Email From People Better Than I Am
In the wake of my LA Times op-ed on screaming children on planes and the people who "parent" them, here's one of the many constructive e-mail I got from people who are much more mature than I am:
In a message dated 11/24/09 4:53:58 PM, bobbybenterprise@gmail.com writes:I read your column in the LA Times today. What a nasty horrible mean person you are. It is a good thing you are not a mother. Based on your comments, you would not be a very good one. And after looking at your picture, if I was seated next you on a plane I would start screaming right away.
Happy Thanksgiving
Hmm, was I supposed to be learning a better example from him?
You've gotta love the people who write really nasty letters and then follow up with the likes of "Happy Thanksgiving."
After writing "And after looking at your picture, if I was seated next you on a plane I would start screaming right away," why not be consistent and write "Fuck you!"?
For the record, I didn't travel on a plane until I was 12. I have a youngest sister who's five years below me in age, and my parents waited until she was 7 before we flew anywhere (to Disney World in Florida). Before then, we only went places my dad drove us in the family station wagon like northern Michigan and parts of Canada near Detroit.
Ann Coulter once wrote that "there is nothing so irredeemably cruel an attack on a woman for her looks." The world at large must believe this, since that's the first thing people do when they write in to tell you how much they hate you.
For whatever it's worth, this gay man thinks you're beautiful inside and out.
(And Ann Coulter, in her own perverse fashion, immediately after making that statement, goes on to savage five democratic women for their looks. "...so which women are constantly being called ugly? Is it Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton [Why do conservatives consider the former president's daughter fair game but scream bloody murder if anyone says anything about the unholy terrors that were the Bush twins in White House], Janet Reno or Madeleine Albright? No, none of these. Only conservative women would have their looks held up to ridicule because only liberals could be so malevolent. A blind man living in America would think the ugliest women ever to darken the planet are Paula Jones [the same Paula Jones that Coulter betrayed and continued to attack even after she profited from her betrayal], Linda Tripp and Katherine Harris. This from the party of Bella Abzug."
Patrick at November 25, 2009 12:45 AM
Patrick - I just spit water on my screen when I saw you quoting Coulter...and then I read the last bit (reality, check).
Coulter is either so spot on it's scary, or she is embarrassingly amiss, but the quote you pulled (from her book) was used in an effort to compare and contrast the difference between how liberal vs. conservative women are treated in the media. "Savage" is a bit of an overreach. If she were to savage them she could have spoken about Shalamar, frizzy hair, buck-teeth, brooches and cankles (none of which would have been in the same universe as what's been said and continues to be said about Palin).
I don't know which is worse; the degrading of a woman's looks because your argument is devoid of logic and facts or that it has become so acceptable to demean women in "progressive" circles that it doesn't so much as raise an eyebrow as long as the woman your dehumanizing plays for the other side.
Amy, you are lovely - and I wish I had your hair.
Feebie at November 25, 2009 1:17 AM
Sounds like the emailer is a moron.
mpetrie98 at November 25, 2009 2:10 AM
The thing about the "Happy Thanksgiving" is that it was so half-heartedly presented... So either it was entirely sincere (such that the writer's displeasure with Amy doesn't count for much), or the person is sarcastic with everybody all the time, but so wimpy about it as to maintain plausible deniability: 'No, I wasn't being snotty to that blogger... Me? Heck no! Golly, I even sent her my best wishes for the holiday....'
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 25, 2009 2:26 AM
On the other end of the spectrum - my parents were flying with me since before I was a babe in arms. Other than infant fussiness (solved with a pacifier, feeding or changing) I never threw a tantrum on an airplane. My little sister never threw a tantrum on an airplane. I simply don't buy the "young children get a free pass because they're uncontrollable" argument.
Elle at November 25, 2009 3:23 AM
I'm with Elle, my kids have been flying since infants. Never inconvenienced anyone other than mild baby fussiness during the decent-it hurts their ears, and stops cold once under 1,000 ft (thank you SO much to the Southwest flight attendant told me that our first flight!!) I've never felt a need to drug them, but they like the white noise and sleep. We also eat out-kids get taken outside if they're disruptive ( and punished if old enough to know better) and only at family restaurants though. I'd travel around the world with them, no problem. And yes, something unforseeable MIGHT happen, but it does with grown-ups too.
