Why shouldn't we call children ‘naughty'?
These days, there is a whole animal kingdom of parenting styles to choose from: could I be an elephant mother? A panda, a jellyfish? Or the better-known tiger mum – usually associated with parents pushing their children towards over-achievement. This year my son has learned to read, write simple sentences and, significantly, will go for a poo on his own, so I feel like we have already reached the pinnacle of what can be achieved in the academic year – so not tiger for me.
Besides, if I'm honest, I'm not really looking for help on how to help my son achieve his goals – especially given his biggest aim is to get me to buy him the Hot Wheels T-rex transporter (for those blissfully unaware: a giant truck with light-up, roaring-effect T-rex head).
Really, where I'd be open to some advice is on the day-to-day management of the emotional fallout of being four or five. How do you deal with tantrums and meltdowns, and – the worst – prolonged whining, when your tiny tyrant shows immense resistance to reasoned argument (and you're also dealing with a two-year-old who has recently discovered the power of 'no')?
Many modern parenting styles focus on managing a child's emotions and behaviour, such as the millennial favourite 'gentle parenting' – where a child's feelings are validated but parents do not use rewards or punishments. And today's parenting 'experts' also seem to prize the validation of a child's emotion above all else, allowing it to dictate how you discipline a child.
My interest was piqued recently by an interview with BBC anchor turned child counsellor Kate Silverton on the Netmums podcast. She suggested that parents ban the word 'naughty', as she claims children can internalise the label and think ''I'm bad. I'm naughty'. And then it becomes: 'That's me. That's who I am.'' She concludes: 'That's where sort of delinquency comes from.'
But isn't 'naughty' exactly the kind of word you need when dealing with a young child's bad behaviour? It's an adjective made for children. 'Don't throw your toys everywhere, that's naughty.' 'Don't hit your sister, that's naughty.' You are not labelling your child with a permanently naughty identity – merely explaining to them what is good and bad behaviour, in appropriate terms. And what would you say instead? To actively try not to use the word goes against your parenting instincts.
I am not only looking to raise children who are 'heard', I also want to raise individuals who are well-behaved and resilient
Parental instincts are not always given enough importance by those offering advice. Silverton makes some decent points about taking a moment to calm yourself so that you can react in a more measured way, and trying not to unload your own childhood emotional baggage on to your children (although that might put her out of business as a therapist). But some of her tricks and tips, such as for defusing tantrums, are cringe-inducing and even counterintuitive.
Silverton offers the example of picking up her child from nursery and bringing an apple as a snack when her child wanted an orange. The child proceeds to have a tantrum, lying on the ground in front of other parents. (I feel her pain, as this week I was treated to a full meltdown after I cut my son's toast in half, when he preferred it whole.)
In these scenarios, Silverton advises that you should get down with your child and attempt to match their energy as you articulate what you sense they are feeling. She calls it her 'SAS' tool: See/Sense, Acknowledge, Soothe. In the podcast, she demonstrates by adopting an exaggerated angry toddler tone: 'You are so cross right now…'
Honestly, I would sooner crawl out of my own skin than do this. And in front of other parents too? Absolutely not. Surely I cannot be the only parent who thinks the key aim in a tantrum scenario is not to validate your child's emotions, but rather to correct the bad behaviour and make your child understand that throwing a tantrum is unacceptable and will not get them what they want.
Naturally, I want my children to know they can talk to me about any problem, big or small. But as a mother I am not only looking to raise children who are 'heard', I also want to raise individuals who are well-behaved and resilient. Acknowledging your child needs help regulating their emotions shouldn't mean abandoning all use of negative or authoritative language.
