I know that this blog is generally reserved for health and other related topics - but I feel strongly the need to talk about this topic.
Growing up, and before I had a child... I had seen many shows such as Super Nanny and Nanny 911. I adored many of the nannies, thinking that the majority of their methods worked fantastic and that their strict, albeit "loving" methods were just the thing to do when you had kids.
Even after becoming a mother I did not see anything wrong with their methods until doing research myself. It was hard to reject my preconceived notions and felt somewhat set in my opinion of their methods being non-harmful and definitely helpful. It was a post that sparked my interest, I honestly could not remember where I read it or who it was by - but it basically came to the summation that the methods used in such shows are based in terrible methods which do not follow science and can actually be detrimental; that they contradict modern child psychology.
It took me a few days of going through the motions. It was almost like grieving those preconceived notions because they were what I knew. However like always, I know I must reject what I had previously known until I research things and come to a conclusion on my own. At first I denied that there could possibly be a problem in their methods. Of course not! I mean, they worked, right? Then I felt a tweak angry, why were people picking on these nice, talented ladies? What could they possibly be doing that was so terrible? Then I bargained with myself - well if I just let the doubt go, then I can go on believing that there's nothing wrong with their methodology and I can employ them myself when my daughter gets older - guilt free! I then felt like, "why should I even bother reading this stuff? It only makes me feel awful and question myself! It also brings negativity to me and I mean, why do I need more negativity in my life?" After a few hours of that I solemnly resigned myself to doing the research I knew was required to be informed of the topic. After just poking around another couple of hours over the next few days and thinking about what I had read, I accepted the fact that their methods were not scientific and perhaps may be damaging - at least.
Let me explain a bit.
Every week a nanny (usually British) will come to a household in turmoil - with screaming kids, disobedience, sometimes violence and worse. The parents are usually portrayed as clueless, mindless morons who shouldn't be raising kids. Then the prim and proper, exotic and knowledgeable nanny steps in to employ methods to "fix" the parents and children.
First off - they are trying to make you okay with a stranger entering this family's home and taking control of their lives with imposing methods that you cannot argue with. Is this not priming for totalitarianism? Making it more of a household theme? More acceptable in the masses? Honestly, what these people don't need is control or a stranger telling them what to do. They need guidance and the resources to educate themselves to find something that works for them outside of the "norm" and outside of what the nannies employ. The show does nothing but teach that the parent is more important and should have "control", that the child should just bend to the will of their parents or be broken, and that parenting is for the parents to live their lives conveniently...not for actually raising a child. Do you get what is wrong with that picture? Parenting for the parent, instead of for the child? Teaching to put the needs and wants of the parents first in order to raise children "effectively" is twisted and disgusting.
In many instances the nannies make the parents feel ignorant, stupid, and like they can't and shouldn't parent their own kids the way they think is okay. They rub the parents' faces in it, with things like "well you called us, remember, because you're moronic. So you better listen to me because I know better, and I have all the power." The nannies make it as if the parents should follow their word to the letter without any deviation - and I have seen them physically force the parents to do so. Um, what? Assault, much? Not to mention that the verbal and physical derision and disrespect to the parents is not going to teach the children that their parents are capable and their "superior" as the show aims, nor is it going to teach them to respect or listen to their parents. In fact, it is going to teach them that their parents are morons and that they, the child, must know better than their parents because they had to have someone come help them...if they needed help, why listen to them in the first place?...I mean if they're doing it all wrong, then the child must know best for themselves after all. Do you see where this is leading?
So, why do we blindly accept that those families are going to interact "normally" with a camera crew sitting in every room of their house, and a stranger watching their every move? If you have a child - you know - you must, that each child will react differently to the situation...and that many times the child will attempt to act out, show off, feel strange or encroached upon (as there is obviously no privacy, which can and will affect a child's behavior), and will try and communicate this through their actions. Usually - this means temper tantrums. Big ones. Temper tantrums are a normal childhood behavior - it is the child learning to vent their emotions effectively, even if it is annoying and inconveniencing to us as parents. Our society looks down their noses at it now - where and when that started I am unsure...but I am positive that it is doing nothing but emotionally stunting our children as we try and force them to be "civilized" and "polite" by not having a tantrum or crying.
