Supernanny gets a kicking in the Guardian today....

[harpsichordcarrier]

blimey, this interview makes her sound so v thick

[FrannyandZooey]

I think the whole thing about her grammar and malapropisms is a bit of a red herring, personally. It's hard for the Guardian in a way because if they report what she said without comment, they will get tons of letters complaining they have made a mistake, yet if they make it clear the errors were Jo Frost's then they appear snooty and critical.

Personally (as a mostly self-educated person) I don't think someone needs to be either terribly literate, well-educated or qualified to do a good job. Whether the person's techniques are correct and effective is obviously more important. The problem with Jo Frost is not that she's thick, but that she reduces human beings to a set of behaviours which need to be controlled.

The Supernanny 'catchphrase' "Want your Life Back?" says it all, really. If you want your life to be remain exactly as it is, untroubled by having to take another person's wants and needs into account, I would suggest that you not have children in the first place.

[FrannyandZooey]

And I don't agree with you on this Greeny - I think Super Nanny is a symptom of the lazy and selfish society we live in, that wants a quick fix for everything, that believes everything can be cured by throwing money at it, and that sensationalises and cheapens human difficulties and relationships for a gawping audience on TV.

[Greensleeves]

I don't think your post does disagree wildly from mine Franny I'm simply extending the idea of the lazy, selfish throwaway society, and pointing out that it's EXACTLY the way the Western capitalist machine wants and needs us to regard our children and our family lives. Personal integrity of any kind interferes with the individual's productiveness as an economic unit - hence it has to be broken down. In my view a Supernanny approach to parenting is comparable in character and value to a Happy Meal

[marthamoo]

But surely a Happy Meal is better than no meal?

[marthamoo]

(Actually, don't answer that )

[FrannyandZooey]

Well tbh Greeny I probably didn't completely understand your post

Self-educated thicko, me

[Bugsy2]

But surely F&Z, the methods Super Nanny uses are not quick fix. Her methods are spend time with your children, involve them in daily life, make them responsible. Explain what is & is not good behaviour & turn the blinking telly off.
There is no money thrown around on this show - you don't have to spend a single penny to use these methods & their is no quick fix.
So, have I misunderstood you completely? Probably need another cup of tea.

[giddy1]

Message deleted

[FrannyandZooey]

The throwing money around comment was related to getting an expert in to quickly 'solve' your problems, rather than putting in the hard work yourself.

It is her discipline methods that I disagree with, the naughty step and pasta jar mentality. I think these are quick fixes, rooted in behaviourism, which give no dignity to anyone involved, either parent or child, and decrease motivation in the long run. They are perfect 'made for tv' methods as they take effect quickly and appear to have solved the problem. The long term effect on the relationship between the parent and child, and on the child's intrinsic motivation to behave well, cannot be shown so easily in a half hour programme.

[Bugsy2]

I agree with you F&Z, the parents have to accept responsibility for putting time & effort in to helping the children be happy, well adjusted people.
However sometimes you do need to use specific methods to break patterns of bad behaviour. To get us back on the road to recovery I used sticker charts with DS. I don't any more (two years on) as we have managed to get ourselves back on track - but initially I needed some kind of incentive for me & him to see an improvement.
I think that by showing parents how to end the warzone & get the family working together, Jo Frost is helping to put in place a better long-term future.
I got expert help in the form of a child psychologist but fortunately because of the NHS, it didn't cost me anything & I still had to do all the work myself. I don't know many people who get experts in to give them a quick fix - because I don't think there is one available.

[thewomanwhothoughtshewasahat]

Greensleeves - interesting point you've made but I disagree that homogeneity in parenting is an alarming western capitalist development - at the risk of sounding like a total ponce - I think any current trend towards homogeniety is post-post-modernism. It's a reaction against the post modernist ideas by which parenting (as much else in society) in the last 50 years has become much more individualised - the late 20th century philosophy of each to their own, there are no rules or absolutes, the cult of me (because I'm worth it) etc etc. I think this crept into parenting and the whole thing has become a more selfish activity. I think attempts at creating homogeneity are actually harking back to something built on a much more societal basis - when child-rearing was not the exclusive domain of the parents, where church, school, gps, in laws all had a stake - and there were some absolutes. I agree that it might be to do with economic activity - ultimately we are all economic actors but I think it's about societal economic co-operation - which is an old concept not an exclusively western capitalist one. I'm not saying I feel comfortable with Jo Frost per se, but I'm saying tv programs on child-rearing are a modern way for society to reclaim a role in child-rearing which has been so firmly with the individual - and in that respect I don;t see any harm in them

[zippitippitoes]

TV companies are obliged to have some element of "education" in their licence applications in order to be successful

they also like programmes which are very cheap to make

which also appeal to a big audience

hence the formula for the programme

so prurience plus cheapness

most programme makers have no imagination so they rework a theme until long after we are bored with it

Jo Frost was presumably chosen because she had no personality so could be made into the Mary Poppins required..someone with more imagination and personal integrity would not have suited the programme makers

The content and methodology used in the programme is not hers but she acts it out

[southeastastra]

bring back 'nanny knows best' she couldn't offend anyone

[matnanplus]

As a nanny of 17yrs.

