""Do As I Say; Not As I Do." ..............What?!?!"

Devin Joseph Metz

"If you must hold yourself up to your children as an object lesson, hold yourself up as a warning and not as an example." -  George Bernard Shaw

Yeah. Okay. 

If you were anything like I was in my childhood, you spent a great deal of your time scratching your head during this situation:

Parent: "You can't do/say that."

Kid: "But you do it all the time."

Parent: "You've got to learn to do as I say; not as I do. See and don't see. Hear and don't hear. Besides, you're a child. There are things I can do/say that you won't be able to for a very long time."

Kid: "("o.0)"

As a child, I often wondered if my folk knew just how mind-numbingly conflicted and confusing that was for me; not to mention just unfair altogether. If one takes time to examine it from a child's perspective, one would likely deduce that there is something about what their parents do or say that they are trying to hide; be it some semblance of fun that they are selfishly withholding, a secret that they refuse to let the child in on for some perceived ridiculous reason, or just another way to expound upon the obvious notion of "I'm an adult and you are not."

What the parent often fails to realize is that when a child considers one of these not-completely-off-kilter possibilities, the child may elect to just abstain from taking any action contrary to what was outlined to them in what they would consider very vague, shrouded detail...........................................................or the child may decide to take matters into his/her own hands and see what all the buzz is really about; regardless of what ramifications they will likely incur as a direct result. That's when things get dicey........

"I distinctly told you not to! I will not tolerate your willingness to misbehave!"

As is evident, even teens aren't immune to the age old "talking to." Contingent upon a variety of upbringings, backgrounds, customs, traditions, personalities, etc., there can be a number of extremities either way that may range from other forms of punishment for contrary behavior. Most of us can recall spanking; which to this day my Mother swears she has never had to do. 

Yeah okay, Mom.

Others may recall much more meticulous, calculated or just plain mean and seemingly unnecessary punishments. Some choose to merely resort to taking away things that their child may covet or placing certain restrictions on the child's privileges. I can recall my grandmother making my little brother and I kneel on rice for half an hour whenever we would fight. I still cringe every now and then just thinking about that.....

.....anyways, I've taken time to consider the child's stance on this issue; and I believe that the child would have somewhat of a valid argument; even if it is just for the sake of examination.

When a parent tells a child to do as they say but not as they do(confusion already considered to be established at this point), they may in some manner skew that child's decision making later on in life. One may never have considered that if the child's mother is an alcoholic, the child may stay abstain from drinking for a great deal of their young life until he/she reaches the legal drinking age. Does this mean that the child will not become a binge drinker as well? 

Likewise, if a child observes an abusive father that gives his child the exact same directive, aside from the resentment that child may harbor(and in more prevalent cases, outright fear) for him, that is hardly a foolproof method for making sure that child won't grow up to be exactly like him.


Telling a child that he/she should "See and Not See" is just as flawed of a method of parenting. Barring some future development where a parent's sense of awareness is increased exponentially, there will undoubtedly be things that a child will observe, uncover, stumble upon and walk in to that a parent would consider unfavorable for the child to have to witness. 

*Take this time to scroll back to that memory you've managed to lock away in your deeper recesses of your parents having an "affectionate wrestling match."*

There ya go.

There is little doubt that the child will have an inquiry or twelve reserved for the parent; contingent upon what he/she observed. Having them "not have seen" something that they obviously saw is like sitting them in front of the television and telling them to watch Duck Tales without focusing on it.

I want to meet the kid that was able to pull off that feat.


Requesting that your child "Hear and not hear" is woefully disparaging for a number of reasons; but most notably for the one truth that every parent must accept as such:


Kids. Are. Sponges. 


 Say enough of your routine phrases(they don't have to necessarily be derogatory) and you'll see how much your child hasn't heard eventually. They'll acknowledge your request while in your presence; but once you aren't around, their penchant for practicing what their parents preach will slowly(and quite selectively) fade into brief yet considerable obscurity. Your daughter might find it amusing to call her Ken doll what she heard her mother call her father whenever they lock themselves in their bedroom for a long time. 

Your son may key in on a style of language one would deem more suited for someone substantially older than he is; using it in arguments with his friends or while completely competitively engrossed in those contact sports that all the other parents bring their kids to as well. Imagine being the parent having to explain why their kid is using words learned from your kid; especially considering you weren't presently aware beforehand.

What is surely the most frustrating(and often repetitive) speech that most if not all children have to endure is the "I'm an adult and you're a child" performance. I'd hazard a guess that there may have been instances where a child that is told this by his/her parent usually responds with a monumentally confused look [(O.o)]. 

After having their parents repeat it to them incessantly, I'm more than sure that children know that they won't be able to say things that their parents say. Most of the time, the syllables sound like another language altogether anyways; and teenagers tend to find loopholes and/or alternative means of expressing similar terms reserved for their parents; be it their penchant for developing their own style of slang, physical expressions, etc. 

