I think those above who talk about how a child should be taught a lesson by removing them from the restaurant are displaying hilarious ignorance at the most, and naivety about at least some children at the least.
Hmmm. I have to sit in this place boring very quietly while mummy and daddy talk about something I don’t have any interest if I don’t scream, or I get to spend one on one time with Daddy and am the centre of his attention if I do.
Lesson well learnt.
Waaaaaah!
Many of those on the anti- side show such basic ignorance as to how children work it undermines your credibility on the whole topic something chronic.
“Hmmm. I have to sit in this place boring very quietly while mummy and daddy talk about something I don’t have any interest **in ** if I don’t scream, or I get to spend one on one time with Daddy and am the centre of his attention if I do.”
That’s something else I don’t understand. Why take your kids out to eat with you if they’re not allowed to interact with you? Yes, I know: finding a babysitter is sooooo hard. But if you want to talk only to your spouse or your adult friends and don’t want to be bothered with the kid, he shouldn’t be there. It’s downright cruel to make your kid an outsider.
D’oh, missed the edit window. The thing is, an out-of-control child often seems to be in hir own little world, and I can’t help thinking that many times that’s because s/he is so marginalized by the adults in hir life, they’ve had to create their own world. Video games and other toys to shut them up. Overscheduling to the point where the only time they see their parents is in the car, and they can’t talk then because Mommy needs to concentrate on driving. Being the only kid in an otherwise adult-oriented situation, like Chateu Nose-in-Air. So they don’t know how to give and take. Being “good” means, what? Being utterly silent? An adult who found hirself in a situation where no one wanted to talk or listen to them would leave. A kid doesn’t have that choice, so they fall back on the one guaranteed way to get attention.
Except that one Waaaaaah! doesn’t do it, if Daddy and Mommy and friends are oblivious to the child, which is why these situations often deteriorate into prolonged disturbances.
Case in point: many times adults at the table will dawdle when finished as they chatter about something fascinating to them, but dull to the kids, who fidget, bounce in their chairs, get up and move around the table and then start playing/squabbling/dashing around the restaurant - all while Daddy and Mommy ignore them and other restaurant patrons get to “enjoy” their behavior.
I don’t think it’s “hilarious ignorance” to expect the parents to pick up and leave the restaurant when the meal is finished, if their children become uncontrollably restless. Again, I don’t blame the kids for being bored. It’s the parents who are failing to show consideration for others.
Fair enough. I do believe we have somewhat of an irreconcilable difference as to how much annoyance members of society should tollerate from each other, but we can discuss this without snark either way.
Put it this way: I certainly believe that parents should do their best to discipline and socialize their children. Those who simply ignore bad behaviour because they cannot be bothered are not doing their best, and annoyance at such indifference is justified.
But how on earth are children to be socialized properly if the only disciplinary tool parents are allowed to use is to remove them from the society of others? And how practical a solution is this on the subway, on an airplane, in the doctor’s office?
Certainly removal has a place. But saying it is all you can do is to ignore the practical difficulties of child-rearing.
You may well say you have no responsibility to aid in the endeavour of rearing well-socialized children. I disagree. I believe you (indeed everyone) has a duty to aid in this very minimal sense - putting up with a small amount of annoyance. For one, it is in your own best interests to do so, as you will not be able to escape the results either way - if children grow up badly socialized, that fact will affect you whether you like it or not; conversely, you will reap the benefits of well-socialized children.
We can only judge a written medium by its contents - and that’s all the thesis was about.
All babies scream at some point in their lives: no baby is born socialized. Socialization is something that parents (and society) do to children. It is a process. The end-point of that process is a human equipped with all of the tools required to function well in society.
Well, I think empathy requires to an extent understanding why people do what they do. If they are ignoring a screamer because they wish to continue shopping, can’t be bothered, etc. then annoyance is fully justified. If on the other hand they are not giving in to an extortionate demand by the child, because to do so would re-enforce the bad behaviour itself, then in my opinion an empathetic person would have sympathy with this goal.
Certainly. It is also possible that a sufficient repetition of an exaggerated response by enough people within a subculture indicates a commonality of attitude.
How can the one be true and not the other?
