Entitlemommy Wants To Fly With Her Screaming Kid
Devon Corneal, described in her HuffPo mini bio as "lawyer, mother," writes at the HuffPo about parents' supposed right to take a plane with their wailing kids:
I shouldn't have to keep my kid at home because it might inconvenience someone who would prefer to travel in an adults-only environment.
Um, I also would find it hellish to sit in front of an adult screaming at the top of his or her lungs, "Mommy, mommy, mommy!"
He or she likewise has no business flying, except in case of emergency. ("Needing" to take a Hawaiian vacation doesn't count as an emergency.)
As I wrote in an op-ed in the LA Times a few years ago, until you can be reasonably sure your child (or adult partner) won't squawl and bother other passengers, you should take your trips in the minivan -- entitlemommy.
UPDATE: Bruce Schonfeld, a certified Rolfer who writes at the cafe I do, pointed out to me this morning how selfish it is of parents to take babies and toddlers on planes because, often, the kids are screaming because they are suffering such pain in their inner ears.
Is it really worth it to not only torture other passengers but your own child in order to take a Hawaiian vacation RIGHT NOW?
Amy, you are (as usual) off-base on this. You are not entitled to a kid-free world.
In the article, the author writes:
"As a parent, I try to keep Little Dude in his seat for his safety and everyone else's. I teach him to be well-mannered and polite. Parents who don't do that get no sympathy from me. I apologize when he misbehaves and I make him do the same. I understand that you want to travel in peace. So do I.
I am not, however, required to turn my kid into an automaton. I'm tired of feeling like I have to grovel for forgiveness every time my child doesn't behave like a pre-programmed robot or a mini-adult."
This is exactly right.
a_random_guy at July 10, 2012 12:12 AM
I don't know that I'd say they "have no business flying." I would say that people should be considerate. My kids always got compliments from strangers in restaurants and in public places on their manners. I always made a point of teaching my kids how to behave in public and removing them if they couldn't handle it. Still, there were a few meltdowns here or there.
Devon Corneal sounds like she tries everything possible to be considerate of others and takes a little too personally the eye rolls of strangers. She's right though. Kids live in this world too. Sometimes we do just have to deal. Its always better when we get the kids with parents who are considerate but sometimes we don't. Its not the end of the world. But maybe because I have kids I have a higher tolerance.
Kristen at July 10, 2012 5:00 AM
I'm kind of back and forth on this issue.
People need to travel, and flying is often the best way to do so.
Most children can behave themselves reasonably well, especially if given something to do on a long flight.
Some children are so abysmally badly behaved that sitting on an airplane for 8-10 hours with them is pure torture.
If your child is the latter rather than the former, unless you have to fly, please don't.
But even the best behaved child will have a bad moment. A baby will cry when its ears pop. A toddler will wet themselves or get scared and wake crying from a bad dream.
Honestly though, except for the absolute worst kids, its easy to shut it out with some headphones and some Beethoven or a Michael Bay movie.
There are some kids though, that just plain should not fly. They just can't handle it.
When my wife was flying out to move in with me when I established myself in Hawaii, my toddler son loved the flight and behaved the whole way.
Another child might have made it a 16 hour torture fest for anyone unlucky enough to share multiple hops.
Robert at July 10, 2012 5:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/10/entitlemommy_wa.html#comment-3258217">comment from Robert"As a parent, I try to keep Little Dude in his seat for his safety and everyone else's.
She can try but she doesn't say she always succeeds.
Until you can fly and be sure your child will not wail and disturb half the plane, you should not fly unless it's an emergency.
Again, courtesy demands putting other people flying without having to hear your screaming brat before your desire to go to Hawaii.
There's a "need" to fly and then there's a "we don't care if you suffer because we want our Hawaiian vacation NOW" need. My parents didn't fly with us until my littlest sister was 7 -- because they're very considerate people and waited until she could not just TRY to not bother people but actually wouldn't.
