I think you’re misunderstanding what Foxy40 said. My kids never had a temper tantrum for more than 1 minute in public. Reason? The second it started, we were out of there. They could have the tantrum in the car, but not in the restaurant.
My older daughter was an angel in restaurants; we could take her anywhere and she’d sit quietly, munch on a cracker and watch the passing scene. The younger, not so much. In fact, not at all. She was apparently unable to sit quietly for more than one minute for most of her young childhood. So she didn’t get to go to places that required sitting quietly until she was able to do so. We made a few attempts early on, and it ended in the adults’ taking turns with her in the parking lot or the car. She was taught that if you don’t sit quietly, you don’t get to go into restaurants. Period. Same with movies, libraries, etc. No spanking, slapping, or harsh punishments. When she was old enough to understand the rule she got to go to such places for as long as she followed the rule. So, yes, after a while it seemed as if all it took was a gentle reminder. “Would you rather go sit in the car with Daddy? No? All right, then.” Temper tantrum in the super market? Oh, well. The groceries get left there in the cart (sorry, Shop Rite employees) and we go home. Simple consistency.
Can’t do it; as I said in the post you quoted, I don’t have kids.
That said, I agree with the idea that parents need to be teaching the kids, not just letting misbehavior happen. However, I see their doing so as part of a societal obligation. When people talk about how the parents chose to have kids and so it’s the parents’ responsibility, that seems to me to trivialize the personhood of the kids involved. Yeah, the kids need discipline from their parents, but that’s for the benefit of the kids primarily; your own comfort comes second, inasmuch as it’s a lesser need.
Clearly you need to have (or borrow) a kid, take them to a restraunt, and get them to scream, so that you may carry out the given instructions.
And since the only reason that it’s better for kids to be disciplined is because the reaction of others in society will be unfavorable if the kids disturb their comfort, I’m not certain it’s quite correct to trivialize the comfort of nearby members of society. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that, because it is offensive to others, you should train your kids to behave better, both to reduce general unhappiness now, and to reduce it years in the future?
It is true that the primary beneficiary of training is the kid, but there are some training mechanisms that I wouldn’t want to use in public because I wouldn’t want to annoy others. After all, if a kid misbehaves at home, you can’t remove him. The behavior must suit the circumstances also. Even adults behave differently in a McDonalds than they do in a classy restaurant.
A bratty child-free world? I agree. A well-behaved child-free world? Maybe. Does the prospect that a child might make a fuss destroy the quality of your meal? And how young? Babies I agree - they don’t get anything out of it. But a five year old who has enough sleep and training can certainly benefit from going to a good restaurant.
Why? To begin forming a gourmet palette? To know what wine goes best with veal? A family restaurant is good enough for basic socialization; let him earn a shot at the good restaurants when it is absolutely positively clear that he’s to behave properly or out he goes to wait in the car. If he’s received enough “training”, let him face the consequences of breaking that training and being annoying.
You’re probably right that I’ve been trivializing the discomfort of those around. I certainly think that parents ought to respect that desire for comfort, since the kid is at a point where she’s incapable of providing that respect. I just believe that the two needs (the child’s need for education, the other patrons’ need for peace and quiet) are both important.
And yes, kids can be educated in other places for certain things. I have no problem with declaring that certain types of restaurants are unsuitable for toddlers, for example. But if you’ve gone to Denny’s, and you’re getting all pissed off because a toddler is crying, I think it’s time to put on the big girl panties.
Overall I think that disdain toward kids is inappropriate: kids are, like every other nonchosen class of humanity, worthy of respect as individuals.
"But again, my original point was more that the use of language indicates hostility to the group, and not whether such hostility was justified (or irrational or immoral or whatever). "
Right, I understood what you meant. That’s what I’m responding to: I think it’s less indicative of hostility than the other examples. It’s funny.
Without, IMO, as much of a necessary suspicion of hostility as calling someone something based on race. Although that can be funny too.
