|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Bad parenting 101 (formerly Control your spoiled brat, please!)
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Hmm - how many flights does an airport have a day? How many kids on each plane? Suppose each plane has *just* one kid flying for the first time/with tempter tantrums..... how will that work if we all work around that?
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an unguidable, unteachable child.
I didn't say unguidable and unteachable. But there are some children that no amount of "guiding and teaching" is going to prevent their having explosions. If you don't know that, then I clearly know more about this than you do.
If that's truly the case, then the child does NOT need to be on a flight unless it's a dire emergency. Vacations do not count. If that means you don't get to fly to Fort Myers then that's just too damn bad.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yeah, that's probably the best solution if the child really is uncontrollable. Then again some parents are in serious denial that there's "anything wrong" with their kids. That, however, I won't try to excuse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
Difficult is one parent holds the child while the other fastens the belt. Noisy, stressful, and emotional but effective. If the parents aren't capable or willing to in the final circumstance impose their will on the kid, then yes, they avoid flying.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I don't know about too lenient - we don't really have a time frame. If they had a clear idea (which it seems) that the kid was freaking out because she had had ear surgery and the last flight hurt, I think I'd have a hard time blaming them for not just telling a toddler to just suck it up and force them back into the seat without trying other things first.
you make an important point - that they were already travelling before this started. they may not have known this would be an issue until it became an issue. I'll grant them that. but still, I think the leniency comes in when you look at how badly this escalated.
I wasn't there, I can't judge. but I've seen the following scenario a gazillion times before:
Child says no, stomps foot. mom is embarrassed and says, softly, "now honey, we've talked about inappropriate behavior before. do you remember what we said?"
child sticks tongue out and runs away. mom scurries after all embarrassed, tries to "reason" with child some more.
scenario continues as mom and dad work through their repetoir of reasoning, bribing, threatening, and begging. Soon escalates until you get Veruca Salt demanding her squirrel.
that is the kind of parenting behavior that is common, that I have been guity off in the past, and that I would like all parents to stop doing now because it feeds the crap behavior of little children.
and, IMHO, causes brats to become greedy, demanding, and self-centered adults. which is where the real problems come in.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
They talked into walkie talkies while interacting with the parents. And it isn’t clear how much they tried to help the parents calm the child down or how much information they gave them.
I'm not a great fan of tucker chuckers in general but I think they're being treated really unfairly by some in this discussion. How the hell should cabin crew know how to calm a kid down, when her own parents completely fail. Give me a break that's not their job and they would probably cop an earful from the whingy parents if they said anything to the brat anyway. Cabin crew have a lot of safety duties to perform to get the cabin ready and safe for takeoff and trying to be a child psychologist is not only not part of their job or skill set but distracts from their other important tasks. The cabin crew told the parents they needed to control the child and make it sit in the seat with the seat belt, the parents are the only ones legally allowed to manage the child, they failed so why should an entire plane load of people be delayed because of a child who can't be controlled?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I wasn't there, I can't judge.
If everybody on this thread had taken this reasonable attitude, I might never have posted here at all.
And yes I've seen the dreadful parenting episodes you've described before, too. It makes you want to slap somebody, and not the child.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm sure you're a fine parent, Melon -- but the ones this thread is about aren't, and you look stupid defending them.
I really don't understand how anyone in our position can know this.
And these types of responses:
quote:
Nope, not gonna explain anything to you. It's a waste of energy.
aren't helping your position. Why are some here so intent on proving that these adults are bad parents and deserve the full brunt of the blame for this individual, isolated situation?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I would have to say they are "bad parents" simply because they don't know their child or they were unprepared or in denial of her problem. If she has medical and/or emotional issues that are exacerbated by flying, then they had absolutely no right to subject her to that situation.
To those who say the most important issue at stake is making this situation comfortable for the entire family, I say poppycock. There are just some places you can't take kids, especially some kids. I had a kid like that, and I rarely ever have played the disability card to make things easier. We took him where we could, or one of us stayed home with him if that was best.
On a much lesser level, I used to see little kids at the flea market, crying in their strollers, miserable because they couldn't get out, weren't getting any attention, bored (literally) to tears. It just wasn't a good place to take a kid. And don't get me started on those gigantic strollers.
People need to realize that part of parenting is often learning a different lifestyle. You just can't always keep on doing things the way you always have. And if you have a kid that has problems flying, you need to take the car or stay home.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an unguidable, unteachable child.
