December 05, 2005

• The airline should have considered that the woman they moved in the might have had paedophilic tendencies. It doesn't seem like an either/or to me. Maybe children shouldn't even sit next to their parents, because, well, you never know. I'm not a guy, but this is just incredibly stupid.
• This all comes from an unfortunate incident that happened on Thai Airways earlier this year. "OK Billy, your parents will be meeting you in Bangkok when we land. Why don't you sit right here next to Mr. Glitter for the duration of the flight."
• I've always had a problem with people trying to make policies like that based on an entire half of the population. It's utterly ridiculous, and besides they're misusing statistics again. As usual. What you want to know, when you're restricting a population of people from doing something, is how many of them participate in the dangerous behavior. Not how that entire population compares to some other arbitrary population. Cause then you get, oh, well, only a very small percentage of these people do this. Restricting them all is ridiculous. Looking at it the other way around is a good way to totally screw up. Significant statistics, I say! I will be forever disappointed though I am sure...
• wow that is fucked up. 1)yes, its sexist, and plain stupid, to imagine that women are less or/not likely to offer a potential threat to any child 2)what a kick in the balls! what percentage of men are proven/indicted child molesters? (and I dont mean the convicted sex offenders who had 16 yo gfs when they were 21!) the idea that a child is safer in isolation than with an adult who "might" be a creepy uncle is disturbing and sad. 3)I think the "average" man should feel insulted (I am female) I am a very strong advocate of innocent until proven otherwise. This seems like another brick in the wall of the 21st century's march into pathological paranoia and mistrust of all and everyone (because YOU could be a molester/terrorist/democrat/satanworshipper/jobstealingillegalalien/evilfaggot/insert-your-fav-group-to-hate-n-denigrate-here). 4)ugh! this really p's me off!
• Only if they are school administrators.
• Medusa - right on! Argh - any links to the Mister Glitter thing? If not, what happened?
• 1)yes, its sexist, and plain stupid, to imagine that women are less ... likely to offer a potential threat to any child Except that, and I'm speculating here, I'm sure it's true. 2)what a kick in the balls! what percentage of men are proven/indicted child molesters? Maybe I read it quickly, but I don't remember it saying anything specific to "molesting", saying simply "a threat".
• 1)yes, its sexist, and plain stupid, to imagine that women are less or/not likely to offer a potential threat to any child That's an empirical question, and, frankly, the airline's assumption is most certainly correct. I wish it weren't so, but statistically men are more dangerous than women. That said, I agree with your other points, and even if I didn't, it would be sexist to take action against all men for the (mis)behavior of a few. Whether you believe sexism is always bad depends on your morality. But liberals, it seems to me, ought to oppose the airline on this.
• Using their apparent logic, but speaking from a rigorously-applied risk assessment point of view, it is unambiguously clear that children should not be seated next to parents, acquaintances, or known-to-them authority figures, like Catholic priests.
• (sorry, hit tab and enter when I meant to turn off the caps lock I accidentally hit) Children are, after all, less at risk of being sexually molested or otherwise harmed by strangers than they are by the above groups.
• I d applaud their other policy of seating solo kides near crew areas and empty seats when possible. I'm wondering if the not-next-to-men policy was created in response to not wanting to seat kids near some specific, particularly creepy men, and they misguidedly thought that this was better than trying to single these fellows out? Or maybe they don't trust their flight attendadts to screen the creepy guys from the non-creepy guys? Not that that makes it all OK, just curious.
• techsmith - then what is the potential threat if they aren't assuming that any man sitting next to a child is a molester? Maybe he'd convert the kid to Discordia? I suppose they could be planning to kidnap the child on landing, or poison him on during the trip, or try to convince him that Intelligent Design is the only answer, but I think molestation fear is the simplest answer. chimera - and they should not be seated next to any strangers. It may be that this kid's parents were on the flight, and there weren't three seats available togther, so the kid had to sit next ot a STRANGER. Heaven forbid!
• Put 'em in shipping containers and store them with the pets. Everybody wins!
• Well at least I don't have to sit next to some, mewling brat anymore. Now they should sit women away from men to protect them from possible threast. And then sit the guys away from each other, to prevent fights and so forth. Finally I'll be able to get some sleep on board.
• Has any child in the history of the world ever been sexually abused in their seat on an airplane? Hell it's hard enough for two adults to arrange consensual sex in the bathroom.
