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.

@sentimentalkiller Yes I know the brain develops in relation to its environment. I have read a lot of the original research on this. That is not what we are disagreeing on.
What we are disagreeing on is the idea that babies are born a blank slate. That is a very old fashioned view. Babies are born with personality traits.

Both nurseries of my DCs discourage the use of the word naughty. I use sometimes at home for example : why did you you hurt your DB/DS ? That's a naughty thing to do! We do not hurt others!
They know if they hit eachother it causes pain or have some understanding of that and they know they aren't supposed to hit because it hurts, so if they do it, I tell them it's a naughty thing to do. I don't see anything wrong with it.
DS uses cheeky, apparently that's what they are "called" at the nursery instead of naughty

I didn't say they were a blank slate but the brain can be irreversibly harmed by lack of nurture and stimulation

DS uses cheeky, apparently that's what they are "called" at the nursery instead of naughty

I hate calling children cheeky, especially babies. How can a baby be cheeky?! It's almost always used for boys, too.

It’s framing behaviour as about obedience.

Which it is, to some extent. Some things my child is going to want to do but she isn’t going to understand (on any real level) why she can’t do them. She may understand she isn’t supposed to, but she doesn’t understand exactly why. And that makes “naughty” useful.

“Don’t run away from mummy, it’s naughty” is going to be a lot more effective than listing all the reasons she shouldn’t do it.

@sentimentalkiller You have changed your argument. Yes we agree that environment influences how the brain develops. And that babies are born with personality traits.
The brain damage caused by lack of nurture was seen in Romanian orphans who were fed and ignored the rest of the time. The lack of nurture was very extreme, and anyone treating babies in that way in the UK would have their baby taken into care.
There is a lot of research to show that what matters is having one person who loves and cares for you when young. It does not have to be your parents or even your primary caregiver, as long as you see them regularly and often. So a loving GP for example.

You don’t want them to pull the cat’s tail (naughty), you want them to stroke kitty gently (good)

Well, yes to a certain extent

But when kitty is being hurt / child is hitting another / running into the road, sometimes a 'no' - even a sharp 'no' - is the only iimmediate response

I've always been more inclined to critique, guide and model the behaviour, as in:

We don't throw food;
People are not for hitting;
The cat has shown you it doesn't want to be cuddled;
Use your words to tell me what you want;
Just say "Excuse me," if you want to get through.

etc.

What I don't get is all this "You can't say x, y or z" when parents have said it for generations, resulting in adults who are arguably much more successfully functional than young adults (and I include my own generation in this) today.

@thejollyroger

But the framing you use has a habit of sticking. My 6 year old now chastises my 3 year old by shouting ‘no that’s not kind!’ (Or even very occasionally applauds him with a ‘that was so kind!’). Kindness is ingrained as the goal.

Obedience can sometimes be the means but it’s rarely the ends. You don’t ultimately want your child to be obedient just because - there’s a reason for obedience. Our house can sometimes seem more like puppy school than I’d like (repeated cries from me of ‘sit!’ as they try to slide off their chairs at dinner time). But even when I am demanding obedience that’s not the end goal. We sit at the table at dinner time as it is considerate to the family to do so, and because they need to eat so they stay healthy. It’s back to the values of caring for themselves and others.

As adults when we have to follow the rules there’s a wider reason. When I pay my taxes yes it’s obedience (I don’t want to get in trouble with HMRC) but it’s also as a member of society who cares about that society having the resources it needs to do well.

I’d like my kids to grow up thinking about why we do things and with the values of kindness to others close to their hearts. I know the words we use are only a tiny part of that but it is an easy way to start.

I haven't changed my argument. I never used the term blank slate. You used that. Don't put words in my mouth

Obedience can sometimes be the means but it’s rarely the ends. You don’t ultimately want your child to be obedient just because - there’s a reason for obedience.

Naturally. And as she gets bigger she will understand that I don’t want her to run away because of paedophiles, cars in the road, people who might hurt her etc. I don’t need her to know those things at the moment and she isn’t capable of understanding them. She just knows it’s important for her to do as I say. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I do think getting kids to obey a shouted no is good. I only ever did this when they were about to do something that could kill them or seriously injure themselves. The explanations can come afterwards. In that moment I did just want them to obey.

I think it's rather ridiculous to ban one word as being the sole influence of the way a child is perceived or perceives themselves. We might just as well ban other words because it may be misinterpreted.

A label 'naughty child' is not the same as saying it was naughty to pull the cats tail. Whether you go on to explain the cat would be hurt by the action or just say it was naughty, (because you have already said 10 times) the child was hurting the cat.

It's just a word and adults are allowed to use common sense on how they parent. Just more silly pc.

I don't use the word naughty with my son because it has no meaning to him ( has asd and severe learning difficulties) and doesn't help him to learn.

I think we all need to man up a bit and get some common sense. Some kids behave in a downright awful manner and get away with it because they apparently should never be told their behaviour is unacceptable. A child being told he or she is naughty needs to hear the truth. I work in childcare and the cheek I have to listen to on a daily basis is the pits.

Parents are frightened from their own children and over explain every criticism in case the child doesn’t like it.

Well yes sometimes a stern ‘no!’ is all a situation demands. I am certainly stricter in many ways than some other parents I know and I don’t explain my reasoning for every instruction. Sometimes I bark orders like a drill sergeant.

But ‘naughty’ doesn’t add any value. It explains nothing. If you’re going to add words you may as well add meaning. Naughty does nothing to aid a child’s understanding (and they start understanding at an early age - if they’re old enough to make any sense of naughty they’re old enough to start understanding mean, kind, gentle, hurts etc).

I think the importance of labelling the behaviour not the child is over-stated tbh. Even children don't assume that being called naughty means that they are now naughty for life. They know full well that sometimes they behave well and sometimes badly. Often badly-behaved children have trouble remembering what they've been told to do 5 minutes later, and yet we're expected to believe that they'll fret forever about the terrible slur of being called naughty. Children also seem to call each other poo poo brain etc without thinking it's literally true and unchangeable.

I can't help feeling that "Oh god, that's a label for life - now I can't escape from it" is an adult concept being projected by adult worries. .

I don’t need her to know those things at the moment and she isn’t capable of understanding them. She just knows it’s important for her to do as I say.

Again in this case there is no value to ‘naughty’. You can convey instructions much more clearly without it. ‘Hold my hand’, ‘stay near me’ are specific and clear messages that can be delivered firmly. You can start to elaborate in age-appropriate ways as needed (3 year old DS gets told if he runs away he won’t be able to find mummy and he will be very sad).

Bubbinsmakesthree

It’s fine that you think that. I don’t.

Children learn by copying what they see. We should model the behaviour we'd like to see. Saying someone is naughty will make them feel ashamed. If a child has done something unsafe or undesirable, explain why it is so, and explain how to do it differently next time.
If they are not coping emotionally, that is not premeditated, so they need space and empathy, and need to see how we cope when we're upset.

Saying someone is naughty will make them feel ashamed.

Good! I want my DD to feel ashamed if she is naughty, so she aims not to be naughty!

As others have said, it's the behaviour that isn't acceptable rather than the child. It works better to be specific and let the child know what's wrong (hurts X / breaks Y / makes mess, not generic "naughty") and suggest an alternative in constructive language. If you don't care if your method works or not then as long as it's your own child just crack on with it.

It's fine to say a behaviour is naughty but mostly you should praise them when they are being good.

Sentimentalkiller Really ! My Brother and Nephew were not let down by their families, were never in the care system nor did the have mental health issues or learning difficulties, so why did they both end up in prison many times ?