I didn't say unguidable and unteachable. But there are some children that no amount of "guiding and teaching" is going to prevent their having explosions.
...And when youare the parent of those particular types of children, you avoid trigger situations. this applies to all kids everywhere. if your child is allergic to nuts, you don't feed them nuts. if you child is likely to melt down in public places where you can't get them away for a time out, you avoid those public places. If you child is recovering from ear surgery, you don't take them above 10K feet.
a parent, any parent, of any child, has a responsibility to meet the needs of their particular child. not just for society, but for the child themselves. you're not doing a spoiled child any favors.
tangent:
quote:
If you don't know that, then I clearly know more about this than you do.
This is really your issue, isn't it? you really need to establish your dominance.
this isn't a pissing contest. I don't care how perfect and wonderful you are, MT. I openly admit to being a flawed human being. I've even been known to be wrong.
It's okay. you get to be line leader today if you want.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
sorry. that was out of line.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Hmm - how many flights does an airport have a day? How many kids on each plane? Suppose each plane has *just* one kid flying for the first time/with tempter tantrums..... how will that work if we all work around that?
As has been stated several times, the temper tantrum isn't really the problem. I think all of us who have flown more than a couple of times have a Screaming Child story. The problem is that the child refused to sit down and get buckled in, without which the plane cannot leave the gate (FAA rules). Nobody seems to have been up to the task of wrangling her into the seat, so they needed to leave the plane.
What was the story with Joel Osteen's wife? Curious why she didn't think the rules applied to her.
Charlotte
[ 31. January 2007, 22:38: Message edited by: Amazing Grace ]
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Overwhelmed? Exhausted? Unable to cope? At wit's end?
And if they are all those things, and don't want to give up their daughter for adoption, they need to do something different. As Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." I hope that those who are close to the family IRL give them support, not just for what they are doing, but to change what they are doing. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Er - and the difference between being able to carry out tasks in case of emergency - ie quickly openeing door and getting ramp down/helping people/whatever it is and what i said is...?!?!?! I think youve just proved my point? Anyway its irrelevant.
My bad, I interpreted that you used "able-bodied" to mean, among other things, "doesn't use a wheelchair." The difference between a self-certification vs. an automatic move based on the flight crew's assessment would be in people's own estimation of their abilities, vs. onlookers' safety concern that they have overestimated their abilities.
I thought there was a connection in Melon's original wheelchair comment, and not a complete "WTF" as you found it, hence not completely irrelevant to try to understand the basis for what he was saying.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Yeah, that's probably the best solution if the child really is uncontrollable. Then again some parents are in serious denial that there's "anything wrong" with their kids. That, however, I won't try to excuse.
I wholeheartedly agree with both these sentiments.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
The article in the Orlando Sentinel that BroJames linked to had this statement by the child's mother. quote:
"We weren't given the opportunity to hold her, console her or anything," Judy Kulesza said.
Who was stopping her from holding or consoling the child? If she means she wasn't allowed to hold the child in her lap for takeoff, that's against regulations. I don't think anyone tried to prevent her from consoling the child.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
...
To those who say the most important issue at stake is making this situation comfortable for the entire family, I say poppycock. There are just some places you can't take kids, especially some kids. I had a kid like that, and I rarely ever have played the disability card to make things easier. We took him where we could, or one of us stayed home with him if that was best.
On a much lesser level, I used to see little kids at the flea market, crying in their strollers, miserable because they couldn't get out, weren't getting any attention, bored (literally) to tears. It just wasn't a good place to take a kid. And don't get me started on those gigantic strollers.
...
I am so dead tired of parents who drag around their babies looonnnngggg past their bedtime in...malls...movie theaters...everywhere...restaurants.
The baby is so exhausted but the parent(s) refuse to put the needs of the baby before their own. They just ignore the screams of the child...
If you ever have worked in retail...you know what I am talking about. This happens pretty much daily.
My brother has 4 kidlets. I have been around so much they slip and call me "a parent". I have sat outside with a baby on my lap screaming or taken a small child into the van with me...or on a walk when they misbehave. The dad/mom and all us us will volunteer to take a disrupted child away if they disturb the peace.
I do not understand while more parents simply DO NOT GET THIS.
And I concur as an auntie of an asberger kid who used to scream so loud at night when he was 4, the police were called (and left after figuring out he was not being abused).
