With apologies to Complainer-in-Chief Tim Stevens, I need to quickly get a pet peeve off my chest. I was going to post this as a Facebook status update, but it was too long, so I’m putting it on the blog instead.
Anyway, consider this an open letter to all parents of little kids, from this parent of little kids. I know airplane travel with wee ones is challenging — truly, I KNOW, believe me — and, in most cases, the nasty looks and critical/snide comments that we parental travelers occasionally get from other passengers are totally undeserved and unfair… like from people who think it’s necessarily the parents’ fault when the kid is crying (Do you think we WANT to hear it any more than you do, Mr. Insensitive Self-Centered Idiot?! Guess what: sometimes nothing works), or those who get all huffy about parents letting their kid run around their airport before the flight (which is, news flash, totally necessary if you want to have any hope of avoiding the aforementioned crying-on-the-plane nightmare — they’ve got to let off steam at some point — kids are not robots!).
BUT, having said all that, let’s be clear about one thing. Letting your kid use a DVD player on the plane, with the volume turned up, with no headphones, IS NOT OKAY, PERIOD. I know you desperately need to entertain your kid — so do I! I get it! — and maybe he/she doesn’t like headphones, or you forgot to pack them, or whatever. But you know what? You’ve got to figure out some other solution, because that one is just socially unacceptable, The End, conversation over. I don’t want to hear your stupid cartoon, and neither does my daughter who is trying to sleep, and neither does anyone else within the 3-to-5-row radius of your seat. So seriously, no. No, no, no.
[/rant]
P.S. Really, though, we had a fantastic trip. 🙂
Unless said child has mastered the online ticket-buying process, it is the parents’ fault that the child is crying on the airplane, and while said parent may not want to hear it any more than the rest of the passengers, the parents made the choice to be there with the child. The others did not. As you say, sometimes, nothing works; doesn’t mean nobody’s to blame. You’re taking a chance when you fly with small children, but the consequences are borne by the rest of the passengers.
Now, I understand that Loyette and Loyacita are good on flights. Some children are, and they don’t get angry looks from me (funny faces, yes, glares, no). Some children definitely are NOT, so forgive me if I’m not able to entirely conceal my irritation when Mr. Insensitive Self-Centered Idiot puts their pre-verbal bundle of joy in a confined, scary, uncomfortable place, and the child reacts with the screams of the damned. I try, but I’m usually over my stifled irritation quota due to all the other annoyances that come with flying.
So children should never be allowed to fly because they might be cranky then? No it’s NOT always the parents fault. Sometimes little kids in those situations have bad trips no matter how well behaved they normally are. It’s ridiculous to blame parents 100% of the time and say it’s their fault.
Then, to quote the Good Doctor’s response, when you tell said Good Doctor “Doctor ! Doctor ! It *hurts* when I do that !” –
“Then don’t do that !”
Having traveled a number of times trans-Atlantic with all 4 of my rugrats (then ages 2-12) (and with my Lady Doctor Wife back practicing Ob/Gynery in peace back home already), I know that kids can be little monsters – especially when their parents do nothing to prevent ’em being little monsters …
Best way I have found, so far, to deal with another parent’s screaming monster-age-2 is to indulge my inner origamist … take a square of paper and transform it, by careful folding, into a Bird with Flapping Wings – and then, with the Awful Parent’s permission, I give the paper bird to the kid, showing him/her how to *gently* hold the body and pull the tail, and the wings flap … (this technique also tends to shut up annoying adults, too) …
If nothing else works, dramamine/marzine/scopolamine/etc (at child-weight-appropriate doses) usually sedates the kid to that the kid can tolerate confined travel – and it is a kindness both to the rest of the public *and* to the otherwise-suffering kid to have such remedies available, if needed …
Me, I preferred to have my kids enjoy air travel unsedated – and only the most egregiously curmudgeonly can complain about a kid’s happy laughter … of course, that has exposed me to the need to deal with kiddie diplomacy – happy kid (mine) asking in a clear bell-like voice “Why is that Mommy keeping her baby crying so long ?” (which didn’t improve said Mommy’s mood, I have to suspect) …
Bottom line – keep your kids well-fed (avoiding dairy if necessary) and with variety of preferably quiet entertainment (books, travel games, decks of cards), and your fellow traveling public and air crews will bless you !
To Doc: What David said. So kids — and thus their parents — shouldn’t be allowed to travel, anywhere, ever, for the entirety of their infant- and toddler-hood, because there’s a chance they might be fussy during the flight? Are you fucking kidding me? Guess what, YOU made a choice to fly on a plane, and there are little kids on planes. There have to be, because it’s the only way to travel long distances in a short time, and everyone needs to do that, not just business travelers. So kids on planes go with the territory, just like flight delays and crappy food and cramped toilets. They are part of the milieu. And little kids’ behavior is not completely controllable. If an individual parent is failing to manage their kid well — and that sometimes, though not always, is the reason for the fussiness — then that parent is to blame, certainly. But to claim that ANY parent whose kid cries is NECESSARILY to blame, regardless of what they may or may not have done, is absolutely and utterly ridiculous, and you should be frankly ashamed of yourself for articulating such a completely neandrethalic, ridicluous, self-centered, insensitive, uncompassionate viewpoint.
To Alasdair: non-parents of screaming kids often have a lot of really good ideas about what will work to stop the kids from screaming. (Read the phrase “really good” was appropriate sarcasm.) In some cases, sure, the parents are bad parents, and haven’t tried those things. Usually, though, they have tried, and already know they don’t work. For instance, some little kids actually get MORE cranky when you drug them. They have the reverse of the expected biological reaction. Likewise, in some cases, the kid may be overstimulated rather than understimulated, so the assumption that trying to entertain them in X, Y or Z way will solve the problem is not necessarily correct. The point is to have some compassion: in most cases, the parents are TRYING, and they are not imposing their kid’s crankiness on you to spite you, or because they don’t care about you, but because nothing is working, and they already feel mortified and exasperated, but there’s nothing they can do. Who are you to judge, without knowing that kid and that parent and everything they’ve done and tried and everything that’s led up to that moment, whether they are “bad parents” based on superficial impressions and your own annoyance with an admittedly annoying but quite possibly unavoidable situation?
The suggestion that kids should be banned from flying in case they disturb other people is just bizarre, and I’m astonished that anyone would propose it with any degree of seriousness.
And if you are easily bothered by kids on the plane, why not bring ear plugs or an iPod (yes Brendan, with headphones)? That usually does the trick.
But Alec, that would leave Doc defenseless against the scourge of child travelers during takeoff and landing. We can’t have that. Shielding Doc from any and all annoyance is, and must be, society’s top priority — above, say, the ability of families to be together at Christmas, or to attend weddings and funerals when they have young kids, or to go on vacation, anywhere more than a day’s drive from home, ever. CHILDREN CRIED, DOC’S ZEN DIED.
As an addition to your pet peeve, I was recently on a non-stop flight to Orlando on a Saturday morning (read: I expected A LOT of kids to be on board). Since I have survived and slept through some pretty horrible seat kicking, baby crying, free range kids on flights, I wasn’t terribly concerned when a family with two little ones in sat behind me at the start of the flight. What blew me away was the fact that mother AND father proceeded to put in ear plugs and sleep through the next three hours while their children screamed bloody murder. The youngest of the two sounded down right scared, carrying on about wanting to get off of the plane and not being able to see outside. The older of the two kept asking the flight attendant what the noises were that the plane was making. I actually turned around a few times to try to comfort the poor kids, but they had that “I’m not supposed to talk to strangers” reaction to my efforts. About half way through the flight, the flight attendant finally woke up the parents and told them that they had to comfort their kids. Once they started interacting with their kids, there was no more crying and even some giggling going on behind me. The father, though, could be heard complaining about how rude all the other passengers were for having had him woken up. Sigh. These are the people that giving parents who fly with their kids bad names.