Some people are so used to the idea that they are entitled to do whatever they want, and damn everybody else -- they'll just have to deal -- that "Oh, you'll just have to suck it up" or "It's not such a big deal to drown it out with headphones" seems like okay thinking.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2012 5:25 AM
What Robert says. I remember one time, travelling with my son when he was about 1 year old. He was well-behaved for the entire trip, except for one incident.
In that incident, he cried his lungs out, top volume, for 45 minutes straight. Why? Because the airline left us sitting on the tarmac for those 45 minutes, with orders not to leave our seats. In Atlanta. In August. In the sun. With the engines off, i.e., no air conditioning. It was absolutely cooking inside the plane.
That's the kind of situation where you cannot expect anything else, because kids are not miniature adults. The other passengers apparently understood this, because they were entirely sympathetic. Heck, we all felt like yelling!
We never were given an explanation. Most likely it was some sort of stupid security theater.
a_random_guy at July 10, 2012 5:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/10/entitlemommy_wa.html#comment-3258231">comment from a_random_guyThe other passengers apparently understood this, because they were entirely sympathetic.
As Barry Schwartz pointed out on my radio show with him -- http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2012/07/09/advice-goddess-radio-amy-alkon -- you can be sympathetic and think somebody is entirely wrong.
Don't count on everybody thinking it's okay for you to bring a kid who wails for 45 minutes -- at a time, by the way, when people aren't allowed to put their headphones on.
I get headaches from persistent loud noise. Headaches that can't be touched by aspirin.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2012 5:45 AM
My kids always got compliments from strangers in restaurants and in public places on their manners. I always made a point of teaching my kids how to behave in public and removing them if they couldn't handle it. Still, there were a few meltdowns here or there.
Mine as well, Kristen. Here's the thing: I don't think any parent deliberately chooses to fly with badly behaved children just to inconvenience others. That doesn't make any sense. There are kids who will misbehave at the drop of a hat, and if a parent knows their child is one who will do that, then there's a case for not flying. But to condemn all (or even most) kids as that sort is disingenuous, I think.
Flynne at July 10, 2012 5:54 AM
Much like it is the responsibility of people with peanut allergies to stay away from peanuts and not expect everyone in the world to do without peanuts, if you have a headache problem it is your responsibility not to go out in public places where there might be loud noises. If you're so sensitive that being around a variety of people is going to be a problem, that sucks, it really does, but talk to your doctor and get the appropriate medication.
You are not entitled to live in a world with no kids, fat people, stinky people, handicapped people, old people, etc.
NicoleK at July 10, 2012 6:52 AM
I have infinite patience for the parents of kids under the age of 18 months or so, depending on how the parents approach the matter (see below); I have zero patience for kids over the age of 2. One is biological (ears popping, etc.) The other is bad parenting.
Now should parents fly with those infants in the first place? Once again, it really depends. We used to fly with infants. It was miserable. We're the type of people who would much rather ride for 12 hours listening to our own screaming kids in the minivan than subject 200 strangers to our screaming kid for 20 minutes. For us, the minivan is far less stressful than knowing we're annoying other people (imagine that).
We don't fly anymore. Our solution was to move across the country to be a minivan ride away from family.
I'd like to think that other parents of screaming kids are just as miserable as we were when flying, but some of them are just horrible people. It comes in two scenarios:
1. Parents of screaming infants who do project that air of entitlement. (i.e. "How dare you be annoyed by the beautiful sounds of my perfect offspring.") I'm naturally sympathetic to infants (as noted above), but this is a surefire way to lose me as an ally in the cabin.
2. Parents of kids over the age of two who have no control over their kids and/or project that air of entitlement.
I fly a lot by myself, and I think my rules above bear out. When a mother of a crying infant is apologetic and working hard to avoid annoying the other passengers, she gets sympathy (and often, help) from the other passengers. Self-righteous, entitled parents and parents of misbehaving toddlers are treated with disdain.