These parents of the screaming kidlet...well...they
S - U - C - K
PS: GRITS, I love "Poppycock". I am going to borrow that one. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
WatersOfBabylon
Shipmate
# 11893
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I would have to say they are "bad parents" simply because they don't know their child or they were unprepared or in denial of her problem. If she has medical and/or emotional issues that are exacerbated by flying, then they had absolutely no right to subject her to that situation.
...
People need to realize that part of parenting is often learning a different lifestyle. You just can't always keep on doing things the way you always have. And if you have a kid that has problems flying, you need to take the car or stay home.
Alright, y'all, I keep seeing this point, but why aren't we registering that this was their return flight? They couldn't stay at home. They needed to go home. Wasn't much they could do about lifestyle choices at that point.
Posts: 515 | From: I'm a nomad. | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Well, if it was a return flight, then I presume that they must have taken a flight before, and had managed then. If the kid's okay on the flight down, what has changed that renders the flight back impossible?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Interestingly I'd say they were bad parents not because t hey handled their child badly--I'd guess they did but one can't prove that from available evidence, I'll admit. They're bad parents because when a disaster happenned they seem to have fought leaving the plane, and they seem to have though they have the right to inflict their problem on others. That's simply rude.
That's not bad parenting per se, so much as bad humaning.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Well, if it was a return flight, then I presume that they must have taken a flight before, and had managed then. If the kid's okay on the flight down, what has changed that renders the flight back impossible?
Maybe the girl saw a clown in the terminal, and was terrified. Maybe she was hungry, or sick, or teething, or over-tired from the visit with the doting grandparents. Maybe she was afraid she was never going to see her grandparents again. Who knows?
Whatever the situation, the family had return tickets, for that date, at that time, and changing the reservations if the girl got up cranky probably didn't occur to them as an option.
Seriously, if they had done the responsible thing, called the airline and said, "Excuse me, but our little darling didn't sleep well last night, and seems to be cutting a new tooth. I'm afraid she might be a bit difficult to handle at the airport. Would you kindly exchange our tickets for a later flight?" what do you think the airline would have done? I know exactly what the airline would have done -- said, sure they can do that, but they would have to pay the difference between their advance purchase ticket and the full, undiscounted price of the tickets for the later flight, plus a penalty of some sort.
So that didn't sound like a reasonable option, so they decided to try to get her home on the scheduled flight. It didn't work.
And maybe they could have done something different, and gotten better results. And maybe they couldn't. Maybe they're lousy parents. Maybe they're fabulous parents with a really difficult child. Maybe they're okay parents, with a child who is pretty reasonable most of the time, and this one day just threw everyone for a loop.
Not enough information to know.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Golly, some of you have very high expectations of parents there.
One three year old throws a hissy fit on a plane and she and her parents are ejected. The dumb-arse airline crew stuck her where she was (presumably) not happy to be (try quite frightened) and her dumb-arse parents don't swaps seats so that she's with one of them, instead of where she can't see them.
They get chucked off the plane. They get their money back.
End of story.
It doesn't make the child the worst, most uncontrollable child in the world or even somewhere vaguely approaching that, and comparisons with such children aren't helpful. In fact, they're meaningless.
Her parents were stupid to sit where they were told, but heck, it's hardly a hanging offence. It shouldn't disqualify them from flying with her ever again. I'd say they probably learned quite a lot from the experience and next time will have a smooth trip.
Parenting is hard, thankless and often (these days at least) lonesome work. No one hands out a booklet. Not everyone has family support. More often than not, no one comes in to assist when things get tough and the kids lose their tempers, or get too tired, or get frightened to the point of hysteria. You just trudge on. Tough luck if you are in public at the time, because the only thing anyone around will do, it sit and stare and tut tut.
It's not much good saying, "Don't take your small children shopping/flying because they will get too tired and scream and upset other shoppers and staff", unless there is a viable alternative to taking said child. Not everyone has a granny to shove the kids on to when they want to go somewhere.
Christ knows I've dragged three kids under four about supermarket aisles often enough, and once or twice they did their nuts and created a scene. It was awful and I hated every moment of it and if I could have avoided it, I would have done so, but I had little choice if we were to get food into the house.
Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whose pleasant shopping experience around the aisles of Safeway was marred by a tantrum.