I don’t like noisy, crying babies on airplanes any more than anyone else. But like most thing in life, this too must be reflected upon in context. For perspective, I encourage Doc and others to travel on a chiva in rural Latin America, or in a crowded bus in Egypt, or packed subway train in a working class neighborhood of Brooklyn. Mass travel has always been about enduring sights, sounds, smells, persons, attitudes, bumps, temperatures, and hazards that no sane person would willfully submit themselves to except to get from Point A to Point B because there is No Other Way. As awful as plane travel has become thanks to terrorists and the TSA (not to morally equate the two too much, but both have taken actions that inflict evil upon travelers), spoiled Westerners like Doc ought to be thankful that the worst they have to put up with is screaming children and thin, dry airplane air.
But Alec, that would leave Doc defenseless against the scourge of child travelers during takeoff and landing
In which case, maybe he could take up Alasdair’s suggestion and drug himself?
As to the rest, LOL.
The capitalist in me has a rather easy solution. Have, and advertise, special “no children allowed flights” to certain locations (Orlando comes to mind) with high volume and perhaps charge customers a premium to book such flights.
You know, I suggest y’all re-read what I said, so you can point out where I said people shouldn’t be allowed to fly with children. What I said is that it’s the parents’ fault if the child is screaming on the plane, because they’re the ones that put the child on the plane.
But Doc, doesn’t “it’s the parents’ fault if the child is screaming on the plane, because they’re the ones that put the child on the plane.” imply that the parents shouldn’t put the child on the plane? What other conclusion did you expect us to come to?
Yes, the child is on the plane at the “fault” of the parents. I doubt any of them cry, “raise heck”, etc. due to intentions of the parents. Why not reserve the scorn for the negligent parents such as the pair described by Stephanie?
What Scott said, Doc. You may not be suggesting that the government or the airlines “ban” children from flying, but your explicit judgment of ALL parents of crying kids on airplanes necessarily implies a sort of “moral ban,” if you will. Following your logic to its necessary conclusion, any time a child cries on a plane, you believe the parents should not have brought that child on the plane; and, since it is a fact that any child may potentially cry on a plane, if therefore follows that no parent should ever bring any child on a plane. If they do so, they stand to potentially be judged by you as being at “fault” for the circumstances leading to your annoyance, even though they potentially did nothing more than bring their child on the plane — which you profess not to be suggesting that they shouldn’t be allowed to do. Are you seeing the circular / contradictory nature of this yet?
Brendan #13 – when did you start resorting to reductio ad davidkium from the get-go in a discussion ?
Consider “Following your logic to its necessary conclusion” – (my emphasis) – Doc’s first comment made a fairly simple observation – basically, paraphrasing “It wasn’t the Cookie Monster or Grima Wormtongue who put the screaming kid on the plane, it was said kid’s parents” … Is Doc’s observation incorrect ? Or non-factual ?
As someone who has gone through it several times, I understand what Doc is saying … Doc didn’t make an “explicit judgment of ALL parents of crying kids on airplanes” (your EMPHASIS) – *you*, Brendan, are choosing to project that, to read that, into his words … he is simply saying that if the parents hadn’t put their kid on the plane, the oher passengers would not have had to listen to the screaming kid … and that is a true statement … Doc didn’t rule out reasonable people following up on that thought with “Since the parent did put the kid on the plane (and has that responsibility), the responsible thing is to do the level best to find ways for the kid to enjoy the flight” …
(grin) You are also choosing to read your own projections and thought-limitations into my suggestions-from-experience … sure, paradoxical reactions to drugs occur – that’s why hyper-active kids often get fed Ritalin … if marzine makes your kid hyper, and the kid is on Ritalin at school, then the humane thing to do on long trips is to continue that drug regimen (and probably have the cabin staff bring the kid Jolt every 30 mins) … I have 4 individual and individualist kids -each one responded differently to flying, yet each also responded well to individualised ways to keep ’em human (and often entertaining) while flying … the more that kids can enjoy their flight, the more the other passengers on the flight can, too …
Stephanie pretty much nailed it when she observed that she had experienced a parent (or two) who wasn’t even trying to have the kids enjoy the flight … absent significant change, those parents doom their kids to not being able to enjoy flying … and that would be a Sad Thing …
Alasdair, I am not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but implicit in Doc’s statement that “it’s the parents’ fault if the child is screaming on the plane” is that parents bear 100% responsibility for their kids’ behavior. In some circumstances, parents do bear 100% legal responsibility for their kids’ actions, but most reasonable people allow that even close-to-perfect parents can’t totally control their kids — that even as children, kids have that individual spark of free will that makes us all human. When kids go off track into drugs or breaking the law, we don’t automatically assign blame to the parents; many parents have done everything they can to keep their child on the straight and narrow. The nexus between a child’s behavior and the quality of the parents’ parenting simply is not 100% correlated, which is why the best approach is to simply tolerate the situation the best you can so long as the parents are doing their best. If the parents are derelict in their duties, however, then you fully have the right to call them out publicly and ask them to take responsibility for their kids’ behavior.
Andrew – irrespective of the quality of parenting, it remains a true statement that the parents did choose to take the child on the plane … and it remains true whether the child misbehaves or not …
Subsequent discussions hae focused on the blame game for the parents – but that doesn’t change the fact that the parents did choose to take the child on the plane …
The parents in Doc’s example bear 100% responsibility for the kid’s presence … the kid’s behaviour is less obviously 100% parental responsibility since the little bestials can try the patience of saints – and I agree that we should be as supportive as we can of their attempts to parent to the best of their abilities …
Alasdair, have you ever heard of “context”?
I wrote:
In direct response to that, Doc wrote (emphasis mine):
Doc is not merely making the bloody obvious statement that parental choice is a logical but-for cause of the screaming child’s presence on the plane (which is no more relevant than saying the airline’s choice to fly from Airport A to Airport B is also logically responsible for the fact that the child is on the plane). Rather, he is quite clearly assigning moral blame to the parents, in direct rebuttal to my claim that parents should NOT be assigned moral blame (in the form of “nasty looks and critical/snide comments”) for the mere fact of their children’s screaming, without more. Doc disagrees with that. He thinks parents SHOULD be blamed, by default if not automatically, any time a child screams, because the parents made the (implicitly, unwise) choice to “take the chance” of “putting their pre-verbal bundle of joy in a confined, scary, uncomfortable place.” His comment makes this belief crystal clear.
This is not reductio ad anything, and it’s not “subsequent discussions” that have turned this into a “blame game” — this was ALWAYS about blame, and whether parents automatically deserve it (I say no, Doc says yes). So, in other words, stop being so fucking obtuse, Alasdair, and take part in the actual conversation we’re having, please, not some hypothetical alternative conversation in which Doc is being reasonable. Doc’s attitude regarding this issue is PRECISELY the sort of insensitive bullshit I was talking about — the type of indefensible lack of compassion and total self-centrism that other travelers, i.e. fellow human beings, should not have to deal with.
Doc’s attitude regarding this issue is PRECISELY the sort of insensitive bullshit I was talking about — the type of indefensible lack of compassion and total self-centrism that other travelers, i.e. fellow human beings, should not have to deal with.
Whether you like it or not, many people believe that imposing young children, especially disruptive children (for whatever reason) into someone else’s environment is a form of total self-centrism. Deciding to travel with young children on public transport is definitely making a decision that your interests are more important than the potential disruption it would cause others. (note I am NOT saying that such a decision is wrong or improper, only that such a decision is made) Many people choose not to travel with young children, or to do such traveling in a car.
I myself have walked out of movies and had my seat changed on airplanes due to disruptive children.
Again my solution would be to use the wonder of capitalism, and allow people like me to travel on special flights that would not allow children. If necessary I would pay a reasonable premium for such a flight.
Brendan – have you ever heard of “proportion” and “measure” and “temperate” ?
