bid
-
Content Count
6,839 -
Joined
Posts posted by bid
-
-
OK, thanks for explaining, Kath and Mumble!
Bid
-
That wouldn't be 'balance',that would be an extension to the study. The mother's focus reduces the competing variables, ensuring the research is valid and reliable with as much controlled for as possible.
But surely it will only be valid as a study into what mother's think about professional support...the researcher is asking specifically for mothers to complete the questionnaire, but then she explains her research by talking about being interested in the views of parents.
Pedantic? Moi??
Bid
-
My son is an adult now, so I can't help with your research I'm afraid.
Are you going to balance your findings by getting the same number of fathers to complete your questionnaire then?
Bid
-
-
Way back when I watched her progs, I thought at the time that a lot of her language was sometimes over-complicated for children. I also thought her behaviour charts were often too complicated too, both visually and conceptually.
A rough idea of what I mean (because I can't remember verbatim) would be something like saying to a small kid 'You have been disrespectful', whereas with little ones I would always use much simpler language such as 'You have been rude/unkind'.
However, that may just be that I have lived and worked with chldren with special needs for too long
Bid
-
So pleased to hear everything is going so well
<'> Bid
-
Now, cause this thread can't go more
whether or not BD thinks JF is the bees knees or not, why the heck do we refer to something we think is pretty much awesomely the best thing as 'the bees knees'? 
I'm guessing a bee's knees are a little nicer than a bee's sting, but quite frankly I'd rather keep my distance from any aspect of a bee.That's just when I'm in polite society...
Usually I'd say the dog's ######!!
Bid
-
That's ironic, comedy effect, BTW, as I've said, there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that I have an inflatable 'sturdy girl' doll in the wardrobe which I dress up in fishnets and a leather teddy and refer to as 'Nanny J' ...
I feel a bit queasy...
Bid
-
Ooooh, and furthermore, this thread gives me the ideal opportunity to use my new favourite word, as in:
'My, this is all a bit of a rumpty-to!'
Bid
And a free casual diagnosis (RRP 10 guineas) for anyone who can correctly guess in which novel I recently discovered said word!
-
I love this forum - here we have a thread with only mild tetchiness covering everything from the realities of reality TV, ancient and not so ancient history, cultural differences, skool fetes, rat-catching and BD's infatuation with Super Frosty
. Awesome. 
Actually, there's one you missed off your poll "What is BD?'...
...Super Frosty's secret body slave!!
Bid
-
(or bid, now apparantly, after due consideration
)want to tar it with.Oi!!
If you look back I have never said I thought Jo Frost was the bees knees!! Even when I said I used to enjoy her progs with my girlies when they were younger, I carefully qualified that by saying that I agreed with much of what she said but...
It's perfectly acceptable during a discussion to review and reflect on your own opinions. When I started to think about reality TV as a whole, I did start to feel uncomfortable with the idea of families with problems as public entertainment. I haven't been hypocritical at all, as I held my hands up to being guilty of sharing in the nation's rather unedifying interest in reality TV!
Honestly, if ya only wanted peeps who really, really
Jo Frost to post ya shoulda said!! 
Bid
;) ad nauseum, ad infinitum etc, etc, etc ... -
I've never heard of that game - how old are you?
I suppose it's better than the old wooden spinning tops and a cup and ball hehe - but with such an affinity maybe you missed a career opportunity or two there - you could have been rat batter extraodinaire OR you could have been a "rat up a drainpipe" shark and stiffed unsuspecting folk out of cash As far as I see it everyone can always argue these things - like marriage guidance counsellors who have never been married is another one I've heard a lot of - but there's a few very important points I reckon.
If someone is good at what they do that deserves at the least grudging respect regardless of their personal circumstances.
Sometimes someone removed from the emotional situations can be more objective and possibly more useful as a result.
If someone has a good record of results and a good track record - again worth a thought.
And to keep this short (fighting against my habitual habit of rambling on with lists) I'd say if someone is talking sense then it would be unwise to dismiss them on the basis of potentially irrelevant details as it could be a missed opportunity.
