Anonymous wrote:Parents use that line to justify bad choices that they know hurt their child. That’s the only time I’ve ever heard it used.

It’s the parents job to be resilient - young kids shouldn’t be forced to be.

I disagree. Never in the history of humankind, there was so much pressure on the parents (and especially mothers) to be perfect and to cater to our children, while of course maintaining a successful career, a perfect home, and a great social circle. Mothers are expected to breastfeed (even if it kills them), come up with ridiculous amounts of stimulation for their children, be super involved in their kids' lives and schooling, etc. And we are not allowed to use any crutches: no bouncers, no screens, no drop off playdates, no riding the bus to get to the practice (pretty much ever). So I think that people use this phrase to rebel against the constant mom shaming. Here, I don't mean the serious abuse that OP mentions but:
- Kids can be formula-fed. They are resilient.
- Kids can be bored for a while. They are resilient.
- Kids can eat purees or do BLW. Kids are resilient.
- Kids can eat something quick on the go, rather than your perfectly thought-through organic lunch that you prepared. They are resilient.

As your kids grow, you need to teach them resilience. Yes, I am resilient as a parent, but my parents also gave me space to become resilient. If I did not turn in my homework, I got an F. No, my mom did not call the teacher to give her all the excuses for me. I dealt with an F. You need to give your kids space to fail and to make mistakes, rather than foreshadowing every single move and misstep. As long as you love them, feed them, and support them, your kids will be fine.

This is also kid temperament dependent. There are orchids, dandelions, and tulips.

Some kids will flourish no matter the circumstances and it looks like they are just resilient. Resiliency is a psychological theory and isnt completely fleshed out. There are lots of different definitions depending on the culture and environment (physical, social, mental, etc.). Positive experiences and emotions play a big role in resiliency. Its part of ego development. There is speculation that social connectedness, emotional regulation and "determination" are contributing factors. Some people are also resilient at certain times in their life and not resilient in others or resilient in certain aspects (personal/family) but not resilient in others (work/school).

From my understanding of resiliency, capacity is a big component. Emotional capacity is a big one meaning that kids need to acknowledge and feel safe expressing a wide range of emotions in early years. If kids are taught they are not allowed to be angry or sad then when something happens that makes them angry or sad they cant respond because it doesnt exist within their framework. If kids are taught that certain emotions or feelings are shameful and shouldnt be shared then they lose the ability to connect with others on that level. Capacity to trust is another factor in resiliency.

Once they can acknowledge certain feelings then comes the what to do about it and that comes from parents and modeling. "I am sad about grandpa dying too. I really loved him and I think you loved him too. Its okay to be sad about losing grandpa. I have some thoughts about what I need to do to honor grandpa and process life without him. Do you have any ideas about what you would like to do- together or on your own?"

There are very few kids who just say - Oh I was left alone most of my childhood without any real direction or modeling, had no parental or social support, had trouble making friends and now I am going to be a fully functioning adult who positively contributes to society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with that statement in most cases. I do never say it though. Such generalizations are blase and passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it means what people take it to mean or what you described as your take on it.
For example, my father was born in 1938 in former Yugoslavia. He was shorter than his older brothers. He lost his hair early due to some cradle issue that was not resolved. He was teased and called a German after the war due to his blonde hair and blue eyes. These are just superficial things you called bullying. The harsh reality of life made these well, not a big deal at all.
He finished college, became a good dad, built a house for us, took care of his family, and lived a full life.
My mom was a premie born in 1947 and lived in a shoebox next to a fireplace. Her dad was an abusive alcoholic who used to beat her. She, too, became a successful woman who opened her own company and earned money to keep us fed during the 90s wars when survival was tough for all.
Today, perhaps we coddle our kids too much, and hence they might appear not to be resilient.
I bet you if we left the kids to their own devices in college and childhood, not neglecting, but letting them roam the neighborhood like DH and I did, he in the U.S., me back in former Yugoslavia, they would turn out fine, in most cases.
So, if your definition of kids doing fine is getting into MIT and not into UMD... well then, IMO, you have a wrong definition of what fine is.