(grin)
Doc may disagree with me, but I suspect that Doc is not “assigning moral blame” (de-emphasis mine – the discussion is already getting sufficiently shrill) yet rather pointing out that parents *should* be responsible for the safety and well-being of their children, and, as such, have a responsibility not to put them in places where screaming with less than joy is likely to be a regular response …
Now, if there is some reason that *you* are feeling especially blame-worthy, that is not something about which we can do too much … except to point out to you that Doc, and Stephanie, and I, all three of us continue to travel in spite of parents who travel with screaming kids … some of the time as an example, with our own kids, that not all kids scream when traveling, and some of the time simply as travelers …
Oh – and the hysterical condemnation of Doc’s comments seem more like “PRECISELY the sort of insensitive bullshit” that the Irish Trojan used to cover, from the other (and reasonable) side of Life … somehow, youy were way less defensive back then …
A conversation? That’s not what this is. This is you winding yourself into a tizzy after misinterpreting what I wrote, calling me a bunch of names, and digging deeper when that is pointed out. Why are you getting so defensive – and offensive – about all of this? I tried to make it clear I was not talking EVERYBODY who flies with their children, and most specifically not talking about your children, who I understand are good on flights.
But yes Brendan, you are right; you have me figured out. Clever as you are, I’m surprised you didn’t discover my true agenda. The REAL logical, necessary conclusion is that I think people should be prohibited from even having children on the off chance that they might inconvenience me at some point. All of that is perfectly clear if you just follow my logic.
Or, maybe, you’re just makin’ shit up; I like kids, enough to teach primary school. Taking responsibility for your child’s actions on the plane, when the child is under a certain age, seems like a no-brainer. You want me to blame the child? Or are you saying there’s some random cosmic chain of events that led to a child crying on the plane? Is it my fault? Is this “assigning moral blame”? Should people be required to smile and say “oh how cute” at the risk of being branded all sorts of nasty, sub-human ogre?
Just to clarify, once again, AT NO POINT did I, or would I, suggest that people with small children not be allowed to fly. It is, however, a choice that people make, and if the child reacts poorly – particularly if the child ALWAYS reacts poorly – they should take responsibility for putting the child on the plane. If some of the passengers give you nasty looks, deal with it.
I still think I’m right on the substance of this, and I have certain specific points I want to make, but no time to make them right now. I hope to add a further comment later. At present, I just wanted to apologize for being intemperate in my last comment. My light sarcasm in comment #6 is much more appropriate to this thread; I should have saved the heavy-handed vitriol for one of Sandy Underpants’s latest missives or something. Sorry.
Apology accepted. We all get intemperate from time to time. You really don’t want to see what it’s like when I lose my zen :).
Doc – we’re not worried – that was zen, this is now …
Doc–C’mon man, you cannot say to a parent “Your little hellion should not be allowed to fly.” Sorry, even if you had a signed and sealed writ from 1000 doctors saying that allowing a child on a plane is a form of mass psychological terror, the fact of the matter is you’re using _logic_ where parents govern from _emotion_. Get infuriated at it all you want, it’s probably the reason you’re still alive–because Lord knows as a child you probably did things that if someone else had done to your folks they’d still be missing.
That being said, I do think parents expect a bit much patience from us non-parental folks. Sorry, but I’m never getting on a rural bus in BFE Third World Country because, well, I’ve had the “too many unwashed bodies in a small confined space” experience–and don’t feel the urge to seek that out again. Likewise, parents–yes, it _is_ your fault that we are stuck on the aluminum tube with your offspring. Grandma and Grandpa can fly, drive, or whatever else is necessary to see your pride and joy as can you–at the end of the day, like it or lump it, you are saying “I think your three, four, five, etc. hours of discomfort are less important than my 20 hours of time stuck in a car driving.” While I am not saying that this is an unreasonable supposition, especially if your children cannot read in a car or you firmly believe that you will go insane if you hear (insert popular cartoon) one more time from the backseat, the fact remains the other party has every right to be utterly perturbed. After all, they are stuck in the same sardine can and did NOT pay $400 to hear your child’s rendition of Old McDonald, you count slowly to 2, or the various other means that parents just expect other folks to “understand.”
I, like Doc, happen to like children. Well-behaved children. However, there is something about an airplane that makes many parents (and I am glad to see that you appear to be an exception, Brendan) believe that fellow adults who have paid good money should just accept that Little Timmy is an intemperate Lord of Chaos in training. Unfortunately, it is those people who get folks like you who are utterly aware of what they are subjecting people (and try to minimize it) the dirty looks from passengers who obviously weren’t taught manners when they were young.
That being said, for all the folks who hate flying with little people, you can glare at a parent…or you can try to help out. Sometimes the strange, new funny person will distract the imminent air raid siren melt down until the moment has passed. Yes, I have held random children so that their parents can quickly find the milk bottle or entertained a 3 y/o while his Mom found the spare batteries for a DVD player. It happens, and sometimes you may have made a child’s day. Or, yes, you too can drive. (The last flight I took somewhere was in 2007. To Germany. Where, unfortunately, you cannot drive to.) While it’s a bit of a hassle driving two days to get someplace, on the other hand it’s nice to see friends en route and/or catch some tourist sights.
Brendan #21 – fake but accurate, eh ?
James Young #24 – ummm – where exactly did Doc say that ? Lots of places where *others* said that Doc said it, but real hard to find where Doc said it …
Plus, little hellions should not be allowed to *exist* – them flying is just adding insult to injury ! (GRIN)
I have to admit there have been a few times that I have been tempted to refer parents of screaming kids to Margaret Sanger’s eugenics organisation aka Planned Parenthood … sorta unsubtle, I realise … (I need to look out my suply of PP business cards, for my next flight – thanks for the reminder) …
Alasdair (and Doc)–Point taken, that is not what Doc said. As he makes clear. My bad.
Hellions exist because stupid people breed easier. Keeps the food chain balanced and all that.
Great site Brendan but I have to disagree with you on this one. I am taking Doc’s side. I read this yesterday and all the comments and was bothered by your position on this. In my observation your attitude happens a lot with young parents. They think everyone understands that kids will misbehave and there is nothing the parents can do about it. Well they don’t. They ask themselves why would the parents put their kids in a situation where they are not ready to behave in a manner that is expected.
I think it is a very selfish attitude, the “well they just have to deal with it” attitude. You have a right to take your kids into any situation you want, but you have a responsibility to determine if it is the right situation for you kids. A situation where they can act appropriately. If they cannot then the parent should be the one inconvenienced not the rest of the people (most of the time adults) in that situation.
A good example. A young married couple have been going out to dinner every week to an adult restaurant. Now they have a child. They continue to go out to the same restaurant with the child. Do you think that is appropriate that now those parents are disrupting the dinners of the other patrons because those parents want to continue their weekly tradition? (to clarify I am not talking about an infant here, but a toddler, you know the ones who can’t sit still)
Full disclosure I have a 13, 10 and 7 year old.
You know, this thread has seemingly become a festival of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. First, I argubaly misinterpreted what Doc was saying (more on that in a second). Now, I am being misunderstood.
As our president would say, let me be clear: I completely agree with you, Rudy, about parents who refuse to alter their lifestyles and traditions to accommodate the fact that they now have children. I, too, know some young parents like this, and it drives me nuts. Absolutely, parents should not be taking a toddler out to a fancy restaurant (unless that toddler has a demonstrated extraordinary capacity to sit still & be quiet, and perhaps not even then). And even if they take the kid, at an appropriate time, to a less-fancy, family-friendly restaurant, they still need to be prepared to leave early or take other ameliorative steps if the kid erupts. In those sorts of circumstances, there’s no justification for making the people around you put up with a screaming kid, and there’s no reason to take any substantial risk of it happening in the first place. Going out to dinner is not a necessity; it’s a pure luxury.