LW was an asshat though, and very immature. You can disagree with Amy without threatening to throw a tantrum.
momof4 at November 25, 2009 5:57 AM
e-mailer is a bomb thrower looking for attention and he got it. People will do anything for attention these days.
Like the ass with Paris Hilton who called Lindsay Lohan "fire crotch." I can't beleive how many times I saw this clip while channel surfing.
But the guy got attention and that's probably all he wanted.
For the record- obviously this guy doesn't know you. You have a very compassionate attitude toward children.
David M. at November 25, 2009 6:37 AM
Amy, do you ever get bored with the people who trash you? It seems like the same letter over and over again: "You're an ugly poopy head, and you're mean. Good thing you don't have kids!"
Crap, people, get a new script.
MonicaP at November 25, 2009 7:08 AM
Isn't that the distilled argument of every internet troll?
Melissa G at November 25, 2009 7:34 AM
MonicaP: Crap, people, get a new script.
Really! I think those people should come and visit us on this blog. At least we know how to trash each other with originality and finesse. I think we're a very creative bunch when it comes to that.
At least then Amy could get bombarded with original insults.
Patrick at November 25, 2009 7:54 AM
I grew up where if I so much made a noise in this type of situation all it would take is one look from my mom to quiet me. I was raised with manners and was a very happy child. I get along great with my mom and will try to raise my children the same way. Our society is way to lenient on children. It is frightening how child centered we have become, elevating children in families to the level of family celebrities that can do more wrong. I assure you that treating them like rocks stars and fulfilling their every wish is going to result in a whole lot of drug addicts and alcoholics in the future. People need to understand that children won't shatter if you do not allow them to do as they please. I applaud Amy for saying something, I might have tried the asking the airline attendant to say something but I feel your pain. Parents get so ridiculously defensive and feel so entitled when toting around their children. If their spouse behaved that way then they would surely be embarrassed, but their child is allowed to scream and disturb others?
nadine at November 25, 2009 9:15 AM
As a mother, I have a child, who I parent. He's now five, has been on a plane at least a dozen times (visiting family across the country) since he was an infant. We have on countless occasions been told that either people didn't realize there was a child of that age on a plane, and only one time have i ever had a problem with him on the plane. I bring plenty of toys that will keep him busy and... I PLAY with him. I keep him occupied. We talk, tell stories, count, and play games - all quietly as any other two people talking on the plane. I'm appalled at any mother who would defend this action and if we were kicked off the plane for any reason, which I can't see that we would be, I would happily find another form of transportation seeing that my child isn't acting appropriately for the trip.
Nicole at November 25, 2009 9:21 AM
There is something a little creepy about the growing "anti-children" manifesto in Alkon's writings.
Will this be the title of her next book, her true life's work: "Shut Up Your Kids Already"
"Duct tape works, especially over the child's mouth." Alkon's self-selected tombstone epitaph?
We get it, Alkon, you are passing into perma-barren land. A few last screeches and squawks are expected.
But it is becoming obvious sour grapes. A bitter and poisonous brew. Do not drink too deeply, it infects your dreams and perceptions.
Better yet, adopt a child, and start living!
BOTU at November 25, 2009 9:37 AM
BOTU,
Could you possibly just shut the fuck up and go die in a corner somewhere? Your post is more bitter and poisonous than anything Amy writes.
Amy,
Sorry that butthead keeps this up. It's a wonder that if he hates what you write so much, why does he keep coming back and wasting time posting. Please ignore his idiotic diatribe, and keep up the great work.
E. Steven Berkimer at November 25, 2009 11:30 AM
"There is something a little creepy about the growing "anti-children" manifesto in Alkon's writings."
Easy cop out. It's not anti children, it's anti brat. And more specifically, it's anti-parents who expect us all to suck up a "social contract" that expects us to share their parenting responsibilities. And in that line, it's anti-jerk. In otherwords, anti YOU, BOTU... don't take it personally.
Reading the LAT comments it's clear that the broad assumptions of the anti-Amy commenters show:
1) those of us who don't put up with brats have none ourselves and would gladly vote for King Herrod/Pharaoh in any general election. We're all bitter barren cougars, bachelors -- especially when we helpfully share our kid control strategies with the board, all of which are ignored since we don't fit their narrative.
2) that the rest of us must put up with not only bad behavior of children but their own adult noxious behavior -- "our part" of a "social contract" which involves tolerating and enabling "free manners riders." Especially them.
