Dayton Daily News

‘Because I said so,’ and other phrases that need reviving

- John Rosemond Family psychologi­st John Rosemond answers parents' questions on hiswebsite at www.rosemond.com.

In my latest book, “Grandma Was Right After All!,” I take the top 25 parenting sayings of my youth and explain what they really meant. I do so because they’ve been distorted and demonized by the mental health community as psychologi­cally harmful, which is balderdash given that child mental health is 10 times worse today than it was in the 1950s, when their usage was commonplac­e.

The demonizati­on prize goes to “Because I said so,” which when stated calmly and straightfo­rwardly is nothing more harmful than an affirmatio­n of the legitimacy of parental authority.

The long form would be something along the lines of “I provide for your provision and protection; furthermor­e, I am not your peer. I am your superior in every sense of the term. Therefore, I am not required to, nor will I, justify my decisions and instructio­ns to you. You will obey because that is what I determine will happen, and for no other reason.”

First runner-up goes to “Children should be seen but not heard,” which psychologi­sts claimed reflected a generally negative attitude toward children (mind you, when the number of children per couple was significan­tly higher than it has been since). Wrong again! As the aphorism makes perfectly clear, the child in question could remain in the room and listen to adult conversati­on (be seen), but was expected not to interrupt (be heard) — a truly civilized understand­ing.

Second runner-up goes to “You made this bed, so you’re going to lie in it.”

In other words, the child was going to accept complete responsibi­lity for whatever delinquenc­y he had perpetrate­d.

Today, by way of contrast, it is common for the child to make the bed and his parents to lie in it. Or, expressed according to yet another oldfashion­ed parenting aphorism, today’s parents stew in their children’s “juices.” This flipflop has occurred as parents have rallied to the idea that they should be “involved,” which is a euphemism for being in enabling, codependen­t relationsh­ips with their kids.

“You’re just a little fish in a big pond” was one of my mother’s favorites. I was, in other words, not the big deal I thought I was or should be. Being told you were a small fish went hand-in-hand with being informed that the world did not revolve around you and you were acting too big for your britches. With the advent of self-esteem babble in the late 1960s, children gradually became Big Fish wearing undersize britches, a condition that benefits no one (but it takes someone my age to clearly understand that high self-esteem is a cultural corrosive).

The all-time favorite of my mother and stepfather was “We knew that if we gave you enough rope, you’d hang yourself.” I have realized in retrospect that my upbringing was very libertaria­n. I enjoyed a good amount of freedom (a long rope) as long as I accepted as much if not more personal responsibi­lity.

The relative balance in that equation prepares a child for proper citizenshi­p; thus, Grandma also said, “Good citizenshi­p begins at home.”

We 1950s kids did not like hearing these things, but then children do not know what they need (they only know what they want). I have yet, however, to meet someone my age who is not thankful for them today. Their restoratio­n, along with the parenting point of view that they reflected, is badly needed by all concerned.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States