I love the idea of no-kid flights, no-kid restaurants, no-kid movies, etc. It wouldn't be an issue if people used a basic amount of common sense and discretion. But we're long past that as a society.
AB at July 10, 2012 6:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/10/entitlemommy_wa.html#comment-3258295">comment from NicoleKif you have a headache problem it is your responsibility not to go out in public places where there might be loud noises
Oh, come on. I don't "have a headache problem" unless I'm sitting next to a jackhammer for 45 minutes or on a plane in front of somebody's screaming brat for 45 minutes.
I can walk away from a jackhammer. At 30,000 feet, in an assigned seat, I can't get away from someone's screaming brat. Hence the need for parents to put consideration for others before their "need" to take their toddler to Hawaii. As my parents did back when consideration was considered an essential part of parenting.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2012 7:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/10/entitlemommy_wa.html#comment-3258298">comment from ABWe're the type of people who would much rather ride for 12 hours listening to our own screaming kids in the minivan than subject 200 strangers to our screaming kid for 20 minutes.
Example of considerate parenting. Thank you, AB, for being one of the remaining civilized sets of parents.
When a mother of a crying infant is apologetic and working hard to avoid annoying the other passengers, she gets sympathy
I feel sympathy, too, in a case like this, but I'll wonder whether she really had to bring that kid on the plane.
The sad thing is, the notion that other passengers should just do their best to deal with the screaming seems to be the rule, not the exception. Unfortunately, considerate parents like AB and his/her spouse are the exception.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2012 7:48 AM
"Most likely it was some sort of stupid security theater."
IIRC, the airlines get credit for on time departure if the plane pulls away from the gate at the appointed tim, even if the plane then sits on the tarmac for 8 hours before actual lift-off. Airlines like to pull away from gates with in order to keep their on-time stats up. If you then wait 8 hours on the tarmac, as far as the airlines are concerned, "oh well..."
"I love the idea of no-kid flights, no-kid restaurants, no-kid movies, etc."
Actually, the presence of children should be largely immaterial to nearly any flight, restaurant, movie, etc., since the kids should generally adapt to an adult's behavior standards in those situations. The exception is when the kids are at restaurants, movies, etc. expressly designated for kids, with adults being ancillary.
We can and should expect kids to operate in the adult world, and conform their behavior to that standard, not alter the adult world to accomodate kids.
Spartee at July 10, 2012 7:50 AM
Amy: "I feel sympathy, too, in a case like this, but I'll wonder whether she really had to bring that kid on the plane."
Consider it a good rule of thumb: A parent who's apologetic and working to avoid annoying other passengers is most likely only flying with an infant out of necessity.
Spartee: "We can and should expect kids to operate in the adult world, and conform their behavior to that standard, not alter the adult world to accomodate kids."
I agree completely. And now back to the real world...
Seriously, though, I think there is a "throwback" movement brewing. (Thank you, Lenore!) Slowly (hopefully) parents are starting to realize that this isn't that difficult:
Set standards (i.e. teach your children how to be polite, how to comport themselves in society and how to interact with others).
Teach them right and wrong.
Make sure they understand that they're not the center of the friggin' universe. (This solves a lot of problems.)
Feed them, clothe them.
Get the eff out the way. "Go find something to do!" is GOOD parenting. (My two-year old got that from me an hour ago. He found his own crayons and paper (who knew?) and colored for a while before asking me to get a game down from the shelf for him.)
AB at July 10, 2012 8:22 AM
Like AB, I prefer to drive for many hours over flying with kids who are not terribly likely to be cooperative.
All that said, I've flown with a 2-year old (just turned) and it was awesome. I think he kicked a seat once (empty - as we pre-boarded). I told him no, and that was it.
There are kids who are totally well-behaved, but might freak out because they (or mommy, etc) were groped going into the airport, just for instance.
Even without that, kids are NOT totally predictable. However, in the case of normally-good kids gone cranky/difficult, the parents will generally be seen with 3 back-up plans, a boat of distractions, and will clearly be telling the offspring that the bad behavior is NOT ok (with consequences).