People don't have to stop going out in public because they have kids. They can't stop going out.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
EDIT: I am finished discussing this here, because I realise I am pissing off the purg hosts.*
Really? the Purgatory Hosts have mounted a hostile take-over of Hell? When did that happen?
*Translation: I'm losing the argument so I'm not going to play anymore.
No, I got confused about whether I was in Hell or Purg (which shows the thread was too Purgatorial anyway), and I probably did piss the Purg and Hell hosts off by getting thus confused.
Oh and you can go fuck yourself for suggesting that my attempt to not derail yet another thread, had ulterior motives (much more Hellish). I stated my opinion, you stated your opinion, there isn't much more to do except call each other idiots with subtle variation. But start another thread about it if you wish.
[Second code edit for you in 20mins. Learn to use preview post, you fuckmuppet.]
[ 02. February 2007, 12:04: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whose pleasant shopping experience around the aisles of Safeway was marred by a tantrum.
People don't have to stop going out in public because they have kids. They can't stop going out.
That's all well and good, and I generally don't mind your screaming brat in Publix, but if your satanic spawn cause me to miss my tight connection because you're too entitled to act like the parent in the situation then you can fuck right the hell off.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
But by the age of three kids are old enough to know better. The only three year olds that throw tantrums are the ones who have worked out it's a decent way to get what they want, the ones who turn their parents into slaces. And the best way to stop that is just stop giving them the attention that turns them into spoiled brats.
I know this quite well as I have had a lot of contact with my youth pastor's kids at that age, and also with my cousin who turned three a few months ago. My pastor and his wife are quite strong parents, and not afraid to do things like unplug the TV, take away toys, ignore their kids until they stop and so on. Their kids are as a direct consequence great kids that people like having around at church and so on, even to the point that youth group kids volunteer to babysit them.
My uncle and aunt are shocking in the way they spoil their little brat and will just give her anything to shut her up. She's already quite overweight, she's terribly addicted to sugar so she chucks a fit whenever her blood sugar level drops. She's bound to have major diabetes problems when she's older, especially as her parents are blind to all of that and just swapped doctors when one told them she had major weight and sugar problems. And we don't invite them over for meals any more because we can't handle the stress.
Parenting requires you to make the tough decisions, not just the easy ones to hand over a lolly. If it means you have to put up with tantrums at home instead of feeding them more sweets then that's part of the job. At three years old, kids will quickly stop having tantrums if parents show a bit of backbone, stop giving in to them and start doing the job of a parent not a servant.
X-post: Erin ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 01. February 2007, 01:32: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Sorry -- rereading this thread reminded me of this. Almost every kid's going to try this at some time or another and maybe catch his parent off guard. However, if it's a habit, the good parent will learn how to deal with it. I know a lot of you loathe James Dobson, but learning to "bend the will without breaking the spirit" is pretty good advice.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
But by the age of three kids are old enough to know better. The only three year olds that throw tantrums are the ones who have worked out it's a decent way to get what they want, the ones who turn their parents into slaves.
You're just wrong. Try doing some reading. You might even enjoy it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Erin, I said I thought the parents in the plane were stupid to sit where they did. But freaking hell, the plane was held up for 15 minutes.
15 minutes. That's all. And evidently no-one tried anything much to find a solution.
My point was that once the tantrum thing has started, there's precious little that a parent can do to just stop it. They can't.
Fucking hell. Check out a few of the tantrums that go on here among grown adults, and see if they calm themselves down nicely because others are watching.
You know, if fellow passengers are really so desperate to get off the tarmac and into the air, they could always say, "Is there anything I can do to help here?" and maybe someone would say, "Well, yes, actually, would you mind swapping seats with this child?" and maybe (just maybe) that would do the trick.
It might not, but it's probably something people could think about instead of just getting all crabby about whether they'll be 15 minutes late.
Everyone in this world is just so damned focussed on themselves and their little bit of space.
cheeseburger, if you think three year olds have it worked out, you are seriously deluded. You haven't even worked out how to behave in public, and how old are you?
[ 01. February 2007, 01:37: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Early behavior modification techniques work best for controlling your Hell spawn. Once they have reached 3 years, it's too late... there's nothing left for your sanity short of lobotomy, straight-jackets or shock therapy.
