To be ashamed that I used to look up to 'Supernanny'

[Celticliving]

I've been a nanny for over 25 years now. I used to look up to Jo Frost, and I would despair at some of the parents on her show.

Now I know how TV works, I'm a little less shocked but this link shows a family that I remember watching. I think I cringed all the way through but this explains so much.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGeoTgp2U/

Firstly, the producers used to tell the kids that if they weren't really really badly behaved then they wouldn't get to be on TV..

In the episodes I watched she was kind and sensible, but when she put down a boundary she stuck to it. Which is what kids need.

She was also fully prepared to call out bad parent behaviour rather than being a wet lettuce too afraid to offend. There was an episode where she effectively proved to the parents that THEY were the problem, overreacting to their child’s fairly normal behaviour, and the entire episode was training THEM to behave better.

I don’t know what the producers told kids, but I don’t throw babies out with bathwater. Jo Frost is genuinely helpful for those who are struggling.

In fairness, kids who are acting out don’t tend to behave the same way in company, so it’s likely a way to ensure viewers see their behaviour on the level it would be behind closed doors.

Also 99% of the time the issue is the parents not the child.

I think most kids tend to play up more for their own parents to be honest. I can imagine the shock effect of someone else coming in and taking over would have most children complying.

I do think a lot of people forget that she offered an alternative method to smacking which was commonly used in the decades before the 2000s.

Many of her behaviour management techniques were really cruel as well.

It's was on at a time when TV loved that "experts give you a public telling off" vibe.

See also Trinny and Susanna and the dog women (Victoria, who has also since regretted her methods).

In truth, we now know how fake all TV is and was. So the subjects would have always been shown in the worst light, the 'cure' just mostly a manipulation of editing and the 'experts' just whoever could have blagged themselves the top spot in the show.

And it is all well and good with the grumbles about ‘kids these days / ineffective parents’ but doesn’t this show that it’s not a new problem? Supernanny was twenty years ago!

I don’t think they were cruel, but often not necessarily effective. However, in some contexts, what is!?

Ugh, that programme was so bloody mean!

I take what the TikToker is saying with a pinch of salt, how come they had SN involved in the first place if their kids were so good?

I thought she was ok, back in the day, didn't she just recommend basic techniques, very gentle discipline. To families that basically had none. What's wrong with that now?

I'm genuinely curious, what does Victoria Stillwell regret? Her methods are based on positive reinforcement, rather than punishment, and so I thought that they seemed sound. Might be my ignorance though!

They are now.

To be fair to her, she put in the work and went back to school to properly study dog behavioural science and has changed her approach since. See her word below:

Many of my early training influences had a decidedly ‘pack theory’-type approach, so some of the earliest episodes were infused with more of that stuff than I am happy with today. And while I was never comfortable with what is now known as ‘traditional’ or compulsion-based training which relied on some level of pain, fear, or intimidation, I am very definitely a different dog trainer than I was back in those early days.

I think the naughty corner/thinking step / time out is a dubious method. I raised my kids during the Supernanny heyday and some very controlling mothers I knew used that method in a way that was abusive as it was so over controlling

I was once asked to appear in The Apprentice with my company for one of the tasks. We were approached by the BBC who had already chosen the venues the candidates were meant to be researching. We worked in corporate entertainment at one of the chosen venues and were contacted to see if we were available to offer a package in advance - which the candidates would then ‘research’ and discover having ‘researched’ and chosen their venue. I knew enough about TV to say no as they most certainly weren’t going to pick the good bits and show my company in a good light. And even with the tasks organised in advanced, the candidates manage to make a hash of things. It’s all for show.

Edited to say derail - sorry - but to agree with PP who say reality television is all staged.

I was a mum to two young DCs around that time and I also followed some of her ‘advice’ - naughty step etc - and despaired at the kids.
I also know a lot more about childhood behaviours and my (now adult) children and wished I could’ve done things differently.
It’s shocking they made the kids misbehave more for the programme esp as it was the early days of ‘reality’. Now we’d be wiser.

I’ll get flamed for saying this.

My DD had immense tantrums. I contacted the school thinking she needed a SEND referral. I also watched Supernanny.

I followed her advice and DD vastly improved. She’s a teenager now, no problem getting her to school, friends, does her homework, exercises etc. She’s happy.

🤣🤣🤣

I’ve been a nanny for a long time too, I don’t use her methods and I’d be out of a job sharpish if I ‘called out’ the parents I’ve worked for in the same way. Sometimes I wish I could! Very clear that children need consistency and boundaries though and always have done, but I’m glad there’s been a shift towards a bit more empathy and understanding of child development. That does not mean letting children rule the roost, but I do think in the past we’ve expected ever such a lot from small children who are at the end of the day just learning and growing.

I have read though that the camera crew/production would turn up to the family’s home at random times and tell them they had to film them having tea or doing bathtime or whatever, to confuse things and make it more likely that the children would act out, and the parents would be at peak stress.

Very popular at the time though, this sort of theme of showing families or individuals living in the ‘wrong’ way and needing to be corrected. Look at Wife Swap, You Are What You Eat etc, all prime time shoes of their day.

Supernanny really helped me with ideas at the time, because I had been brought up with being smacked and shouted at, and I knew that I didn't want to do that. But I didn't know what to do instead. I started watching supernanny before I even had children.

Seeing it now, I don't agree with children being exploited for entertainment. That's on the production company and the parents themselves rather than Jo Frost personally.

I think the naughty corner/thinking step / time out is a dubious method. I raised my kids during the Supernanny heyday and some very controlling mothers I knew used that method in a way that was abusive as it was so over controlling
I used the ' naughty step' and found it a useful tool. However it has to be used sparingly otherwise it loses its effect. It gave ds a chance to calm down by himself. I agree that it has the potential to be abused.

I like SN. I work with teenagers and there are so many that can't be told " no" to anything, No boundaries were put in place when they were toddlers and then suddenly mum.and dad have a 13 year old that doesn't know how to behave and can't deal with authority. Jo Frost was consistent and fair with the children and often, quite rightly imo,corrected the parents behaviour. For many it was a tough pill to swallow.

I still use a time out now, although I don't call it a time out or naughty step. But if my ds is disrespectful to me, I say "Don't speak to me like that, I don't like it" and walk away. It just saves my sanity by not getting sucked into an argument with my ds, who has no access to the logical part of his brain in a heightened state any way. We both need time and space to calm down sometimes. It's not a bad idea at all.

I really disliked her methods anyway, not my vibe at all, I didn't/don't treat my DC as my adversaries so this revelation is a bit of relief to me as it was more acting out the harshness it seems.

Someone mentioned You are what you eat.
I always thought surely, nobody’s diet consists of that, and only that. By showing such horrific diets it leads you to believe that a good proportion of the public eat like that.
Or that house programme with Stacey Solomon. Surely you can just go through a cupboard and chuck that crap. Then go through another cupboard and do the same.
Again, most people don’t live like that.
Or that fashion show with Gok Wan. He was obsessed with women’s breasts and underwear. Trying to get women to contort themselves in ridiculously uncomfortable underwear. It must hurt. And for what? Who cares?
Trinny and Susannah- still peopke frightened to wear black with a colour-why.

Look at Wife Swap, You Are What You Eat etc, all prime time shoes of their day.

Very true! All "You Should Be Ashamed Of Yourself" tv...