Given the choice, they'll probably try to sit at the front or back of the plane/section to be around as few people as possible (barring that, right over the wings where it's already noisy). If I see this, I turn up my sympathy level and (if I'm not frazzled) think if there's a way I can help (do I have kids songs on my iPod?).
But, unless your kid is usually VERY good and ok at sitting still (or passes out in moving vehicles), you should avoid, as much as possible, being in crammed spaces with lots of other people for long periods.
I guess this seems obvious to me. People should do their best to not be obnoxious. Parents should plan that something might (will) go wrong (altitude sickness? We've got spare clothes & paper towels!).
Sure, it'd still suck, but if this was the general M.O. for people, wouldn't we be able to NOT make a thing out of this?
One last thing. I was flying (to Hawaii, actually) and came down with food poisoning during the flight (from something I ate before I left). I didn't realize at first what was happening, I just felt awful. Sometimes, timing just sucks (like the ear infection I got right before flying home from Florida as a kid). Even the best parents/kids can't predict everything.
Shannon M. Howell at July 10, 2012 8:32 AM
I fly a lot, and I've never had any serious problems with annoying kids. The engines are usually so loud that it drowns out any but the most dedicated screamer.
Mostly, I just want parents to try to get the volume under control. Bring snacks, plan for nap time before the flight, bring toys and books, apologize when necessary, don't treat the people around you like they're the problem, etc.
Even really well-behaved kids will melt down from time to time, and I can handle the occasional disturbance. Using a public form of transportation means dealing with public annoyances, but if parents are trying, that counts for a lot.
MonicaP at July 10, 2012 8:49 AM
RE: Kristin and Flynne comments - Our children are somehow related.
I'd market the answer if I could, but I do not know it. Sometimes, as a non-beliver I credit God. Truly a mistery of the mind.
My three children could go anywhere with us. Finest restaurants, airplanes - it didn't matter. They were always well behaved. My sixteen year old baby (sigh) told me at dinner the other night that she didn't want to disappoint us. I do not know why she felt that way.
Dave B at July 10, 2012 9:10 AM
I look at situations like this the same way I look at smoking in private businesses. It's up to the company to set the policies regarding this type of thing.
I think smoking in public especially inside is inconsiderate. But at the end of the day if I want a beer, and I don't want to deal with cigerrete smoke; then I go to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. It's up to the business to set the policies and the customers to vote with their wallets. That's capialism for you. It's the same deal with airlines.
Mike Hunter at July 10, 2012 9:18 AM
RE: Kristin and Flynne comments - Our children are somehow related.
Dave and Flynne, I think it was part luck and part my kids knowing what I would and would not tolerate. Ruining someone's evening out or trip was never on the acceptable list.
My family took a family vacation when my kids were 5, 3, and 6 months. My kids didn't kick or scream. I brought plenty of things to distract them. My daughter was an infant at the time. I can't take credit for that. She was just a perfect baby who rarely cried or fussed.
My sister-in-law was on the same plane with my nephew who was 3. He was the kicker, screamer, tantrum thrower that people hate to sit by. I do think a big part of it was that my brother and his wife found excuses for everything he did and alternately thought every thing he did was adorable. When he kicked the seat in front of him they thought he had a foot like David Beckham.
Kristen at July 10, 2012 9:31 AM
Dave and Flynne, I think it was part luck and part my kids knowing what I would and would not tolerate. Ruining someone's evening out or trip was never on the acceptable list.
Exactly, Kristen. My girls know how far they can push me, and they also know when they go too far. Which doesn't happen very often at all, so I'm grateful for that. They have also been the kids who go out of their way to be helpful to other moms with smaller kids, and my younger is especially good at placating screaming toddlers. It's a gift, I guess!
Flynne at July 10, 2012 9:37 AM
We can and should expect kids to operate in the adult world, and conform their behavior to that standard, not alter the adult world to accomodate kids.
