In the past several posts, I’ve looked at things “good parents never say to their children” — according to the “experts” — and why I believe most of them are either devoid of necessary context or altogether mistaken.  This is the last post in that vein, and will be followed by one final post addressing areas where these “experts” have gotten it (more-or-less) right.

Today’s phrases/statements lean more heavily toward the “don’t say”s than the “do say”s.  That is, in order for them to be helpful, they should be used with thought and key context.

That is what happens when…

The Kid Counselor explains:

We often try to teach lesson to kids about life at the most inappropriate times. If a child gets hurt because they were doing something dangerous or inappropriate, they already learned their lesson. It is wasted words to try to express a rule when a child is upset, as they focus on one thing at a time. Instead, train yourself to say, “You realized that you jumped off the chair and got hurt when you landed on the ground”, rather than, “See, that is what happens when you jump off the chair”. The former acknowledges that the child already figured out the problem, but is still comforting.

Let’s break this down, because there are two separate concerns expressed here.

1. “We often try to teach lesson to kids about life at the most inappropriate times.”  Is the moment of relevance really an inappropriate time?  This probably varies with age.  Most of these same “experts” will tell us that consequences of poor behavior should follow immediately for young children, because they don’t have long memories and don’t readily associate things that happen far apart in time.This same difficulty in association between things separated by time means that, for a young child, the only effective time to teach a life lesson is when the action is happening!  “This is why we don’t jump on the furniture” is a completely appropriate bit of information to supply to a young child when he’s just fallen off the couch as a result of jumping on it.  That lesson loses considerable punch if you wait and try to teach it three days later.Hopefully it’s obvious that teaching a lesson shouldn’t be the only thing on your mind if your child has been hurt.  He needs compassion and comfort.  But comfort and education are not mutually exclusive.  If you’re dealing with a major injury — like a broken bone — it’s probably not the time for a life lesson.  Let’s face it, though; major injuries like this do not comprise the majority of the scenarios we deal with as parents.
2. “…they already learned their lesson…’You realized that you jumped off the chair and got hurt when you landed on the ground’”  This is where our “expert” is demonstrating a preference for modern psychobabble over the science of child development.  The whole problem here is that if we’re dealing with a young child, he probably didn’t learn the lesson.  He’s still figuring out the concept of cause-and-effect.  That’s the point of telling him, “This is what happens when…”  It isn’t a judgment — or, at least, it shouldn’t be — it’s a simple statement of fact.  It helps him make the connection.  “Oh, so that’s why I got hurt.”  The statement the Kid Counselor offers is ridiculous. There’s a good chance he didn’t realize that, in which case the statement is false.  If he did realize, it’s a stupid thing to say, because it’s restating the obvious.

If you do that one more time…

This phrase can, of course, be used in a threatening manner, in which case it’s not a good thing.  However, it can certainly be used as a plain statement of fact/fair warning.  The key is that it needs to be delivered calmly and with a clear and accurate “then” statement.

“If you jump on the bed one more time, your friends are going to have to go home.”

“If you scream one more time, you’ll have to go back in your bed.”

“If you throw the ball in the house again, I’m going to take it away.”

The Kid Counselor offers us the alternative “If you choose to ____, you choose____.”  There isn’t anything wrong with this statement.  It’s an acceptable alternative; but I don’t believe it’s a necessary alternative.  The idea is to emphasize to the child that it’s his choice.  I’m not sure this is something that bears emphasis.

The previous cause-and-effect does communicate that there’s choice involved.  “If you jump on the bed one more time, your friends are going to have to go home,” implies the inverse, as well: if the child doesn’t jump on the bed, his friends may stay.

However, it is equally important for children to learn that actions have consequences and we don’t always choose them.  We can know that certain wise actions tend to have positive consequences and unwise actions tend to have negative consequences, but we don’t always have a clear choice of consequences.  We simply need to know that we choose our actions and, by doing so, become responsible for the consequences of those actions.

My personal preference would be to use some combination of these phrases over the course of a child’s life, rather than using one to the exclusion of the other.

I’m on a diet.

This admonition (along with the next) comes from Parents.  The thinking is that telling your child you’re on a diet passes on an unhealthy body obsession.  This is one of those times where context matters.  “I’m on a diet,” is a statement of fact.  By itself, it is nothing more or less than that.  The parent’s attitude surrounding the concept of “diet” is what will matter to the child.

Why are you on a diet?  In pursuit of health?  Or because you have an unhealthy focus on physical appearance?  The former will communicate to the child that physical health is important.  The latter will communicate that physical appearance is a priority.  Either one will probably come through to the child in some other way, whether or not the words, “I’m on a diet,” ever come out of his parent’s mouth.

(And, frankly, we’re all on “diets.”  If you’re not on a diet, you don’t eat!  The real question is what kind of diet you’re on. 😉 )

Let me help.

This is generally good advice, especially when read in context, but it bears explaining.  The writers at Parents point out that parents are often too quick to jump in and help when we see our children struggling with something.  The struggle is part of the learning process.  When the child does seem to need a bit of help, they suggest asking guiding questions rather than just stepping in.

They’re right.  If we just do for our children, it’s difficult or impossible for our children to learn to do for themselves.  Sometimes it takes struggling, making mistakes, possibly even completely failing a few times before getting it right.  They have to keep trying, keep practicing, and hopefully when they hit a wall having someone give them a little nudge or a little direction instead of taking over.

But we need that context in order for the “off limits” nature of this statement to be accurate, because “let me help” can mean many different things.  If a child is struggling to tie his shoes, “let me help” might mean, “I’m going to tie the shoes for you.”  It might, however, just mean, “let me reposition your fingers for you before you try again,” or, “let me start and you can finish, and then next time you can try the whole process,”  or, “let me take out that knot that’s getting in your way.”

And once in a while, we’re just going to need to step in and let the child learn on another day.  If you’re already running late for a doctor’s appointment, it might not be the time for your preschooler to spend twenty minutes trying to tie his own shoes.  You might just have to say, “Let me help you get those tied now, and tomorrow you can practice some more.”