The ex-wife and I agreed, early in our parenting experience, that we would not reward tantrums, screaming, kicking, flailing-about, or any obviously extreme anti-social behavior with any reaction but immediate isolation. It was apparent to us (as it is to any observant parent) that there is a difference between a cranky child who is sick, hungry, uncomfortable from poopy pants, fearful or suffering pain and a cranky child who is frustrated from 'not-getting-their-way', bored, exploring their boundaries or just being a miniature, manipulative butthead. Whatever...
The reaction to a tantrum was an immediate, one-way trip to their room, no argument, no castigating, no hugging, no appeal... door shut, isolation. If they chose anti-social behavior, they chose to act it out alone. At first, the screaming and wailing reached crescendos unheard of outside an opera or slaughter house. As soon as there was silence however, they were immediately picked up and returned to our company. It was amazing how quickly this method reduced the frequency and duration of tantrums. Cruel? Possibly. Effective? Absolutely no doubt. When my sons were old enough to walk and talk, they had become the epitome of polite society and other parents complimented the boys on their remarkable good manners. Screaming fits in public? Never.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Yup, that's a solution, Gort. Actually, my kids rarely mucked up. They're worse now that they're into their teens (that's another thread of its own ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) and they don't care if they don't get hugs. In fact, the prefer it that way.
I can't stand most children for very long. I can stand even less parents who sit by and let their children be obnoxious (and plenty do). However, if the children are little, I cut them slack, because it's a mighty steep learning curve.
Obnoxious (truly obnoxious, as distinct from repellent) children are almost always over three. I know a few 9 year old boys I think should be castrated now, before they can breed.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Everyone in this world is just so damned focussed on themselves and their little bit of space.
Including the parents of these entitled children.
That is still beside the point, however. As I pointed out previously there are over 80,000 flights EVERY SINGLE DAY in the US. A 15-minute delay from Fort Myers into Logan would be bad enough, but if they had to fly into Hartsfield-Jackson, which is the AirTran hub, that 15 minutes is absolutely crucial. It's not just the fact that they're delaying the 160 people on that flight. That plane and flight crew are scheduled for other flights which will then be affected. If the delay is too long it can cause them to have to ground the current flight crew and have another brought in. The towers have to delay other flights arriving and departing in order to slot the late flight in. And so on and so forth.
In the US, fifteen minutes at the gate because the parents didn't put the child into the seat is absolutely unacceptable. It's barely acceptable if the engine falls out of the fuselage onto the tarmac.
Oh, and I am still trying to figure out how you guys know that the child was assigned to a seat in front of the parents -- I have missed that in every article that I've read. Can someone point it out to me?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
erm, it's the bit about how instead of sitting in her seat, she kept climbing under it to whack her parents on their legs - it reads as though she was in the row in front.
Erin, I have recently flown on a 24 hour flight from London to Melbourne. I saw wailing kids and kids I thought should be drugged and it was effing awful. So effing awful, even my kids said they'll only fly Business Class from now on. I agree that a brat on board is loathesome.
However, so was the chap next to us who farted non-stop from London to Singapore and the utter cow in front of me who reclined her seat all the way back the whole flight - even during meals.
And a million things can delay a flight - fog, latecomers, no-shows, late arrivals.
Air travel sucks. Really, it's a stressful business at the best of times and just about everyone else on board is vile.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Interestingly I'd say they were bad parents not because t hey handled their child badly--I'd guess they did but one can't prove that from available evidence, I'll admit. They're bad parents because when a disaster happenned they seem to have fought leaving the plane, and they seem to have though they have the right to inflict their problem on others. That's simply rude.
No, it's not simply anything. Any one of us would have fought to stay on that plane like they did, asking for one more minute to calm the child. Precisely because they know their own child better than any flight attendants or ship of fools shipmates.
At some point, a decision had to be made about the schedule of the planes vs. the tantrum's effects, and that decision was made. The family was compensated. No bad parenting, no bad airline policy -- just tough decisions.
The only seriously bad decision I see evidence of was sending the luggage on while making the family stay back. That would seem to be completely unacceptable.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I don't know about anyone else, LATA, but I wasn't talking about kids crying on planes. I was talking about when a kid can't be fastened in so everyone can take off. They can cry while fastened in, that's okay. But if they're not fastened in for takeoff, plane doesn't take off. They can then cry all the way to Sweden if they must, but they should be able to tolerate being strapped in for takeoff. If not, then they really can't be flying, because under current rules, that's the way it works.