**“After all, one of the reasons hostility towards racial or ethnic groups has fallen out of favour is that such groups have been historically subject to violence. More recently, hateful or scornful remarks directed at women as a group have fallen out of favour for the same reason, among others. Why not hateful or scornful remarks directed against children? After all, children are more likely to be the target of violence in our society than most other groups.”
**
Are children being violently attacked more than any other group due to hostility against them by adults who zing them? If so, it’s news to me.
**"Yes, goodie for you. Why is it unfair for you to shoulder some of the burdens of society - when you also reap the benefits?
You are in effect demanding welfare while refusing to pay taxes. Why should anyone have sympathy with that?"**
It isn’t a necessary burden like paying taxes, which everyone by the way avoids as much as they possibly can in every conceivable way if it’s legal and appropriate.
Should we have no sympathy for tax avoiders vs. tax evaders?
Your screaming kid in my ear isn’t an appropriate burden for me to shoulder and the benefits of their adulthood don’t necessitate them being there, at that time and place. A point, I believe, we already agreed on.
**
"No it isn’t.
Unless you were raised in isolation, it means that others had to put up with your socialization. That’s why it isn’t unfair for you to put up with the socialization of others.
It is known as “reciprocity”."**
Not in my book. Reciprocity requires that I agreed to the action in the first place.
Furthermore, nobody had to put up with my socialization. They chose to.
I choose not to do that when it’s in an inappropriate time and place. A point, I believe, that we already agreed on.
"To restate - the topic at hand is whether or not there exists a certain level of hostility towards children on this Board - the issue of whether hostility is justified, or doesn’t exist at all and is really hostility directed at the rudeness of parents is a side-issue."
Okay, then here’s what I think on that: the level of hostility that is expressed is intended towards the parents. Sorry, I can’t see how that’s a side-issue if that’s what’s really going on. I assume that’s the point is to know what’s going on.
Referring to their children as sperm, etc. would hopefully be demeaning to the parents in the view of the person that does so out of anger at the child’s behavior that they feel is caused by poor parenting.
In other words, if I call your wife a slut it’s not to insult your wife it’s to get your goat.
My hostility, in that case, would be directed at you not her.
If I call you a son of a bitch, I’m not trying to insult your mother. It’s you.
So, I’d say the level of hostility expressed is being targeted squarely at parents. Level of hostility at kids? Pretty much none. Using the kids (not present) as a class to ridicule in order to insult the parents and/or be hyperbolic and vent? Yes.
Either that, or it’s funny and it’s presumed there aren’t kids reading this and people feel no need to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings (as opposed to how they might feel about race, gender, sexuality, etc.)
"In my opinion, the “arcane rules” of general society (that is, outside of an anonymous Internet board) dictate not making such jokes about children in public, whereas no such rules forbid making fun of crappy TV. So they are not in the same category."
I make fun of children in public all the time. I wonder what the norm is. No idea.
I do know that every parent I know refers to their kids as the brat, little miss won’t shut up, etc.
Noooo! You’re supposed to bring your child in the restaurant even when they are throwing a tantrum in order to help me shoulder my burden in society so that I don’t collect SS in my old age while feeling that I haven’t done my part!!
That’s a pretty good point and way of looking at it. I still think it can/should be done by removing the kid from the restaurant, but the idea of considering the kid as a person and weighing that in certainly has merit, IMO.
And parents, just like caretakers of the mentally disabled, have a duty to bear the brunt of that responsibility, leaving as little of the burden as feasible to the rest of society.
Now, wait a minute. When did I get lumped in with the no-school-tax folks? I, for one, am more than happy to fulfill my societal responsibility to children. I don’t cheat on my taxes (which makes me the only one in my family and probably among most of my friends), I don’t shoot the bird at kids, I don’t disrespect anyone unless they’ve done a lot of work to earn my disrespect, and I like to think I’m just as kind and compassionate as the next guy. But my responsibility to the nation’s children does not include participating in the “let little Johnny scream his head off until he gets tired” project; however, some parents see fit to force me into it anyway. Now, I’m not saying it happens often–in fact, it’s exceptionally rare. But the idea that parents have no obligation to keep their child from inconveniencing and disrupting public activity really irks me.