• Hmm. According to this University of Missouri outreach website women commit more acts of child abuse/maltreatment than men, and when a parent (responsible for 80% of child abuse) is responsible, the mother is more likely to be the perpetrator. So, according to this website, the stats would suggest that children should not be seated next to their mothers or other women. (Of course, it does point out that child abuse in this case includes the most common form: neglect, and that men are responsible for more sexual abuse than women). Nevertheless, when this hit the media in New Zealand, I was personally disgusted, and I hope our Human Rights Commission finds it to be discrimination on the basis of gender. I'm male, and I come from a large family - 10 siblings. I have many nephews and nieces. I have grown up with children of all ages being a constant part of my life. Heck, I have probably changed more nappies than most women here (I was changing nappies, feeding kids, babysitting from the age of 6 or 7). To suggest that I am somehow a threat to children just because I'm male? Truly offensive.
• Path, joke - humor
• Damn Gestas for posting a link with actual data!! I'll have to scan that tomorrow, at work. YOu know, when I have time to read it.
• Sorry, Argh. I mistook that for something that actually happened. I've proved, yet again, that I'm humor challenged.
• Mostly no one should sit next to anyone else. That would be heavenly, you can bet I'd fly more often then. Or go to class more often. Or... anything, really.
• My first reaction when this was announced in the Australian press was, "Seriously? I don't have to sit next to kids anymore? I might be able to sleep or read my book without some kid driving me nuts? Well, THAT idea was a long time coming!" On a personal level this doesn't bother me a great deal, but on a "Potential criminal, thou hast dangly bits!" level it's kind of disturbing. More from a "self-prescribed behavior" perspective -- it's another thing men are potentially going to have to be conscious about, purely because I guess this will inevitably generate the kind of seething suspicion some people revel in, purely for occupying a seat on a bus or a train or a bench or wherever, if a child chooses to sit down next to you.
• If I had a nickel for everytime I saw some guy on a plane getting jacked off by some kid sitting next to him...
• ...but statistically men are more dangerous than women Good, so we won't let men have jobs as teachers, in day-cares, as catholic preists, cub scout leaders etc. That'll stop molestation men as a threat to children in its tracks! Ascribing a staggeringly insignificant minority-within-a-group's sociological disease to the entire group is nothing short of predjudice or stereotyping. They have to assume that all men have the disease if all men constitute a threat. What's next? Not seating Aboriginals? Cloning Hitler from newly discovered hair in his moustache brush? Calling flight attendants "stewardesses"? Fuck giving them an inch, this is where bullshit PC behavior invalidates itself and screams for repair. 100% with Medusa's comment.
• Maybe we can get a ban on children flying at all...oh, for their SAFETY, of course! Yeah, that's it, their safety.
• Remind me of this comment when you have a child.
• It is insulting. Men shouldn't be condemned just because they are men. The media makes it seem that anyone with dangly bits is about to attack you or your child at any second. I would sit near a bunch of kids on sugar highs gladly after once being stuck on a flight from Singapore to Tokyo next to a creepy guy who picked his nose for 6 hours....
• Look around. The white male is the most discriminated agaist. Scholarships for women? Yes. Black women? You bet! Blacks in general? Oh yeah! White males? OMFG SEXISM, OMFG RACISM.
• Gotta say, I'm a little surprised by all of the 'yay. I don't have to sit next to kids anymore' comments. Hope you never need to fly anywhere when you have kids. Last time I flew, my son filled his diaper to overflowing on takeoff, and screamed the entire time because he was teething. Yes, it was hard on those in our immediate vicinity, but it was even harder on him and us. We had one sympathetic neighbor (a mother), and her understanding made a world of difference. gomichild, sorry about the booger picking, I was hungry.
• Ascribing a staggeringly insignificant minority Yeah, no one's doing that here. That's why we're all up-in-arms about the article. Wake up.
• And, oh yeah.. FUCK KIDS ON PLANES TOO. Yep, I said it. Sorry Zanshin, don't fly with kids. Harder on YOU? HAHAHA Or do. Who cares.
• Isn't the possibily of sitting next to a crying child why you should buy isolating earphones?
• On most of the planes I've been on it's the adults who were the annoying rowdy ones not the kids. I once had a kid who kept kicking the back of my chair - but stopped after I turned around and told him I could feel it. I think it's the footy players you gotta watch out for. They're the ones that should be shipped in cargo. geez techsmith who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
• techsmith, are you available for babysitting this weekend?