As children - especially toddlers and babies - we do not have the words to express our feelings and frustrations well enough to vent to someone verbally. That in itself is incredibly frustrating even to adults - who sometimes can't pinpoint or find the right words either, am I right? Now, imagine not even knowing the words to express your emotions - what will you revert to? You are going to be angry and frustrated, especially if the one or two people you expect to try and understand tell you not to communicate with them. That is essentially what a tantrum is. Whatever emotion they are having a tantrum over - is still an attempt to communicate their feelings...sadness, anger, frustration, uncomfortable-ness, sickness, disappointment, etc. etc. That is good. That is normal. It is natural, and it means the child is attempting to broaden their spectrum of communication (in the majority of cases.) When a child has a tantrum, they are asking for understanding first and foremost, and then help. They want their caretakers to understand their feelings and address them, even if there is nothing they can actually do. We want the same as adults, don't we? Among our friends, family, and spouses? Understanding and compassion? Ultimately and annoyingly, we must realize that these shows must have one hell of an editing team. There is no way that they radically make a happy home in 7 days, complete with cooperative, "polite/civilized", communicative, etc children and parents who know just what to do. I'm sorry - but that is not reality especially with the circumstances of having strangers in your house at all hours watching every move. If I were one of those parents, I would be pissed and bull angry with how the nannies treated me and my children. I would not be smiling and thanking them about how they've made life all unicorns and rainbows again. Yet, the producers would have you believe that the nanny fed them sparkles and sunshine and that the family shit out all of the unicorns and rainbows of the world.
Then, at the end of the show, the family is rewarded. Such things like exotic vacations, trips to Disney World, new houses, money, etc. are given to the families as "reward" for their behavior... oh, I mean their "hard work" (ie. listening to the nanny and doing exactly as the nanny says, putting up with the abuse.) *insert eyeroll* All of this undermines the parents' confidence in their abilities - which is very obviously part of the problem, or else why would they phone a t.v. show to be publicly humiliated? It is the same for the parents as it is for the kids - the parents consider their kids "bad" and so they call the nanny to "fix" them; and the nanny considers the parents "bad" and employs their methods to "fix" the parents, so that they in turn can "fix" their kids. Not very logical, is it? Not very helpful, is it? If the parents aren't made to feel confident, understood, and capable...then they will never be able to parent their kids as is necessary because they won't have the confidence to do so; even if they continue to use the nanny's methods. In much the same way that children who do not feel confident, understood, and capable will not function emotionally well in the long-term even if their behavior "improves". It is just a one big cycle.
Let me break apart some of the so-called "methods" and some obvious things that these nannies "overlook" (ie. leave out, and I will explain why.)
Each episode is treated as if the child(ren) is/are the enemy, and that they need to be conquered and tamed like wild animals, the control to be put completely in the adults' hands. However, children are not wild animals and they are not our enemy (how can you honestly consider any child, much less your own, your enemy over their age-appropriate behaviors?)
1. Strict scheduling. Often the nannies employ this "method" of helping the children cope and somehow regulate their behavior. While it is true, children learn through patterns and sometimes thrive under schedules...strict scheduling actually will not help your child in almost all cases. Forcing your child to eat when they are not hungry, sleep when they are not tired, and to a certain degree force them to do things that they don't want to do is not going to cut their tantrums and improve their behavior. It is going to make them angry, frustrated, resentful, and depressed. Of course they are going to act out! Try having someone point at you each morning at 9 am and say "eat" and then "play" then point at you at 11 am and say "sleep" and then "eat" again at 2 pm, then "play" until you must again "eat" at 6pm, and "sleep" at 8 pm. Even as adults we cannot wire our own clocks to be so stringent - forcing a child into such a schedule "no matter what" (as the nannies enforce) is not going to help. A loose schedule might - wake up around the same time, and eat around the same time if they are hungry, and nap about the same time if they are tired. As adults we do not eat around the same time every day in the majority of cases, we don't go to bed every night at the exact same time. We wouldn't like it if someone expected us to! As parents it is right for us to make sure our children are eating, playing, sleeping, learning enough...but there is a line, a boundary, that we ourselves would not like crossed. Being a child does not mean that boundary is okay to be crossed, and being a parent doesn't mean we get to cross it.
2. A list of "Rules" that usually are "don'ts." Rules are okay. Every child needs boundaries, but when do we, as parents...go overboard and actually prevent our children from learning experiences and such consequences? It suffices to say "Don't run inside of the house." However, it is even better to say "It is better if you could act calmly and walk inside because you can .... (somehow hurt yourself, someone else, break something, etc.) If you would like to run we can go in the yard/take a trip to the park/dance the wiggles out." See, one implies totally dictatorship - you are in control and your child has no voice in the matter (I am not saying that they should be given a say in certain situations such as running in areas of the house; that could be dangerous...instead I am talking about undermining the child's sense of choice and self as an individual.) The first also lacks reason, it doesn't give any logic as to why this could be bad, ie. while you're cooking in the kitchen they could run into the stove, or you (and injure you), or fall if you are mopping, etc. It is just a command, a demand. It implies your child is incapable of understanding logic and reason - a fact that is disproved every time a child asks you "why?" as they are capable of understanding why and when there is a time and place for certain behaviors. A child who does not feel as if they get a choice and does not understand why they are not supposed to do something is not going to be able to make choices later in life. If you don't learn to make choices as a child, it will lead to indecisiveness as an adult; as research has proved time and time again. The second offers not only an acceptable alternative, but does not make your child feel as if you are bossing them around (even if that is what you are doing indirectly, you are not making your child feel as if they are inferior, which will again cause anger and resentment and acting out.) Posting rules like I demonstrated only demands order and enforcement - which as adults we would consider cruel and ridiculous. Helping a child develop a sense of others and things (what effects his actions will have) is going to help him understand when and why a behavior is - or isn't - appropriate. Not blind obedience.