When my son made his feelings crystal clear about the injustice of having his toast cut in half and demanded a new piece of toast, I said no, it was cut toast or nothing. And eventually, he ate the toast. Look, I'm not a monster, and for the sake of a peaceful summer I'll try my hardest not to cut his toast again. But if I forget, maybe, just maybe, he won't react the same way again.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
13 hours ago
- BBC News
Wales' papers: Rugby player's machete attack and 20mph to stay
Copyright 2025 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
Faith keeps you going, Kemi, but it doesn't grant wishes
There's an old joke about a minister caught up in a flood. 'God will save me,' he says, confidently turning away two boats and a helicopter. When he inevitably drowns, he asks God why he didn't save him. God replies, 'I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more do you want?' I was reminded of this on hearing Kemi Badenoch speak about faith and religion. In an interview with the BBC's Amol Rajan, who is almost as omnipresent as Our Lord, she said her belief in God was gone, 'like someone blew out a candle' when she followed the case of Elisabeth Fritzl in 2008. 'I couldn't stop reading this story. And I read her account, how she prayed every day to be rescued,' Badenoch said. Elisabeth Fritzl was held hostage in her father's basement for 24 years, during which Josef Fritzl repeatedly raped her, fathering seven children. 'And I thought, I was praying for all sorts of stupid things, and I was getting my prayers answered. I was praying to have good grades, my hair should grow longer, and I would pray for the bus to come on time so I wouldn't miss something. 'It's like, why were those prayers answered and not this woman's prayers?' This rang many bells for me. Stupid prayers are the gift of the safe child: I prayed nightly for a horse. And when I was 10, I started drifting away from church. With black and white clarity, I judged every person in the congregation for, as I understood, not believing what they were saying nor acting upon it. I'm probably the opposite of Badenoch in that I do believe in God but am no longer a cultural Christian. I love Christmas and holy music, but I do not consider Christianity to be a sign of Britishness more than any other religion – except perhaps paganism, being the historic traditions of the British Isles. But I do very much understand the shocks that can lead people to leave the church. I grew up with women grudgingly being allowed to become ministers, and awakened to gay people being sidelined. I read a viral letter from a musician to the radio personality Laura Schlessinger about her singling out homosexuality as a Biblical sin (sample line: 'I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?'). Religion's pick-and-choose nature highlighted the contradictions I had seen as a child, and I didn't bother with church again until my late 20s. I found my way back to faith after a series of deaths, and in places that acknowledged the contradictions that exist in the Bible and, well, humanity. Arguing with God over what is fair is immortalised in poetry (John Donne) and song, including Kate Bush, whose magical 'Running Up That Hill (Deal with God)' marked its fortieth anniversary this week. Many people move away from religion. Moving away from faith is a different matter. In psychotherapist Edith Eger's 2017 book The Choice, she described how 'drawing on my inner world' helped her to survive Auschwitz, Mauthausen and the death march. 'I found hope and faith in life within me, even when I was surrounded by starvation and torture and death,' she said. Her sister Magda lost her faith, yet somehow, Eger did not: 'I want to keep alive the part of me that feels wonder, that wonders, until the very end.' When I look at the news, I want to wonder. And so, I turn away from Elisabeth Fritzl's father – rightly left in prison to rot – and towards the wonder of her courage. She has started a new chapter with her children, under new names, with a media ban and security protection. The true strength is hers. This is what I understand that I didn't know when I was 10: God and religion are not the same. People may trumpet their 'Christianity', but that doesn't mean they are good people or even that they live by what is written in the Bible. The Christian right, in the US particularly, leans heavily on abortion. Yet Exodus 21 v 22 to 25, from where 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' comes from, indicates that a pregnant woman's life is worth more than her unborn child. Politicians might reflect on this. Badenoch might go on to find a new understanding with faith, if not with religion. God is the indefinable spirit that helps humanity through the hardest times. Whether as a 'Good Orderly Direction' or the 'Great Outdoors', or an old man with a beard, God gives us the strength to be of use and to recognise the miracles around us. Sometimes they're a rainbow. Sometimes they're a boat. As the American children's TV hero Mr Rogers said, 'Look for the helpers.' And as Bruce Springsteen said: 'Still at the end of every hard-earned day / People find some reason to believe.'
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
Does Northumberland really want to see the return of lynx?