Alternative scenarios: on more than one occasion, I’ve been at a movie theater, at a movie that’s inappropriate for small children, at a time that’s inappropriate for small children, and there have been parents there with small children. Who inevitably start crying. That’s horrible. There’s no excuse for it. Those parents deserve every nasty look and snide comment they get, and more.
(Also recall that the original point of this post was NOT to defend parents — I erroneously thought my comment on that issue would be uncontroversial — but to CRITICIZE the me-first, nobody-else-matters sort of parents who would let their kid watch a movie with no earphones and the volume up on a plane. That sort of parental behavior is indefensible.)
However, I think the mere fact of travelling on an airplane — to be distinguished from how you conduct yourself during the course of that travel, as in my DVD-watching example, or Stephanie’s far more egregious example of the parents sleeping while their kids screamed — is in a whole different category from the mere fact of taking your kids out to a restaurant, or a movie, or whatever. Airline travel is not something you do electively, because it’s so awesomely fun. Nor is it, contrary to some statements here that I think are a bit myopic, a mere “convenience.” Even leaving aside the issue of transoceanic flight, which is obviously a necessity if you’re going overseas, flying domestically is often the only viable option to get from Point A to Point B, if those points are sufficiently far apart. It simply is not the case that the average parent has the practical ability to do a two- or three-day drive — each way — in lieu of flying, thus turning a long-weekend trip (say, for a wedding or a funeral, or the holidays) into a week-plus affair. People have jobs, people have lives, and that sort of itinerary is just not feasible for a lot of people. Thus, there is actually not that much distinction between “parents shouldn’t travel with kids” and “parents should suffer the ‘inconvenience’ of car travel, no matter this distance, if they’ve got kids.” The latter, in many cases, effectively means the former. It is just not a reasonable or practicable demand to make in many, many cases.
(An aside: it’s also not necessarily practical to say, “for the holidays, the rest of the family should travel to where the little kids are, so as not to inconvenience other air travelers.” For one thing, what if there are multiple branches of the family, with multiple sets of little kids, in different locations? For another thing, what if the family includes older people who cannot or will not travel? Should the parents then be forced to spend the holidays away from their family, in order to spare fellow travelers from the mere possibility that their kids might have a bad flight? When you take these sorts of ideas and put them into real-world scenarios, they quickly become ridiculous in a lot of different circumstances.)
I’ll give you an example. In October, when Loyacita was a 3-month-old bucket of fussiness, one of Becky’s good friends was getting married in Buffalo. Obviously, we wanted to go — weddings are kind of a big deal, and only happen once (hopefully!). We were, however, terribly concerned about the possibility of Loyacita screaming bloody murder through the flight — a possibility that ultimately did NOT come to fruition, thank goodness, but it just as easily could have, despite all of our best efforts. However, we felt we had no choice but to fly with her (aside from simply not going to the wedding). Consider: Becky going by herself, without Loyacita, was not an option, as Loyacita was a breastfeeding infant, needed to eat every few hours. All of us going by car was likewise not an option, because I have a job, and couldn’t afford to take an entire week-plus off from work, just to drive to Buffalo and back for a brief visit. Again, making that demand would be tantamount to saying “you can’t go.” Finally, Becky doesn’t have a job, so theoretically she could have taken the kids and driven without me, and then I could have flown in later… except that, as I mentioned, Becky was breastfeeding a fussy infant every few hours, and thus was completely and utterly sleep-deprived and exhausted. Putting her, alone, in a car for multiple days, and expecting her to drive solo from Denver to Buffalo and back, wouldn’t just be inconvenient, it would be downright unsafe — for her, for our girls, and for everyone on the roads she’d be driving. So, in sum, we had exactly two options: 1) fly to Buffalo, all four of us, try our very best to keep the girls under control, and hope for the best; or 2) don’t go the wedding.
Anyone want to make that case that we are somehow morally obligated to choose option 2? Like I said, the girls actually did great, but they easily COULD have erupted, Loyacita in particular, despite our best efforts, in which case the only thing we would have done “wrong” was choosing to go to our friend’s wedding by the only feasible means of doing so — i.e., flying, with our kids in tow — rather than skipping it altogether
Before I move on, I have one other, highly relevant anecdote from that trip. On the way home, our connecting flight got delayed, and we got stranded overnight in Atlanta. As a result, the girls got very little sleep that night, and then we had a flight back to Denver early the next morning. There were two possible results of this: either they sleep on the Atlanta-Denver flight, or they’re terrors on that flight because of every parent’s bane, the “too tired to sleep” phenomenon. Now, again, things actually worked out really well — they both slept for most of the flight — but they could have gone totally differently, just by random chance, not because of anything different that we did. They’d never been in a situation like that before, and we had no idea how they would react. We simply lucked out. If things had gone amiss, that would have been a great example of how even the best-laid plans, and the best parental efforts to keep kids happy by manipulating their schedules and whatnot, can fall apart because of circumstances beyond the parents’ control. It wasn’t our fault that the flight was delayed. But that delay could easily have been the proximate cause of a massive kiddo meltdown…which would have earned us nasty looks from those travelers who feel justified in judging any parent whose kids are screaming. And again, to review, what did we do wrong? 1) We didn’t want to skip our friend’s wedding. 2) Our flight got delayed. … That’s it. And for that, we’re bad parents, worthy of nasty looks and snide comments? Really?!
Now, having said all that, let me return to Doc’s original comment, and where I think the disconnect between our positions might lie. Doc, as I said earlier, I apologize for flying off the handle at you. I have no idea why I did; that’s been an issue for me lately on the blog, for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on, but I’m frustrated about it. Here, it weakened my position, and could potentially have offended you (though you promptly and cheerfully accepted my apology, which I very much appreciate). In any event, it was totally uncalled-for. Nevertheless, I stand by my underlying substantive position. I honestly read your comment as necessarily leading to the logical conclusion that parents should never fly with children, for the reasons stated in comment #13. You, meanwhile, seem to honestly think that’s an unreasonable interpretation by me. So where and how are we misunderstanding each other?
Having thought about this some more, I have a theory as to what’s going on. When you concede that “sometimes, nothing works,” I think what you really mean, primarily at least, is, “with some kids, sometimes/often, nothing works.” Correct me if I’m wrong. But if that’s your underlying premise, then your conclusion makes some degree of instinctive sense: if Parent A knows that Infant B and/or Toddler C is predisposed to let loose the “screams of the damned” on an airplane, then that parent is making a poor choice (at least under most circumstances) by flying with those kids. But if Parent D knows that Infant E and/or Toddler F is predisposed to be a good traveler, then that particular parent gets the Doc Seal of Approval to fly with those particular kids. Thus, as you insist, you aren’t proposing a blanket rule that parents shouldn’t fly with kids. You’re only judging the bad parents (which I certainly do as well; again see Stephanie’s example), and the parents of meltdown-prone kids (here is where things get complicated).
Here’s the problem with that, as I see it. I believe you’re operating from a false premise if you think kids can be categorized into either a) Those Who Scream On Airplanes Regardless Of What Their Parents Do or b) Those Who Don’t Scream On Airplanes Provided Their Parents Aren’t Idiots About It (like the parents in Stephanie’s example). IMHO, that’s an inaccurate, oversimplified picture of the reality of parenting. I believe that any kid can potentially have a meltdown, even if the parents are doing everything right. Some kids are far more likely to melt down than others, sure. But kids are unpredictable; you never know what will set them off. And also, air travel is unpredicable. Even if you’ve got a kid who is highly unlikely to meltdown under normal air-travel circumstances (as controlled and managed by the parents), abnormal circumstances can arise — as my Atlanta story demonstrates — through no fault of the parents’. Forget an overnight layover; even a delay of a couple of hours can completely throw off your best efforts to manage the kid’s schedule. The sort of minor inconveniences we all deal with as air travelers can be catastrophic for efforts by even “good parents” to get their kids through a flight (or two, if you’ve got to connect) without major incident.