That’s rich, coming from someone who just fabricated this out of whole cloth:
and implied that I was a delinquent who would shove off all responsibilities conferred on me by my humanity if only I could get away with it:
and someone who has now called me infantile as well. I admit that I used an ad hominem attack in my argument, however. That wasn’t very nice, and I regret it. To be fair, I was responding to the high level of snark I read in your post. Of course, as they say, it’s hard to tell just how snarky someone is on the Internet, so my apologies if I was attacking a windmill this whole time.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a parent whose child is disrupting an adult activity (like grocery shopping, prayer, etc.) to take responsibility for it and correct it in a way that minimizes the disruption on the short term. The long term solution is up to the parent. Look at it this way: I’m guessing you (specific you) wouldn’t like it if I participated in the rearing of your child on an unsolicited basis in other ways, like if I walked up to you and told you how you should be solving The Tantrum Problem–but when you (general you) allow a disruptive child to keep being disruptive in an effort to wear him out, show him that it doesn’t work, etc., all of the affected adults are forced to participate in your solution. Do you see what I’m driving at?
Again, I would argue that the Dope is just a convenient place for its members to vent about things in a way that makes them seem to be more concerned and less tolerant with them than they really are, like how a(n anthropomorphized) punching bag would be inclined to call gentle Sampiro a violent beast if he were to take out his pent-up anger on it.
Seems to me that a screaming brat is not necessarily well-socialized. Of course, I don’t know enough about each individual screaming brat to conclude that for sure, but “well-socialized” is not among the adjectives that immediately come to mind when said brats start screaming. However, I do apologize for using the words “screaming little brats” and “spermlets”, and offer by way of explanation that I was a little hot under the collar, as us childless tend to get when we’re accused of shirking our responsibilities to other peoples’ children.
I have plenty of empathy toward parents who have to deal with their children disrupting public activities. My first thought in such situations is generally “that poor mom/dad/couple; I wouldn’t want to deal with that situation right now”. Only after a few minutes have gone by and it’s clear that nothing is being done would I–in that hypothetical example–start thinking, “Why the hell isn’t this problem being solved yet?”
Is it possible that those Dopers are exhibiting an exaggerated response, rather than actually feeling an exaggerated stimulus?
So far I’ve seen this rebutted, but I haven’t seen it actually put forth as something that anyone claims happens often.
Don’t you think it’s possible that we tolerate epithets about children because everyone on the planet either is or was a child? I would say it’s more like ranting about “people” in general, or the people in your (general you) town, or “drivers”. There’s a good reason that rants about “drivers” are much better-tolerated than rants about “truckers”, for example: one category is extremely large and spans racial, ethnic, linguistic and cultural borders, while the other is proportionally quite small and is a subset of the larger group.
Really? When I was a screaming brat, my parents did what they could to minimize my disturbance of public activities. Society at large didn’t have to put up with much from me. By the logic in what I’ve quoted from you, that means I’m entitled to tolerate even less from other peoples’ children.
Some people don’t enjoy children. I certainly understand. I am sure there are numerous parents who don’t particularly enjoy children.
I think the only way to gain any pleasure from children is to understand them. Kids aren’t miniature adults. Their minds don’t work like ours do. Children experience the world in a profoundly different way than adults. They have their own way of thinking and their own beliefs. I am sure that anyone who truly gains pleasure from children has an interest and understanding of human development and a desire to make a positive contribution to society by shaping a child into a productive adult either through teaching, mentoring, or parenting.
This doesn’t mean that kids should be allowed to intrude on adults who find anyone under 4’5” a nuisance. Not all social settings are age appropriate for children. A parent who takes a child into a social situation that is not age appropriate only causes stress for everyone, including the child. There are situations that should preclude children. The last thing I want to hear is a crying baby during an R rated movie. It is certainly not the child’s fault for doing what is normal. It is the parents fault for expecting a baby not to cry or a toddler not to run around like a wild animal.
People have every right not to like kids. Kids have every right not to like certain adults. Clearly, there are times when neither species should mix.