This is how my parents rolled. They expected me to grow to live in their world. They were not going to devolve to live in mine. I'm grateful for it.
When you're using a mode of public transportation, you have to be prepared to deal with the public. Parents have a responsibility to do their best to make sure their kids aren't total bastards on the plane, and everyone else has to accept that other people can be annoying.
MonicaP at July 10, 2012 9:38 AM
"They expected me to grow to live in their world. They were not going to devolve to live in mine."
That's exactly what I meant by teaching your kids that they're not the center of the universe.
I refuse to accept that "Daddy loves you so much that he came home from work early to go to your soccer practice!" is a better message to send than "Daddy is going to miss your soccer practice because he's at work to provide for the family." Frankly, I think the former is destructive. The latter sends a clear message that this family is a team - we all play our roles, we all make sacrifices.
AB at July 10, 2012 9:48 AM
"I refuse to accept that "Daddy loves you so much that he came home from work early to go to your soccer practice!" is a better message to send than "Daddy is going to miss your soccer practice because he's at work to provide for the family." Frankly, I think the former is destructive."
Yes and no, AB. My other brother and his wife spent a fortune on in vitro and took years to have kids. They have money and my brother is able to make what he considers important milestones in their lives. It is important to him and his kids have always felt loved and valued. I don't see that as destructive. He is still providing and if it ever came down to feeding his kids, certainly he'd choose work over a game. But if he doesn't have to then why is that destructive?
There seems to be a balance lacking in some of the arguments. There's no perfect situation and some of us do our best and some don't. We all have different ways of doing things and different tolerance levels for things. There is no one right way.
Kristen at July 10, 2012 10:09 AM
"It is important to him and his kids have always felt loved and valued."
But you could say the same thing about a parent who doesn't want to discipline their kids. It's not always fun to be a parent:
1. Sometimes we as parents have to do things that are self-sacrificing and seem counter-intuitive in order to make a deeper, more powerful point.
2. It's not always easy, but I believe it's important to sacrifice the "Daddy loves me" accolades for a deeper understanding later in life that "Daddy busted his ass for us."
3. The lesson that they may, or may not, realize later - that they're not the center of the universe - will manifest itself in ways that are far more important.
AB at July 10, 2012 10:29 AM
Two more quick points:
1. It's ridiculous that parents are expected to attend every freakin' PRACTICE now. You gotta make a stand somewhere.
2. I'm always looking for ways to give my kids an extra inch of independence. I've found that little things like the "drop off/pick up" at the soccer practice or giving them specific items to pick up a few aisles over while you're at the grocery store or simply stating: "go play" are powerful. In fact, the kids prefer them and the trust and independence they imply.
AB at July 10, 2012 10:35 AM
"They expected me to grow to live in their world. They were not going to devolve to live in mine."
Thank you, MonicaP. I cannot properly express how much I love this sentence.
Pricklypear at July 10, 2012 10:48 AM
AB,
I understand wanting parents to attend practices for the youngest kids (e.g. 4-6 year olds learning to ice-skate). It's practical (somebody needs the bathroom, has gloves on, and is wobbly on skates - call Mom!).
Otherwise, I'm with you. It's nearly impossible to send my kids out to play as it is (the weather has to cooperate, among other things). Now that my son's about 6, he needs some independence - among other things, it gives him something meaningful to contribute at the dinner table. (You know, the thing people used to sit around every night? I swear ours is the only family that does that anymore.)
If he can go to school without me, he can go to a 40 minute practice without me. Yes, I'll stay and watch some of it some of the time. I like to see what skills he needs work on, who he seems to get along with, and get to know the other parents. That's "like" not "need."
Shannon M. Howell at July 10, 2012 11:44 AM
There's nothing wrong with making a few sacrifices from time to time to be part of your kid's life. I'm sure a kid won't become an entitled brat because Dad takes off from work early a couple of times to watch a Little League game, but he sure will remember seeing his Dad in the stands the few times he does. We all need to feel important sometimes.
