Supernanny put a DH in abuser programme

[CovertTwinkle]

On E4 now ... very mixed feelings about this.
Usually Ive noticed things on these sort of programmes where she ignores threatening behaviour or emotional abuse etc and its not addressed. But this episode they're showing the DH meeting ex-abusers and counsellors etc ...

Do we think this is a good thing in showing the need to address abuse and that help is available or is this infact more damanging by sending out the message that meeting a few people and saying "yeah Ive done some wrong things" means they will be "cured" and everything will be ok?? She did a spectacular speech about how he was a "danger" but did nothing more. Just winds me up. Yet another example, like all the soaps, of abuse being shown as "losing his temper", "having a breakdown" etc and not being addressed correctly.

When things went wrong in my relationship I remember watching a drama and the man hitting the woman, shouting in her face etc and thinking "well, Hugh is only doing that because she can't be sensible with money" (which was the perspecrive the drama showed), and so feeling that because I wasn't keeping on top of housework and being a super mum maybe I deserved it. Has anyone else noticed this?

rambling rant over!!

PoopooInMyToes

There are plenty of ways of fostering cooperation, modelling appropriate behaviour, gently guiding towards

The reason it sounds vague is that it is. There is no one way to say something to 'get' cooperation, or to guide, or to model a behaviour. It relies on the relationship and child's state, which is too big a variable to issue a 'one size fits all' rule.

It doesn't mean there are no boundaries, or that a parent doesn't say no, or that family life is one long scene from Lord of the Flies.

I was being vague because I didn't have the time to type out a lengthy reply! If you genuinely aren't aware of alternative methods and genuinely would like to know, then sure I can explain in more detail and very specifically - but will need to be tonight/tomorrow when I have some more time at a PC.

Tanith. Regarding the little girl getting upset about being asked to sit on the chair . . . I would suggest that the tone of voice which was used with her was wrong. If a happy relaxed "lets put on shoes" voice was used its very unlikely she would have thought she was in trouble. Again that's an example of it being used in the wrong way rather then it being wrong in theory.

Otch. Are you referring to gina ford? I had no idea who you meant for ages! I think her ideas regarding babies (has she done a book about children?) are pretty extreme and encourage ignoring your instinctive natural reactions. I find it ridiculous and never even considered it, but I don't find it comparable to supernanny.

I also think the idea that a properly done time out step with explanation and discussion can damage brain systems is far fetched. I haven't read your link though as its easier on my computer rather then my phone so will look later.

So what ways would you use to foster cooperation for example? Say you needed to get to school so were on a time scale? I really am interested.

I haven't seen lord of the flies so will have to look it up . . . Sounds interesting though

Elusive. I am genuinely interested yes. I am aware of other methods such as unconditional parenting but have not been convinced so far. Mostly because the man who wrote it sounds to me like a man who experienced extreme and harsh punishments as a child and his natural reaction has been to go to the other extreme and declare all discipline as bad and damaging.

The few people i know who recommend it are also those who experienced similar as a child. I think its a natural reaction and very common. In my own family i have seen that happen over and over. One parent is overly harsh, their child when they grow up either repeats the same parenting or goes to the other extreme and is very relaxed and lets the kids work it all out for themselves with minimal guidance. Their children then possibly go the other way and instills quite strong rules and punishments.

I was the child of two parents who were the children of very strict parent. So my parents were the no guidance type, never showed us strong consequences, boundaries etc. It was very, very, damaging for me and my siblings each in different ways.

The problem is lack of awareness that each parent was reacting in rebellion to their own childhood. If this was realised then perhaps they could have parented in a more balanced way because i really feel that balance is what is needed.

I think it is natural to look at the way you were parented and want to do it differently, but if we do it unthinkingly then we make our own just different mistakes. Mistakes that can be even worse then what our parents did.

My mother was dictated to so much by her own mother that she never wanted to TELL US anything. As a child i really did need telling about some things as all children do.