Crying babies in flight don't bother me at all. I either help, or put in earplugs. I assume nothing bad about crying babies or parents of crying kids. But not being able to be strapped in is the problem here.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
... The only seriously bad decision I see evidence of was sending the luggage on while making the family stay back. That would seem to be completely unacceptable.
Hrmmph, pip-pip, rauther old chap, cough, hrmmph.
No, Kirke, you pompous, affected sack of hot air, the only "completely unacceptable" bad decision was not airing out the little brat's head with a .45 caliber hole.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
WatersOfBabylon
Shipmate
# 11893
|
Posted
Cheeseburger, I'm glad to see that your vast knowledge of childcare comes from such a wide and plentiful range of experience.
My very limited knowledge comes from working at a preschool, but what I learned there is that no matter the quality of the parents, kids tantrum.
Sometimes because they have learned that they'll get their way, sometimes because they're sick, and sometimes just because they are three years old. It happens.
Posts: 515 | From: I'm a nomad. | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Crying babies in flight don't bother me at all. I either help, or put in earplugs. I assume nothing bad about crying babies or parents of crying kids. But not being able to be strapped in is the problem here.
Agreed. I will gladly take being in the air with a child screaming at the top of his lungs over sitting on the tarmac with Mommy and Daddy trying to reason with him.
I myself am all kinds of cranky and irritable when I'm stuck on a plane for hours and I've learned impulse control. (Mostly.) I can't imagine being three years old and in that situation. And I know flights are delayed for all kinds of unavoidable reasons, but a three-year-old who refuses to get in her seat is not an unavoidable reason. If between the two parents they cannot get the kid strapped into the seat and physically restrained long enough to get the damn plane in the air, then the balance of power in that family is fucked all to hell. And I refuse to suffer or be inconvenienced because the parent doesn't want to actually be the fucking parent. That's their problem, not mine.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Laura wrote: They can then cry all the way to Sweden if they must, but they should be able to tolerate being strapped in for takeoff. If not, then they really can't be flying, because under current rules, that's the way it works.
Exactly. AirTrain didn't throw the family off because the kid cried. They threw them off because the child wouldn't sit buckled in her seat during take-off, as the FAA requires. Where the bad parenting comes in is that the parents refused to do what was necessary to get the kid safely strapped in. Sure, the little sweethearts can be like greased pigs sometimes. But Dad was a burly EMT and Mom looked like she could hold her own. In 15 minutes, any two adults in the enclosed space of an airplane row have the physical ability wrestle a 30-pound child into a seat. I don't care how "overwhelmed, exhausted, unable to cope, or at wit's end" they might be.
<Cross-posted with Erin. I didn't copy off her paper. Really!>
[ 01. February 2007, 03:50: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Yeah, but they can be tricky little buggers sometimes. Sounds though that the parents didn't do a lot.
Howver, the common wisdom for a child who is throwing a tanty is to ignore it and walk away.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Sheesh, isn't it amazing the crappy stories that make news these days?
TODDLER THROWS TANTRUM!
PARENTS STUPID!
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Left At the Altar wrote: However, the common wisdom for a child who is throwing a tanty is to ignore it and walk away.
How about these little codicils to the common wisdom:
1) In the privacy of your own home, ignore a child who is having a tantrum and walk away.
2) In a public place, get a tantrum-throwing child to a private place as soon as practicable.
3) On a airplane, follow FAA regulations.
I'll certainly agree that crappy stories make the news these days, but the press assault was orchestrated by two attention-seeking parents, not AirTran.
[ 01. February 2007, 04:10: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If between the two parents they cannot get the kid strapped into the seat and physically restrained long enough to get the damn plane in the air, then the balance of power in that family is fucked all to hell. And I refuse to suffer or be inconvenienced because the parent doesn't want to actually be the fucking parent.
I get so worried about parents who say stuff like 'I can't do anything with him. He has such a strong will', and this is when the child is 2 and a half. What one earth is he going to be like at 7 or 15 then?
Thankfully the family who were saying that just before Christmas have instigated a 'naughty step' (if you are naughty you sit on the step for a minute or two, then you may rejoin the activity). The improvement in the child's behaviour is huge, and he is learning that he can make some of the choices, but not all.
When children are small you still have the choice of physically restraining them, or making them do things that are required. Sometimes that is a choice that must be exercised.