It isn’t the same as ranting about “people”, since those who do not have and will not have children of their own are under no necessity to empathize with the problems of children or childhood - they have faced them once themselves but they will not face them again. It is somewhat similar to rants about the “elderly”, but there again it is different - people are all going to be old in the future if they are not already; they are not all going to be children again, or face the problems of childhood unless they choose to be parents or caregivers.
Are you certain? People are not the best witnesses to the amount of trouble they made as young children. I for one do not even remember being two years old at all, let alone how much society had to put up with me. They don’t call it the “terrible twos” for nothing.
As no doubt you’d be the first to agree in other circumstances, parents are also not the best guides in this matter.
I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about at this point. Malthus seems to believe we don’t have a right to complain about noisy obnoxious children? But I am not reading through it all. I only came to object to this statement:
Does it make a difference if my parents could have if they had been allowed to, if the culture had allowed it? I know for a fact my mother would have aborted me if the circumstances were different.
I just hate that particular line. It assumes so many things, not least of which that the target was wanted.
Mine was that, given that we were all children ourselves, and we were all socialized (or at least I presume we all were), we all have a certain minimal obligation to empathize with the socialization process of others - do unto others and all that.
Though I admit I was responding to a snark with a counter-snark: “I used a condom” = ‘I chose not to accept this obligation’ (my paraphrase); “Your parents didn’t” = ‘you have already reaped the benefit of imposing this obligation on others in society, it is unfair to shirk by refusing to accept any obligations (such as to put up with some annoyance) now’.
Are you of the opinion that, because of your particular circumstances, this obligation of minimal empathy doesn’t apply to you? [Not a snark, genuinely curious]. I do not understand the basis of your annoyance.
Is there a spec sheet somewhere for this minimal empathy requirement? I’m pretty sure I meet the minimum, but it’s hard to tell for sure when the term remains so teasingly ambiguous.
I thought I explained my position on this in previous posts. For clarity:
In short it is not that one should put up with any amount of disruption - but rather that one should attempt at the least to understand the other person’s POV. Annoyance or condemnation is sometimes, but not always, an appropriate response; that depends of course on the circumstances.
That is what I mean by “minimal empathy”. Of course it goes both ways - a parent should at the least have the same level of empathy with people going about their daily business.
To my mind, it seems that there is no really good reason why anyone is allowed to opt out of this societal duty - to put up, to the minimal extend suggested, with others who are attempting to do the best they can, and accomodate their needs.
I do not demand perfection. Just get them away from me so I can enjoy my shopping or my meal. To me, it is common courtesy. If your kid is annoying, they don’t belong in public until you teach them how to behave. My kids are FAR from perfect but they were taught at home and with their family how to behave and not in front of strangers that should not have to be subjected to their rudeness nor the rudeness of their parents by ignorning them.
And how do you personally determine whether someone has sufficient empathy?
Is it enough that I feel bad for the parents with the boisterous kid, and quell my urge to suggest an extremely late-term abortion? Because I do that much.
Or am I also precluded from venting about it, in this forum or elsewhere? This seems to be the pivotal question, which I don’t think you’ve answered directly. You have hinted about it, including upthread where you say
Are you really suggesting that the mere act of complaining, e.g., on this message board, is a slippery slope to violence against children? Or are you saying that because some children are physically abused, it’s unacceptable to complain about the bad behavior of any child?
What exactly do you want from people? “Minimal empathy” isn’t quantifiable. Aren’t you really telling everyone to grit their teeth and shut up, because “childrens is our future”?
I agree with you and I think most of us have sympathy for the parent who is trying to deal with a child in the middle of a tantrum, as long as they have them in their arms heading for the door at the time. The problem is when the child continues the behavior and the parents are unsuccessfully trying to correct it in public. True Mom or Dad will miss a meal or two but they will either get a sitter or the child will learn to behave. Either solution is acceptable to the dining public.
I don’t want anything from anyone. Or rather, I originally wanted to debate the proposition in the OP.
The discussion has of course branched out considerably from there.
As to your specific questions - no, I do not think that expessing negative epithets on an Internet message board is an act likely to lead to violence against anyone (except, in extreme cases, computer keyboards ) - whether those epithets are aimed at women, Blacks, children, or anyone else. My sole point was this: that message boards are in a sense subcultures which have certain cultural traits: that these traits are characterized in part by what the majority is or is not willing to tolerate without rebuke; that a trait of the subculture on this particular Board is a willingness to tolerate expressions of anger against children, that they would not tolerate in other situations. I am a member of several other boards and the different “flavour” of each is noticable.