3. Encouraging inappropriate expectations based on a child's age. Expecting all children from ages 1 year to 10 years not to throw a tantrum is condescendingly arrogant. It is normal for children to have tantrums up through 7 years old, sometimes more based upon their maturity and individuality. See above for why. Expecting all children to apply a certain behavior (such as sitting still or being quiet for prolong periods of time) without regard for their age, maturity, and individual personalities and capabilities is not only ridiculous...it's irritating. Most 2 year olds cannot sit still or be quiet, and that is normal!! I can't believe that a two year old must sit on a "naughty step" based on the nanny's ludicrous idea over what is behaviorally appropriate for that child without knowledge of child psychology and individuality of the child (after day 1 she makes expectations, hardly long enough to remember the child's middle name, I'd say!) Sometimes the parents go into the show not realizing that some of their children's "bad" behaviors are developmentally appropriate and do not need remedying. A shift of perspective often "remedies" many "bad" behaviors. The show only plays up the stupidity of America by playing to this ignorance. You wouldn't expect a 6 month old baby to walk or talk, because it's not on their developmental timeline. A 9 month old baby may say a word or two or take a few steps, and some babies don't walk or talk until closer to two years old. There is always deviation in individual children. If you have a child - this should be a huge DUH for you. People need to realize when that sometimes you need to just count to five - your child isn't ready to "use his words" instead of tantruming at 2 years old.
4. Time outs/Naughty spots - and apologizing. As the parent we sometimes need "time outs" or a few minutes to gather our emotions and thoughts sometimes. However, enforcing "time outs" and making them sit on a "naughty stoop" or in a "naughty corner"... for a child does the exact opposite. It shames them, it humiliates them, and it doesn't teach them why what they did was wrong, or impolite, or "bad." It teaches them that if they do a certain behavior etc., they are going to be penalized and humiliated. In the show this often means that the reason for the behavior doesn't matter - the root cause is irrelevant. There's a lot I can put on this. Under no circumstances is it okay to humiliate or degrade a child for any reason, no matter their behavior. That is all a time-out is. It's an imposed time-frame where you tell your child they are bad and watch them suffer for it, and by doing so enforce that punitive behaviors for those who we deem "bad" is okay...even necessary. No decent parent wants to punish their child for any reason, nor humiliate them...and honestly to Bob many don't realize that that's all a time-out is. Brainwashed by popular expectations and trendy methods of discipline - they think that it is actually helpful and good for their child. That's another topic - however this show enforces that it is okay to humiliate your child, make them feel inferior, and "break" them if you have to. Then forcing them to apologize - without regard to why they behaved a certain way, did a certain thing, etc. is showing them insincerity. If they don't feel sorry - it is because they don't truly understand why what they did was inappropriate. Forcing them to apologize won't teach them why. Neither will forcing them into a time-out. What will teach them why a certain thing was inappropriate? Natural consequences. A time-out is artificial. In the adult world, we don't get time-outs for shouting or running or staying up or being late. A good way to apply natural consequences is this situation... a four year old boy knows that being nice is important (say one of the rules is to Play Nicely), but his 6 year old sister keeps taking his favorite train. After a 5th time of asking for his train back, he hits his sister on the head with a block out of frustration and feels bad that he hurt her. She drops the train and runs crying to a parent. The parent comes in, and asks both of them what happened. The boy tells that he asked her for his train back many times and she ignored him; and she admits that she didn't want to share the train. Here's the thing ..the train belongs to the boy, and in the real world we don't have to share our car, or our house, or anything because someone wants us to. Forcing the boy to share it would be artificial punishment. Forcing the boy into a time out for hitting his sister is also an artificial punishment. A parent might say "I'm sorry you felt so frustrated and ignored. However you know the rule, by choosing to hit your sister Tommy, you choose to play in your room for the rest of the day alone, because you know that it hurts and is not okay. If you cannot play nicely you have to play alone." But that same parent would turn and say "Sally, by choosing to ignore your brother and taking his things without asking, you hurt his feelings and violated his privacy to play with his own toys, so you choose to give Tommy one of your favorite toys to play with for the rest of the day. You know that the train was Tommy's and that you should not have been playing with it when Tommy wanted it." And addressing them both, "If one of you is not acting appropriately, or you get angry and don't know what to do, come see one of us and we will help you." This way, Sally understands why what she did was inappropriate and Tommy understands why what he did was inappropriate - neither is made to feel shamed or humiliated and, both not only know that there are consequences.... but that their parents are there to talk to and help them when they don't know what to do about something and will be fair no matter what. There are other ways to handle this other than the way I described, however it is just an example about what is more effective the majority of the time. Positive reinforcement, understanding, and natural consequence will work! A child is not always going to follow the rules - that is normal too. They push boundaries because that is normal psychological child behavior. Being too harsh and unfair will only make them want to push them more. Forcing them to apologize, especially when they are not sorry makes them feel as if they need to be sorry for sticking up for themselves (such as in Tommy's case) and teaches them insincerity...to say something because it is "proper" rather than meaningful. That will lead to tons of issues later, they will learn to suppress sincerity and thoughtfulness.
