Your post is based on a supposition that what works for two three year olds (siblings at that) works for all three year olds.
I have a friend who does everything “right” (by my lights anyway)–she is firm, fair, she does not spoil her children, she does not reward them for misbehavior, she follows through on her promises both positive and negative, etc., etc. Her kid (a three year old) is a great kid. Sweetest thing you ever met. Very clever and sprightly. And every now and then, he gets really, really mad at something utterly trivial. When this happens, he is absolutely inconsoleable. He can not be calmed down. He’s not being spoiled–he’s just angry and sad and has no control over himself.
This is something he’ll grow out of–just as his father (who did the same thing as a child) did–but it is clear to me that this is not something that can be ‘taught’ out of him. When he goes nuts, he just has to be removed from the situation if possible, and allowed to “cry it out.” And sometimes (like on an airplane for example) he can’t be removed from the situation. It’s unfortunate if this happens, but it’s just what happens.
Meanwhile, my kid is really sweet, almost never throws temper tantrums (and strangely, literally never throws them in public!) and yet my wife and I do not feel we have done anything in particular to bring about this character in him. He’s just like that.
Kids have personalities. A personality is not an excuse for misbehavior, of course, but it is nevertheless a fact that at the age of three, some kids just don’t know how to control their temper under some circumstances, while others do. It’s not really about parenting styles all the time. It can have more to do with physiological development and personality.
But if they know this in advance about the child, shouldn’t they make different plans in regards to planes and other confined places (except for emergencies of course) until the child grows out of it?
That’s like if you knew that your computer was going to go off unexpectedly making a loud blaring noise and you could do nothing to stop it, shouldn’t you either leave your computer at home or wait until it’s fixed to take it on a plane?
I don’t think so. But this is one of the issues at debate on the thread, of course.
In my opinion, considerations such as “If we don’t get on a plane, this kid and his grandparents will never see each other in person!” count as overriding the risk that the kid might have a tantrum on the flight. (I should note that in the case of the kid I was talking about, the grandparents live in Morocco, so driving is not just a great difficulty–it’s impossible. )
A kid screaming on a plane for a while is an inconvenience, to be sure. But it’s a far cry from an emergency. For that reason, I would think we need not require something so bad as an emergency before we allow that someone be permitted to risk causing the inconvenience in question.
I believe the analogy fails because of the several ways in which laptops are not like little kids. People don’t regard mechanical/electronic noise in the same way they regard human noise. Also, the analogy is underspecified. Perhaps there is important information on that laptop that must go with you to the place you’re flying to. (And you’re on a deadline, or whatever.) Basically, in other words, there are cases and there are cases, and I suspect for any case in which it turns out one ought to bring the kid along despite the risk, you can also construct an analogous case in which it turns out one ought to bring the laptop along despite the risk.
Wow, for once catsix was right, they actually made an emergency landing because of this, though no charges were filed. Wow, what kind of tantrum was he throwing anyway, that they had to land the plane???
And imNSho, 4 is quite old enough to not behave that way, and the parent sure as hell should have controlled this situation. Unless there was something medically wrong with the child, this is the same sort of thing I’ve been talking about, that of a child not being parented properly and then being put into a situation where his princedom affects everyone around him adversely.
Hey, your post reminded that we haven’t seen QG for a while. I just looked her up and she hasn’t been here since 6/14. She would have been a riot (literally and figuratively) in this thread.
QG, if you’re out there, you still have time to get some digs in here.
**
miss elizabeth**, if you’re not whooshing me, then no, I wouldn’t tell people that “I can’t stand men” is like racism or bigotry. I try not to say ridiculous things to others in real life. But that’s just me.
Certainly parents should try and do something. But we had a 45 minute tantrumer who started tantruming at eighteen months and tantrumed well into her fourth year. (She still “goes off” it just doesn’t reach tantrum proportions, its less often, its shorter). Trust me, you can try and do something, that doesn’t mean it always works. And I DON’T think strangers can tell what is going on - hell, I’m her mother and I can’t always tell if I have the “low blood sugar, overtired” kid or the “procrastinating brat.” She is also (and this one is unfair) prone to migraines - first one we think at two (hard to tell with a kid). I can tell when that happens, but I don’t think a stranger could tell the difference.
Funny, what I thought when reading that story was “what kind of tantrum could a 4-year-old throw, that could possibly justify an emergency landing of a commercial airplane?!”
Seems to me that misandry and misogyny are both in fact categories of bigotry - bigotry, if by “bigot” one means “… a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.”
In this case, I do not understand why claiming to dislike men as men would not clearly qualify. Indeed, googling “misandry” and “bigotry” together call forth plenty of hits, including this one, where it is “compared to other forms of bigotry”: Misandry - Wikipedia
Then I, personally, wouldn’t take long leisure trips on planes until he’d grown out of these tantrums. I’d pay for Grandma in Morocco to come visit us instead if I had to. Seriously. Morocco will be there next year and it will be so much more enjoyable for everyone, including my cabin mates, when junior can behave like a civilized human being.
