How to speak to children

[Dan Rowden]

"Panties" resembles all those cute words you normally offer in conversation with young children - e.g. "din-dins" (for dinner), "sweetie", "walkies" (for taking a walk), etc.

Actually, there's a dimension to this that just hit me that's possibly even more disturbing - that we use this very same terminology when we speak to our dogs and cats.

Dogs, cats and children. All on the same line of the wisdom chart.

I wonder how common that is?

In my experience it's very common. I think versions of it - degrees if you like - are almost universal among pet owners.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think we have to examine the psychology that lies behind such behaviour. And beyond that why we revert to it in romantic or courtship situations with other adults.

For those people that do that, I wonder how much is learned behavior either from watching their parents or television (and even television makes fun of certain terms of endearment).

One theory I had was that since guys have such a hard time remembering names, that they just call all of their girlfriends or even just all women "sweetheart" so they don't have to worry about calling one of them the wrong name, and the females just respond similarly.

Another theory, similar to (but I think expanded on - I don't remember the exact original) a theory I read from one/some of your, David's, and/or Kevin's writings that part of the bonding mechanism involves wanting to take care of a mate (American definition) similarly to how one would want to take care of a child produced by the act of mating. A potential mate would begin courtship by auditioning for the role of parent. An evolutionary preference would be given to those who auditioned well if there was a correlation between how one auditioned for a potential mate and how one performed as a parent. It also would promote the survival of mates (therefore producing more children of the same genetic stock) if one would care for the other in times of sickness or injury.

Off topic, do Austalians have a term for what Americans call mates? Actually the newer American term for it is "partner" - which I'm sure went over "really well" at the police departments since this term was first redesigned for homosexual couples regardless of how long the police used the term for the coworker they worked with most closely. Fans of wild west movies probably cringed, too.
.

[Carl G]

I have a 53-year-old co-worker, a woman, who is quite businesslike with customers, but who often reverts to child-speak with us, and especially with her 24-year-old daughter, who also works there and with whom she drives every day. Her daughter does it too. I marvel at these regressions, and wonder as to their cause.

I also tend to notice women calling their husbands "daddy" and men saying "mother" long after the kids have left the nest. Same with some men -- including young ones, just married -- calling their wives "my old lady" or "the old lady."

Edit twice: once to add comma, second to remove same.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

In my experience it's very common. I think versions of it - degrees if you like - are almost universal among pet owners.

Okay, taking "versions" into account does make it more common. Everyone I know of uses more communicative tones to a dog because it is generally accepted that dogs respond more to tones than the actual words. When speaking to a dog other than calling it, the animal responds more joyfully to being called "puppy" than "dog" due to the dog-friendly phonics of "p" verses the more aggressive "d" and "g" sounds. Considering that when "dog" is spoken out loud, an "h" sound is produced at the end, the term can sound a bit like a bark. Especially when confronting strange dogs, I have always considered it a good idea to use friendly tones and call it a puppy, no matter how large of a dog it is (along with the other correct behaviors to encourage a friendly interaction rather than to get bitten).

Very small children similarly are more likely to produce the desired behaviors if the task is approached with friendly enthusiasm. I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with altering one's tone for a child. I have done so, but as I think about it, altering my tone is a mild form of manipulation to get the desired results. My father always spoke to me in adult tones, and other than the sporatic daily bursts into baby-talk, my mother generally used adult tones on me, and in normal conversation, both treated me like an adult. I was a very serious, mature child who my mother would describe as having been "born 30" - and I don't know how much of my maturity came from the standard response of early maturity of abused children, and how much was from being spoken to like an adult.

If being spoken to like an adult from an early age promotes more rational thinking later in life, it would be wrong to use significantly altered tones on children once they have gotten old enough to understand language (for example, "no" must be said in a harsh tone until the child associates the meaning to the word), but constructive manipulation through tone might still be beneficial to the child. An example would be displaying enthusiasm about a child learning, which would promote such beneficial activities as reading.

To a degree, this is never outgrown. If a manager presents a project with enthusiasm and provides sporatic encouragement, it lifts the energy and thought capabilities of the employees, increasing quality productivity. A grouchy or glum manager will drain the employee's energy, slowing productivity and increasing employee turn-over and sick leave.

