you well in your endeavors and hope that all goes well with the raising of your child. Take heart to what i say. I speak the truth. God has set us with rules, use the same rules for your kids. It helps. Sorry if i offend. Not meant that way. Please accept appology if I overstepped boundries.


I applaud your post.


----------



## User101

OK, I'm trying not to be wenchy, but all these "I like Supernanny" and "Hey, I like your post"- could you be a little more specific, in the interest of discussion? What, exactly, do you like about Supernanny? What, precisely, resonates with you about a particular post. Because otherwise, it's not a discussion, it's a two-member mutual admiration society.


----------



## irinam

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eternal_grace*
Alfie Kohn pretty much sums up my thoughts on Supernanny in his article 'Supernanny State':

http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/supernanny.htm

Thank you Ethernal Grace. I think I came across this article before and was glad to read it again.


----------



## irinam

First, let me say congratulations on you being proud of your children *butterflyznbees*. I would however like to ask a few questions / disagree on a few points

Quote:


Originally Posted by *butterflyznbeez*
However, looking at the facts that kids act this way when leaving a place such as this

Could you please clarify what you mean by "place such as this"?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *butterflyznbeez*
well, I would say alot of the parents probably do need some sort of assistance

I agree that many parents need a lot of assistance. I disagree that they need the type of assistance that Super Nanny offers

Quote:


Originally Posted by *butterflyznbeez*
Many years ago, we never had so many issues with kids.

You state "*we* never had so many issues" By "we", do you mean *adults*? Did the *kids* have any issues? Or did they quickly learn to hide and supress all and any "undesirable" human tendencies such as anger, curiosity, disappontment?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *butterflyznbeez*
they raised healthier kids with better morals.

May I ask what are you basing this statement on? Did people have less diseases? Did we have less wars then?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *butterflyznbeez*
The ones that are already out of the home are independent, have never come back home, are dedicated to me by calling home all the time to say hi, put themselves thru college, bought their own cars, and never asked for financial support..

So do I. Although I can hardly call the way I was raised "good parenting"


----------



## TinkerBelle

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
OK, I'm trying not to be wenchy, but all these "I like Supernanny" and "Hey, I like your post"- could you be a little more specific, in the interest of discussion? What, exactly, do you like about Supernanny? What, precisely, resonates with you about a particular post. Because otherwise, it's not a discussion, it's a two-member mutual admiration society.

I was agreeing with the other mama's post. Saying "I agree" or "I applaud your post", is the same as discussion. I agree with what she said.


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TinkerBelle*
I was agreeing with the other mama's post. Saying "I agree" or "I applaud your post", is the same as discussion. I agree with what she said.

All of it? Some of it? Has what she suggested worked for you?


----------



## DevaMajka

I know this is an older thread, but I wanted to add that I can't watch supernanny anymore without feeling ill.
I used to watch it for the entertainment value- kinda like Jerry Springer








But now, even the good stuff (and I guess there is some) is totally outweighed by the icky stuff- naughty corners, and MAKING kids apologize before they get up- ooohhh, that one just...well, it really bothers me.


----------



## Kathryn

I cry almost every time I watch this show. Watching her force children out of the family bed, leave them screaming for hours, humiliating them in the "naughty spot", forcing them to play "correctly", having rules just to have rules, and so on and so forth. It just breaks my heart to see grown, mature, educated adults treat little helpless children like that. It's disgusting.


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kathryn*
I cry almost every time I watch this show. Watching her force children out of the family bed, leave them screaming for hours, humiliating them in the "naughty spot", forcing them to play "correctly", having rules just to have rules, and so on and so forth. It just breaks my heart to see grown, mature, educated adults treat little helpless children like that. It's disgusting.

I agree. The implicit message seems to be "Grown ups are all worthy of unquestioning obedience, and you will apologize to them if you mess up, and you will be allowed nothing until you do so because I have all the power. You, child, however, are not blessed with the same considerations."


----------



## Kathryn

Yep. My dh is always saying that we need to treat our children like we want them to treat us when we're old and they are our 'parents'.

My favourite quote (and I've forgotten who it's by) is the one that says "Treat your children like the adult version of them is watching over your shoulder"


----------



## Rainbow Brite

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I agree. The implicit message seems to be "Grown ups are all worthy of unquestioning obedience, and you will apologize to them if you mess up, and you will be allowed nothing until you do so because I have all the power. You, child, however, are not blessed with the same considerations."


I've seen the show once, and that was the message I received from it. I will never watch it again. Plus, I wouldn't want the network to actually think I'm watching it b/c I like it. The less people that watch it, the better imo.


----------



## captain crunchy

Anyone who has read any of my posts here can safely assume the obvious. I detest that show and the "methods" used therein.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wasabi*
Just put them back in bed without a word...

That part is actually recommended in the book, "Becoming the Parent You Want to Be". The author's explanation is that if the parent always says something every time they return the child to bed, the child may keep getting up just to hear what fun thing mommy will say next. Also if mommy or daddy start to get angry, the child may continue to get up out of fascination with the anger. p. 149 (paraphrased)

This is an excellent book, and is recommended by this forum.

I just wanted to clarify how this rule could be used by a GD parent.

~Nay


----------



## spin462002

I have watched many episodes of this program and now hate it for another reason.
I can't stand the uncontrollable behaviour of many of the children (and often their parents) and the hostility many of the parents show to Jo as she is trying to help them. These parents are obviously desperate for help and can't do it alone. They know they can't manage their children. (I admire them for asking for help by the way) Then they will argue with Jo either to her face or behind her back.Eventually, most comply with Jo's "program" and peace is usually restored. I am not saying I agree with all Jo's methods, but I can't deny they work to restore order and peace where there was chaos and screaming.

I have yet to see a show that didn't end with two relieved and grateful parents and several happy, secure children who all obviously love Jo (the source of the new boundaries and discipline) to bits.

Maybe that speaks for itself?


----------



## Kathryn

No, it speaks for good editors.


----------



## captain crunchy

Quote:

No, it speaks for good editors.

















Yeah, and don't they always get like a trip or a car or something too at the end? I think that alone would help me get more in the spirit of *gratitude* to jolly ol' jo....


----------



## H.T

thanks for the article


----------



## Linda826

I despise her abusive tactics and controlling, manipulative techniques. She is a sick person. I used to work in a child care setting with two ladies (who also were not mothers) who emulated her and terrorized the children in our care. Why would anyone think that it's okay to treat children so cruelly and heartlessly?


----------