Children understand as well after enough brow-beating that they will not be able to do everything that their parents can do. No doubt the frustration for them peaked initially when they had to look up to the same counter top that they witness their parents looking down towards repeatedly; and nervous teens can't stand impatiently nervous parents due to their uncanny ability to conjure restrictions before, during, after and in anticipation of a conversing.

There isn't a mother or father that exists that isn't to some degree exuberant and excited about their child's potential to emulate their best habits and traits. Honestly, many of these emulations are more copyright infringement on the part of the child rather than hereditary; contrary to what the proud parent may choose to believe, of course. There is a bevy of inherent traits that a child is bound to have passed onto them from their parents genetically; but I am convinced extensively that a great deal of what a child exudes from their parents is merely emulated after enough exposure and display from the parent his/herself.

In lieu of this possibility, parents should take under advisement the potential for a child to harbor their negative habits and traits in similar fashion. This is why I believe that it is paramount that the parent offer a more distinct, detailed answer(within adequate reasoning, obviously) to accompany their restrictions and denouncements when questioned by their children regarding issues that may be outside the parameters of their current age bracket. Detail begets understanding; no matter the age differential. There must be an appropriate(albeit not necessarily predetermined) amount of exposure to the topic or issue that will be discussed between parent and child. It is the sole responsibility of the parent to decide when to remove and replace the lid on the content rendered, of course.

The parent must also keep in mind that understanding is a two way street: A mother or father should abstain from taking offense to their child's honest inquiry. Confusion should be viewed as an opportunity for calibration; not chastisement. One's decision to chastise a child for employing an unsavory habit or using derogatory or inappropriate terminology should also be examined per the situation before deciding whether or not to issue punishment. This makes light of a misunderstanding between the two while creating an opportunity for constructive and informative discussion. It would be rather harsh of a parent to chastise a child in one of these situations without first investigating to the fullest extent what may have influenced the child to engage in such behavior; especially if in all likelihood he/she may have garnered this from the parent his/herself.

Communication will serve as the bridge between the young, inquisitive, curious child and the cesspool of knowledge and experience he/she views their mother/father as. Failure to establish this communication may incur unfortunate experiences for both parties involved later on in life, however; regardless of whether the parent employs aversion or chastisement in response to their child's actions.

It's worth a shot. 

I for the record am not a parent as of yet. I've some time before my wife and I decide to embark on that journey together. 

For the parents thinking "You know, he has a valid point here;" thank you for being subjective enough to give me an audience and give yourself and your children a chance.

 For those parents thinking "How the hell can a newlywed give me advice on parenting? He hasn't even experienced this yet;" you are absolutely correct. 

How dare I drop in my two shekels? 

How dare I tell you how to address your children? 

How dare I criticize your motives when it comes to chastisement? 







How dare you read this entire entry and not ask beforehand? Shame on you. ;)

"Small Potatoes. Hot, Small Potatoes."

Devin Joseph Metz

"When We Allow use of the "N-Word" to become the litmus test for racism, we make it possible for the Rush Limbaughs of the World to claim that they are not racists. Racism is more than the use of a word." - Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Rush? Thoughts?

Never mind. 

The fact is, Mr. Moore is absolutely correct. The term is not where the buck stops when it comes to racism. It shouldn't be, at least. We are all presently aware and have been for a very long time about the sensitivity attached to the term(that is what I'll be calling it because I like many of us have used the word too often; so call it a scale back of sorts); but I'd hazard a guess at how many of us have actually taken time to ask ourselves why the term is as amplified as it is; especially in our current day and age with mainstream media, social networks and additional advancements involving communication technology at our grasp.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape or condemns me as "Pro___" or "Anti___", let it be understood that I am siding with no race, entity, faction or anything else when it comes to one's use of the term or racism altogether for that matter. I stand to believe that anything - be it a word, phrase, expression, thought, conversation, song, belief, lifestyle, etc. - that is expounded upon unnecessarily will at some point prove very controversial; therefore making everyone involved responsible for it being that way. Few things that stand alone command a slew of criticism, praise, sweeping indictments or any other kind of grand scale attention without having a fan for its flames; and I'm willing to admit that my arms are definitely weary years after my first initial interaction with something so controversial in exposure.

Those of you who viewed the recent documentary "Richard Pryor: Omit The Logic" this past May on Showtime will recall therein a portion of the documentary where his trip to Africa in 1982 was discussed:

"When I was in Africa, this voice came to me and said, "Richard, what do you see?" I said, I see all types of people." The voice said, "But do you see any n*****s?" I said, "No." It said, "Do you know why? 'Cause there aren't any."" - Pryor performing "Live At The Sunset Strip"

 Richard vowed never to use the term any more after that experience; and he never did. 