All of this though is a matter of tone and attitude, and to a lesser degree, the words themselves. If some dim-wit manager read the above paragraph and thought "encouragement" meant going up to an employee while wearing a big, dopey grin and saying "What a good little employee you are - you're doing your work, aren't you?" - the intended effect will not materialize.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I also tend to notice women calling their husbands "daddy" and men saying "mother" long after the kids have left the nest. Same with some men -- including young ones, just married -- calling their wives "my old lady" or "the old lady."

The term "old lady" for "wife" has been around awhile, so that is most likely unconcious parroting. It is disrespectful, though. Calling a spouse "daddy" or "mother" is a "cute" thing, and probably subconciously reinforces the permanent bond between a man and woman who have a child together. Once a couple has a child, there is a bond that even death and divorce can't break. Using a cute term like that may provide emotional security that the other person is indeed a permanent part of their life.

What I find really disturbing is the trend among young men in my area to call their girlfriends "bitch" or "ho" (short for "whore"), including calling them that like they are calling them by their name. What may be worse, the young women are actually responding to that, and going to them like it's nothing when the call out "ho" or say "Bitch, come here." IMO, calling a girlfriend "ho" as a pet name is the most vile connotation possible. Although they don't mean anything by these terms so one should not be offended per se, they are disrespectful and not promoting higher values.
.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think we have to examine the psychology that lies behind such behaviour. And beyond that why we revert to it in romantic or courtship situations with other adults.

It doesn't look very mysterious to me. Essentially it's all aimed to facilitate emotional bonding between people or animals. Not much difference if it are lovers, animals, close friends, long standing colleagues or a closely knit in-crowd.

This emotional bonding that comes with certain playful 'insider' phrases and voicing will facilitate the relation in terms of feelings of trust and identification as a couple or group. And a constant re-affirmation of such because bonds will weaken by themselves when left unmaintained.

[Cory Duchesne]

In regards to the way it is used by people supposedly in love with eachother, I think the term 'baby' is interesting to consider.

A man seems to call his female sexual partner 'baby' perhaps almost as much as she calls him baby, at least these days. It seems there's a certain blissful reciprocity involved when the term is used in a love relationship.

I'm guessing both parties want to simultaneously be the protector and possesor of something pure and harmless (this would be the more masculine role, and perhaps this is why the male might more often call his woman baby, than the other way around). But also many males like to be a woman's baby just as well. It certainly seems to represent an attempt at fulfilling a longing to return to the bliss of infancy, where all responsibility and thinking is annuled.

When it comes to how a couple addresses the children, I can't recall fathers addressing their teenagers by the term 'baby' as much, if not at all. Mother's on the other hand seem to be more readily disposed to call their children 'baby' well into their teens. The mother has a stronger disposition to hold the mental development of her children back, putting effort into keeping them dependent and emotional, and thus in need of her.

The father is often frusterated that his kids have grown up to be so utterly dependent and unsuccessful. But he has himself to blame just as much as anything.

It's almost like this emphasis on regulating loved ones to the status of 'baby' stems from a terror and hatred of higher human capacity, and this higher capacity is of course very anti-baby.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Essentially it's all aimed to facilitate emotional bonding between people or animals. Not much difference if it are lovers, animals, close friends, long standing colleagues or a closely knit in-crowd.

This emotional bonding that comes with certain playful 'insider' phrases and voicing will facilitate the relation in terms of feelings of trust and identification as a couple or group.

Insider phrases is one thing, but terms of endearment are another. Furthermore, even those who might call their spouses "snookums" would not call a long standing collegue "snookums." I'll grant you that there should not be much of a difference in the treatment of such people, but I disagree that you should treat your lover (etc.) like your dog. That's degrading, and bonding does not require degrading other people.
.

[Shahrazad]

I called my children "baby" well into their teens, and now they're as independent as they get. Similarly, my dad occasionally calls me baby, to this day.

I see nothing wrong with it, but then, it may just be me and my Latin upbringing. We believe that there is no such thing as too much affection.

.