My parents lived through a war/post war period with displacement, death, poverty, and hunger. They went on to have a financially stable life and were good parents. I didn’t know until the end of their lives how much they internally suffered from their childhood experiences, even in their 80’s. There is an assumption that generation is fine, when it’s really not.

Nobody is asking if they are fine, but if they are resilient. Nobody is 100% fine. Now, we are all supposed to be fine and perfectly adjusted? Your parents and mine made it and were resilient.
Did they suffer? Yes?
Compared to many kids today who are in stable families? Yes, they suffered and made it ok. My FIL's dad, an American German, fought in WWII on the side of the U.S., came home, beat his kids up, and killed himself when FIL said something that hurt him. He was not fine. Compared to him, my parents were resilient.

I think somehow we need to figure out how to teach our kids how to process things but ALSO how to move on. PP who's child lost their father, you find it upsetting to hear this, but the alternative is that your child is forever scarred by this and will never recover. I can't imagine that you want to have a 30 year old son who believes that losing his father irrevocably injured his life.

You can frame something as having left an indelible mark on you without accepting that your entire life will be shaped by the event.

I think people who use this as some excuse to mistreat children or to not deal with their trauma are bad parents and wrong, but IMO learning how to persevere through something, even if its hard, even if it still hurts, that is how you get through life.

Life is hard, you have to get back up again. You have to keep getting back up again. And I don't think this is the same as toxic positivity (which I think is a really real thing). It's how people in the zombie movies become the people who survive, you can't sit there crying, you need to stand up and figure out what your next move is.

I also have a high ACE score and while I do have some of the lifetime impacts (high BMI, anxiety, etc) I am also a survivor who always gets back up. I have a good husband and family and job and I credit this to my resilience.

I do think though that for every me, and every pp above with the score of 5, there are 10 kids that just end up screwed up. People should try to help children learn how to cope, not just throw then into the deep end and see who survives. But never letting them in the pool is IMO almost as bad as the people seeing who will sink and who will swim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with that statement in most cases. I do never say it though. Such generalizations are blase and passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it means what people take it to mean or what you described as your take on it.
For example, my father was born in 1938 in former Yugoslavia. He was shorter than his older brothers. He lost his hair early due to some cradle issue that was not resolved. He was teased and called a German after the war due to his blonde hair and blue eyes. These are just superficial things you called bullying. The harsh reality of life made these well, not a big deal at all.
He finished college, became a good dad, built a house for us, took care of his family, and lived a full life.
My mom was a premie born in 1947 and lived in a shoebox next to a fireplace. Her dad was an abusive alcoholic who used to beat her. She, too, became a successful woman who opened her own company and earned money to keep us fed during the 90s wars when survival was tough for all.
Today, perhaps we coddle our kids too much, and hence they might appear not to be resilient.
I bet you if we left the kids to their own devices in college and childhood, not neglecting, but letting them roam the neighborhood like DH and I did, he in the U.S., me back in former Yugoslavia, they would turn out fine, in most cases.
So, if your definition of kids doing fine is getting into MIT and not into UMD... well then, IMO, you have a wrong definition of what fine is.

It’s not about where anyone goes to college. You don’t need to answer this, but the question is, did your dad beat your mom? And did she think that was okay or normal? If she didn’t, why not? Who provided that safety net for her and told her that she didn’t deserve that? Who told your dad that it wasn’t okay to beat or bully people weaker than himself, when that was what he experienced growing up? Also, why did your dad stop providing for your family during the 90s wars and leave it to your mom?

What? What does my grandpa beating my mom has to do with my dad? Who said my dad stopped providing in the 90s? He did, but mom earned more, and more was needed. Why would it have to be dad-providing and not both? Dad also worked and on and off it was what he earned or what mom earned that provided. How does one exclude the other? My dad did not bully anyone, he was bullied, why would that automatically make him a bully? He was never a bully.
What chip do you have on your shoulder that makes you come to these wild projections?