The stuff you quoted was all in the context of discussing whether the analogy raised was reasonable or not.
I would not “preclude” you or anyone from venting in any way. I am merely observing and commenting - triggered by the OP - that the OP is in my opinion correct: not about you personally, but about the board.
Sadly, I seem to have aroused a certain amount of animocity myself, maybe because of my own abrasive style of arguing. This gets in the way of actual debate.
What, parents aren’t allowed to teach their children at home anymore? BTW, I hated being removed from public places–not “from society”; removal from society is another thing altogether on a whole different scale–to be given “individual attention.” I remember that that individual attention was pretty unpleasant (being told why I was removed and what I needed to change, and fast), and I can’t recall ever thinking it was worth it. Or, for that matter, thinking “I bet I can get someone to lurve me if only I scream and throw things!”
Not very, but none of those were examples I brought up, and if we were talking about the subway, the airplane and the doctor’s office my posts would’ve probably sounded pretty different.
Don’t put words in my mouth. All I said was that it’s unfair and inconsiderate to force other adults to deal with a child’s screaming tantrum in a situation where you have the ability to remove the disturbance.
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. I can’t have this discussion with you if you’re going to generalize my statements to the point of being meaningless or patently absurd and argue against those, rather than what I actually say.
So you’re saying that it’s impossible, by definition, to judge the context of a written argument? Are you saying that a rant in the Pit is to be approached in exactly the same way as a work of science journalism in the New York Times?
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. Please debate me, not your imagination.
I’ve already said here that I have plenty of sympathy for it.
Easily. I could rebut the theory that Coca-Cola douching is an effective method of contraception, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually been argued here.
Really? I thought you said we all have a responsibility–a necessity, if you will–to aid in the endeavor of rearing well-socialized children.
No, but I’ve asked my parents about it. I’m just telling you what they said.
“The society of others” is not “society”, which indeed would be extreme.
No-one is arguing that removal from the society of others (or, if you prefer, “a public space”) is not, under certain circumstances, a good disciplinary method; it is not however always and under every circumstances the best or most appropriate method.
I would suggest that the memory of having been disciplined as a young child isn’t really the same thing as experience of applying discipline. Particularly as few people have accurate (or indeed any) memory of what happened when they were two to three, a prime tantruming age (the “terrible twos”).
Certainly children should be taught at home. They should be taught all the time. They are in fact learning all the time. One lesson you don’t want them to learn is that “if I’m bored, or restless, all I need do is cause a fuss and mommy/daddy will take me out of here, guaranteed”.
Fair enough. Those were examples I brought up, to show concrete reasons why a single disciplinary method isn’t always appropriate.
If the position is limited to ‘fine dining’, there isn’t really much to argue about, since we agree on that. On the other hand, ‘grocery shopping’ (one of your specific examples) can indeed pose certain practcal difficulties.
Say a parent is grocery shopping with a child. The parent accumulates a large quantity of groceries in his or her cart, and is waiting in line. The child, bored, begins to yell. He wants to leave the store. What would you have the parent do? Snatch the child up and leave the store, leaving a cart full of meat and veggies in the line-up?
Difficulty with this is two-fold: it teaches the child that it is easy to manipulate the parent - all he has to do is scream and the parent does what he wants; and it creates problems for others - those who have to deal with a cart full of food.
Faced with a choice of evils (annoying the eardrums of others with compelling a child to remain; inconveniencing the store and others by abandoning groceries, and teaching a negative lesson to the child to boot) it isn’t obvious that the best choice under all circumstances is to whisk the child out.
Are we talking about only particular situations, such as the fine restaurant, or all situations?
I responded to one of your specific examples above.
I do not agree that it is an absurd generalization, considering that others here have essentially stated they have no such duties. How about putting it in the form of a question: what duties do you believe you have in the socialization of other people’s children?
No, I’m saying that both a rant in the Pit and a work of science journalism can each be evaluated based on their contents.
I am debating you. You said, to quote:
My point is that socialization is a process, and you cannot judge how socialized a baby is going to be by how they are now. Even the best-behaved child screamed at one point.