5. Rewards to "balance" their discipline. I'm going to run with Alfie Kohn's example. If a child receives praise for each and every mouthful of food he eats to please his parents - he is going to over-feed himself for that praise. A child always wants to please their parents and setting unrealistic expectations "eat your entire plate of food, Ralph!" when Ralph can only eat half his food, and then praising him for each and every extra spoonful past half - is poor "reinforcement." It is teaching the child that it's okay if they're suffering, or need to suffer so long as they are pleasing their parent. They will go for that praise no matter the cost to themselves. Why is this okay?
6. Disregard the child's feelings. In one episode, a child was playing "cleaning" with the outdoor hose. The mother just walked over and said "You're done!" When the child protested the mother meanly turned off the water. The child kicked over a wagon (in clear frustration and anger) and Supernanny said "JUST over the water being turned off?" No, dear, he was upset because his mother talked to him like the family dog, ignored his attempts at communication and emotional connection, and was incredibly cold. Not actually because the water was turned off. His mother could have come out and said "Honey, the water's been running for too long. Why don't you come help me/do this instead?" If the kid wanted to "clean", why not give him a "big boy" job of cleaning the windows with water in a spray bottle (supervised, of course)? Why not say "Honey, if you want to clean, why don't you help me pick up your toys and clean your room?" If you don't teach your child how to clean and have houseskills, but expect them to know how to clean their room by themselves at 4 years old, you're going to get no where fast. Again with the unrealistic expectations.
7. Sleep "training". Sleep "training" is very controversial in all parenting circles. However, medical evidence is clear that children should not be left to CIO (cry it out) for any amount of time, as it stunts them emotionally. When you leave your child in their crib, bed, or room alone when all they want is some form of comfort (whether suddenly or in "steps" as "Supernanny" suggests)...you are not teaching them to "self-soothe". You are teaching them that the one person they look up to and can count on - isn't going to help them. That person isn't going to come to their rescue. So give up. By not giving eye contact or talking or touching, you are teaching them that you are going to watch them suffer, that they can cry for comfort again and again, but you don't care. It doesn't matter if you're sitting next to them or in the next room. It is the same exact message. Forcing a child to wean from their comfort zone isn't going to teach them independence...and why the hell do we expect 2-6 year olds to be independent anyways? A child again, has his own developmental timeline. A child is dependent - that is what a child is! We can't set unrealistic expectations of any kind (especially not sleep-wise) and then bitch because our child isn't independent enough and you don't have your freedom. Sorry - that's parenthood. Why do we want our kids to grow up so fast? They're only little once. This time will pass. And it will only take a blink.
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has evaluated Jo Frost's methods. They found it did nothing but harm. It didn't make parents less stressed and didn't "improve" a child's behavior.
With that all said, upon leaving the show this is what Jo Frost had to say about her leaving the show and about her replacement. "She has teachers who are the real ones who do the work. She sits behind a desk. Until you have dealt with the sick and the mess of children, it is very hard to advise anyone else. I have been a nanny since I was 14. I've been in the trenches. What qualifies her to offer advice?" Wow, way to go out classy and dignified!! (Or...not.) First off, I think this statement says all it needs to about Jo Frost's character. She's prone to jealousy, spite, rudeness, and has a superiority complex. Children don't just produce "sick" and "messes," they bring joy and love like nothing else in this world can. How you choose to look at parenting really shows your character as a person. "Trenches?!" Since when is there a war against children? You aren't battling them. You are cooperating with and guiding them to try and help them become a happy, well-balanced person. You aren't trying to teach them blind obedience. If you are, there is something wrong there. What qualifies Deborah Tillman (her replacement) is that she doesn't think she's Nanny Goddess of the All-Knowing Discipline, where children should just bow down and obey her every command. She actually realizes that discipline is more than obedience, and is a concerted family effort to find constructive and healthy methods. That's what makes her qualified. She's willing to learn different ways and adapt to help each and every family, rather than employing her dry, harmful, across-the-board methods. Why is it Jo's call over whether or not someone else is "qualified?" It's not her business anymore. Bye bye.