It took a trip to the motherland for a comedic genius such as himself to abstain from usage of the word in his stand up and overall schtick. He said that all he saw when he looked around were people.

People. 

To place this in perspective, use of the term was so prominent in what his acts constituted that he was initially perceived to a large degree not as funny without use of it. Needless to say, it wasn't even a dent in the legendary comedian's armor as he flourished extensively and abundantly without use of the term.

Whether the term is used to harm, make a joke or just in casual conversing, the sensitivity attached to the term is ominous but not insurmountable. Failure to recognize or the choice to blatantly ignore the ramifications of the words we choose to use will always constrict us at critical points in our lives.

But..... 

I believe that a great deal of that sensitivity is hinged upon our feeding into the controversy that surrounds it. A significant portion of that controversy we have built ourselves collectively to the point where lives have been threatened, personal images have been destroyed, livelihoods have been compromised, whole factions have opposed each other, careers have undergone tailspins, and the possibility for many more severe responses still looms ahead.

Excerpts from Paula Deen's deposition in lieu of a lawsuit filed against her by a former employee at one of her establishments revealed that Deen admitted using the term in years past; dating back as far as the 1960's according to her. She recalled using the term to refer to a black male that robbed a bank that she was working at back then. She stated that she "did not feel favorable towards him;" which one would understandably surmise after being held at gunpoint by anybody for that matter.

She went on to state that she used the word at times following the aforementioned incident. When her former employee's attorney asked her how the term could be used in a "non-mean way," Deen stated that use of the term was employed while conversing with other black people.

I'm not going to delve into how that may have gone over in closed quarters.

What likely hit a nerve, however is when Paula went on to describe wedding plans for her brother that she envisioned as a "true Southern plantation-style theme;" complete with black male servers to play the role of slaves during the antebellum era.

Although she did not use the term when detailing her vision for her brother's wedding, she no doubt may have stuffed her foot so far down her mouth that no amount of Southern drawl will loosen it considerably.

As was only slightly surprising but nowhere near shocking, Food Network elected not to renew Paula Deen's contract; which is set to expire at the end of June. Ensuing severed ties include Smithfield Foods removing her as their spokesperson, Wal-Mart ending their association with her and most recently, Caesar's Entertainment terminating their contract with Paula; announcing that they would rebrand four of their affiliated establishments as well.



Circumstances notwithstanding, there are opinions from a number of vantage points about whether or not Paula Deen deserved such an extreme response in lieu of her comments. Many believe that what happened to her was justified. Others feel that it may have been too harsh and likely could have been augmented to something more considerate: sort of along the lines of losing her endorsements but keeping her contract with Food Network. Whatever the predominant stance or opinion may be, the reality is that a term so amplified - even to some degree by Paula herself - mortified her and destroyed her public image and may have potentially shaped her livelihood and that of her family long term.


That is far too much power for one word.

Contrary to the fact that Paula Deen is a very fun-loving, animated person, one would have trouble disputing that her usage of the term would likely be considered pedestrian and rather demure in comparison to many other public figures that have used or discussed their usage of the term in public settings before her.


Hi, Michael Richards.

A term so damning and volatile only gains such weight from the purveyors of it; and a purveyor in this sense can be the person using the term, the person going out of their way to overtly and often unnecessarily express their hatred for its usage, a group of friends using it in casual conversing; whether to describe someone, each other or as a greeting, those placing the term in their everyday rhetoric whether in person or over a social medium, placing of the term in music, literature, film and other forms of mass media and just about any other platform or avenue that one can think of where this word is allowed and issued.

The overtly negative reaction to the term has served as the most consistent purveyor over the years. I'd venture to say that usage of the term in rap lyrics would serve as an extremely close second in my opinion.

I'm not at all saying that we - meaning black people or those who find the word offensive for sake of the history behind it - shouldn't find the term offensive at all. I just believe that we tend to over saturate the sting and overall bad vibe harbored by the word when we go to extremes in light of the utterance of a word. Expression is expected. Overt expression rather is exhausting to all parties involved, honestly.

We are all privy to our opinion on this matter while it still is considered an issue and long after it no longer is(whether or not that day comes remains to be seen). What should be kept in our collective minds, however is one's ability to give power to something that otherwise would not be considered as grand scale of an issue.Stating that an issue is small does not always mean that it is insignificant or that it does not matter. In this instance, the term is the issue obviously; and quite powerful for sure. Alongside our ability to amplify this term, our ability to look at this term for what it is still must be recognized; not for the sake of being passive about it but for the sake of one day coming to the point where the issue is done with altogether. I'm not in any position to speak on another person's behalf; but I for one am definitely looking forward to the day when we can see a small potato for what it literally is.