Yet you, as I understand it, would judge any parent, every parent, whose kid is screaming, without considering the possibility that a) this is a kid who very rarely melts down like this, yet is inexplicably and very inconveniently doing so now, or b) is doing so now because of circumstances beyond the parent’s control that you’re unaware of. That’s without mentioning the possibilities that c) this is the kid’s first time flying, so the parents had no idea how the kid would react, or d) the family is flying to something incredibly important, like a family wedding or funeral, and there was literally no alternative to flying there, even if the kid is meltdown-prone. I’m sure there are myriad other possibilities; those are just a few off the top of my head, but the richness of human experience means there are countless, countless individual circumstances that can lead to meltdowns despite the parents doing nothing wrong. Yet you would judge ALL of those parents (although not literally “ban” them — but this is what I mean about the “moral ban” — your judgment necessarily implies that they shouldn’t have flown with the kid). I have a big problem with that.
I think, in general, not just parents but human beings deserve the benefit of the doubt. If you observe the parents behaving in a way that demonstrates clearly that they aren’t making every reasonable effort to prevent their kids from inconveniencing you — aside from the effort of “not flying at all,” which I don’t believe you are entitled to assume is a valid option for any given person, as you don’t know their circumstances, their reason for travel, etc. etc. — then by all means, judge them, and give them a nasty look, if not more. Again see, e.g., Stephanie’s example, or my DVD example. But if the ONLY basis for your judging of the parent is the prima facie fact that the kid is screaming… I don’t think that’s enough, because there are so many potential — even perhaps likely — extenuating circumstances that you would never know about.
Now… if your argument was simply, “I intellectually understand and at least half-agree with what you are saying, but emotionally, in that moment, when I’m exhausted and cranky anyway, I just don’t have the reserve of patience to give that parent the benefit of the doubt, even though perhaps I should” … I can accept that, at least grudgingly. I understand there is a legitimate tension here, and I get the criticism that I’m demanding too much of non-parental travelers by insisting that even “nasty looks” are off-limits. I think that really, all I’m asking for is basic human compassion, and a recognition that the parents are most likely suffering 10x the amount you are… but I understand that when you, too, are exhausted and frustrated and annoyed, it’s awfully hard to summon that, and maybe it’s not reasonable to expect you to. Fine. But I don’t think that’s all you were saying. It seemed to me, and seems to me, that you were/are advancing an active justification for why it is normatively correct to NOT give parents the benefit of the doubt. And I think that’s wrong.
Trying not to fly off the handle again here — but on the surface, not judging you personally but describing my impression of that position I think you’re taking — I believe that sort of blanket normative judgment is a high-and-mighty, self-centered attitude. I think it’s wrong to go around feeling morally justified in blaming parents across-the-board for kids having trouble on airplanes, based on no more information than “their kid is screaming on a plane, and they are the but-for cause of the kid’s presence of the plane, therefore I judge them.” The circumstances are so much more complex than that, and I think it’s wrong to make that sort of judgment — and unkind and insensitive to express that judgment to the parent, through a nasty look or a snide comment or whatever — without having something more to go on. And I do think, at the end of the day, it amounts to basically the same thing as saying “parents shouldn’t fly with little kids on airplanes.” Or at least, “if parents make the unwise choice to fly with little kids on airplanes, they must accept the possibility of incurring my righteous wrath if anything goes wrong.”
Maybe I should leave it at TL;DR. My response is getting that way, but I’ll try this:
First I should apologize for copying Brendan’s over-the-top description
in my original post. I probably thought that re-using “Mr. Insensitive
Self-Centered Idiot” would point out the irony of judging people who make
judgments about your actions… in a post judging somebody else’s
actions. But I’m probably using irony improperly, and certainly should
have known that using intemperate language would backfire, regardless of
the source. It might have avoided you judging me (with
the wrong facts) for judging others (without all the facts), when I’m
not, and the only one doing any judging was you… and the other
people who decided that I was worthy of judgment for allegedly judging
others. Can I just blame David?
Second, a clarification. Let me be perfectly clear: just because I’m
saying something is a choice does not mean that it’s wrong, or that I
wouldn’t make the same choice. It’s still a choice. While that might be
“bloody obvious”, but it’s the point I was making. As Alasdair
put it, “It wasn’t the Cookie Monster or Grima Wormtongue who put the
screaming kid on the plane, it was said kid’s parents”. It’s also the parents “fault” that their well-behaved child was on the plane, if that’s the case.
Third, I’m just going to wait and see how you respond to that.
On your first point, I’m not sure an apology is really necessary, but to the extent that it is, I accept it.
On your second point, OK, but if literally all you’re saying is that parents “made a choice” to put the kid on the plane, and you’re not stating or even implying a moral judgment of that choice, then your comment is completely non-responsive to my post and, frankly, totally pointless. All you’re saying, then, is that the parents are a but-for cause of the kids’ presence on the plane. Sure they are. Also, the airline’s choice to fly from Point A to Point B, thus creating the flight in question for the kids to be on, is a but-for cause of their presence. So is the lack of a blizzard or hurricane cancelling the flight. So is the invention of air travel in the early 20th century. Also, the other passenger’s “choice” to fly on the plane is a but-for cause of his annoyance at the hands of the tyrannical screaming child. If he hadn’t made the choice to travel on that particular flight, he wouldn’t be annoyed by that particular kid! But where does this all get us? Exactly nowhere.
Now, let’s exit this world of pointless, substanceless discussion of cause and effect in a moral and factual vacuum, and return to the context of the discussion that we actually were having. What I said was that “the nasty looks and critical/snide comments that we parental travelers occasionally get from other passengers are totally undeserved and unfair… like from people who think it’s necessarily the parents’ fault when the kid is crying.” If you aren’t disagreeing with me that those “nasty looks and critical/snide comments…are totally undeserved and unfair,” and are merely taking issue, in some technical sense, with my assertion that it’s not “necessarily the parents’ fault” — ignoring the moral dimensions of the word “fault,” and just looking at it in terms of pure factual causation — why did you bother to comment at all? Obviously I’m not going to deny that the parents made a choice to put their kids on that plane. Just as obviously, when I said “fault,” I didn’t mean in some technical amoral sense, but rather in the sense of a normative, right-or-wrong judgment.
But I don’t believe that factual causation, divorced from judgment, is what you meant with your original comment, and I don’t believe you believe it either. Frankly, this is a cop-out. Either you pass automatic (or at least presumptive) judgment — moral judgment, or if you prefer, normative judgment — on parents whose kids cry on planes, or you don’t. Either you give parents the benefit of the doubt, and assume they’re doing everything possible to calm/control the kid (short of not flying at all), unless and until you see evidence to the contrary; or else you assume the kid’s crying is a result of their bad parenting, unless and until you see evidence that they’re trying to calm/control the kid and/or are in an uncontrollably bad situation (evidence that would often be unavailable to you, of course, since you haven’t been with them all day, you don’t know all the circumstances, etc.) Basically, you either find parents of screaming children on airplanes guilty of bad parenting until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty. Which is it?
P.S. I continue to find the course this conversation has taken extremely ironic, given that my original point in the post — the “Complaint” referenced in the title — was a rant against selfish parents and their inconsiderate behavior vis a vis their kids on airplanes, in reference to DVD players with the volume up. My aside about unfair nasty looks/comments was only meant to convey the fact that I’m not unsympathetic to the inherent difficulties of traveling with children, despite the fact that my kids are generally good travelers, but that nevertheless my point about DVDs stands. Yet somehow we’ve ended up arguing extensively about what I thought would be an uncontroversial aside, namely, the assertion that it’s unfair to automatically judge all parents of screaming children when we all know that 1) fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and sometimes, kids gotta fly on airplanes, and 2) sometimes, circumstances beyond the parent’s control are the primary cause of the screaming, despite the parent’s best efforts, and therefore 3) it’s unfair to assume that the screaming is something for which the parent should be blamed and judged (i.e., what I meant by “fault”).
