To think there is nothing wrong with saying to a child that doing something is naughty?

[karencantobe]

And anyone I know that does ban the use of the word naughty, just uses another word instead anyway.

Children themselves use the word all the time in school settings, so you’re fighting a losing battle there.

Kids need to know why doing something is not okay. But I also sometimes see some parents giving such long explanations that you can tell the kids is no longer listening.
Because whether you say a behaviour is naughty or you do not use the word, is not a sign of good or bad parenting.

Course there isn’t.

I don't think it's very helpful because it assumes a defiance/compliance model of parenting and I don't use that. Obedience IMO is for dogs, soldiers and dangerous situations, not everyday life with children. I would rather tell the child WHY I don't like that behaviour so it's dirty, it's too noisy, it's too rough, it's dangerous, etc. Or talk about the effect: Be careful/gentle, that toy will break. Don't bite, that hurts. Or (the most effective) tell them what you want them to do instead: Put your food you don't want here, on this plate. Walk on this side of me please. Ask nicely.

No need for generic negative phrases either, you can be specific at all times, it helps because you're starting out treating them as a person capable of understanding, rather than a lower being in the hierarchy who needs to obey.

I wouldn't say I ban the word, I just don't find it very useful or descriptive so I don't tend to use it.

80sMum most children will respond positively but some children will be fully aware of what is un/acceptable and what the consequences will be yet will still choose to behave in an unacceptable manner. Our prisons are full of what were once children who know the difference but choose to misbehave.
For decades we have not used the word naughty in schools and instead have "discussed poor behaviour" with children and look at the state of our country. How do we fix it ?

'Naughty' is a word like 'modest'. It implies all sorts of things that aren't helpful when it comes to raising children who have a functioning INTERNAL moral compass.

I've never at any point assumed my child has done something wrong ON PURPOSE. Sure she screws up, sure she makes mistakes, sure she does idiotic things that any sane person would have seen were going to lead to problems and breakages and upset. But I never think she has done it on purpose, or deliberately or just for the sake of it. She's now 8 and I still to this day do not think she had ever done anything 'naughty'.

Some kids do negative things they know parents will react to, just to get a reaction, but I'd struggle to catagorise even that as 'naughty', unless provided with some pretty concrete evidence that the child actually can get their parents attention in other more positive ways. TBH most kids I see being 'naughty' are doing whatever it takes to get their parents off their phones....or to pay them attention instead of a younger or more demanding sibling.

@yellowallpaper if a child deliberately breaks a toy then yes you do have a destructive child. Their very action is destructive. A non destructive child wouldn't deliberately break their toy.

Don't get me started on my friend who doesn't like to use 'no' as its too negative.

Yes, you definitely have to keep the explanation short and age appropriate. That's a skill for sure.

low look at the state of our country? What with the lowest crime rate its ever had?

Yeah...we must go back to corporal punishment and get that crime rate back up!

So how do you label a behaviour? A child bites, so you just say you shouldn't bite? Naughty is a descriptive word, not a label. If your not allowed to use naughty, you end up with bad, unpleasant, rude, painful etc. Really don't see the point in banning one negative word for other negative words

"Naughty isn't descriptive enough. A child bites so I would say "don't bite - it hurts" - short, sharp and an explanation

Child deliberately breaks their toy. So you say that's destructive? Doesn't mean you have a destructive child, just destructive behaviour

I would tell them the consequence "don't do that, it will break the toy then it won't work any more" - if they continue to do so its the natural consequence.

In a school or nursery setting I can see why they don't want to use naughty, as it can become a label for that child, but in a home setting we, as adults, can tailor the wording to the behaviour and the child

I've never used the word in either setting.

JacquesHammer

What about when there is no negative consequence for them? So, say, for example, they hit someone they don’t like? “Don’t hit - it hurts.” “Yes, I don’t like them and I want to hurt them.”

When did we stop explaining to children that their behaviour is unkind, unpleasant, cruel...or naughty?

What’s wrong with calling it what it is?

It's fine to talk about behaviour being naughty and why it's naughty (at an age appropriate level and not going off into excessive, unintelligable waffle about feelings to a child not developmentally ready yet...).

I've said when my children are "being" naughty (a temporary state). That's different to stating that they "are" naughty implying a long term characteristic.

Children can be "naughty" for a multitude of reasons. Development stage, delayed development (especially in younger children that are not at a stage for diagnosis of SNs), response to life events, parenting. Some children care more about behaviour and consequences than others.

With my own DCs, DS1 has more challenging behaviour due to SNs when he loses rational control. I'd say DS2 is the "naughtier" child for knowingly and conciously getting up to mischief. I wouldn't call him "naughty" as a personality though and the vast majority of the time he is a caring, conciencious child.

My DD drew on the carpet the other day. She’s 3. She knows she isn’t allowed to do that. I don’t care why she did it. It’s naughty, and I told her it was naughty.

I think the short explanations such as don't hit, it hurts, might work when they are absolutely tiny and are still learning why something is wrong. But as soon as they are out of the tiny phase, then they know that hitting hurts. That is the point. They hit other kids because it hurts.

You can provide a negative consequence if you can't explain empathy to them.

So 'if you won't stop hurting the other children, we will have to go home'.

M3lon Our crime rates are not at the ever, many of our low level crimes are not recorded.

What about when there is no negative consequence for them? So, say, for example, they hit someone they don’t like? “Don’t hit - it hurts.” “Yes, I don’t like them and I want to hurt them.”

Then you explain why. And explain if the behaviour continues there's a consequence - a negative one - for them.

And explain if the behaviour continues there's a consequence - a negative one - for them.

So again, what’s wrong with saying “naughty”? I just don’t get it.

jolly if you don't tell her why its a problem, then how will she extend the information to not drawing on other things?

If you just label each individual thing your child does as either naughty or not-naughty then they need to remember a near infinite list....

I'd try 'now I need to clean up the carpet and we won't have time for play/go to park/icecream'.

I agree that we have no way of comparing level of crimes now to in the past. To get an accurate level of crime people have to feel it is worth reporting, and it has to be accurately recorded.

lowlandLucky
Our prisons are full of adults who as kids:
Had MH problems, were from the care system, are autistic, have been let down by their families and society
But keep telling yourself they are just bad

So again, what’s wrong with saying “naughty”? I just don’t get it

I said in my very first post - the word isn't descriptive enough for me. I prefer to use words that make it clear why the behaviour is wrong.

For some reason here in Ireland Bold means naughty, no one I know uses the word Naughty, my kids are teens now but I think I would have been more likely to say That's very bold rather you are bold, if that makes any difference?

low all the recorded crimes are reducing in frequency. Why do you think the unrecorded crimes are increasing and what evidence do you have given they are, and have never been, recorded?

My husband is a teacher so is v strict on the difference between saying “that’s naughty” and “you are naughty”. I’ve never really thought about it as my own parents would have said “you’re a naughty girl”. I have said once or twice to our children “you are naughty”, he corrected me and asked me not to say it again, fair enough.

You can still use the word naughty you just have to use it in the correct way, referring to the behaviour and not the person.