Wait. Are you serious with these questions? They aren’t wild projections.
Have you never heard of Freud, the unconscious mind?

Have you ever heard of Charles Darwin? I feel like you are going to ask me next how humans could have evolved from monkeys.

The answer to your questions is definitely interesting and worth learning! But it is beyond the scope of a parenting chat board.

You are not my parents' therapist. You are just a looney on dcum! The question is are kids resilient? The answer is yes!

Anonymous wrote:I agree with that statement in most cases. I do never say it though. Such generalizations are blase and passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it means what people take it to mean or what you described as your take on it.
For example, my father was born in 1938 in former Yugoslavia. He was shorter than his older brothers. He lost his hair early due to some cradle issue that was not resolved. He was teased and called a German after the war due to his blonde hair and blue eyes. These are just superficial things you called bullying. The harsh reality of life made these well, not a big deal at all.
He finished college, became a good dad, built a house for us, took care of his family, and lived a full life.
My mom was a premie born in 1947 and lived in a shoebox next to a fireplace. Her dad was an abusive alcoholic who used to beat her. She, too, became a successful woman who opened her own company and earned money to keep us fed during the 90s wars when survival was tough for all.
Today, perhaps we coddle our kids too much, and hence they might appear not to be resilient.
I bet you if we left the kids to their own devices in college and childhood, not neglecting, but letting them roam the neighborhood like DH and I did, he in the U.S., me back in former Yugoslavia, they would turn out fine, in most cases.
So, if your definition of kids doing fine is getting into MIT and not into UMD... well then, IMO, you have a wrong definition of what fine is.

My parents lived through a war/post war period with displacement, death, poverty, and hunger. They went on to have a financially stable life and were good parents. I didn’t know until the end of their lives how much they internally suffered from their childhood experiences, even in their 80’s. There is an assumption that generation is fine, when it’s really not.

Because i think if everything is pretty ok most of the time, kids can get over and work through temporary set backs and hard things. They do need help with this from parents and teachers but its possible. This does not include major systemic issues like continuous health problems, poverty, violence and abuse etc. Kids in those environments are very much affected and need a lot of help processing their childhood traumas.

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad to see so many hate this sentiment as much as I do! I think it’s so dismissive and hurtful to the child.

DH died when our son was 3. I can’t tell you how many people said he’d be fine because kids are resilient. He just lost his father forever!! Can we not expect him to bounce back immediately and actually let him feel his grief?!

No 3 yr old should have to be resilient.


And, btw, 15 years later, DS is a great kid but his dad’s death didn’t make him resilient at all. It took therapy and a lot of support to get him over the painful “abandonment” and distrust.

I am so sorry for your and your son's loss. I completely agree with you. Grief is devastating, debilitating, and exhausting. It breaks my heart that a 3-year-old had to go through that and live his life without his father.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with that statement in most cases. I do never say it though. Such generalizations are blase and passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it means what people take it to mean or what you described as your take on it.
For example, my father was born in 1938 in former Yugoslavia. He was shorter than his older brothers. He lost his hair early due to some cradle issue that was not resolved. He was teased and called a German after the war due to his blonde hair and blue eyes. These are just superficial things you called bullying. The harsh reality of life made these well, not a big deal at all.
He finished college, became a good dad, built a house for us, took care of his family, and lived a full life.
My mom was a premie born in 1947 and lived in a shoebox next to a fireplace. Her dad was an abusive alcoholic who used to beat her. She, too, became a successful woman who opened her own company and earned money to keep us fed during the 90s wars when survival was tough for all.
Today, perhaps we coddle our kids too much, and hence they might appear not to be resilient.
I bet you if we left the kids to their own devices in college and childhood, not neglecting, but letting them roam the neighborhood like DH and I did, he in the U.S., me back in former Yugoslavia, they would turn out fine, in most cases.
So, if your definition of kids doing fine is getting into MIT and not into UMD... well then, IMO, you have a wrong definition of what fine is.