I’m still unclear on which part of that equation you disagree with. Initially, you seemed to be saying that #1 is wrong — that “sometimes, kids gotta fly on airplanes” is a false premise — and thus asserting that we can ignore or disregard #2 because, after all, there is always one factual circumstance within the parent’s control, namely the fact that the kid is flying in the first place. But you’ve denied that you think it’s always wrong — normatively/morally speaking — for parents to put their kids on airplanes (what I called a “moral ban” on flying with kids). So I think that means you accept #1 and, at least for purposes of making moral judgments, #2 as well. Now you seem to be arguing against #2 from a technical, causational standpoint, but that argument doesn’t actually change my conclusion (#3) about the unfairness of judging parents for what we might re-classify as “circumstances that are either a) beyond the parent’s control, or b) within the parent’s control, but not blameworthy.” I’m unsure where that leaves us, unless what you’re saying is that while #3 is technically correct, it’s unreasonable to expect annoyed travelers to adhere to it. But I addressed that point in comment #28, so I’ll shut up now and let you respond further, if you wish. 🙂
Brendan – you are a new parent (well, not so new, you now have two ! – poetic, ain’t it ?) …
So many responses …
1) Funeral/wedding far away – means one has to take kid with one … (keeping this non-personal and kid-friendly) … bull-excretion-product ! … taking the kid is a *choice* as is even going to the funeral/wedding … parental lesson to pass on to kids (and to parents, if necessary) – “Just because one wants something does *NOT* mean that one is entitled to something !” … sometimes, the honest, reasonable, adult thing to do is to accept that Life is unfair – and reasonable friends/family will understand the choice *not* to travel with predictably screaming infant …
2) (From personal experience) … contrary to widely-held belief, it *is* eminently possible for the father of a breast-feeding infant to feed said infant while the mother is away … it just takes some planning and effort on the part of both mother and father …
a) Mother will need to pump (mechanically/electrically) a supply of breast-milk in advance …
b) Mother and father will need to learn how to feed said infant formula (with practice beforehand) …
c) Father will have to accept that *his* sleep is also going to be disrupted to feed said infant …
d) Mother will have to trust the father to actually feed the kid (hence the need for b), above) …
e) Mother may need to express milk build-up during a trip, depending upon how long the trip needs to be …
f) Probably most important – mother and father need to realise that, on a planetary basis, chances are that *none* of their experiences are new … and the solution *already* exists to pretty much any problem that may occur … and taking a DEEP breath, several times, often restores a potential problem to a reasonable perspective …
One thing as-yet-unmentioned, I think …
One of the biggest factors in having one’s kids *not* be screaming monsters in most situations is to be able to project sufficient “calming” so as to reassure both the infant and the nearby 3rd parties … it is a *very* valuable skill to gain, and many folk in the generations above yours/ours are more than happy to show/explain *how* they do it, themselves … and, eventualy, one can find a method or twelve that can work in one’s own familial situation …
“Fear ! Fire ! Foe !” may be great when it is someone else’s orc – but not so much when it is one’s own offspring being the orc … (grin) … that latter situation is one dealing with which is often more orcward …
taking the kid is a *choice* as is even going to the funeral/wedding
Of course this is literally true. Almost everything one does in life is, literally, a “choice.” And I believe if you re-read what I wrote earlier, you’ll find that I acknowledged this. I don’t think I described travel to a funeral or wedding as literally mandatory. But there are social expectations and requirements, and there are also things that are crucial to everyone’s quality of life, including families with small chidlren. The ability of families to get together for funerals, weddings, the major holidays, etc. etc. — these are “choices,” yes, but they are not, in my view, the sort of choices about which it is reasonable to casually ask someone to choose “no,” just because you want the convenience of a quiet flight for a few hours. Are you really going to walk up to a mother of a screaming child and say, “I know you wanted to attend your father’s funeral, but you should have stayed home, because I wanted to sleep on this flight”? Or even, “I don’t want to have to wear earplugs, or listen to my iPod, on this flight, so you should have skipped Christmas; your family will surely understand”? Of course you won’t say these things, but it sounds like you’ll think them, and feel self-righteous about it. And I happen to think that’s an error in your judgment, not the mother’s, for a wide variety of reasons that you aren’t really addressing or grappling with.
It’s all well and good to say that “reasonable friends/family will understand the choice *not* to travel with predictably screaming infant,” but we don’t all HAVE “reasonable friends/family.” Nor, even if we do, is it self-evidently reasonable — or, indeed, mentally or psychologically or spiritually healthy for the people in question — to demand that families with small children skip out on all sorts of activities that arguably, in the aggregate, form the core of the human experience, for an extended period of time, all to spare your ear drums the possibility of annoyance.
You say, “Just because one wants something does *NOT* mean that one is entitled to something !” I absolutely agree — and I would apply this to you, too. You WANT a quiet flight, without any chance of screaming babies disturbing your bliss, but you are NOT necessarily entitled to it. Like the parents, you, too, are making a “choice” to risk air travel, in which you must deign to encounter the unwashed masses of humanity, some of whom smell funny, or are rude, or have screaming babies. Again, that, too, is a CHOICE, not a necessity. Sure, you might need to travel someplace quickly, for business, but after all, being in an industry that requries air travel is a “choice,” indeed having a job at all is a “choice.” (This is no sillier, or not much siller anyway, that stating that it’s a “choice” to go to a family wedding or funeral. Literally true, practically ridiculous.)
At some point, the imperative of another family’s legitimate desire to travel, despite having small children, outweighs your legitimate desire for convenience while traveling. This is a balancing act, not an all-or-nothing proposition in which parents of small children must always cede to someone else’s needs or desires. As I’ve said before, the potentiality of encounting screaming children is part of the milieu of traveling — something we all must accept as a possibility, along with long lines and security indignities and delayed flights and lost baggage and cramped bathrooms and crappy food. That’s no excuse for bad parenting while traveling, but it’s certainly relevant if we’re going to obsess over this concept of who is making a “choice” and who isn’t. When you choose to travel by plane, you are choosing to potentially subject yourself to all sorts of things, including screaming children.
I will concede, at least for the sake of argument, that parents should not subject their fellow travelers — to say nothing of their own children! — to that particular part of the milieu for purely frivolous reasons, if they know that the result is likely to be horrible. (On that last point, I note, incidentally, that you’ve failed to address a key issue: because there’s a first time for everything, every child has a first flight, before which the parents do not know how the child will react. So that phrase “if they know that the result is likely to be horrible” is a key point, and one you can’t just assume is true when you’re judging a particular parent.) But at some point, the reasons for travel, and the practicality of air travel as opposed to the alternatives, become sufficiently nonfrivolous — a faraway wedding, funeral, major holiday, whatever — that it’s hard for me to believe we’re really having this discussion. Should parents of “difficult” children become shut-ins for an indeterminate number of years, for fear that if they go out in public, their children might irritate someone?
There are limits to this Doc/Alasdair Doctrine of parental fault, and you don’t seem to be grappling with them at all. We can argue about what the limits properly are, but first you need to acknowledge that the limits exist — and if you think it’s reasonable to ask a family to skip a wedding or a funeral, or a breastfeeding mother to be separated from her newborn infant for an extended period of time*, for the sake of your personal convenience, I don’t think we’ve reached even that point of minimal understanding.
*Indeed, a potentially indeterminate period of time, given the vagaries of air travel; see Volcano, Icelandic.
By the way – it would be easier to have a conversation with you about this sort of topic, Alasdair, if you could leave the generational condescension out of it. Just as my over-the-top vitriol in earlier comments was inappropriate, and I’ve apologized for it, likewise your insistence on making this about me being a “new parent,” and stating that “many folks in the generations above yours/ours are more than happy to show/explain *how* they do it,” etc., is really grating and unnecessary. The merits of my argument rise and fall on their own; they are not dependent on my age, or the age of my children, and if you need to resort to generational tropes in order to make your point, then your point is probably weaker than you think. This is not a huge deal, nor something I’m horribly offended by, but it weakens your overall argument to make condescending statements like that.