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Actually, when all's said and done, it is apparent that the family in question has a genetic pre-disposition to attention-seeking.
Knowing my luck, I'll be stuck next to them on the next long haul flight I take. Actually, I'll be stuck between them and someone who weighs 285lbs and smells.
God, I hate long flights.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melbscape
Shipmate
# 11749
|
Posted
quote:
But Julie Kulesza said: "We weren't given an opportunity to hold her, console her or anything.
"Elly was sitting in front of our seat crying," she said in a phone interview. "The attendant motioned to a seat and asked if we purchased it for her."
I'm trying to imagine what my three year old would be like in an airplane ('planes terrify *me*) in a seat in front of me, away from her parents, being buckled in. She'd have a meltdown, in all likelihood. And I'd ask if I could sit with her, or if she could use a supplementary belt, as has happened the other times I've flown. As with most child-being-hellion situations, some cuddles and lateral thinking would save the day.
Seems to me the parents weren't the ones being unintelligent here. You can't *make* a tantruming, probably frightened child, sit anywhere, not unless you're physically restraining them. And it sounds like the parents weren't actually allowed to do that.
The airline staff didn't take any of the usual measures available to parents. I'm finding it hard to feel judgemental towards the parents, here.
I do love the idea that if one can't guarantee a perfectly behaved child, one shouldn't fly. The world doesn't just belong to adults, with children to be suffered along the way but only if they don't act like children. I've been just as irritated by revolting adults as noisy children.
Posts: 112 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensnog
Shipmate
# 8017
|
Posted
Has anyone yet figured out whether the child's seat was in the row ahead of the parents, or if she was supposed to be seated next to them, but was sitting on the floor at her parents' feet?
Posts: 507 | From: Silicon Valley | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melbscape:
I do love the idea that if one can't guarantee a perfectly behaved child, one shouldn't fly.
come on, go back and read again. who said perfectly well behaved? who even said the child had to be walking upright, housetrained, or well groomed?
there is a long way between "perfectly well behaved" and "tied down to a seat as per federal regulations".
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Melbscape wrote: I'm trying to imagine what my three year old would be like in an airplane ('planes terrify *me*) in a seat in front of me, away from her parents, being buckled in. She'd have a meltdown, in all likelihood. And I'd ask if I could sit with her, or if she could use a supplementary belt, as has happened the other times I've flown.
This is getting a little annoying. For the fourteenth time on this thread -- or at least it seems -- the parents' own TV interviews suggest she was in the window seat, with them in the middle and aisle. She was "in front" of them in the sense that she was on the floor by their feet where their carry-on luggage might otherwise have been stowed. In my experience -- and I fly 100,000 miles a year -- airlines never place a child that young on their own even if the parents would prefer it that way. (And I've seen that, too.) So please let's not get all huffy that this child was forcibly isolated from her parents.
quote:
You can't *make* a tantruming, probably frightened child, sit anywhere, not unless you're physically restraining them. And it sounds like the parents weren't actually allowed to do that.
What they wanted was to hold the three-year-old in the mother's lap during take-off -- an unsafe practice expressly forbidden by FAA regulations. What they refused to do was physically place her in the seat and buckle her in. If a three-year-old is delaying the flight by sitting on the floor and refusing to be buckled into the seat, her parents should for safety's sake physically restrain her -- just as they would restrain her if she attempted to dart into the street or grab something on the stove.
They had time to try reason, bribery, blandishments, or whatever other approaches are in the arsenal. But if those don't work, the only choices are physically to force that child into the safety of a seat or to get off the plane, which is exactly what the airlines do if a drunk or belligerent adults refuses to sit down and buckle up. And yes, I've seen that, too.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Actually, it's rather odd that you can't hold a three year old for take off and landing, because you can do so for anyone who is 2 years and 11 months and 364 days (or one extra if it's a leap year). I can't really see that it would make a heck of a difference.
But then, I never was one for obeying rules.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melbscape
Shipmate
# 11749
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Actually, it's rather odd that you can't hold a three year old for take off and landing, because you can do so for anyone who is 2 years and 11 months and 364 days (or one extra if it's a leap year). I can't really see that it would make a heck of a difference.
But then, I never was one for obeying rules.
ITA - and some two year olds are much bigger than many three year olds, and one assumes mass would have something to do with it.
Presleyterian, if you are correct and I have misread the article, then my premise is wrong.
Posts: 112 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