[Cory Duchesne]

I called my children "baby" well into their teens, and now they're as independent as they get. Similarly, my dad occasionally calls me baby, to this day.

I see nothing wrong with it, but then, it may just be me and my Latin upbringing. We believe that there is no such thing as too much affection.

.

Well, yes, I suppose it might just be as simple as that.

Regarding our objects of love as 'babies' enhances our care and affection for objects. Regarding loved ones as babies might help put difficult-to-love behaviors in a more lovable context.

Cute words we give to our loved ones, most notably, 'baby' might be a mechanism to help stabalize our love for the inevitabley difficult-to-love qualities that our objects of love are bound to possess.

"Afterall, our son Jimmy who was recently arrested for stealing a car and crashing it while drunk, is our baby." "Oh, Poor Jimmy. He must be so scared and sorry." "My poor baby"

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In regards to the way it is used by people supposedly in love with eachother, I think the term 'baby' is interesting to consider. (...)

It certainly seems to represent an attempt at fulfilling a longing to return to the bliss of infancy, where all responsibility and thinking is annuled.

But the relationship of caretaker toward baby, which is referred to when calling someone 'baby', can hardly be called 'irresponsible'. On the contrary it means full care and attention possibly to the point of obsession. My guess would be the term 'baby' signifies the special close relationship (mostly care or possession) toward a partner, or just as well toward a car, a gun, or any valuable personal possession in certain size range. Something like 'my precious' or 'treasure' (which is in Dutch the more common word comparable to the English 'honey').

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

We believe that there is no such thing as too much affection.

Now that brings up an interesting question. Does affection require terms of endearment that point to a role of inferiority in the other person?

Affection can also be displayed through certain types of physical touch, but even that is degrading when done between adults in public.

The Latin culture does seem to be more emotional in general, as well as have stonger bonds to more extended family. The parties are usually louder, when upset, they cry out loud, when angry they yell, and when one has to go to a counselor or the hospital, pretty much the whole family goes with the person. The also abide by more stereotypical gender roles, where it is the man's place to boss the wife around and the woman's place to provide lots of details of caring for the man.

Is all of this related, and is having lots of affection worth the yelling, throwing things, and the woman having to be a slave to the man? If it is all related, I would say that for me personally, it is not worth the trade. I am not saying that your culture is wrong, and I can see where there would be many benefits to a strong family structure; it is just that for me personally, I would not be able to tolerate all that commotion for very long at all.
.

[Cory Duchesne]

In regards to the way it is used by people supposedly in love with eachother, I think the term 'baby' is interesting to consider. (...)

It certainly seems to represent an attempt at fulfilling a longing to return to the bliss of infancy, where all responsibility and thinking is annuled.

But the relationship of caretaker toward baby, which is referred to when calling someone 'baby', can hardly be called 'irresponsible'.

My point is that the desire to be someones baby, to be precious, is to desire one's responsibility partly annuled. Since couples and families value playing the role of baby, as much as protecting the baby, the result is that no one is absolutely responsible. It's just a bunch of people trying to be responsible yet wanting to be a precious baby at the same time. They want both the cake and to eat it too.

The result is that no one is really responsible.

My guess would be the term 'baby' signifies the special close relationship (mostly care or possession) toward a partner, or just as well toward a car, a gun, or any valuable personal possession in certain size range.

I guess what I was getting at was, however evolutionary advantageous the tendency might have been in the past, having grown ups reduce fellow grown-ups and teenagers down to objects of precious possesion is not responsible in light of wisdom.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Essentially it's all aimed to facilitate emotional bonding between people or animals. Not much difference if it are lovers, animals, close friends, long standing colleagues or a closely knit in-crowd.

This emotional bonding that comes with certain playful 'insider' phrases and voicing will facilitate the relation in terms of feelings of trust and identification as a couple or group.

Insider phrases is one thing, but terms of endearment are another. Furthermore, even those who might call their spouses "snookums" would not call a long standing collegue "snookums."

There are the same thing in the sense that their purpose is the same. Of course the words will differ in all kinds of situations. Duh.

I'll grant you that there should not be much of a difference in the treatment of such people, but I disagree that you should treat your lover (etc.) like your dog. That's degrading, and bonding does not require degrading other people.