Farming is hard, and sheep farming especially so. Sheep are endearing but awkward creatures, generally looking for the most inconvenient way to die. The weather is usually miserable. Lambing is an annual torment. The government is always dreaming up new ways to make things harder. In a real sense, I'm writing this because sheep farming is so hard. That's what persuaded me to leave the bleak, beautiful hills of Northumberland and make my living from writing and talking in bland, warm rooms in London. But my heart is still there, in the hills. My family too, and their sheep. So I continue to take an interest in the life of rural Northumberland, including in various attempts by well-meaning campaigners to reimagine the place as a stage for their environmental dreams. One such dream is the reintroduction of the lynx. For several years now, various groups have been pushing for the release into the Northumbrian countryside of the Eurasian lynx. These are magnificent beasts whose advocates say could play a vital role in local ecosystems. Not everyone is entirely persuaded, however. If you spend your waking life trying to keep sheep alive, the idea of 70-odd pounds of teeth and claws prowling your fields at night might just raise a few questions. But such doubts would spoil the story that lynx advocates appear keen to tell. Even though previous attempts to bring the lynx to Northumberland have been roundly rejected by local people, the lynx people are undeterred and continue to make their pitch. The latest drive comes from the Missing Lynx Project, a coalition of wildlife groups. It's got some headlines this week with a report that it says shows strong public support for releasing lynx into Northumberland's Kielder Forest and the surrounding areas of Cumbria and southern Scotland. Here's how they put it in their press release: A year-long social consultation has found that 72 per cent of people in the project area of Northumberland, bordering areas of Cumbria and southern Scotland, support potential lynx reintroduction. That line has already bounced around the media: '72 per cent of people in the region support their reintroduction', the BBC reports faithfully. Except that's not what the actual report says. This report details a commendably serious and reflective attempt to examine public opinion relating to lynx introduction. But that attempt is based on a large exercise in sampling bias. The 72 per cent figure comes from a self-selecting group drawn from people who visited a pro-lynx exhibition, attended talks, or voluntarily filled in a questionnaire organised by the same group campaigning for the reintroduction. These aren't ordinary members of the public drawn at random and representative of the wider population – they're the already-engaged, the already-interested, the already-convinced. Here's what the paper actually says about the survey data: As the questionnaire collected data from the 'active voice,' people who are interested in the topic or that have engaged with the project, the respondents that answered the questionnaire may not reflect the results at a regional or national population level. Compare and contrast that with the press release and headlines about 72 per cent of people in and around Northumberland backing the return of the lynx to Northumberland. The detail of that self-selecting sample is even more interesting. Of the 1,075 people in the area who completed the pro-lynx survey, no less than 42.9 per cent are employed in the 'environment and conservation' sectors. So, far from showing that the general public in Northumberland supports a controversial conservation project, the latest bit of lynx-lobbying actually shows that a lot of people who work in conservation and who engaged with a pro-lynx conservation project are in favour of a lynx-based conservation project. At the same time as spinning its consultation report, the pro-lynx camp is also highlighting a new paper in the Journal of Environmental Management which uses data analysis to show that Kielder Forest in Northumberland would be a lovely place to introduce a few dozen large carnivores. Again, it's a serious bit of work by academics and wildlife experts who earnestly believe that giving Britain some 'top carnivores' would have real ecological benefits. I'm sure they mean well. But the overall impression given by those two documents this week is of a coalition with an idée fixe – a pre-determined desire to let lynx loose somewhere, anywhere, in the UK. Quite where doesn't seem to matter to the lynx lobby, just so long as it's good for the big cats. The data paper is an overt attempt to identify places that would suit lynx. It devotes far less space to anyone else's needs. There are neat statistical estimates for how many lynx might be killed by cars, but no such modelling of potential livestock losses. All local farmers get – tucked away in an annex – is an airy concession that it is 'possible' the lynx would eat their sheep if deer populations turn out to be lower than expected: Although the current evidence from Europe suggests lynx do not frequently target livestock, it is possible that smaller livestock, such as sheep, might be predated in areas close to suitable lynx habitats or if wild prey species are of lower abundance. From the perspective of people who farm sheep for a living, that's not something to ignore. Hence, every time before that when the lynx lobbyists have tried to push big cats into Kielder, local opposition has blocked them. In 2015, the (Wales-based) Lynx UK Trust proposed an initial trial release of 18 lynx into Kielder. Farmers objected, warning of threats to livestock and questioning how the animals would be monitored and contained in such a vast and remote forest. The plan was abandoned, for a while. Then in 2018, the trust applied to Natural England for a licence to release six lynx. Defra rejected the application outright, saying it failed to meet international reintroduction guidelines and carried 'a significant risk' to livestock. Yet here we are again in 2025, with pro-lynx claims that – to put it mildly – appear to gloss over the possibility that local people, and farmers in particular, might not be keen on the lynx agenda. I'm not, as such, writing this to oppose that agenda. That would be somewhat hypocritical: I don't live there any longer, so it's not my place to say what should happen there. Instead, my point is that the people who live and farm in Northumberland should be the ones who decide whether large wild carnivores are set free in their woods and fields. The countryside is not a theme park. It's not there to fulfil the fantasies of rewilders looking for Instagrammable biodiversity or policy wins for their mailing lists. It's a working landscape, where people make a hard living from hard land. Those people deserve better than spin and lynx-lobbying.
