So, I opened my New York Times this morning to read this letter to the editor from a mom who was offended by a recent (very good, IMHO) article about unruly kids on planes, aptly titled: "Kids on the Plane? Maybe I'll Have that Drink." What irked me about this mom's letter was her expectation that others should be more sympathetic to parents of unruly children to the point where she suggests that we should make efforts to entertain her children, offer them snacks and even disclipine them! Here is a quote from her letter:

"And maybe even turn around and kindly explain to the kid kicking your seat why it bothers you, and suggest that she sit cross-legged for a while (and while you do, note that she can�t bend her short little legs over the edge of the chair and that her feet have nowhere to go but up against your chair)."

Go entitlement mom!

I saw a similar incident on a musician's forum I visit. A guy complained about a shrieking infant on his flight and ended up getting verbally drawn and quartered by several parents who frequent the board.

Can you imagine what would happen if you did go out on a limb and try to explain to someone's kid why they should act like a human being instead of a banshee? The kind of parent who allows their kid to act like that in public would most certainly attack you for it.

My response to Fiona Cowie would be this:

Sure, lady, we (your fellow travelers) will play with your children, feed your children, teach basic manners to your children... if you'll pay us for it. Of course you could grow a brain and get a baby sitter to start with.

Your spawn is your responsibility. Keep your child under control or at home. Those are your choices. Period.

Maybe the flight attendant who suggested Baby Benadryl was on to something. Or we could post a sign on the plane - "misbehaving children will be given haloperidol and a free puppy ..."

Seriously, this has to be JUST THE WORST. Because it's not like you have the choice of getting up and leaving. I've had a couple of run ins with people w/brats on the plane. I don't care. It's not like I ever have to see them again when the flight is over...

SO annoying. It really must be a nightmare being responsible for a child on an airplane...I'll give 'em that. But they made the choice to bring them. How many of these trips they're flying them around on are absolutely necessary, and how much are the kids getting out of it? The trip is mostly for the adults, because the parents want to go somewhere, or the extended family wants to see the baby. So if they're just doing it for themselves or adults, then it's even more ridiculous for them to expect other people (strangers!) to discipline and entertain their children.

What really strikes me is if these parents are so offended by a mere letter, how are they really going to react when someone actually DOES try and discipline their children for them out in public?? They are going to go ballistic, and be really [censored] that someone who "doesn't have children" and "doesn't know what it's like" is trying to tell them how to do their jobs!

What I find interesting is HOW MANY children are now on flights. I don't know about you, but as a child, I did not travel. My first flight was on my honeymoon at age 23. It wasn't that my parents didn't have the money to travel or whatever....they just felt that you shouldn't travel with children as you never know how they are going to behave or react. And after you are already on the plane, it's not like you can just get off when they start fussing.

So why all of the kids on planes? Oh, I know....because parents shouldn't have to make any sacrifices to have children. Yet everyone around them (planes, restaurants, church, etc.) has to put up with the screaming, babbling, shrieking, kicking...

I did take several plane trips when I was a kid because my mom's best friend and her daughter lived in PA. I'm sure that if I ever misbehaved my mom would have smacked me. But I spent the whole trip looking out the window or reading.

I don't understand the kids who can't sit still. Maybe because I was an only child? My nephew is 2 and sits "reading" quietly in the car for long trips, you'd never know he was there. (His favorite "book" is the Baby Einstein product guide.)

The difference may be that we were bookworms or it may be that we had something many of today's children lack: parenting. We were taught that some places were meant for quiet, sit -still activities (like travel, dining out, etc.). Many children seem to have never been taught this... or much of anything related to out-of-home behavior.

Not much of in-the-home behavior, either.

This made me laugh! You are probably right, I mean, what are the odds?
But a good friend of mine had a verbal fight with some people who were permitting their children to run all over the place in a town restaurant, and a week later, they turned up at her hotel with a reservation to stay for a week.....

I agree with you. People are totally entitled. Although I think an additional reason why we see so many kids on planes, in fancy restaurants, R-rated movies, museums and other kid-unfriendly places is the hyperparenting trend. It's become socially unacceptable to do anything without your child. I'm 41, and when I was a kid my parents would occasionally go on vacations by themselves (my brother & I would stay with my grandparents). And the only kind of family vacations we took were within driving distance and usually involved the beach. On most Saturday nights, my parents would hire a babysitter and go out to dinner or a movie. If my parents hosted party, my brother & I would come out to say hello to the adults, and then go play quietly in a different room - no one brought their kids to adult parties they way they do now. None of this seemed odd to me at the time, since that is what most of my friends' parents did. Now it seems like people my age & younger who have kids act like it's child abuse to not include their children in everything they do - even if doing kid-unfriendly activities with kids is miserable for everyone (parents, kids and innocent bystanders). I think my parents had the right idea. They allowed themselves some kid-free time, and somehow my brother & I turned out just fine without being with them 24 hours a day.

Well, I do understand about wanting to take their kids to see relatives and stuff, especially over holidays.

But what's the big freaking deal about druggin' 'em? I mean, it sounds so taboo, but hell, we do it with pets on car trips, why not kiddos on planes? Just something to make 'em sleep. Why is that so preposterous?? It doesn't hurt the little fellers, just shuts 'em up for a while.