As for J.F in particular, I don't think it matters that she's single and doesn't have kids, she's been working with them so long that she's probably seen just about everything by now (so to speak) and that includes family set-ups and parents etc.
I think that experience is what matters and that can be gained whether the children in question are your own or not, after all, people adopt, but that doesn't mean they can't be parents or experience child rearing and all the joys that go with that.
Best
Darkshine - who now has "there's a rat in me kitchen" going on repeat in me 'ead
Dunno, still the more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I feel with the idea of families with problems as public entertainment.
Each to their own, I guess...
Bid
-
Hehe BD, some people call it being reflective...thinking around an issue, refining and maybe even changing their views!!
Talking of the park...it's my ball an I'm takin' it home AN my dad is bigger'n yours AN AN AN you SMELL!!
Bid
P.S. That will be 10 guineas for a casual diagnosis, ta muchly!!
;) -
BD, I really, really hope your comment about 'general personal shottage' wasn't aimed at me too
It's actually perfectly OK for people to have different opinions ya know!
You think Jo Frost is the bees knees...that's absolutely fine. But other people are allowed to mull over the whole question of reality TV, or indeed say that they dislike her programmes intensely, and everything in between!
Now, no liptons or it'll be the Naughty Step for you!!
Bid
-
I've not seen the episode where Jo ridicules the parents (assuming that section of your post is on topic). Is it on catch up? Usually she just solves their problems with some good ol' common sense solutions and leaves them happier, wiser and - more importantly - with children who are happier too! Now that's what I call value for money and entertainment too!
But if you think about it, the whole underlying premise of reality TV is to about ridicule and appealing to our voyeuristic tendencies!
This isn't families with problems being helped in private. This is families with problems as public entertainment.
And re-read the kinds of comments that get made about the parents in similar threads on here (I'm also thinking about the one on the autistic kids taking part in a musical) or anywhere else online, and in front rooms all over the country...there's a fair amount of ridicule and some downright nasty comments.
So, to be honest, the more I think about Super Nanny, within it's place in the whole range of 'help' reality TV, like 'Embarassing Bodies', 'Teen Mums', etc, etc, there's a whole lot of ridicule, voyeurism and 'good TV' dressed up as positive help.
And before you call me a 'pot', I admit that I'm just as guilty as the rest of the country of taking part in what is actually rather unedifying, judgemental voyeurism (especially 'Embarassing Bodies'!!
).Bid
-
And the point is? I've already answered this with the 'good advice/ bad advice' thing... of course my subjective view of what's 'good advice/bad advice' is going to impact on how I respond to the advisor, professional or otherwise, just as it does for you (or anyone else)... I don't know if you're implying some sort of hypocrisy, but if so the words pot and kettle come to mind!
I am, if anything annoyingly consistent in my views rather than changing my opinion every time the wind changes direction. Tony Attwood does offer some very good advice. He also offers some cr*p (IMO) advice. So far, I haven't seen any programmes where J F offers what is IMO bad advice, but if I do I'll be equally vocal about that!
You've posted several times now to say why JF isn't qualified to give advice (spinster, no kids, no training that we know of, 'celebrity entertainer' etc) but also that you largely agree with her. So what do you think she gets 'wrong', and is that because of her spinsterism, lack of kids, (assumed) lack of training, celebrity status etc, or do you think she's just 'wrong' and would be so even if she was married with three kids, a host of degrees, and was working for CAMHS or whatever?
L&P
BD
Just makes me chuckle, is all
Bid
-
Hmmm...
Dunno how well or badly qualified she is - the article only says after college she embarked on a career in nannying and has been involved in childcare for over twenty years. TBH I think it's irrelevant, as is the question of whether she has kids herself or not. I've known plenty of highly qualified psychologists and therapists etc who are absolute arses (including some cats, dogs and goldfish) http://www.dreichel.com/dr_zoe.htm, and similarly many people with kids who haven't got a clue how to parent them (watch a Jo Frost programme and you'll see them too!). On the other hand, some childless aunts and uncles are absolutely amazing with kids, achieving things with them that the parents seem incapable of achieving.