So thats what i feel about the man who wrote UP. I feel that he is very bitter about his childhood and damaged and could really do with counselling. I don't believe a damaged man should be advising others on parenting when he lacks any self awareness regarding the subject.

I am also under the impression that he has no qualifications in the area so technically no more authority than supernanny.

What i have found from discussing this with others is that people feel because his words have been printed onto paper then that gives his words authority, but really he's just a bloke saying 'yeah i recon you should parent your children like i did" and so his words have no more weight then the opinion of a bloke you might meet down the pub. I would be no more likely to take his word on how i should parent then i would of some woman i met in sainsbury who did the whole "well my babies were potty trained by 6 months bla bla bla".

Despite this though and contrary to how it may sound i am actually open minded about it.

Realise this thread has moved on from original post.....

I saw that programme on Saturday. I don't usually take much notice of it when it's on, but this one particularly struck me as really upsetting.

First, the wife just kept bleating on about breaking up the family and not doing anything to protect her children. Second, the Dad mainly picked on one child. When pulled up about it just kept smirking (maybe nerves but I don't feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt). Oh yes, he talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

The whole thing just made me really, really angry and upset for those lovely children......

PooPooInMyToes Not sure I'd call 'Unconditional Parenting' a method, really. I have the book and read a small bit of it years ago. I think Alfie Kohn has a lot of interesting ideas, but that book is very theoretical from what I remember not really a methodology or full of practical ideas. Anyway, no, I wouldn't say I followed UP. I find some of his essays interesting and thought provoking, but that's about it.

DS is 4 and like I say, we've never used naughty step or going to room etc. When he was younger then consequence for, say hitting us or something with the toy would just be to take it away. Also at very early age used a lot of redirection which works too.

We used a technique where we would: 1. Give request 'Can you please sit down?' say if trying to stand on chair or something 2. If not listened to, repeat the request 'You need to sit down now, it looks like you need some help' 3. 'I am going to count to 5 and if you're not sitting, then mummy is going to help you sit down' 4. Wait a short while. Count to 5 and then pick him up and sit him down myself - or whatever it is that we needed him to do. Alternatively, 'I am going to count to 5 and you can choose to listen or X is going to happen' Generally, there are always consequences so if we asked him to do something, we would explain what we needed doing and if there was no co-operation, then there would be a consequence - which sometimes was more a punishment (although we tried to keep it as relevant to the 'crime' as possible) or something that looked as much like a consequence as possible. Example: there may not be enough time to do X treat if co-operation to do Y didn't happen. Now that he's older, we do try to keep consequences relevant but also not listening does come with loss of privileges (i.e watching TV generally). Rule is that I have to ask him to do something 3 times then he loses TV for a day and I have only had to enforce that once. Generally, I just say 'Can you do X?' and then the next time I'll say 'I asked you to do X. I am asking you to do it again. Please don't let me have to ask a 3rd time.' and it gets done.

For positive reinforcement, if we have had a very good day out for example, on the way home I say 'Thank you' to him and tell him that I had a lovely time with him and point out how easily and smoothly things run when we're all helping and listening. I have always made a point of apologising to him when I stuff up - think that's super important too. I make a point of telling him if I think he's done something kind or mature or good things, but tell him words like that rather than say 'good boy'. When I ask him to do things or tell him off, I do always try to explain a reason behind it. Sometimes he doesn't get it and it takes a while, but it's not a short process teaching kids how to behave in society. And sometimes the stuff he comes out with an explains are very surprising. If I like any book it's 'How to talk ...', but really the way we discipline hasn't come from any book - just been what xH and I do and come up with.

He has had massive tantrums and can be very stroppy like all 4 year olds and he's incredibly wilful, but can only think, off the top of my head, of one example of 'deliberate naughtiness'.

Does that answer your question? It's just what's worked for us.