Recall that my point in that post wasn’t really that the kid should be allowed on an airplane (though I do believe that) but rather, that it is wrong to think that the parents have control over this kind of thing if they are just the right kind of parents.
But as to your point, I believe in showing others the kind of consideration I would hope they would show me. The thing is, if I were on a plane, and there were a screaming kid sitting right next to me, then even if it came out that the only reason the parents have the kid on the plane is so they can go on a family vacation somewhere or other, I’d not be angry with the parents, and indeed, if they didn’t mind, I’d do what I could to help them with the kid.
So perhaps if I expected parents to show me the “consideration” of not exposing me to the risk of their kid’s tantrums, I would see things your way. But I don’t expect them to show that kind of “consideration.” I don’t want them to show it. I want them to have a nice family vacation. I’m willing to undergo the risk of inconvenience involved in a temper tantrum.
And to be honest, I think this ought to be your attitude (that’s the plural you) as well.
Usually, in real life, it doesn’t go that far. It’s more like Mary and I are consoling Sally after dumping Joe, that good for nothing cheater. (Names made up, obviously). Now, if Sally is crying and recounting the awful ways Joe treated her, and Mary says, “I can’t stand men!” I would absolutely say, “Well, we all hate Joe, but there are a lot of good men in the world who would never hurt Sally like this.” And I’ve never had anyone disagree. But, let’s say Mary really is a misandrist and continued with explaining how Joe was typical of all men, and all men are lying assholes, etc. etc.
Yes, I would say, “You’re a bigot.” And I probably wouldn’t be friends with her anymore, because I don’t like bigots. And if that makes me ridiculous, well, okay then. I’m proud to be ridiculous.
I’m sorry, but you’ve taken my words completely out of context. I was replying to catsix’s complaint about children physically damaging things. Has anyone suggesting parents should not be responsible for that? Yes or no; who has said that? Inconvenience and noise is one thing, but damaging someone’s property is quite something else.
And, incidentally, who said it was actually an alright thing for kids to scream uncontrollably?
There isn’t an equivalent accountability to be had, because you don’t have a right to a convenient, trouble-free life without ever having to hear children. As a shopper in Borders you have no expectation of silence and no right to demand compensation if my kids wails. That’s not to say parents shouldn’t try to keep their kids quiet and teach them manners because of course they should, but that kids will from time to time cry, and that it takes a minute or two to do something about it sometimes, is simply a part of life you have to suck up and is not something that creates a civil liability in anyone.
There are of course special cases, such as a movie. In that case a good that you purchased (the right to see the movie) can be irreperably damaged by noise and disruption, so it’s quite appropriate, in my opinion, to ban babies from movie theatres. There’s also extreme cases such as the one you cited but
THE OP DID NOT CITE AN EXTREME CASE!
(Actually, I’m personally a little puzzled as to why that hasn’t yet been done. Why do movie theatres not just say “No infants”?)
How do you distinguish between someone who’s a bad parent and someone who simply didn’t spot a risk in time? I mean, really, who’s got the time to go around divvying the world up into Bad Parents and Good Parents? If your suit gets stained, they should pay for the damages and apologize. That’s pretty much the long and short of it.
Who do I see about the iced tea I just spit all over the keyboard? Diogenes? You’ll be invoiced. That was wicked funny.
We are animals, and we respond to a baby crying as such. We are tuned to the tones of our own quite keenly. We are also attuned to the crying of any baby. Not hardly an urban legend that lactating women let down when they hear a baby cry even if it’s not their baby.
I remember the days when one or both would get the screaming meemies. I’d feel self-conscious ( and sometimes moreso if at the park or store and it was me and a dozen Moms with babies during the day. I, of the fatherly persuation. ) Now, in line and whatnot, I just smile.
It beats a baby who is completely silent. That is not normal, IMHO. Give me a cry with gusto.
I flew last night. A 2 hour flight became a…uh… 6 hour flight. There was Uncle, with baby neice and 5 year old neice. He was just so cool- I truly respected how he did. Gentle, sweet. Great to see. Made me miss my kids as babies. There were THREE infants on the plane, all seated within 10 rows of me.
It has. Many theatres now will not allow children in after a certain time at night, or into r-rated films at all. Instead, they provide “mommy matinees” at a reduced cost, and tell anyone going in without a kid to expect noise and that they have no recourse if they don’t like it.
Well, then you’re not one of the parents folks are talking about here as being poor parents. From all I can tell from what you’ve said, you would hardly stand around in a public place and allow an earsplitting tantrum from your child for 45 minutes. After doing something failed, I am sure you’d be kind and responsible enough to your fellow humans to remove your child from the situation (best for her as well it sounds like, poor thing, Migraines? ugh!).
“Authorities said there would be no charges filed in the incident.” OK, the parents should be sued for damages to recoup what must be a great expense in grounding a plane in mid-flight.
)
That was wicked funny.