To me it seems more sensible to take advice that works and can be seen to work and benefits the child from whatever source it is delivered, and to reject that which doesn't regardless of the source.
I don't know much (well anything, really) about (the very well paid broadcaster) Tanya Byron (whose books are published by the BBC) other than the quick blurb I just read on her website, but there's no reason why she couldn't be just as 'good' as Jo in offering good, common sense advice that achieves what it sets out to achieve or why any other woman, mum, man, father couldn't whether qualified or not, is there? But if she's one of those numpties who suggests letting your child use you as a punchbag, giving into their every whim and listening to them whinge for endless hour after self-indulgent hour lest you dent their fragile self-esteem then she's not the nanny for me! Cos the problem is, that gives you these hugely confident, arrogant controlling kids who can only exist in the vaccuum that's been created for them at home, and as soon as they are exposed to the real world the whole facade crumbles and they come face to face with some real self-esteem issues (or alternatively, just push their way through life picking their victioms wisely from the models of victimhood that their vaccuum homes provided them with while circumnavigating everyone else with fake charm or an assumed victim stance of their own).
I'm not sure, Karen, why you think Jo Frost doesn't 'demonstrate an understanding of very complex issues'? (or come to that, if you think Tanya Byron does, and does so well, why you, a parent openly admitting that you don't have the gift for naturally connecting with your child, 'don't always agree with her'?
). I think Jo frost is very good at seeing things how they are very quickly, and putting in strategies that put them right very quickly. Read through the thread again for some examples that have been put forward from the episodes so far...To be honest, both of the points raised here (Jo's 20 years experience and possible lack of diplomas vs Tanya's qualifications, and the no kids (does Tanya have kids, btw? Not that it makes a difference IMO but if it seems relevant to others(?)
)) seem another variation on the 'reductive' denial and gainsaying argument discussed here:Anyhoo... I'm not applying for the job of Jo Frost's PA and TBH she doesn't really seem to need one, the childless, unqualified, multi-millionaieress, spinster...
L*P
BD
But to be fair, BD, you have posted very critically, many times on here about people in the autism world who you feel have set themselves up as experts and enjoy the resultant commercial/media benefits (I think you have included Tony Attwood, but apologies if I'm wrong).
The only difference between Jo Frost and any of the people you criticise is the fact that you agree with Jo!
Bid
-
I have not read this thread at all.
However posted elswehere,read the header for this and realised it is more relevant here.
Although supprenany makes some valid points it does concern me that she is offering advice to parents whilst apparently having no qualifications herself.I prefer to follow the advice of professionals who are actually qualified.
She is a millionare on the back of her media empire which often involves offering advice to parents on what appear to me to be complex issues .Her web site has the most significant focus on her media activities and she describes her own work as ''reality TV''.
In her latest programme her assessments take place in shopping centres and are then filmed for TV.
I would rather people are offered a holistic assessment carried out by qualified and experienced professionals myself.
Her web site offers plenty of her information about publications.media activities and TV appearances but I see that the techniques section is coming soon.
Jo apparently has a natural gift for conecting with children organicaly.Oh that I had that gift.Perhaps I wouldn't have needed help then.
There would be no risk of Jo Frost offering informal diagnosis because she is a nanny who is not qualified to diagnose anything.
Karen
Very interesting points, Karen.
I also read a recent article in which she says she doesn't have time for a relationship, so not only does she have no children, she has never had to balance maintaining a marriage/partnership at the same time. I think this aspect of parenting is often under-estimated or even forgotten. My very wise Special Needs Health Visitor once said to me that there were (at that time) 5 people in my family, who were all entitled to equal attention, care and time. I also think that aspect, of maintaining the adult relationship, is rarely addressed within families with SN children, although in actuality it is hugely important and very vulnerable.
I'm interested in her use of the term 'reality TV' for her programmes. While she may well be well-intentioned, and I agree with much of what she says, it's important to remember that first and foremost she is providing entertainment, and getting very, very well-paid for it!
