Supernanny Sucks - Page 5

[annettemarie]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

[annettemarie]

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]

Better techniques?

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]

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.

[annettemarie]

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]

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]

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.

[annettemarie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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