It’s not about where anyone goes to college. You don’t need to answer this, but the question is, did your dad beat your mom? And did she think that was okay or normal? If she didn’t, why not? Who provided that safety net for her and told her that she didn’t deserve that? Who told your dad that it wasn’t okay to beat or bully people weaker than himself, when that was what he experienced growing up? Also, why did your dad stop providing for your family during the 90s wars and leave it to your mom?

What? What does my grandpa beating my mom has to do with my dad? Who said my dad stopped providing in the 90s? He did, but mom earned more, and more was needed. Why would it have to be dad-providing and not both? Dad also worked and on and off it was what he earned or what mom earned that provided. How does one exclude the other? My dad did not bully anyone, he was bullied, why would that automatically make him a bully? He was never a bully.
What chip do you have on your shoulder that makes you come to these wild projections?

Wait. Are you serious with these questions? They aren’t wild projections.
Have you never heard of Freud, the unconscious mind?

Have you ever heard of Charles Darwin? I feel like you are going to ask me next how humans could have evolved from monkeys.

The answer to your questions is definitely interesting and worth learning! But it is beyond the scope of a parenting chat board.

Kids today are not resilient. We do not teach them that they can succeed despite emotional trauma, severe anxiety, and other obstacles. Entitlement is the starting point of many of our kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with that statement in most cases. I do never say it though. Such generalizations are blase and passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it means what people take it to mean or what you described as your take on it.
For example, my father was born in 1938 in former Yugoslavia. He was shorter than his older brothers. He lost his hair early due to some cradle issue that was not resolved. He was teased and called a German after the war due to his blonde hair and blue eyes. These are just superficial things you called bullying. The harsh reality of life made these well, not a big deal at all.
He finished college, became a good dad, built a house for us, took care of his family, and lived a full life.
My mom was a premie born in 1947 and lived in a shoebox next to a fireplace. Her dad was an abusive alcoholic who used to beat her. She, too, became a successful woman who opened her own company and earned money to keep us fed during the 90s wars when survival was tough for all.
Today, perhaps we coddle our kids too much, and hence they might appear not to be resilient.
I bet you if we left the kids to their own devices in college and childhood, not neglecting, but letting them roam the neighborhood like DH and I did, he in the U.S., me back in former Yugoslavia, they would turn out fine, in most cases.
So, if your definition of kids doing fine is getting into MIT and not into UMD... well then, IMO, you have a wrong definition of what fine is.

It’s not about where anyone goes to college. You don’t need to answer this, but the question is, did your dad beat your mom? And did she think that was okay or normal? If she didn’t, why not? Who provided that safety net for her and told her that she didn’t deserve that? Who told your dad that it wasn’t okay to beat or bully people weaker than himself, when that was what he experienced growing up? Also, why did your dad stop providing for your family during the 90s wars and leave it to your mom?

What? What does my grandpa beating my mom has to do with my dad? Who said my dad stopped providing in the 90s? He did, but mom earned more, and more was needed. Why would it have to be dad-providing and not both? Dad also worked and on and off it was what he earned or what mom earned that provided. How does one exclude the other? My dad did not bully anyone, he was bullied, why would that automatically make him a bully? He was never a bully.
What chip do you have on your shoulder that makes you come to these wild projections?

Anonymous wrote:I agree with that statement in most cases. I do never say it though. Such generalizations are blase and passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it means what people take it to mean or what you described as your take on it.
For example, my father was born in 1938 in former Yugoslavia. He was shorter than his older brothers. He lost his hair early due to some cradle issue that was not resolved. He was teased and called a German after the war due to his blonde hair and blue eyes. These are just superficial things you called bullying. The harsh reality of life made these well, not a big deal at all.
He finished college, became a good dad, built a house for us, took care of his family, and lived a full life.
My mom was a premie born in 1947 and lived in a shoebox next to a fireplace. Her dad was an abusive alcoholic who used to beat her. She, too, became a successful woman who opened her own company and earned money to keep us fed during the 90s wars when survival was tough for all.
Today, perhaps we coddle our kids too much, and hence they might appear not to be resilient.
I bet you if we left the kids to their own devices in college and childhood, not neglecting, but letting them roam the neighborhood like DH and I did, he in the U.S., me back in former Yugoslavia, they would turn out fine, in most cases.
So, if your definition of kids doing fine is getting into MIT and not into UMD... well then, IMO, you have a wrong definition of what fine is.