Scratch a critic of Alkon's LAT piece deep enough (and in some cases, not so deep), and you will likely find a rude wanker who secretly revels in the captive audience of their serial rudness. They're just sticking together with the bad parents.
Bill at November 25, 2009 11:44 AM
It's not anti-children speak. It's anti-entitlement. I work with children and their parents. As a children's librarian, I get to see the two interact all the time. I'll give you an example just this morning of the kind of permissiveness that Amy & others have a problem with, versus a more proactive parenting dynamic.
A mother needs to get on the computer. She has three children with her, one toddler, one preschooler, and one who's probably 5 or 6. While she's on the computer, I'm cleaning up b/c the place is always a mess after Storytime. Her preschooler will NOT leave me alone. He's tailing after me the entire time, chattering, getting down the things I just put up, asking me to read to him, and preventing me from doing my job. Does his mother say anything? No. Does she say "Sweetie, why don't you do a puzzle or color or just leave the nice lady alone?" No. She sits, grabbing her time on the computer, and every once in a while gives the toddler to the oldest boy when he gets cranky. So here I am, trying to do my job, while simultaneously entertaining her three children, while she gets lost in cyberland for a few minutes peace and quiet at the expense of my time and effort (which should've been spent doing other things).
A counter-example is the mother of two (one preschool, one toddler) after Storytime. I have to pick up the Storytime room, which is littered with mats and stickers. This mother, chatting with another mother, asks her oldest to help me pick up. He does so, very nicely. While she's chatting, she gives her boys a puzzle to play with. When they get bored with that, she walks with them to the globe and lets them spin it around (reminding them to be gentle). She has them say "Thank you" on their way out. Likewise, she got some "grown-up" time with another mother, but paid attention to her children the entire time, picking up after them, and overseeing them without expecting anyone else in the room to do so, or letting them run wild.
Amy doesn't want children to be little automatons. I believe her point is to see parents who are watching after their kids in a proactive manner, meaning that they should WATCHING them and correcting them, not just letting them run wild. And so many parents I see DO let their kids run wild, and do what they like. It makes life harder for everyone else in the room, because the wild kids often wind others up, or prevent another from doing their homework because they want to play. And where is the parent? Sitting back, passively. It's immature and irresponsible to do so.
cornerdemon at November 25, 2009 11:48 AM
Attacking the messenger is the equivalent of saying my emotions, not my logic, rules my behavior. An argument could me made that it's this type behavior that is at the root of society's problems.
I live the road life. Diamond with Hilton and 120k miles flown/84 takeoffs since January 1. I can definitely say a big majority of parents try hard to keep their children quiet when they start to cry. A majority of parents seem to have a program ready for this. Most, in my experience, are successful. Crying children at a continuously loud volume happens rarely. However, there is always that uncommon occurrence. In my observation the majority of those instances are with children who are the fussy type to begin with and NEVER should have been on a plane (you'll know because you will hear them while waiting at the gate). The mentality that "I can bring my crying child anywhere and everyone just deal with it" is jaw dropping. For the most part, as a father myself, people know whether their child is at a stage where they can handle a flight (or be in a restaurant for that matter). It is selfish to put others AND your child through it.
Two pieces of travel advice.... 1) While waiting at the gate, look around and identify any criers. Take a general head count of the amount of passengers. If it seems like the plane is not full, wait at the gate and board at the last possible moment. Then when you get on board see where the child is and go sit down at any open seat as far away from them as possible. 2) Bring an IPOD with the ear buds type headphones that have good noise cancellation. And do not sit in a cabin's front row that faces the flight attendant just in case there is a crying child before and at take off. If you do sit directly facing the FA then hopefully the plane provides audio programming during taxi/takeoff.
TW at November 25, 2009 11:49 AM
Read your article in LA Times of yesterday Nov 24, 09 and loved it. People do not raise their children nowadays. They let them grow. WILD!
But a lot of these parents were wild already. So children raising children?
I can't believe Southwest were that politically correct with this woman passenger and gave her a bonus! She must have been a real crybaby!
I am glad I discovered you and will get your book. It addresses my general complaint about the world today!
Keep writing.
Evelyne at November 25, 2009 11:59 AM
Attacking a woman's looks is very effective rhetorically, because along with being the worst kind of ad hominem, even the most beautiful and self-confident woman is sensitive on this point. Idiot people also seem to respond to this kind of tactic. It is similar telling a man that he has a small dick, assuming you have seen it. Obviously, attacks on women's looks are easier in that regard, at least until burkas become mainstream. Even great men such as Winston Churchill are anecdotally guilty of it...too bloody facile.