Are you really going to walk up to a mother of a screaming child and say, “I know you wanted to attend your father’s funeral, but you should have stayed home, because I wanted to sleep on this flight”? Or even, “I don’t want to have to wear earplugs, or listen to my iPod, on this flight, so you should have skipped Christmas; your family will surely understand”? Of course you won’t say these things, but it sounds like you’ll think them, and feel self-righteous about it. And I happen to think that’s an error in your judgment, not the mother’s, for a wide variety of reasons that you aren’t really addressing or grappling with.
So we have come to the point where I am not allowed to be annoyed with someone for causing me discomfort even in the privacy of my own thoughts?
No. As I wrote in my lengthy comment #28:
The key point is the righteousness. If you’re just annoyed, that’s your business, and it’s probably understandable. But if your self-righteous annoyed, believing in your heart of hearts that this person has wronged you in some way, I think you need to re-examine that belief.
Actually upon re-reading your argument, you seem to be saying I have no right to cause parents any discomfort (or guilt) by my facial gestures or body language, even while they have the right to cause me discomfort by forcing me to deal with their loud and unruly children.
See above.
It comes down to basic human compassion, gahrie. Nine times out of ten, that parent is suffering way, way, WAY more than you are. So I’d suggest you have a little goddamn compassion and keep your annoyance to yourself. But if you can’t manage that, because you’re too annoyed to control your “facial gestures or body language,” fine, I can understand that. Just don’t come on my blog and tell me, in a fit of self-righteous pique over the alleged bad parenting* of the masses of humanity with whom you have been “forced” to deal, that your facial gestures or body language are not only understandable under the trying circumstances, but morally justified and normatively correct, and expect me to be okay with that.
*I say “alleged” because, of course, in your self-righteous annoyance, you’ve failed to notice that you have no idea whether “bad parenting” is actually to blame — and you don’t care. As far as you’re concerned, it’s the parent’s fault regardless.
but if your self-righteous annoyed, believing in your heart of hearts that this person has wronged you in some way, I think you need to re-examine that belief.
But I HAVE been wronged. The issue is, can the wrong be justified. I agree that in some cases it can be.
I am no more self righteous in believing that I have the right to a peaceful flight, than a parent is in believing they have the right to bring small children on a flight.
So again, I submit that having “no small children” flights available is the best solution for all.
It comes down to basic human compassion, gahrie
Where is the compassion for the rest of the people on the airplane?
I am no more self righteous in believing that I have the right to a peaceful flight, than a parent is in believing they have the right to bring small children on a flight.
Really? So your “right” to a particular convenience — amid a sea of inconveniences and indignities that we all take for granted when we fly — is, in all cases and under all circumstances, precisely equal to the “right” of a family to travel anywhere far away, ever, when air travel is the only viable option, and traveling without the kids is either impractical or would defeat the purpose?
Even if they’re traveling to spend Christmas with relatives from far and near, who gather in one place only once a year? What about if they’re going to a family wedding? To a grandparent’s funeral? To the once-a-decade family reunion? Does the basic ability to travel from one place to another, to experience the basic rituals of life that arguably help define our humanity, never outweigh your desire for a few hours of “peace”?
I find that to be a fairly ridiculous point of view. But at least I know where you stand, I guess. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I have no problem with the “no small children” flights, by the way. I just have a problem with how you get there.
Where is the compassion for the rest of the people on the airplane?
The compassion for the rest of the people on the airplane, and embarrassment and guilt and general misery over what they’re being subjected to, is — again, 9 times out of 10 — deeply felt by the parent, without the need for any intervention by you. That is precisely why it is so cruel to “pile on” with additional disapprobation (absent some evidence that this is one of those rare parents who doesn’t care or isn’t trying to improve the situation).
But again, we keep circling back to the same basic questions. Are you saying the “uncompassionate” behavior by the parents is the mere act of traveling with the child at all, even if the particular meltdown that is occurring was unforeseeable or not preventable (except by not flying)? If so, what you’re actually saying, then, is that, as a matter of normative judgment, parents shouldn’t fly with small children, ever because any child can potentially melt down, and it’s “uncompassionate” to subject fellow travelers to even that possibility. You can’t logically say it only becomes “uncompassionate” to fly if and when a child melts down, since that’s hinging a moral judgment on an event that is potentially beyond the control of the person you are judging. So it’s either wrong in all cases to travel with small children, or we have to draw some other line. I draw the line at: 1) you should do everything in your power to prevent meltdowns, and 2a) if you know your child is prone to melt down despite your best efforts, then 2b) you shouldn’t travel by plane unless it’s virtually mandatory (as in the case of a distant family funeral or whatever).
As I said to Alasdair, this is a balancing act between competing interests, neither of which are “rights,” both of which reflect “choices,” but both of which are perfectly legitimate (with their relative importance varying from situation to situation): the desire of families to travel, and the desire of others to have peace during the brief hours of their flight. I am not suggesting that the balance always weighs in favor of letting the parent off the hook. You, by contrast, seem to be suggesting that the balance always weighs in favor of judging the parent harshly, if the kid cries. If I’m wrong about that, please tell me how.
If so, what you’re actually saying, then, is that, as a matter of normative judgment, parents shouldn’t fly with small children, ever because any child can potentially melt down, and it’s “uncompassionate” to subject fellow travelers to even that possibility.
Believe it or not Brendan, there was a time when this was exactly the norm.
Lots of things used to be the norm; that doesn’t mean they’re correct. Are you saying this should be the norm again — that parents should never fly with small children? If you believe this, own it. Doc has been furiously running away from that position. Are you embracing it?
I just noticed that you wrote, “But I HAVE been wronged. The issue is, can the wrong be justified. I agree that in some cases it can be.” So I guess you, too, are disclaiming the most radical version of your position. But I’m still not sure where you draw the line. And I’m unclear why it qualifies as being “wronged” if it’s justifiable. I’ve heard of a victimless crime, but you seem to be positing a crimeless victim. I guess that sort of makes sense, but it’s not grounds for moral or normative judgment of anyone, which is what I thought we were talking about.
To expand my above thought, in times past it was broadly believed that you had an affirmative duty not to cause others offense or discomfort, a duty that trumped any justifications of desire or convenience.
At some point, this has shifted to a belief that your right to convenience or desire trumped the fact that others might be offended or discomforted.
Whether this shift is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but it has occurred.
Lots of things used to be the norm; that doesn’t mean they’re correct. Are you saying this should be the norm again — that parents should never fly with small children?
Nope.
I have been very clear, parents with small children should be allowed to fly, and I should be allowed to book a flight that does not allow parents with small children on it.
What’s not debatable is that the above statement, while perhaps true in its extremely broad outlines, is a vast oversimplification of an enormously broad array of complex issues, which fails to address any of the nuances that are utterly decisive in separating the positions of each and every person in this discussion.
(Meaning the above statement in comment #46)
Brendan:
There is something I just don’t get.
Why do you feel it is wrong for people to make parents uncomfortable by reproaching facial gestures or body language?
Shouldn’t those parents have the compassion to realize the discomfort and annoyance their children are causing their fellow passengers and just accept the perfectly justified reproaches?
The fellow passengers are showing their compassion in restricting their reaction to the provocation to facial gestures and body language. They could just as easily loudly harangue and complain, or in an extreme react in some physical fashion.
“To expand my above thought, in times past it was broadly believed that you had an affirmative duty not to cause others offense or discomfort, a duty that trumped any justifications of desire or convenience.”