Bid
-
Sorry BD, I was thinking about and extrapolating Lynne's point, with which I agree...but you're right, you haven't actually used the term epidemic.
I often agree with you BD about some parents not wanting to take responsibility for raising their children and blaming everything but themselves on the problems the child may have, but lately your posts come across that you believe the majority of parents take that tack rather than just 'some' and in my personal experience that's just not true.
Lynne
And since you feel I'm
I'm happy to bow out now.Bid
-
I didn't say 'styles' of parenting...if you look I put in parenthesis a qualification regarding generational and cultural differences.
I specified positives and negatives within parenting...so there were feckless or over-indulgent parents in Plato's time or among the followers of Truby King/Spock/ Kitsinger, just as there are today...positives and negatives that transcend parenting styles.
Hope that's clarified my opinion.
Bid
And as an after thought...the majority of ordinary, good-enough parents muddling through as they have always done wouldn't make good TV would it...so we could suppose that Super Nanny et al could well be the exception rather than the epidemic that concerns you
-
Yes, that's certainly the case, as somebody pointed out the other week. TBH though, even though I fully acknowledge that there has always been a 'generation gap' and always will be, I don't see how it's relevant to generalise that factor into the wider equation(?) If a new strain of flu developed that was 99% fatal, it wouldn't be relevant to say 'yes, but flu's been killing people since the days of Plato' would it?
Just to clarify, because I'm not quite sure, are you now saying that you don't think the current generation of teens is generally less respectful, more selfish, more undercontrolled and more indulged than children generally were in, say, 'your' day? Or that autistic children are for some reason not included in those statistics? Similarly, are you now saying that if children are generally less respectful, more selfish, more undercontrolled and more indulged than children of 'your' generation you don't think parents/parenting have any influence on that factor?
I do agree that 'failure to launch' is part of the same equation, and there are all sorts of social changes (housing costs, unemployment, higher education that extends further into adulthood etc) that impact on that, but the question of 'dependency' and failure to achieve independence isn't entirely down to those kinds of shifts. There's an advert that crops up on TV from time to time with a five year old Indian girl street urchin, who is pretty much expected to look after herself and her tiny baby brother all day every day; cooking, feeding, fending for themselves etc, It is, it goes without saying, an absolute horror and totally wrong that those levels of poverty exist in the world and that children lose their lives through them, but comparing that girls plight with the situation of a nineteen year old brat who spends every waking hour playing his / her Xbox and verbally or physically abusing the rest of his /her family shows just how low expectations can be in our society.
I totally agree there are some lovely, terrific young people out there... I don't know whether I'd agree it's the 'vast majority' but I really would like to think so. But lets not overlook the absolute monsters, the minor monsters, the neds, the nasties, the ne'er do wells and the plain old numpties that are out there too, or overlook the further fact that many of them were born with at least the same amount of potential to find roles within the former set, or the influence that their significant adult role models would/could have had on the adults they turned out to be.
Some will be high achievers and some won't. That's human nature, biodiversity, whatever... Some will achieve great things with the support and influence of their parents / networks etc and and some will achieve great things despite the implications of negative influences and a lack of support from the parents / networks etc. The same applies to the neds: some will be neds because of negative influences/lack of support and some will be neds despite having all the opportunties & support anyone could really wish for. But I honestly think the last of those really are a minority, and I totally think that parents, carers and 'significant adults' are by far the most influential role models for all children.
L&P
BD
Oh - PS: Another thing that really bugs me is that often those children who do end up acheiving despite, as it were, have that achievement taken from them under the assumption that the parents were 'getting it right all along'. I think that short changes them
L&P
BD
What I'm saying is that while I agree that there are, and always have been, feckless parents, over-indulgent parents, and any other kind of 'negative' parent you care to describe, personally I don't think it is the epidemic you believe it to be. Anthropologically I'm willing to bet that parenting (within its generational and cultural differences) has probably kept more or less the same negatives and positives since hunter-gatherers first started to hunt and gather!