In all honesty, the new-ish picture of Amy on the sidebar is all kinds of beautiful. I love the softness and femininity and think that she would look smashing in pink. If I had half the quality of her romantic curls and luminous complexion, I would be downright thrilled. Calling someone like Amy ugly to advance an argument is even less worthy than calling someone a racist, and comparable to arguing about health care reform and smugly concluding that the Chinese never built anything larger than a breadbox, i.e. cheap, irrelevant, and untrue.
liz at November 25, 2009 12:21 PM
Great posts Bill and cornerdemon.
--From someone trying unsuccessfully to have children...surely you will judge me on that, BOTU.
(Excuse my "message board" behavior, but those were two really great posts.)
liz at November 25, 2009 12:28 PM
Yes, great posts, Bill, cornerdemon and liz.
I've shared these before but they bear repeating. Two examples of good and bad parenting. I was a cashier at the time, so I saw all kinds of examples of parenting.
One mother was going through the checkout with her son, about six. He asked for candy, mother said no. So, he started slapping her, punching her, and she finally turned to the candy rack, grabbed a Snickers and slammed it down on the conveyor.
In other words, she just taught her son that hitting people is how you get them to do what you want. Looking forward to being held up at knifepoint by that little thug-in-miniature.
Another time, a bright, young attractive woman came through the checkout with a tiny tot with her, about 2 or 3, named Katie. Katie looked longingly at the candy rack, but Mom said, "No, Katie. It's too close to lunch."
I continued to scan groceries, then happened to notice Katie skulking holding her coat shut tightly. "Please don't tell me I have to call management on a shoplifting three-year-old," I thought.
I didn't. Katie's mother saw what her daughter was doing. "Katie, what do you have inside your coat?"
"Nuffin'."
"Katie, please take that candy out of your coat and put it back where you found it."
Katie moved with the solemnity of a deathrow inmate on the way to the electric chair and placed the candy back on the rack. Then she slowly turned to face her mother, who lost none of her pleasantness.
"Katie, I'm very upset with you right now. I told you no candy, and you took some anyway. And when I asked you about it, you lied to me..."
I don't remember the punishment exactly, but she said something about a park and Grandma's house. Katie was reduced to tears, which was fine with mother. She told Katie to go sit on the bench, which she did. She pleasantly finished her business with me, and left with her groceries, then held out her hand and called Katie, and the two left the store.
Class act, that woman. She never stopped speaking lovingly to her daughter. She communicated to Katie's two-to-three year old brain that she loved her daughter and that she was not unacceptable, but her actions were.
That. Is. How. Discipline. Is. Done.
And don't hand me any crap about how, "Well, not every child responds to that." Oh, yes they do. Every child has got something they love and look forward to. Stealing, biting your mother, etc., merits the forfeiture of something they hold important. They respond to that.
Patrick at November 25, 2009 1:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/11/25/letters_from_pe.html#comment-1679052">comment from Bill"There is something a little creepy about the growing "anti-children" manifesto in Alkon's writings." Easy cop out. It's not anti children, it's anti brat. And more specifically, it's anti-parents who expect us all to suck up a "social contract" that expects us to share their parenting responsibilities. And in that line, it's anti-jerk.
Exactly. I don't blame the children. They're poor things, left unparented, who are not taught what they need to function well in the world by the exact people who should be teaching them that.
Amy Alkon at November 25, 2009 1:41 PM
What an incredibly nasty email. I shudder to think that he/she is raising children.
crella at November 25, 2009 5:53 PM
> Your post is more bitter and
> poisonous than anything Amy writes.
Yeah... Listen, I've sprayed as much stink around here as anybody, but would like to think it's a fraction of my commentary viewed whole. When people got nuthin' but invective and conspiracy theories, one gets the sense that their participation is about Other Things.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 25, 2009 11:53 PM
We're not likely to see the return of dueling, when bad manners were potentially fatal. I'm not certain that is a good thing.
I console myself with fond memories of Japan. It's not heaven; it's not even what it once was, but bad manners are still rare and unacceptable.
We won't disclose my wife's child rearing secrets, but we took a three year old and an infant to Japan and back without any fuss. It can be done. Prior to the 1960s, raising polite and well behaved children was not even remarkable.
MarkD at November 26, 2009 6:53 AM
Leave a comment