I prefer the Tanya Byron programmes like HOTT, as i feel it puts much more emphasis on the parents than the chiildren and i feel her statagies are more common sense and easily adapted to family dynamics.

[Axolotl]

Just wanted to add in reference to the 'unasseptible' and 'no fightin' etc point being picked up on....this woman is on prime time TELEVISION!! She flipping well ought to be told she speaks horribly and sorted out. God, I didn't even know what a big fat snob I was until I wrote that! But she is essentially going in there to give examples of how children should be. And having such hideous pronunciation (which she'd probably called 'pronounciation' )is just wrong.
Oh dear. What a horrible person I am.

[zippitippitoes]

But it's things like her pronunciation which have been used to make her brand..catchphrase TV..it really has bog all to do with parenting

Jade from big brother exploited that and this programme follows the same route

[noddyholder]

I agree axolotl she is no example to anyone in any way.She should speak properly and thats that.She also looks awful stuffed into those cheap eighties suits I mean that could scar a child for life.I think I will stop posting now as I am becoming childish and snobby because I just don't like her

[FrannyandZooey]

I think I disagree about the speech thing. I think it's refreshing to see an 'expert' not have perfect speech and diction. If she really did have a great way with children, we'd all be singing her praises and saying what a breath of fresh air she is. It's ignorant to judge someone on the way they speak, whether they're on TV or not is beside the point.

[blueshoes]

Bugsy, you said "... the methods Super Nanny uses are not quick fix. Her methods are spend time with your children, involve them in daily life, make them responsible. Explain what is & is not good behaviour & turn the blinking telly off. "

Agree that the above are not quick fix. Nor would they in themselves make good telly. The TV crew does not have time to hang around to wait for the results of those nor would it be obvious to viewers that the change in behaviour is due to the parents giving their child more attention.

But what viewers tend to remember are the naughty step, the star charts and their permutations - because these are the things that seemingly yield the instant results. I wonder whether without these gimmicks, the programme would stick as much in people's minds. Which is what I find sad, because it is precisely these gimmicks (applied in accordance with a universal formula ie one minute for every year of life??) that devalues the relationship in the long term, and has the potential to undo all the work that spending time with your child brings.

I appreciate you used it as a short term strategy. But I would hazard that it was your hard work on working on the other aspects of your relationship which made the difference long term and allowed you to discard those behavioural techniques.

[FrannyandZooey]

Noddy well if you just don't like her then obviously fair comment

[blueshoes]

Greeny, on the point you made about capitalist social engineering, I have a related but not wildly dissimilar stance which relates to our society becoming increasingly time starved. Parenting-by-schedules and gimmicks have struck a chord with the general populace because people don't have time to fit their lives around children. Rather children are expected to behave in a way which is convenient to their parents' timetable (capitalist agenda?) and most times, way older than their emotional development can cope with. Hence, what I see as being institutional care techniques being applied in the home.

Increasingly, families have to have both parents in the workforce to earn enough to support a mortgage or (as seen from some families in the programmes) might have had too many children in too short a time to be able to give each the time they need when young.

I see lack of time to meet children's needs as being central to their acting up. And the way to address this is to invest time and effort back into the relationship. But it is very difficult to do this the way our society is structured.

Has anyone on these programmes ever stopped to ask the children what THEY would like or are unhappy with? Or perhaps as parents, we are all too afraid of the answers?

[motherinferior]

Hang on, what society has ever fitted itself round the demands of children? The whole concept of childhood as something separate is relatively recent and culturally specific, as I understand it.

[FrannyandZooey]

Yes, and the whole concept of using behaviourism to deal with children instead of treating them as young human beings is also very new. I hope it's a short lived trend, because it's hideous, IMO.

[thewomanwhothoughtshewasahat]

I agree with MI - there may have been a time when more familes/mpst families had a parent at home, but they were far too busy scrubbing the front door step and boiling nappies to pay the kids much attention. the reason they were at home was economic - it wasn;t for the kids. how many of us got taken to Joe Jingle, Tumble Tots and Baby Ballet? I suspect not many.

[motherinferior]

I have to say we are considering instituting behaviourial techniques for the adults in the Inferiority Complex. DP has suggested a start chart for us in the mornings.