Most people would be very happy to be treated like the average pet these days, in terms of food, care and lack of complaints and blame laying or other psychological games. We often accept our animals 'as they are', way easier than we accept our fellow humans.

I wonder what you find exactly degrading in sweet talk. As long as nobody tries to put diapers on you, or control your life in any way, what's exactly the problem with terms of endearment if coming from a person close to you? I mean, you don't mean to say that these words have to actually mean something apart from sounding playful, you silly pumpkinny!

If you don't "get it" what some words try to accomplish on a subconscious level (eg making one smile or at ease) then it surely sounds like childish gibberish, of course. It's the same with poetry, music, rhythms: the communication is between agents not involved in higher reasoning. And that's by design, in terms of non-linearity and complexity of the signals involved (context, facial expression, being in tune with someone's cognition, and so on).

This also means mistakes can happen easily here just as well; miscommunication on a fundamental level. Talking the talk while not walking the walk, or have a clue about the receiving end.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I guess what I was getting at was, however evolutionary advantageous the tendency might have been in the past, having grown ups reduce fellow grown-ups and teenagers down to objects of precious possesion is not responsible in light of wisdom.

But is this reduction really always finding place? I think the meaning of the words is not that crucial on this level. There's a loose association perhaps but one could as well use fantasy words in many cases.

Now I can agree that expressions of precious possession are not what is sought after by wise people. But at the same time I think close human-human relations depend on mutual re-affirming of the bond. There are many ways but vocalization is one of them. The moment keeping close relations with people, kids or pets becomes a non-issue, the need for any emotional language skill disappears too. Not having the skill and then trying to enter relationships with people is recipe for non-stop disaster. Emotion is the fuel of any social life.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Most people would be very happy to be treated like the average pet these days, in terms of food, care and lack of complaints and blame laying or other psychological games. We often accept our animals 'as they are', way easier than we accept our fellow humans.

To quite an extent that is true. Part of the allure of the welfare system is not having to do anything but just be yourself, and your basic needs are met. In some ways there is less freedom and control over one's own life by being a pet of any sort because you are only given the quantity of freedom that your owner allows you to have - but that can vary from one owner to the next.

I wonder what you find exactly degrading in sweet talk. As long as nobody tries to put diapers on you, or control your life in any way, what's exactly the problem with terms of endearment if coming from a person close to you?

I'll have to get back to you on that. I know I have grown to tolerate various names that were not baby-ish, and it has mostly been the baby-talk stuff and public displays of affection that I have always had a distaste for, but since I have had these distastes since long before I started reasoning about things I'll have to go think about what, if any, logical reasons I personally have for finding them degrading under the circumstances you described.
.

[PyroSylph]

Part of the allure of the welfare system is not having to do anything but just be yourself, and your basic needs are met. In some ways there is less freedom and control over one's own life by being a pet of any sort because you are only given the quantity of freedom that your owner allows you to have - but that can vary from one owner to the next.

I know communication is sometimes difficult in this medium, but could you please present a more detailed explanation of this statement? Are you insinuating that people on welfare are choosing a pet-like lifestyle?

If you are presenting the allure of the system as being one of "not having to do anything but be yourself" and have your needs met, yet include that one knowingly gives up (to some extent) freedom and control over his/her own life, it then appears as if you are saying that these people willingly choose to become pets for the freedom of being themselves.

Do you in fact think of those who are on welfare as being pets to the system? If so, exactly what freedoms to you think they are giving up to their "owners?"

typo edit

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Diebert,

First, thank you for pointing out what I needed to think on. I recognized that the knee-jerk nausea that I got from Dan's unexpected term was an example of falling for the duality, but thank you for prompting me to examine that. The nausea came from an opinion that was formed unconciously. I looked at both sides to see if the opinion was valid, and I see that sometimes the right opinion can be formed unconciously. That, however, does not excuse one from the penalties of not thinking about it.

I wonder what you find exactly degrading in sweet talk.

In a general sense, it is degrading to anyone when used in public. The terms conjure thoughts about the people engaged in this behavior that relate the participants to animalistic behaviors rather than life goals or a higher purpose. People are viewed more as common animals than beings with potential. This pervasivly reinforces societal goals that are animalistic in nature.