Growing up, and before I had a child... I had seen many shows such as Super Nanny and Nanny 911. I adored many of the nannies, thinking that the majority of their methods worked fantastic and that their strict, albeit "loving" methods were just the thing to do when you had kids.
Even after becoming a mother I did not see anything wrong with their methods until doing research myself. It was hard to reject my preconceived notions and felt somewhat set in my opinion of their methods being non-harmful and definitely helpful. It was a post that sparked my interest, I honestly could not remember where I read it or who it was by - but it basically came to the summation that the methods used in such shows are based in terrible methods which do not follow science and can actually be detrimental; that they contradict modern child psychology.
It took me a few days of going through the motions. It was almost like grieving those preconceived notions because they were what I knew. However like always, I know I must reject what I had previously known until I research things and come to a conclusion on my own. At first I denied that there could possibly be a problem in their methods. Of course not! I mean, they worked, right? Then I felt a tweak angry, why were people picking on these nice, talented ladies? What could they possibly be doing that was so terrible? Then I bargained with myself - well if I just let the doubt go, then I can go on believing that there's nothing wrong with their methodology and I can employ them myself when my daughter gets older - guilt free! I then felt like, "why should I even bother reading this stuff? It only makes me feel awful and question myself! It also brings negativity to me and I mean, why do I need more negativity in my life?" After a few hours of that I solemnly resigned myself to doing the research I knew was required to be informed of the topic. After just poking around another couple of hours over the next few days and thinking about what I had read, I accepted the fact that their methods were not scientific and perhaps may be damaging - at least.
Let me explain a bit.
Every week a nanny (usually British) will come to a household in turmoil - with screaming kids, disobedience, sometimes violence and worse. The parents are usually portrayed as clueless, mindless morons who shouldn't be raising kids. Then the prim and proper, exotic and knowledgeable nanny steps in to employ methods to "fix" the parents and children.
First off - they are trying to make you okay with a stranger entering this family's home and taking control of their lives with imposing methods that you cannot argue with. Is this not priming for totalitarianism? Making it more of a household theme? More acceptable in the masses? Honestly, what these people don't need is control or a stranger telling them what to do. They need guidance and the resources to educate themselves to find something that works for them outside of the "norm" and outside of what the nannies employ. The show does nothing but teach that the parent is more important and should have "control", that the child should just bend to the will of their parents or be broken, and that parenting is for the parents to live their lives conveniently...not for actually raising a child. Do you get what is wrong with that picture? Parenting for the parent, instead of for the child? Teaching to put the needs and wants of the parents first in order to raise children "effectively" is twisted and disgusting.
In many instances the nannies make the parents feel ignorant, stupid, and like they can't and shouldn't parent their own kids the way they think is okay. They rub the parents' faces in it, with things like "well you called us, remember, because you're moronic. So you better listen to me because I know better, and I have all the power." The nannies make it as if the parents should follow their word to the letter without any deviation - and I have seen them physically force the parents to do so. Um, what? Assault, much? Not to mention that the verbal and physical derision and disrespect to the parents is not going to teach the children that their parents are capable and their "superior" as the show aims, nor is it going to teach them to respect or listen to their parents. In fact, it is going to teach them that their parents are morons and that they, the child, must know better than their parents because they had to have someone come help them...if they needed help, why listen to them in the first place?...I mean if they're doing it all wrong, then the child must know best for themselves after all. Do you see where this is leading?
So, why do we blindly accept that those families are going to interact "normally" with a camera crew sitting in every room of their house, and a stranger watching their every move? If you have a child - you know - you must, that each child will react differently to the situation...and that many times the child will attempt to act out, show off, feel strange or encroached upon (as there is obviously no privacy, which can and will affect a child's behavior), and will try and communicate this through their actions. Usually - this means temper tantrums. Big ones. Temper tantrums are a normal childhood behavior - it is the child learning to vent their emotions effectively, even if it is annoying and inconveniencing to us as parents. Our society looks down their noses at it now - where and when that started I am unsure...but I am positive that it is doing nothing but emotionally stunting our children as we try and force them to be "civilized" and "polite" by not having a tantrum or crying.
As children - especially toddlers and babies - we do not have the words to express our feelings and frustrations well enough to vent to someone verbally. That in itself is incredibly frustrating even to adults - who sometimes can't pinpoint or find the right words either, am I right? Now, imagine not even knowing the words to express your emotions - what will you revert to? You are going to be angry and frustrated, especially if the one or two people you expect to try and understand tell you not to communicate with them. That is essentially what a tantrum is. Whatever emotion they are having a tantrum over - is still an attempt to communicate their feelings...sadness, anger, frustration, uncomfortable-ness, sickness, disappointment, etc. etc. That is good. That is normal. It is natural, and it means the child is attempting to broaden their spectrum of communication (in the majority of cases.) When a child has a tantrum, they are asking for understanding first and foremost, and then help. They want their caretakers to understand their feelings and address them, even if there is nothing they can actually do. We want the same as adults, don't we? Among our friends, family, and spouses? Understanding and compassion? Ultimately and annoyingly, we must realize that these shows must have one hell of an editing team. There is no way that they radically make a happy home in 7 days, complete with cooperative, "polite/civilized", communicative, etc children and parents who know just what to do. I'm sorry - but that is not reality especially with the circumstances of having strangers in your house at all hours watching every move. If I were one of those parents, I would be pissed and bull angry with how the nannies treated me and my children. I would not be smiling and thanking them about how they've made life all unicorns and rainbows again. Yet, the producers would have you believe that the nanny fed them sparkles and sunshine and that the family shit out all of the unicorns and rainbows of the world.