MonicaP at July 10, 2012 1:37 PM
"I refuse to accept that "Daddy loves you so much that he came home from work early to go to your soccer practice!" is a better message to send than "Daddy is going to miss your soccer practice because he's at work to provide for the family." Frankly, I think the former is destructive."
Yes and no, AB. My other brother and his wife spent a fortune on in vitro and took years to have kids. They have money and my brother is able to make what he considers important milestones in their lives. It is important to him and his kids have always felt loved and valued. I don't see that as destructive. He is still providing and if it ever came down to feeding his kids, certainly he'd choose work over a game. But if he doesn't have to then why is that destructive?
There seems to be a balance lacking in some of the arguments. There's no perfect situation and some of us do our best and some don't. We all have different ways of doing things and different tolerance levels for things. There is no one right way.
Posted by: Kristen at July 10, 2012 10:09 AM
___________________________
Except for one thing: As John Rosemond points out, again and again, too many parents seem to think that it's somehow good for the kids, or, at least, harmless to the marriage, to put the kids on the same level as the marriage - if not distinctly higher. (All too often, it seems, wives are more likely to do this than husbands.) Also important: This can lead to the destruction of kids' playtimes by turning them into events organized by adults when there's no real need for that.
From a JR column in Sept. 1990 (last paragraphs):
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-09-02/features/9003130816_1_play-adults-kids
".....Last January`s issue of Fortune carried an article advising corporate parents on ways they can maximize quality time with their children. One example given was that of a northeastern executive who goes to work at dawn so he can come home early enough to coach his son`s soccer team.
"I wasn`t impressed. Now, if this same fellow went to work at dawn so he could spend more time with his wife, then I`d have been impressed.
"We need to get our adult priorities in order folks. For our kids` sake."
lenona at July 10, 2012 1:54 PM
I've had to sacrifice literally years of time with my kids.
Deployment after deployment after deployment.
Duty station after duty station.
But my children's mother has never failed to ensure that my kids know that the reason WHY I am not there, is not because I want to be away, its because this is how I pay for their food, clothing, education, and all the stuff they need.
The time I do have with them is all quality though, its a big event when I return, camping trips and bike riding and swimming and paintball, and I walk my daughter to ballet and watch her practice, I talk to them all the time. But we're all counting the days now until I'm home for good.
Robert at July 10, 2012 2:43 PM
"2. It's not always easy, but I believe it's important to sacrifice the "Daddy loves me" accolades for a deeper understanding later in life that "Daddy busted his ass for us."
AB, what if Daddy does both? Daddy busts his ass and he is able to be there for things. It doesn't always have to be one or the other. In that case, does Dad have to purposely skip because you feel it is destructive for him to be there? That's ridiculous. My brother planned well. He married well. He had a career. He saved. He worked hard. He did all that because he wanted to be there for what he considered important milestones.
There are parents who cannot be there and they shouldn't have to feel guilt about that. But parents who planned well and are able to balance it shouldn't be made to skip because people feel that being absent teaches better lessons.
Kristen at July 10, 2012 3:37 PM
And Robert,
First thank you for your service and your sacrifice! The dedication of our service men and women and all they give up for the rest of us is something that is truly incredible. Thank you!
I wouldn't put you in the category that AB and I are talking about. Obviously your lifestyle is very different and you can't plan deployments and the things that are associated with a deployment. I am glad that the mother of your kids lets your kids know why you can't be there. I'm sure its hard on all of you as a family and I hope that you get to come home soon and that you come home safely!
Kristen at July 10, 2012 4:25 PM
Kristin:
Fair points. I think "balance" is the key. It's not that I don't go to soccer games/practices, but I really think it sends the wrong message to kids when the entire schedule of everyone in the household revolves around them.
This (excellent) point: "There are parents who cannot be there and they shouldn't have to feel guilt about that"... deserves its own thread entirely. I find the "keeping up with the Joneses" when it comes to who can be at what recital/practice/etc to be horrendous. (They're ALL in the middle of the day now, by the way.)