I feel UP should not be marketed as a parenting manual. It's more of a criticism of current childbearing "wisdkm" re behaviour management etc, especially behaviourist methods, anything rooted in a base of punishments and reward systems. I don't see the argument as being that these are damaging, just that they miss the point somewhat; indeed, they do put the focus on external motivation and seem to exist on the assumption that internal motivation to act in certain ways is not inbuilt. So, for example that it is the threat of punishment, naughty step or prison or whatever that stops people hurting others, or that it is the reward of pocket money or wages, thatakes people motivated to work. I'm on my phone so don't have time to post at length about the day to day practicalities of a UP type approach, but if you want to do a search, I have posted at length about it before. (and others have too, of course)

Rmbr you are watching an edited version of hours of filming. They obviously only show what they want you to see.

'I find so many if the relationships on Supernanny (especially the US version) dysfunctional and abusive. More often than not the father has checked out of caring for the children'.

I agree 100% AbigailAdams. You don't find chaotic lives like that without massive dysfunction. The DCs found Supernanny very distressing and I stopped watching it. Too many of the fathers reminded them of exH. Too often the focus of SN was fixing the children and not the real problems. The DCs got all tensed up. It used to remind me how good my decision was to finish with exH.

I agree with you too BertieBotts.

That makes a lot of sense, math. I used to watch it before I had children and never picked up on things like that, again probably pre/post abuse experience, but I used to find it easier to compartmentalise issues, whereas now I can see how seemingly irrelevant things can seep through and affect everything else within a relationship, whether that's a romantic one, friends or parent/child. Plus, I used to think everything could be fixed

I used to think the methods combined with the "coaching the parents how to speak to their children" part made sense, although I didn't like the repeated dragging back to the step/spot. (I seem to remember I thought smacking would have been more practical ) I never liked the rules up on the wall thing. But as I say, I haven't watched it in years. I found a baby magazine recently which I had forgotten about - it had an article I wanted to read at the time I bought it - and it had a "Naughty step 2009" article in there, so I read it and found that aside from the behaviourist leanings, she does have some good points - she advocates always getting down to the child's level (although in practice I find her style of talking is still intimidating) and suggested lots of ways of spending more time with your children.

I think it's sad how normalised abusive relationships are in the media etc. (I'm not talking the level of the dad referenced in the OP, but the lower level ones where it's never mentioned as a problem)

poopooinmytoes but that is just one example of a child getting confused about the Naughty Step: there have been others. I suppose a trained Network childminder might have failed to address a child appropriately, but the odds are highly unlikely

You asked for the methods I use. You need to bear in mind that, as a childcare professional, there are a number of options available to parents that I can't use and I need methods that will work for everyone, regardless of home background. Nevertheless, I don't have any problems with the methods I instinctively use and have been trained to use.

The ultimate aim is self discipline. I want children to grow up respecting themselves and other people and managing their own behaviour considerately.
My methods depend on their age and understanding.

For the youngest children, I use distraction a good deal. I reinforce good behaviour with praise and, so far as I can, ignore unwanted behaviour. Where necessary, I intervene simply and firmly, telling a child "Hitting hurts!" for example. They also cuddle or, if they can manage it, say or sign "Sorry" if someone has been upset.
I also try to make it easy for them to be "good", eg removing the plug from the sink.
The other important stage is to go back and look at why the behaviour occurred and try to do something about it or channel it into something more appropriate.

As they get older, we introduce things like consequences (a broken toy means it has to be thrown away, taking too long at tidying means less time for painting). We start to talk about behaviour and to identify for themselves why they, or others, behaved in that way and, if appropriate, how to put things right. I use a whole lot of techniques here: stories, puppets, cuddles and chats, group discussions, persona dolls - whatever a child will best respond to. I always look back to see if I can find why the behaviour occurred in the first place and what I can do to address it.

All a bit more work than just plonking them on a step ad nauseum so I can see the attraction of the naughty step.