Well, I was responding to this:
Not the same, since in this case the antithesis (that babies rarely appear in audiences of R-rated films) is exactly the opposite of the rebuttal (that babies often appear in audiences of R-rated films). Not the same as your Coca-Cola example. In order to rebut, one must restate the thesis (yes, indeed, babies often appear in the audience).
The difference between the words “responsibility” and “necessity” is the answer to this.
A parent has both (responsibility and necessity, since they cannot escape without serious consequences); a non-parent, in my opinion at least, has only the one (the much more minor responsibility of empathy; no necessity to apply it, since they can easily escape by simply moving out of earshot - where that is practical).
As I said before, parents in general are perhaps not always the best judge of how much annoyance their children cause to others. Have not people noted with irritation how some parents are oblivious of how much havoc their “precious little darlings” are causing?
Not to say that yours aren’t different, of course, but highly unsafe to assume that just because your parents thought you were a perfect little angel of good behaviour years after the fact, that everyone in shopping malls, Churches and restaurants also thought the same at the time, and thus that (by my logic) you don’t have a duty to put up with much bad behaviour from others.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
"Say a parent is grocery shopping with a child. The parent accumulates a large quantity of groceries in his or her cart, and is waiting in line. The child, bored, begins to yell. He wants to leave the store. What would you have the parent do? Snatch the child up and leave the store, leaving a cart full of meat and veggies in the line-up?
Difficulty with this is two-fold: it teaches the child that it is easy to manipulate the parent - all he has to do is scream and the parent does what he wants; and it creates problems for others - those who have to deal with a cart full of food.
Faced with a choice of evils (annoying the eardrums of others with compelling a child to remain; inconveniencing the store and others by abandoning groceries, and teaching a negative lesson to the child to boot) it isn’t obvious that the best choice under all circumstances is to whisk the child out.QUOTE]*
Absolulely the child should be brought out. By not doing so you are teaching the child that the behavior is acceptable by doing nothing at that very moment. This very situation happened to me ONCE. I brought my cart to customer service and asked them to hold it for me, brought my daughter outside. When I regained control of her (in other words, let her scream it out in the car) I went back in with her and paid for the groceries. She did NOT get to go home. She learned that screaming in the car wasn’t fun and why we were out there. But most of all, no one was subjected to her obnoxious tantrum.
Again, it is all about courtesy to others. If I can’t stand the sound of my own screaming kid, Mr. Smith behind me is hating the little brat and me for allowing it to continue in his presence.
May I make a suggestion? Let’s quit discussing extreme cases, because everyone agrees at the extreme, and folks are falsely claiming that their opponents in this discussion hold absurd positions at the extreme (the folks who don’t like kids wish the world had no kids in it, the folks who like kids think you ought to put up with temper tantrums in public).
There are more interesting cases. How well-socialized should a kid be before being taken to a quiet, reasonably fancy restaurant? What should be the limits of behavior before the kid is taken out of the restaurant? What tools may a parent reasonably use short of removing the child if, for example, the child is just talking really loudly, or has decided to crawl under the table to play a game?
What about PG-13 movies (I much more commonly see young kids at these)? How much talking should be allowed before the child is removed? Is the amount here different from what it’d be at a PG or G-rated movie?
I agree. When you drag a kid someplace inappropriate because you’re too lazy to get a baby sitter, it might end badly. On the other hand, if kids who show they can behave at kid restaurants or Denny’s don’t get to go to someplace nicer, how are they ever going to learn how to behave there? There is plenty for parents and kids to talk about - the food, the menu, the silverware, the way the place works. Sure sometimes it doesn’t work - that’s when you take the kid out and do what is appropriate - and Foxy40 gives a good example of what is appropriate. if one of you can’t bear to leave the table for even a second, then you shouldn’t bring kids.
That’s why we trained our kids on Sunday brunches. They were fancy, in nice hotels, but they gave them a good choice of foods they could see, let them experiment, and made it easy to take them out if there was a problem.
) - whether those epithets are aimed at women, Blacks, children, or anyone else. My sole point was this: that message boards are in a sense subcultures which have certain cultural traits: that these traits are characterized in part by what the majority is or is not willing to tolerate without rebuke; that a trait of the subculture on this particular Board is a willingness to tolerate expressions of anger against children, that they would not tolerate in other situations. I am a member of several other boards and the different “flavour” of each is noticable.