Even if one wishes to engage in sweet talk and any benefits they might receive from it from a person close to them, it would be wrong to engage in such behavior in public because it can alter others' attitudes toward that person into a less serious light. This is especially true for females who have to work extra hard at being taken seriously in a male-dominated setting. For example, if a female were in a work environment that was male-biased, and she were seen with someone being "cute" with her, that could damage her professional credibility and working relationships.

If you don't "get it" what some words try to accomplish on a subconscious level

Equally the speaker must be aware of the effect that such words would have on the person. The only scenario I could come up with where it might not be damaging, and possibly beneficial, to use such verbal interactions would be in strict privacy. Even in this case, it would only be beneficial to those who found use for such communications, and the communications must be received well as much as meant well.

Personally, I would find most terms of endearment to be superfluous misnomers at best. "Dear" or "dear one" would be acceptable in private, as they are more often reserved for adult communication of endearment. Often though, it is used in sarcasm. The more baby-ish the name, the more degrading - almost definitively. The infantile stage is the most degrading stage of human development. You've got people touching you all over your body and somebody wiping in between your legs, which is even less comfortable than a dirty diaper, but you can't do anything about either condition, you have to try so hard to accomplish anything and there is some stuff you can't do at all - meanwhile you see everyone else walking around, no one else is strapped in a high chair - they can all get up and walk around when they want to and not only do you have to try to get someone to let you down, once you get there you're struggling to just try to stand up. It's just really frustrating. Every stage of development after that is an upgrade - therefore referencing an earlier stage of development is downgrading, or degrading.

I hadn't thought about that in a long time, and I don't have many memories from when I was a baby, so maybe you're right about much of this working on the subconcious level. I hated being a baby, so the subconcious cues it strikes on me are very negative. Maybe this baby-talk stuff works better on people who actually liked their infancy. Thank you Diebert for prompting me to figure that one out.
.

[Shahrazad]

Cory,

"Afterall, our son Jimmy who was recently arrested for stealing a car and crashing it while drunk, is our baby." "Oh, Poor Jimmy. He must be so scared and sorry." "My poor baby"

This is not the type of mother that I am. I also deliver tough love. I have raised my girls to be very independent, and to face the consequences of their actions.

E,

Now that brings up an interesting question. Does affection require terms of endearment that point to a role of inferiority in the other person?

If you think of babies as inferior beings, I hope you never have any.

I do not call people baby because I think they're inferior. That's all I can tell you for now.


Cory,

My point is that the desire to be someones baby, to be precious, is to desire one's responsibility partly annuled. Since couples and families value playing the role of baby, as much as protecting the baby, the result is that no one is absolutely responsible. It's just a bunch of people trying to be responsible yet wanting to be a precious baby at the same time. They want both the cake and to eat it too.

This is pretty close to what it's like for me. You understood my culture a lot better than E did.

.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Are you insinuating that people on welfare are choosing a pet-like lifestyle?

Some of them, but not all of them. Many have no alternative but the welfare system.

If you are presenting the allure of the system as being one of "not having to do anything but be yourself" and have your needs met, yet include that one knowingly gives up (to some extent) freedom and control over his/her own life, it then appears as if you are saying that these people willingly choose to become pets for the freedom of being themselves.

Yes, and by "allure" I meant that a lot more people than who are on the welfare system fantasize about going on welfare.

Do you in fact think of those who are on welfare as being pets to the system?

It's a good analogy.

If so, exactly what freedoms to you think they are giving up to their "owners?"

First understand that we are all owned in at least one way or another. To simplify the discussion, I will narrow it down to those owned by the state (welfare) and those owned by a corporation (employed). This is what I meant by the conditions of being a pet of any sort can vary from one owner to the next. A corporate owner takes much more of your time and energy, but provides you with the freedoms that money can buy (ability to get items you want or do things that cost money to do) whereas a government owner asks for much less or none of your time or energy, but only provides you with the freedoms it sees fit to give you. This might mean a very small check (so you pretty much only have financial freedom over your basic needs) or it might mean that they find you so unfit to live in society, they provide you with either a nice hospital bed or prison cot (depending what kind of pet you are) and people to take more complete care of you, but you don't get to go anywhere or do anything without somebody's permission.