Does this mean you won’t be commenting on the blog anymore? 😀
Brendan – I work in a profession (mainframe computer geek) where, at a technical level, it is considered significantly more important to fix the problem than to fix the blame … that is the basis/source for most of my responses to situations in Life …
In #33, you say “but it sounds like you’ll think them, and feel self-righteous about it.” – while that is a nice description of a ‘martyr complex’, I reamin Scots … if such a situation arises, self-righteousness has nothing to do with it … because I have done it a bunch of times, myself, parents who travel with small children automatically start off with my sympathy … now, self-righteousness *may* be a characteristic *you* experience – I don’t know you well enough one way or the other to be able to tell … I do, however, recommend a check for projection before posting … I know that *I* make one whenever I post something that might be projection upon my part …
#34 – actually, the “merits of [your] argument “ actually do not rise and fall on their own – I’m 56, already, and I *still* learn from others, some older, some younger, some with more experience in the area, some with less experience yet more effective experience … last time I checked, being open to learning from others, and suggesting to someone that that someone may be open to and may be able to benefit from learning from others isn’t condescension, it is more usually considered to be an expression of respect … again, projection *can* get in the way of that realisation …
gahrie #46 – the shift only applies as long as one cleaves to the Doctrine of Political Correctness …
Brendan #48 – “What’s not debatable …” – sorry, Counsellor, but that’s like “The Settled Science of Anthropogenic Global Warming” – one *may* feel that something is not debatable, and we do not challenge that one may have the right to such a feeling, and yet we do not *accept* that one may have the *right* of the concept – if anything, by the use of such a phrase in a discussion, one simply establishes that, sadly, one has nothing useful to say to support one’s case/point …
Translate the actors in our little drama to a high-end restaurant … do the parents of the screaming child still get unqualified sympathy ? Do the other patrons of the restaurant still fail to be allowed to have any perceptible non-positive response ?
Better yet, translate said actors into a courtroom … does the Judge have the right or privilege or power (or even duty/obligation/responsibility) to ask or even require that the disruption be remedied ?
Bottom line – it is not “compassionate” only to forgive … it *is* compassionate to allow for and to encourage discipline, whether societal or parental … to raise a child or a citizen without discipline is to *lack* compassion for said child or citizen …
Gahrie: please refer back to my comment #36. I’ve gone on too long already in this thread to keep repeating myself.
Alasdair:
1) If “parents who travel with small children automatically start off with [your] sympathy,” then I don’t know what we’re arguing about. (Unless they automatically lose that sympathy the moment the kid starts crying??)
2) Re: condescension, let me just suggest that tone matters. Obviously — obviously — I am not objecting to the concept of learning from others, as you surely know; indeed, you are condescending to me — again! — by suggesting that I’m somehow unwilling to learn from others. That’s not the issue and you know it. The issue is your generationally condescending tone in your earlier comment (among others), i.e., the manner in which you choose to express these otherwise valid concepts. But I’m not going to dwell on this. It’s an aside. (And yes, I can be condescending too, at times. And it weakens my arguments, too, when I do it, just like it weakens yours.)
3) I used the phrase “what’s not debatable” as a rhetorical device, because gahrie had just himself talked about something being “debatable.” It was intended as some major argumentative broadside. I’m sorry it offended you so. I note you didn’t respond to the substance of what I said. Are you of the opinion that, in fact, gahrie’s comment was incredibly detailed and nuanced, rather than hugely broad and oversimplified?
4) I’ve already addressed the restaurant issue. Again, I’m not going to repeat myself. As for the courtroom example, that one is even more obvious. Come on now. Neither of those points have any bearing on this discussion. We’re talking about air travel. I’ve already explained why it’s a different animal.
5) No one here is talking about raising a child or a citizen without discipline. Your capacity to respond to points no one has made, and fail to respond to points that have been made, never fails to astound.
TL;DR. ;). Twenty new comments? I’ll need some time.
But that’s what I get for dropping a comment before breakfast (your time). I’ll post something substantial later, but note that I am in China, and therefore unlikely to respond in a timely manner. I’m reluctant to mention this next bit, but trust you won’t take it the wrong way – I’m huge. At 6’7″, 300+, I have my own special set of issues when flying, as does the poor schmuck sitting next to me.
Brendan #53
1) I fully agree with you. (grin) … (As to when they forfeit that sympathy, that, while nuanced, depends upon *how* they respond to the kid starting crying (and also upon *why* the kid started crying)) …
2) One of the facts about written words is that the only tone available to the reader is the tone supplied by the reader himself (or herself) … I cannot stop you from reading “suggesting to someone that that someone may be open to and may be able to benefit from learning from others isn’t condescension, it is more usually considered to be an expression of respect “ as being condescending – all I can do is point out that most folk reading it who had not thought about it are much more likely to take from it “Now that I think about it, it *is* a way of subtly expressing respect !” …
3) Such a rhetorical device shuts down debate, since it signals that the utterer will not take any response, substantive or not, into consideration … the AGW “Settled Science” tried to do the same thing – except that many scientists, when confronted by such a rhetorical device, simply show specific factual counter-examples to the “settled science” and adjust their respect level for the utterer to “non-scientist” … to respond substantively to your question – “Are you of the opinion that, in fact, gahrie’s comment was not rationally detailed and nuanced, rather than the hugely broad and oversimplified utterances to which gahrie is/was/will be responding ?” … (a veritable chinoiserie, would you not agree ?)
4) Is “Again, I’m not going to repeat myself.” another of those nuanced rhetorical device thingies ? (grin)
While *you* may want to keep the discussion to areas that are not debatable, it seems that gahrie and I are giving substantive examples which you are choosing to dismiss without substantive debate/argument/response … or should that be “without responsive debate/argument/substance” ?
5) gahrie discussed discipline with his “At some point, this has shifted to a belief that your right to convenience or desire trumped the fact that others might be offended or discomforted.” which is a nicely succinct example of someone showing lack of discipline …
Alasdair, for God’s sake, I HAVE addressed the points you’re accusing me of not addressing (including a lengthy exposition on the restaurant-and-other-like-circumstances issue, which I even linked to specifically). And the notion and your italics, asterisks, word choices and emoticons don’t convey “tone” is sheer nonsense. And… oh nevermind. You aren’t adding anything to this topic, you aren’t even discussing it in good faith. I’m done talking to you about it. I look forward to Doc’s response.
Wow, so much pressure :). I still don’t have a great reply, and I’m afraid you’ll just
My apology wasn’t so much an apology to you for stealing your phrase as an expression of regret that using it made the comment much easier to mis-interpret. I still think it ironic that you were slamming people who judge parents’ actions in a rant about how some parents were acting, but here’s a less contentious, or at least less easily mis-read, version of my original comment.
It’s the parents’ fault that the child is crying on the airplane, because they’re the ones that put the child in that situation. They may not want to hear it any more than the rest of us, but they made the choice to fly with their child, and the others did not. Flying with small children is a risk; sometimes nothing a parent can do will prevent a meltdown. That doesn’t mean it’s not the parent’s fault; they chose to take that risk, and
Well-behaved children on flights don’t get nasty looks from me*; in fact, I’m not inclined to give kids mean looks at all. However, sometimes children do spend the flight screaming, and I’m unable to keep my irritation completely to myself. I try, but I’m already dealing with a bunch of stuff, and I’m not always successful.
Now, let me be Obama**: I am not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to travel with small children. I’m not saying they shouldn’t travel with small children. I am saying that they need to take responsibility for their actions. I’m also not setting myself up as a moral authority; it’s not my place, or my job, to tell other people how to run their lives.
I’ve got more to say about whether flying is a choice or not, including personal anecdotes about long car drives and funerals, and some thought experiments. I’ll leave those for another time, but think we have some more interesting ground to cover about the social contract, options, and why this particular thread has you so fired up. (i.e. why is it such a Biden if some stranger is judging you?)
*I’m big and scary; most teachers spend the first few weeks establishing authority; I spend that time convincing the kids I’m not going to eat them. I smile a lot and make goofy faces.
** As with a “Biden” being a “BFD”, I propose that Obama be substituted for “be perfectly clear” “clear on this” etc.