• my apologies gomichild - i think our threads have similar undercurrents - it is all a pc world - one all year long one seasonal but the sentiment or fear is the same
• no apologies needed fly - it seems everyday some silly effort is made to make the world a sterile place. I think a lot of it is taking things way beyond the normal. The "all men are child molesters" attitude is a frightening one. And it's wrong. It seems to be getting to the stage now where some fathers I know are concerned about even touching their kids. Obviously child molestation does happen and that is a terrible thing. But it's also wrong to assume that it will happen by just placing a man and child in the same vicinity. Both of our posts reflect the over-the-topness of this - especially since in both cases the men and children are in full view of the public.
• Gomichild I could not agree more.
• Yes, it was hard on those in our immediate vicinity Which probably explains all of the 'yay. I don't have to sit next to kids anymore' comments, n'est-ce pas? I understand that parents of young children need (or at least hope for) the patience of people around them, and I think most people extend that patience. I've had 4-alarm bell headaches while standing in a checkout line at the supermarket as a toddler goes tantrumesque several feet away, and I've always managed to be patient and to extend the understanding that these things are just a reality of parenting. Again, I imagine most people have done the same. That doesn't mean that it's something to look forward to, or that it's a character flaw to appreciate those moments when the depths of your patience reserves aren't being plumbed by other people's children. I don't think it would be at all excusable to say to a parent, "Can you shut your kid up", but I'll admit to occasionally thinking, "I wish Little Johnny (Or Little Mary. Or whatever) was in a better mood." And I assume the parent in question is probably even more fervently wishing the same thing, during most of those episodes.
• Doesn't want to sit next to kids anyway. Now if only they wanted to maximize the safety of the obese..
• Did I mention that this is stupid, that I am insulted, but if they want to bump me to first class because some safety-mom fears for her child, I'm all for it.
• I look forward to the day all men fly first class because they are being discriminated against.
• Does New Zealand have a sex offenders registry like the US does? Because not seating kids next to a known offender, regardless of gender, seems reasonable. And it'd be best if they were near a crew area, where the flight attendants could keep an eye on them, anyway. But this "oh, we can save everyone by excluding x demographic group!" thing is super bullshit.
• Wayne Mapp is probably having an orgasm over the fun he'll have with this whole story. It really is PC gone overboard, it's insulting to pretty much every male I know. Can't believe the Opposition has a Spokesmen for Political Correctness Eradication. It's like a very, very bad joke. Very bad.
• I believe sex offenders are registered but their whereabouts is supposed to be confidential. However, in a small country word tends to get out very easily. We've had multiple situations in the last year where small communities have essentially formed a lynch mob to oust a pedophile who wanted to live in their town. Everyone knows someone who knows someone who's a police officer who accidentally lets slip where so-and-so has moved to.
• Airplanes are the Devil's work.
• We've had multiple situations in the last year where small communities have essentially formed a lynch mob to oust a pedophile who wanted to live in their town Not to mention the mobs that form to oust the paediatricians.
• We don't need no filthy pedicurists!
• Considering how unlikely it is than the man in question is actually a pedophile, shouldn't it be safer for the kid to have a nice, decent, upstanding guy next to him for protection from who-knows-what?
• i honestly don't see what this has to do with political correctness. it's nannyism, perhaps.
• Am I the only person on earth who thinks that kids shouldn't fly solo in the first place? I know it's nice to get rid of little Johnny for a week, but entrusting his care to perfect strangers seems like a recipe for disaster to me. (Anyone ever watch Airline on A&E? Seems like they're constantly losing track of the kids and then having to apologize to the enraged parents. The fact that this happened even once in the history of the world is enough that I wouldn't let my kid fly solo.)
• "New Zealand's Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said [...] "It's not for me to approve or disapprove." " Uh, yeah, actually it is. You're one of the people who need to approve or disapprove of this policy. Sorry. When you're sitting in the Big Chair, you're the one who needs to make the call.
• techsmith, are you available for babysitting this weekend? Ok, that was really clever :) geez techsmith who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? It was that kid that screamed and kicked my seat for 4 of the 6 hours back from my flight from Long Beach. He did it.
• Them isolating earphones look great! I'll definitely try to get some before my next flight. And if I ever do have children and they act up on planes, I will take my lumps with good grace. It will have been my decision to have children, and I will have taken any public ill-will that comes with it upon myself. It's not the crying and pooping that bothers me - there's not much the parents can do about that. It's the screaming, the kicking, the running up and down the aisles, the jumping in the seat, playing with noisy toys, using DVD players and radios without headphones etc., and the parent/ostensibly responsible adult guardian sitting there with benign indifference, making no attempt to teach the child how to behave in public that gets up my nose.