Finally, all of this expectation that Mommy and Daddy will be able to attend everything isn't just related to work, it's also connected to the assumption that you only have one (or maybe two) kids. But that too is another thread.
AB at July 10, 2012 4:48 PM
It's a public place, don't have expectations, really? That is a standard you can live with? You're at a restaurant and there is screaming child next to you, that's just the way of it in public? You're at a movie and there is a screaming child next to you, that's just the way of it in public? Or how about there is an adult who is a very loud talker at those places? Now just imagine -- unlike at a theater or a restaurant -- you can leave, you can barely move. It is just the fate of being in public? I don't buy that for a second. I'm a long time 1k with UA (the hard way, all domestic). Half a million miles in the last 3.5 years. This is an issue that strikes to the heart of my world. Fortunately my experience is most children aren't a problem or aren't a problem for long. Unfortunately there is a sufficient amount of that do not follow that experience. I can say in most of them are a clear case of children who were not ready to fly. Dear god! The horror that your child will not be able to fly until they get a bit older -- and just to please passengers who have paid large amounts of money with the exorbitantly high expectation of having a modicum of sanity in an otherwise uncomfortable 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hours inside a metal tube known as an airplane.
I have a son, older now, starting college this September. His mother and I didn't take him to certain restaurants and certain movies etc etc until he was old enough/ready. That wasn't bad parenting, that was not placing value on anything my son wants no matter the expense to others. My poor son, he didn't first fly till age 6. I hope he doesn't need therapy to get him through such a traumatizing first 6 years of not getting to go everywhere we did (places with an expectation of decorum). Puhlease!
TW at July 10, 2012 4:57 PM
Flying on a plane is different from taking your kid to a restaurant or movie. If you misjudge your child's maturity or mood at a restaurant, no big deal. You can pack up and leave. It's a different story at 10,000 feet.
When our child is born, I plan to take him or her on a plane from a very young age. We will be living thousands of miles from most of my family, many of whom are old and sick. If I wait until my kid is 6 or 7, these people will die before my kid gets a chance to meet them. Driving is not realistic at that distance. I'll do everything I can to keep it from being a horror show for the people around me, but I'm not going to deny my child half of his or her family history because I can't be 100% certain there won't be annoying behavior.
MonicaP at July 10, 2012 6:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/10/entitlemommy_wa.html#comment-3258540">comment from TWTW, that's sanity, sense and consideration, all rolled into one comment. Just great.
Been on deadline all day...just getting back. Thanks for batting clean-up.
Right on.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2012 6:06 PM
Threadwin: TW
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 10, 2012 6:31 PM
> I can't be 100% certain there won't be
> annoying behavior.
Sedation. 'Ludes, Doggy Downers.
Discipline. Fear.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 10, 2012 6:36 PM
'Ludes
For the passengers, right? 'Cause that seems like the kind of good shit that's wasted on kids.
MonicaP at July 10, 2012 6:52 PM
AB, I agree with you that the whole household shouldn't revolve around the kids and I think that's what's important. There's a difference between a parent making time because they enjoy seeing certain events and a parent who can never say no because they think every little thing will crush the kid permanently.
And yes, more than one kid comes into it too especially when they get older. You can't be everywhere and nobody should try to be.
Good points!
Kristen at July 10, 2012 7:19 PM
Thanks Amy/Crid (apologies for the multiple grammar failures). It's odd that the unspoken rule is so completely reasonable (don't bring a child to this very small list of places until they are ready) yet a lot of people feel it is unreasonable. I don't get it.
For the passengers Monica! Road warriors know to always have in their laptop case: ear plugs, an ipod with in ear earphones, bottle of water & snack, bottle of hand sanitizer (critical item!), and for that really bad occasion (as one who suffers from the occasional migraine) the "special" pill courtesy of Dr. Feelgood. Don't head to the airport without them!
TW at July 11, 2012 12:13 AM
Leave a comment