It’s not about where anyone goes to college. You don’t need to answer this, but the question is, did your dad beat your mom? And did she think that was okay or normal? If she didn’t, why not? Who provided that safety net for her and told her that she didn’t deserve that? Who told your dad that it wasn’t okay to beat or bully people weaker than himself, when that was what he experienced growing up? Also, why did your dad stop providing for your family during the 90s wars and leave it to your mom?

I agree with that statement in most cases. I do never say it though. Such generalizations are blase and passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it means what people take it to mean or what you described as your take on it.
For example, my father was born in 1938 in former Yugoslavia. He was shorter than his older brothers. He lost his hair early due to some cradle issue that was not resolved. He was teased and called a German after the war due to his blonde hair and blue eyes. These are just superficial things you called bullying. The harsh reality of life made these well, not a big deal at all.
He finished college, became a good dad, built a house for us, took care of his family, and lived a full life.
My mom was a premie born in 1947 and lived in a shoebox next to a fireplace. Her dad was an abusive alcoholic who used to beat her. She, too, became a successful woman who opened her own company and earned money to keep us fed during the 90s wars when survival was tough for all.
Today, perhaps we coddle our kids too much, and hence they might appear not to be resilient.
I bet you if we left the kids to their own devices in college and childhood, not neglecting, but letting them roam the neighborhood like DH and I did, he in the U.S., me back in former Yugoslavia, they would turn out fine, in most cases.
So, if your definition of kids doing fine is getting into MIT and not into UMD... well then, IMO, you have a wrong definition of what fine is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an expression, a social lubricant. What do you want people to say when they find out that you are getting divorced and moving again for the third time in as many years?
“Oh, that sounds difficult and traumatizing for your children, and will probably have an impact into their adulthood and possibly into the next generation. You know what’s easier to inherit than wealth or blue eyes? Trauma.”

No. You say, “It will be okay. Kids are resilient.”

That’s how we all live together without wanting to murder each other.

Are those your only options? Lol. Your social lubricant is obviously annoying people.

People are annoyed when their close friends and family members say it, and they should be. It basically means that they are blowing them off. But most of the time, it’s not annoying.

Anonymous wrote:If you are someone who says this, why do you say it? Do you actually believe it? Or do you say it because you really want it to be true?

To me it makes no sense. Adults who are in therapy are often in therapy for issues stemming from childhood. ACE scores predict things as diverse as diabetes, obesity, education attainment levels, adult salaries, etc. Childhood bullying has been shown to have impacts in adults. From what I see, there is a mountain of data that shows that kids aren't resilient and that saying that they are is, at best, wishful magical thinking. At worst, the saying is used as a cover for abusive or otherwise awful behavior. It feels like gaslighting to me, a way of diminishing the trauma that children endure.

I'm a parent of teens now, and at this point, if someone uses that phrase, I start to get pretty skeptical of what they are saying. This is just based on my experience, but it made me wonder: why do you say it?

I have an ACE score of 5. You would not know it if looking at my life now, though, using the criteria you’ve listed. My BMI is under 19, no diabetes, PhD from a top university and good job. I would say that my experiences aren’t uncommon, especially if you think about children worldwide. I was lucky to have some opportunities and support that they didn’t have. What resilience means is that life is not easy, and you have to find skills and resources to cope.

Does that mean people should not try to do better by children? Absolutely not. But I think there’s some optimism in recognizing that people can fight their circumstances and sometimes, under the right conditions, transcend.