I understand that he's ex-military, which is why I think that some form of psychological help is in order.
Now that strikes me as funny, because it's exactly the sort of thing my father (retired reservist) would say.
I haven't seen either show or magazine spinoff but if I get the chance I'm going to. I rnote that the origin of this post note that the magazine is UK based and the other is an American programme though.
It looks to me like one of those dieas for programmes that has crossed the Atlantic. I've no idea which direction it did that in though.
Sjjungfru, (sorry, no Umlaut(?) option on Uk keyboard) Your end qoute made me think of Gw Bush's qoute about how 'The trouble with the French is they have no word for entrepreneur'.
i keep saying i am gonna have to call supernanny cause when you try different approaches and the child doesnt respond to disipline what do you do? My child already treats me like i'm his slave 24/7 i have tried different ways to approach it though he responds to nothing i know he's young but therapists are even telling me now i am gonna have a monster if i don't put my foot down. what am i suppose to do though i do the best i can.
As an aspie, I watch those kids and don't believe they are just being "bad." There are so many childhood disorders that go undiagnosed and the kids are seen as being "bad" and the parents also. How does Supernanny know the child isn't ASD or early onset bipolar or anything else? Most young children, before their disorder progresses, will behave for strangers. I can't even watch SuperNanny or Dr. Phil or any of those "shows for entertainment by exploiting families." I saw a show on an Asperger's child and it made me cry because of the way it was misrepresented by Dr. Phil. His "experts" often have scary alternative methods too, and I don't believe they do much more than scare and torture the child. I don't put stock in anything in a 'reality' television show. They are on the air for entertainment only. I'd like to check back with SuperNanny converts a year later. Bet the kids are up to their old tricks because they aren't being treated or evaluated to see what's going on. I've been thru the gamut of "SuperNanny" types, psycologists, etc. and most of them didn't "get" me or why I did what I did, and only a CBT, whom I saw in my 30's, helped me at all. The short answer: I think SuperNanny is a load of crap, and probably does little in the Big Picture. JMHO
On another board I go to, a parent knew that family, lived right by them, in fact. She said they were portrayed wrong--they are loving parents unsure how to handle their child, a nd Dr. Phil didn't help them one bit. I believe they love their kid and that Dr. Phil didn't help them one bit :lol:, but I can't understand why parents would put their child on national television while he rages and acts out. Gives me the shivers. Everyone in that area now knows this kid is "bad" (I'm guessing most NTs believe he is spoiled or that he has a mental illness). I wonder if SuperNanny even went to college or if she just took a few parenting classes. What works for non-disordered kids doesn't work for kids who actually have psychiatric and neurological differences. IMO I dont' think kids hit their parents, even if not disciplined well, unless something bad is going on inside of them, and the kids need to be seriously evaluated. I'm not talking about talk therapy, which I think is as useless as SuperNanny. They need to be evaluated to see why they lack the normal control that most kids intristically display. JMHO, as always.
I don't think parents should be allowed to hit kids either. I think it's wrong. My point isn't right or wrong. It's that hitting a parent is so far from what is accepted and what most kids do instinctively that, if they do it all the time, find out if the child has a treatable psychiatric or neurological issue rather than ruminating over your parenting skills. You'll probably find out that he DOES. I'm not advocating allowing it, but you also need to find out why this child is so out of control and if he HAS control to STOP himself. My guess is most out-of-control kids have brain differences rather than bad parents.
Humans have a choice. I choose not to.
my dad tried punishing me by not letting me sit with the computer, or using the internet.
this just made me mad and i built my own wired, when he removed the ones for the computer.
everything he thought he had outsmarted me in, i outsmarted him in.
but in the end i got fed up, and i stopped my special interest.
and i just did destructive stuff instead, i built bombs and tried them out in (secure) places.
the bombs where not that secure though.
i was very fascinated with fire as a child, i guess i still am, but not in a destructive way.
yaddayadda, i dont know why i wrote this.
my dad tried punishing me by not letting me sit with the computer, or using the internet.
this just made me mad and i built my own wired, when he removed the ones for the computer.
everything he thought he had outsmarted me in, i outsmarted him in.
but in the end i got fed up, and i stopped my special interest.
and i just did destructive stuff instead, i built bombs and tried them out in (secure) places.
the bombs where not that secure though.
i was very fascinated with fire as a child, i guess i still am, but not in a destructive way.
yaddayadda, i dont know why i wrote this.
s/wired/wires
please. a edit button, i type like a fool at times.
Humans have a choice. I choose not to.
But we aren't all perfect.
Structure is good.
Swatting kids... uhh, not so much.
I'm not entirely against corporal punishment, but it has its place--namely, when a young child does something dangerous, such as running out into the road, and must be taught extremely quickly not to do it again. Using it in response to violence of any sort only encourages the violence... if your child bites someone, time-out or some other nonviolent option is better.
Corporal punishment, such as a swat on the butt, should not leave marks or hurt for more than five minutes, be administered by an angry parent, or be used on a child too young to understand action-and-consequence.
Beyond about the age of five, it's quite useless, since a child is then able to reason along the line that, "What I want to do is worth a swat." It doesn't make sense to use an ineffective mthod past that point, since other methods--reward/punishment, explanation, time-out, praise/criticism, education in self-control--are beginning to take advantage of the child's new reasoning capacities and understanding of long-term results.
But mother bears swat their cubs when they get out of line: ditto with mother cats.
Father bears and cats will kill offspring of other males. Therefore, by your reasoning, men should be allowed to kill the children of other men.
Not even - that is an entirely different situation!
No, but I only was referring to one specific instance and not the other things. I wasn't saying that parents should go around wholesale spanking children but it annoys me when people get all superior and say they never smack their kids and therefore anybody who does is a failure at being a parent.
I would tentatively diagnose a socialising problem in the mother, as she seems to have absolutely no idea how to communicate and socialise with small people. I had severe problems with social interaction as a child myself but had no problems becoming child-like (NOT childish) to interact with children when I had my own. It was if she expected them to be like adults and couldn't cope when they weren't. Borderline depressive?