http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/one_15234___article.html/mother_talking.html
I want to say that I DO agree that it's probably a good idea not to
answer half the questions or so that small kids ask, if only because
there are multiple reasons for not giving an answer to the sensitive
questions they tend to ask and you wouldn't want your kid to assume
every single time that your lack of response has to do with your being
stupid, rude, unfair, or unwilling to admit that the kid is "right."
(In a far-fetched way, it reminds me of spoiled-brat preteen Eustace
Scrubb in "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," who will never admit that
he's wrong or uninformed about anything because he can't stand not
being the center of attention, so when he makes a "scientific"
statement about physiology that happens to be very stupid, he writes
later that "(Caspian) didn't say anything to this, which is always his
way when he doesn't have an answer." Of course, Caspian simply was
refusing to dignify the statement with a response.)
However, I smell trouble in Rosemond's idea for a response in the
column above. Sure, the mother's method may well backfire with that
particular, innocent child, but how many five-year-olds haven't heard
of intercourse and reproduction already? Why not just say "it's a
stupid term for...." and say that the boy was just talking in that
stupid way to get attention? No need to get anxious about it.
My main point, though, is that Rosemond's method is ALSO likely to
backfire because the boy is not mistaken and the girl could easily
find out that saying he was mistaken is a lie. Just because the slang
meaning may not appear in the dictionary doesn't change that.
Lenona.
|
