The flaw in many of the usual strategies—whether they are strategies that are more sympathetic, or more authoritative—is that they don’t address the heart of why a parent gives their children the rules that they do.
That flaw is epitomized in the line that I’m tempted to use over and over
again: “I love you, but …”
The goal of any parent who says that—whether briefly, as stated, or through
the more complex series of words and actions suggested in the previous post—is to
communicate affection to the child while disciplining. But there’s a real problem with this.
In the first place, sometimes, with some children, this can gravely backfire. I’ve seen it with my own kids: Mama being
affectionate while saying “no” can send the message that Mama doesn’t mean
what she’s saying.
This is parenting death.
If your child is going to be a functioning adult, words have to mean
things. Words have signification.
Think about our national politics for the last twenty years or so, from “It
depends on the meaning of is” to the fights over various tweeters (on both
sides of the aisle).
In all seriousness, if you teach your children, even by omission, that your
words do not have meaning, you are contributing to the death of the Republic.
No, really, I’m not kidding.
(To be continued, obviously!)
No comments:
Post a Comment