Then, at the end of the show, the family is rewarded. Such things like exotic vacations, trips to Disney World, new houses, money, etc. are given to the families as "reward" for their behavior... oh, I mean their "hard work" (ie. listening to the nanny and doing exactly as the nanny says, putting up with the abuse.) *insert eyeroll* All of this undermines the parents' confidence in their abilities - which is very obviously part of the problem, or else why would they phone a t.v. show to be publicly humiliated? It is the same for the parents as it is for the kids - the parents consider their kids "bad" and so they call the nanny to "fix" them; and the nanny considers the parents "bad" and employs their methods to "fix" the parents, so that they in turn can "fix" their kids. Not very logical, is it? Not very helpful, is it? If the parents aren't made to feel confident, understood, and capable...then they will never be able to parent their kids as is necessary because they won't have the confidence to do so; even if they continue to use the nanny's methods. In much the same way that children who do not feel confident, understood, and capable will not function emotionally well in the long-term even if their behavior "improves". It is just a one big cycle.
Let me break apart some of the so-called "methods" and some obvious things that these nannies "overlook" (ie. leave out, and I will explain why.)
Each episode is treated as if the child(ren) is/are the enemy, and that they need to be conquered and tamed like wild animals, the control to be put completely in the adults' hands. However, children are not wild animals and they are not our enemy (how can you honestly consider any child, much less your own, your enemy over their age-appropriate behaviors?)
1. Strict scheduling. Often the nannies employ this "method" of helping the children cope and somehow regulate their behavior. While it is true, children learn through patterns and sometimes thrive under schedules...strict scheduling actually will not help your child in almost all cases. Forcing your child to eat when they are not hungry, sleep when they are not tired, and to a certain degree force them to do things that they don't want to do is not going to cut their tantrums and improve their behavior. It is going to make them angry, frustrated, resentful, and depressed. Of course they are going to act out! Try having someone point at you each morning at 9 am and say "eat" and then "play" then point at you at 11 am and say "sleep" and then "eat" again at 2 pm, then "play" until you must again "eat" at 6pm, and "sleep" at 8 pm. Even as adults we cannot wire our own clocks to be so stringent - forcing a child into such a schedule "no matter what" (as the nannies enforce) is not going to help. A loose schedule might - wake up around the same time, and eat around the same time if they are hungry, and nap about the same time if they are tired. As adults we do not eat around the same time every day in the majority of cases, we don't go to bed every night at the exact same time. We wouldn't like it if someone expected us to! As parents it is right for us to make sure our children are eating, playing, sleeping, learning enough...but there is a line, a boundary, that we ourselves would not like crossed. Being a child does not mean that boundary is okay to be crossed, and being a parent doesn't mean we get to cross it.
2. A list of "Rules" that usually are "don'ts." Rules are okay. Every child needs boundaries, but when do we, as parents...go overboard and actually prevent our children from learning experiences and such consequences? It suffices to say "Don't run inside of the house." However, it is even better to say "It is better if you could act calmly and walk inside because you can .... (somehow hurt yourself, someone else, break something, etc.) If you would like to run we can go in the yard/take a trip to the park/dance the wiggles out." See, one implies totally dictatorship - you are in control and your child has no voice in the matter (I am not saying that they should be given a say in certain situations such as running in areas of the house; that could be dangerous...instead I am talking about undermining the child's sense of choice and self as an individual.) The first also lacks reason, it doesn't give any logic as to why this could be bad, ie. while you're cooking in the kitchen they could run into the stove, or you (and injure you), or fall if you are mopping, etc. It is just a command, a demand. It implies your child is incapable of understanding logic and reason - a fact that is disproved every time a child asks you "why?" as they are capable of understanding why and when there is a time and place for certain behaviors. A child who does not feel as if they get a choice and does not understand why they are not supposed to do something is not going to be able to make choices later in life. If you don't learn to make choices as a child, it will lead to indecisiveness as an adult; as research has proved time and time again. The second offers not only an acceptable alternative, but does not make your child feel as if you are bossing them around (even if that is what you are doing indirectly, you are not making your child feel as if they are inferior, which will again cause anger and resentment and acting out.) Posting rules like I demonstrated only demands order and enforcement - which as adults we would consider cruel and ridiculous. Helping a child develop a sense of others and things (what effects his actions will have) is going to help him understand when and why a behavior is - or isn't - appropriate. Not blind obedience.
