I will freely confess that the toddler I took shopping was a goddamned angel. It was surreal. She was, like, ‘sit nicely and quietly in restaurants while we ate and chatted’ angelic. She was quite literally strangers commenting on how angelic she was angelic.
She was, however, capable of having meltdowns at times. As I wasn’t the child’s biological parent (or perhaps because I’m a sociopath) I maintained the emotional detachment not to be conned, and to react accordingly. When she saw I wasn’t conned, she stopped having meltdowns, at least around me.
I will note that from the tale, the mom character could very easily be characterized as a woman following the exact same philosophy (though her allowing the kid to abscond with the lunchbox is a strike against this). Not dignifying the meltdown with a response is one approach to it - one I’ve used myself (though not in public).
It’s her lack of reaction when the kid starts wandering off and accosting strange men that casts doubt on that characterization.
And speaking of characterization, it’s interesting that her response to Scylla’s 'No" and her child’s resultant meltdown is described as being so calm - so calm as to make the resulting snark seem uncalled for. I get that the tale is being described in a self-depreciating manner, but from an “it’s fiction, of course” perspective, it’s an interesting narrative choice.
Meh, the kid (allegedly) started it, and it wasn’t his 4-year old. Honestly if I was in this situation, I wouldn’t bust out “the face”, but my response wouldn’t be that of a caring parent, either. More of the “Get away from me, you little brat. Go bug your mother.” sort of thing.
I may have helped raise a toddler, but all toddlers everywhere are not my problem.