In my opinion, the vast majority of adults are, and always have been, perfectly adequate parents, who love their kids...and make some mistakes, do some things brilliantly, but mostly muddle-through and produce adults who are no more and no less messed up than every previous generation.
Which is not to say that parenting books, courses and even
She Who Must Not Be Named (
) aren't valuable and positive things Bid
-
Well, to be honest I think it was Plato that gives us the first recorded quote lamenting the state of 'yoof'!!
And I think you will find each successive generation has very similar complaints One trend that I have noticed is that there appears to have developed an extended adolescence, with young adults still living at home into their 30's, and continuing with quite adolesecent lifestyles.
However, I would also like to point out the really terrific young people who are out there, who we never hear about. I work with colleagues who are predominantly in their late teens to early 20s. They care for the most disabled and challenging of children, with complex medical needs in addition to their learning difficulties. They do this with great compassion, patience and fantastic humour. And they appear to come from a complete cross-section of backgrounds. I have had a lump in my throat before now when I have seen a great, hulking late-teenage lad tenderly stroking the face of a little boy recovering from a seizure.
So I say HURRAH for our young people...in my opinion the vast majority are hard-working, caring and a credit to ...oooh, who would that be now??...oh that's right, their parents!!
Bid
-
Hehe, it's more the article I read recently where she says she's too busy to have an adult relationship...so, bless 'er, she's never actually had to balance maintaining a marriage/partnership, with bringing up an assortment of kids
Just more a of a wry chuckle As I say loads I agree with, and used to love watching her progs with my girlies when they were younger ('See, SEE how you will turn out if you don't behave??!!'
)Bid
-
No, the programme actually was quite balanced and did acknowledge that some people with ADHD are helped by their meds, and showed a contrasting family who weren't on the treadmill of ever-increasing dosages etc. The point being made was more that medication is now being offered pretty casually as a 'stock answer' rather than as part of a programme to provide long-term and real benefits. That horrible word 'casual' again, and the underlying problem of a 'can't do' mentality of lowered expectations and accommodated behaviours that evolves once the casual labels have been applied. One of the doctors they spoke to said (I think, so don't quote me on it) that in his opinion, of the number of children being diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed Ritalin or whatever, the dx and need for medication was probably only appropriate in about 8 - 10% of cases. It also highlighted that medications intended for prescription in circumstances of severe ADHD were pretty much being handed out like sweets.
In Both cases, the most significant factors contributing to the child's ADHD symptoms were those arising from the home environment rather than the disorder itself. The second mum acknowleded this, stating that once she had been able to access a parenting course and learn the skills she needed to help her son things improved dramatically. The unfortunate reality is (and I hope no one reading this takes any personal inference from this) that very very few parents seem willing to acknowledge even the possibility that their parenting can in any way be affecting their child's behaviour, and that seems to be a universal truth whether refering to ADHD, ASD's, or any of those dear little monsters with no diagnosis whatsoever we see not sleeping, not eating, not going to school and not responding to parental authority in any way, shape or form whatsoever on 'Supernanny'
Jo Frost for Prime Minister - that's what I say!
L&P
BD
Ahh, fair do's then if they did offer a balanced view
I should also add that when he was older, it was the 'system' who wanted to put him on increasing doses and multiple meds for anxiety (which didn't make any difference anyway)...rather than sort out the root cause of the anxiety, which was his mainstream school. I did then say I would take full responsibility for reducing and then stopping his meds. And funnily enough, once he was in the right ASD placement, he didn't suffer from the same crippling anxiety anymore...
Jo Frost...bless 'er!
Lots of positives, but I do sometimes feel it's a wee bit like celibate Catholic priests giving marriage guidance Bid
ASD traits in myself
in General Discussion
Posted · Report reply
I think it's very important to remember that certainly the AQ and EQ tests designed by Baron-Cohen and his team at Cambridge are not designed to be used in isolation. Used properly, they are only a small part of a detailed process that is based on an indepth clinical assessment, including parental involvement.
Bid