3. Encouraging inappropriate expectations based on a child's age. Expecting all children from ages 1 year to 10 years not to throw a tantrum is condescendingly arrogant. It is normal for children to have tantrums up through 7 years old, sometimes more based upon their maturity and individuality. See above for why. Expecting all children to apply a certain behavior (such as sitting still or being quiet for prolong periods of time) without regard for their age, maturity, and individual personalities and capabilities is not only ridiculous...it's irritating. Most 2 year olds cannot sit still or be quiet, and that is normal!! I can't believe that a two year old must sit on a "naughty step" based on the nanny's ludicrous idea over what is behaviorally appropriate for that child without knowledge of child psychology and individuality of the child (after day 1 she makes expectations, hardly long enough to remember the child's middle name, I'd say!) Sometimes the parents go into the show not realizing that some of their children's "bad" behaviors are developmentally appropriate and do not need remedying. A shift of perspective often "remedies" many "bad" behaviors. The show only plays up the stupidity of America by playing to this ignorance. You wouldn't expect a 6 month old baby to walk or talk, because it's not on their developmental timeline. A 9 month old baby may say a word or two or take a few steps, and some babies don't walk or talk until closer to two years old. There is always deviation in individual children. If you have a child - this should be a huge DUH for you. People need to realize when that sometimes you need to just count to five - your child isn't ready to "use his words" instead of tantruming at 2 years old.
4. Time outs/Naughty spots - and apologizing. As the parent we sometimes need "time outs" or a few minutes to gather our emotions and thoughts sometimes. However, enforcing "time outs" and making them sit on a "naughty stoop" or in a "naughty corner"... for a child does the exact opposite. It shames them, it humiliates them, and it doesn't teach them why what they did was wrong, or impolite, or "bad." It teaches them that if they do a certain behavior etc., they are going to be penalized and humiliated. In the show this often means that the reason for the behavior doesn't matter - the root cause is irrelevant. There's a lot I can put on this. Under no circumstances is it okay to humiliate or degrade a child for any reason, no matter their behavior. That is all a time-out is. It's an imposed time-frame where you tell your child they are bad and watch them suffer for it, and by doing so enforce that punitive behaviors for those who we deem "bad" is okay...even necessary. No decent parent wants to punish their child for any reason, nor humiliate them...and honestly to Bob many don't realize that that's all a time-out is. Brainwashed by popular expectations and trendy methods of discipline - they think that it is actually helpful and good for their child. That's another topic - however this show enforces that it is okay to humiliate your child, make them feel inferior, and "break" them if you have to. Then forcing them to apologize - without regard to why they behaved a certain way, did a certain thing, etc. is showing them insincerity. If they don't feel sorry - it is because they don't truly understand why what they did was inappropriate. Forcing them to apologize won't teach them why. Neither will forcing them into a time-out. What will teach them why a certain thing was inappropriate? Natural consequences. A time-out is artificial. In the adult world, we don't get time-outs for shouting or running or staying up or being late. A good way to apply natural consequences is this situation... a four year old boy knows that being nice is important (say one of the rules is to Play Nicely), but his 6 year old sister keeps taking his favorite train. After a 5th time of asking for his train back, he hits his sister on the head with a block out of frustration and feels bad that he hurt her. She drops the train and runs crying to a parent. The parent comes in, and asks both of them what happened. The boy tells that he asked her for his train back many times and she ignored him; and she admits that she didn't want to share the train. Here's the thing ..the train belongs to the boy, and in the real world we don't have to share our car, or our house, or anything because someone wants us to. Forcing the boy to share it would be artificial punishment. Forcing the boy into a time out for hitting his sister is also an artificial punishment. A parent might say "I'm sorry you felt so frustrated and ignored. However you know the rule, by choosing to hit your sister Tommy, you choose to play in your room for the rest of the day alone, because you know that it hurts and is not okay. If you cannot play nicely you have to play alone." But that same parent would turn and say "Sally, by choosing to ignore your brother and taking his things without asking, you hurt his feelings and violated his privacy to play with his own toys, so you choose to give Tommy one of your favorite toys to play with for the rest of the day. You know that the train was Tommy's and that you should not have been playing with it when Tommy wanted it." And addressing them both, "If one of you is not acting appropriately, or you get angry and don't know what to do, come see one of us and we will help you." This way, Sally understands why what she did was inappropriate and Tommy understands why what he did was inappropriate - neither is made to feel shamed or humiliated and, both not only know that there are consequences.... but that their parents are there to talk to and help them when they don't know what to do about something and will be fair no matter what. There are other ways to handle this other than the way I described, however it is just an example about what is more effective the majority of the time. Positive reinforcement, understanding, and natural consequence will work! A child is not always going to follow the rules - that is normal too. They push boundaries because that is normal psychological child behavior. Being too harsh and unfair will only make them want to push them more. Forcing them to apologize, especially when they are not sorry makes them feel as if they need to be sorry for sticking up for themselves (such as in Tommy's case) and teaches them insincerity...to say something because it is "proper" rather than meaningful. That will lead to tons of issues later, they will learn to suppress sincerity and thoughtfulness.