It isn't an exact correlation (hence analogy rather than identity), but it worked well as an analogy that went with what Diebert was saying.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

You understood my culture a lot better than E did.

When you have time, if there is anything I missed about your culture - not meaning the interpretation of "baby" that Cory gave, but absolutly anything that I did not get correct about your culture as a stand-alone statement - PLEASE educate me. I live in a very Latino area, and both years of the Master's program in mental health had a heavy multicultural overlay of the Latino perspective - and for years of working in the hospitals there were many inservices about Latino culture, so I thought I understood the parts I stated. If any of what I said was wrong - please correct me.

If you think of babies as inferior beings, I hope you never have any.

Read my post to Deibert and you will understand what I meant. I would rather be at any stage of development than infancy or the equivalent.
.

[Cory Duchesne]

Shahrazad wrote to Elizabeth:

If you think of babies as inferior beings, I hope you never have any.

When it comes to regarding babies as 'inferior beings', it is true that they can rightly be regarded as such, given that we understand there is no such thing as 'inherent' inferiority. Something can only be inferior in context. Or in other words, something is inferior relative to values. So, when it comes to conceptualizing the characterisitcs of a wise person, the characteristics of a baby would rightly be judged as inferior, in light of context.

If we value the preservation and future success of our species, then babies would rightly be judged as the superior object of attention compared to the Alzheimers patient dying a few blocks down in the hospital. We would focus our energy and resources on him only when the baby is properly looked after.

[Jamesh]

First, thank you for pointing out what I needed to think on. I recognized that the knee-jerk nausea that I got from Dan's unexpected term was an example of falling for the duality, but thank you for prompting me to examine that.

Gosh you lot are a bunch of weirdo's. Stop taking life so seriously - there is nothing to be serious about.

[PyroSylph]

E said:

For example, if a female were in a work environment that was male-biased, and she were seen with someone being "cute" with her, that could damage her professional credibility and working relationships.

It would only damage her credibility if the one witnessing the incident had your opinion of the situation. For most people it would lead to nothing more than silly office rumors, or at the most the guy would be asked to keep his amorous inclinations out of the workplace. Normally someone's professional credibility is damaged by their own doing. Their working relationships are usually damaged by personality conflicts or irresponsibility.

If I concede (for sake of discussion) that in your example such damages could result, can you explain why you believe it would be the woman who would suffer repercussions and not the man? To what wrongdoing is she being held accountable? If it is a male-biased setting as you proposed, and it is a man who is being "cute" with her, then should it not be the character of the man that is questioned rather than the woman's credibility?

Some of them, but not all of them. Many have no alternative but the welfare system.

So what method do you use to distinguish the difference between those who have "chosen to be pets" and those who "have no alternative?"

It isn't an exact correlation (hence analogy rather than identity), but it worked well as an analogy that went with what Diebert was saying.

How so? When Diebert said:

Most people would be very happy to be treated like the average pet these days, in terms of food, care and lack of complaints and blame laying or other psychological games. We often accept our animals 'as they are', way easier than we accept our fellow humans.

What I got from it was not that people would be willing to give up any freedoms and become pets, but rather that they would be happy being treated like pets. To be pampered, taken care of, no worries, etc. I see nothing in what he said that could point back to people willingly becoming pets to the welfare system.

Someone who has chosen to be on the welfare system probably hasn't done so because they want to be treated like someone's pet or to be owned. If they have, then they aren't too bright. They would benefit much more if they found a Sugar Daddy or Sugar Momma. As for those who have no alternative to welfare- I'm sure they appreciate your "good analogy." (insert eye-roll here)

Shah said:

I do not call people baby because I think they're inferior.

Most people don't! There is nothing wrong with terms of endearment between two people who are aware of the reasons they are being used. For those who are unwilling (or unable) to experience that type of relationship to attempt to bring something degrading and ominous to it tells us a lot. And if they are willing (or able) to experience that type of relationship, why would they ever assume that terms of affection could be degrading to begin with?

[David Quinn]

Affection itself is degrading.

-