I guess parents would start taking advantage of it and drugging their kids every time they wanted some peace and quiet. Oh...no that's just me. *laugh* See why I didn't spawn?

As a follow-up to my last post, I just asked one of my breeder friends if she would ever consider giving her kid a sedative on a plane (he's currently about 20 months old).

"Absolutely!" she said. Pediatrician-approved, requested ahead of time, the whole nine yards.

Thank God there's hope.

GreenBlue,
When I read this it felt like I was writing it!
I'm the same age as you, also have one brother and your description could me MY childhood! So why do our friends, who grew up the same way we did, do not raise their children as they were raised?

I was at a wedding this weekend (it was a second marriage: she already has 1 child, he has 2, and together they recently had a baby).
When we got to the church, my DH and I could not believe the number of children and babies! The maid of honour came down the aisle holding her baby; one pregnant mom (with her 4th) carried one of her babies as she read one of the readings -- there were as many children as adults (when I was a child, my parents never took us to weddings or funerals. I attended my first wedding when I was 16).
I anticipated a horrible evening of gritting my teeth and pretending to have fun, but thankfully the dinner/celebration at the club was very well organized: the under 10 were taken to a separate room with a sitter, activities, etc. same for the over 10, and at 9:15pm a limo was made available to bring the children back to their sitter/grandparents, etc.
The bride came up to us after and asked: "I hope you didn't mind having all these children around?"
How could we when it was so well organized and respectful of others?!

In these child-centric/obnoxious self-absorbed parent times we live in, it is refreshing to see that there are still people who are consciously aware.

PG

PG

"So why do our friends, who grew up the same way we did, not raise their children the same way they were raised?"

I've thought about this often, and the only explanation for this that I can think of is that people's expectations for what having children will bring them, in terms of emotional rewards and meaning in their lives, has changed drastically. (When I was a kid, never did I hear an adult rhapsodize about the joys of parenthood the way parents do today. People just had kids because that is what everyone did. It wasn't infused with such meaning.) I think that when people place such outsized importance on their kids, they obsess about them - not unlike romantic obsession, which of course eliminates all sense of reason. That's my theory, anyway. I'd love to hear others' ideas on this issue. There are so many of us on this board in our 30s and 40s who are bewildered by the way our peers raise their kids.

It sounds like your friends who got married are really thoughtful and generous people. It must have taken quite a bit of planning, not to mention expense, to entertain and provide for all those kids at the wedding. I assume that many people wouldn't have come at all if they weren't invited to bring their precious kids.

GB

At my sister's wedding, the flower girl got more attention than my sister. The photographer kept making her parade around while he took about 100 pictures of her. The entire room spent that time going "awww.... how cute."

It made me sick.

At my friend's wedding, his nephew was the ring bearer and got pretty much the same amount of attention. Plus, the kid is super precocious, so all he did during the entire rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, and wedding was bother people with all the "facts" he knows or take pictures of everyone with his camera ... but he would set up all the shots, which required lots of shuffling around and wasting time that needed to be spent on something else.

But the whole time, everyone but me was "awww ..." And generally I like playing with the kids, but this was a WEDDING. It's about the BRIDE and GROOM. Not nephew. Not flower girl. Everyone shouldn't watch the ring bearer do a dance move instead of watching the bride and groom cut the cake.

Yes, GB, I am thankful for our thoughtful friends -- they are raising their children (from what I can see) much like we were raised.

As for the reasoning behind modern parenting, it's a tough one and I agree with you: it's almost like an obsession.
Maybe because the 70's & 80's were such "me" focussed times, the children of these parents perhaps are overcompensating by outwardly focussing their attention onto their children: perhaps they themsleves did not receive much of anything from their parents (be it love or material things, etc).
It could also partly be the media which seems to almost always have a"brainwash" effect on the general population (always fun to blame the media, isn't it? . The media instills fear into parents by the constant warning of the evils of society; the advertisers continually bombard us with a plethora of newer products available, so much so, that there is way too much choice available; the media also keeps giving attention to famous "brats" making it acceptable to behave poorly in public and getting away with it (to the point of idolisation).
Who are the role models?
No wonder there is such confusion!

At my sister's wedding, the flower girl got more attention than my sister. The photographer kept making her parade around while he took about 100 pictures of her. The entire room spent that time going "awww.... how cute."

It made me sick.

At the wedding I went to last year, there was no flower girl, but there were a good handful of children in the 200 guests there. However, I did not notice ANY of the kids there (really stand out (and I usually am on the lookout for kids in situations like that to misbehave). None of them did. That was good -- because the attention was concentrated on the bride and groom. The story behind them is worth a book in and of itself, with me having a big part

So I got lucky

Yes, but folks who incorporate flower girls or ring bearers into their ceremonies are essentially asking for people to focus on the cute-sy factor, no?

That said, after the ceremony is over, people should get the hell over it! Sheesh!

I had a music agency for seven years and we played about 70 weddings per year (chamber music, jazz combos for receptions, etc.). I absolutely *loved* that there was a growing trend of having couples' dogs as ring bearers! Now there's a cute-sy I can get behind...