5. Rewards to "balance" their discipline. I'm going to run with Alfie Kohn's example. If a child receives praise for each and every mouthful of food he eats to please his parents - he is going to over-feed himself for that praise. A child always wants to please their parents and setting unrealistic expectations "eat your entire plate of food, Ralph!" when Ralph can only eat half his food, and then praising him for each and every extra spoonful past half - is poor "reinforcement." It is teaching the child that it's okay if they're suffering, or need to suffer so long as they are pleasing their parent. They will go for that praise no matter the cost to themselves. Why is this okay?
6. Disregard the child's feelings. In one episode, a child was playing "cleaning" with the outdoor hose. The mother just walked over and said "You're done!" When the child protested the mother meanly turned off the water. The child kicked over a wagon (in clear frustration and anger) and Supernanny said "JUST over the water being turned off?" No, dear, he was upset because his mother talked to him like the family dog, ignored his attempts at communication and emotional connection, and was incredibly cold. Not actually because the water was turned off. His mother could have come out and said "Honey, the water's been running for too long. Why don't you come help me/do this instead?" If the kid wanted to "clean", why not give him a "big boy" job of cleaning the windows with water in a spray bottle (supervised, of course)? Why not say "Honey, if you want to clean, why don't you help me pick up your toys and clean your room?" If you don't teach your child how to clean and have houseskills, but expect them to know how to clean their room by themselves at 4 years old, you're going to get no where fast. Again with the unrealistic expectations.
7. Sleep "training". Sleep "training" is very controversial in all parenting circles. However, medical evidence is clear that children should not be left to CIO (cry it out) for any amount of time, as it stunts them emotionally. When you leave your child in their crib, bed, or room alone when all they want is some form of comfort (whether suddenly or in "steps" as "Supernanny" suggests)...you are not teaching them to "self-soothe". You are teaching them that the one person they look up to and can count on - isn't going to help them. That person isn't going to come to their rescue. So give up. By not giving eye contact or talking or touching, you are teaching them that you are going to watch them suffer, that they can cry for comfort again and again, but you don't care. It doesn't matter if you're sitting next to them or in the next room. It is the same exact message. Forcing a child to wean from their comfort zone isn't going to teach them independence...and why the hell do we expect 2-6 year olds to be independent anyways? A child again, has his own developmental timeline. A child is dependent - that is what a child is! We can't set unrealistic expectations of any kind (especially not sleep-wise) and then bitch because our child isn't independent enough and you don't have your freedom. Sorry - that's parenthood. Why do we want our kids to grow up so fast? They're only little once. This time will pass. And it will only take a blink.
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has evaluated Jo Frost's methods. They found it did nothing but harm. It didn't make parents less stressed and didn't "improve" a child's behavior.
With that all said, upon leaving the show this is what Jo Frost had to say about her leaving the show and about her replacement. "She has teachers who are the real ones who do the work. She sits behind a desk. Until you have dealt with the sick and the mess of children, it is very hard to advise anyone else. I have been a nanny since I was 14. I've been in the trenches. What qualifies her to offer advice?" Wow, way to go out classy and dignified!! (Or...not.) First off, I think this statement says all it needs to about Jo Frost's character. She's prone to jealousy, spite, rudeness, and has a superiority complex. Children don't just produce "sick" and "messes," they bring joy and love like nothing else in this world can. How you choose to look at parenting really shows your character as a person. "Trenches?!" Since when is there a war against children? You aren't battling them. You are cooperating with and guiding them to try and help them become a happy, well-balanced person. You aren't trying to teach them blind obedience. If you are, there is something wrong there. What qualifies Deborah Tillman (her replacement) is that she doesn't think she's Nanny Goddess of the All-Knowing Discipline, where children should just bow down and obey her every command. She actually realizes that discipline is more than obedience, and is a concerted family effort to find constructive and healthy methods. That's what makes her qualified. She's willing to learn different ways and adapt to help each and every family, rather than employing her dry, harmful, across-the-board methods. Why is it Jo's call over whether or not someone else is "qualified?" It's not her business anymore. Bye bye.
I beg each and every parent not to listen to these shows. Watch them, and know what not to do. They are nothing more than reality tv shows trying to indoctrinate the population with terrible parenting methods and political ideas of what is proper and acceptable.