• It was that kid that screamed and kicked my seat for 4 of the 6 hours back from my flight from Long Beach. He did it. You should have told his parents to make him sit outside.
• When you travel by airplane you should understand that you're in a public place. You have no right to privacy, quiet, or freedom from diaper smells or inane chatter. Deal with it. As for the linked article, it's a stupid policy based on gender profiling. If the raw numbers show that brown people were more likely to hijack , would they be justified in keeping them all off the flight? You know, for safety?
• Yes, and parents should also understand that they're in a public place, where they have the responsibility to keep their children's behavior under control.
• When you travel by airplane you should understand that you're in a public place I don't think that's correct. I paid a large amount of money to sit in that place. Doesn't seem like that fits the standard definition of "public place". And come to think of it, the baby didn't occupy a seat, so her space wasn't paid for.
• OK, so technically it's a private place wholly owned by the airline and controlled by the FAA - a public body. The airline and the FAA have decreed that children are welcome on board, along with their accompanying noises and smells, and that other passengers shall deal with it.
• Well - isn't complaining a form of "Dealing with it?"
• I was addressing the attitude that kids shouldn't even be on planes because they annoy the kid-haters, who feel they have some special right not to be annoyed just because they paid for a seat. But no, I would say complaining about something is not dealing with it.
• path, here is the Glitter story. Last time I flew it was 6 a.m. and I couldn't sleep because the guy next to me snored like a chainsaw with diarrhea. It's not just the kids y'know. That's why moneyjane and I take the train. You can move away from whoever easier.
• It's often the only form of dealing left open to us in a society where it's become unacceptable to expect parents to teach their children civilized behavior. And "kid-hater" is not the appropriate term. "Lax-parent-hater" is closer to the mark. The children aren't (or at least shouldn't be) the ones in control of the situation.
• When you travel by airplane you should understand that you're in a public place. You have no right to privacy, quiet, or freedom from diaper smells or inane chatter. Deal with it. Awww, thanks for the advice, rocket. I'll try your way instead of the method I've been using, lo, these 37 years.
• Uh...you're welcome...I guess? To be honest, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
• I guess you're right rocket88. But for me, the ever-present screaming kid is at the end of a long line of annoyances with flying that range from mildly irritating to teeth-gritting aggravation, that usually ends with me losing just a bit more of my waning sanity. Whew! And that's why I make it a point to fly as little ... as ... possible.
• I'll keep in mind these comments about children on airplanes the next time I go to a movie theatre, which is also a public place.
• I'm with rocket88 on this one. What is, is, and complaining about it is like, oh, shoot, I don't know, pissing in the wind, or something.
• tugging on Superman's cape?
• Messing around with Jim?
• What is, is, and complaining about it is like, oh, shoot, I don't know, pissing in the wind, or something. Now THAT'S the kind of can-do attitude that gets things changed. People should just clam up when the status quo is unjust. Speaking up never solved anything.
• Snark aside, I think rocket88's comment cuts both ways. No, you don't have a right to total privacy or quiet, but neither do you have a right to let your kids (or yourself) run amok and make assloads of noise and annoyance. Kids shouldn't be banned from planes, and it's not always possible to keep them acting like angels, so parents should be cut some slack, but some don't really seem to be trying all that hard to be courteous to others.
• Pulling the mask off the Ol' Lone Ranger?
• If it wasn't obvious that my comment about banning kids from planes was a sarcastic joke, then I sincerely apologize.
• I made an assload of noise once, and everybody moved away from me.
• They really should tow the children in a compartment thats drug along behind the plane. This would make everyone happy. "You kids shut up or so help me I'll stop this plane and you can walk home!"
• Pulling the mask off the Ol' Lone Ranger? Like Zorro? Sorry. I know I promised everyone I'd sit this fad out.
• this thread has been derailed in interesting directions. naturally (it seems to me) there is a huge difference between an infant who cries during a flight, perhaps due to ear pain, about which little can be done (as any adult who's been brought to the verge of tears by that pain knows) and a bratty toddler/young kid whose parents let him/her run amok and annoy others. for all that I am mostly in the anti-kid camp, I can allow sympathy to mitigate my annoyance at the first, although the second is another matter.
• Now THAT'S the kind of can-do attitude that gets things changed. So, uh, what "thing" are you trying to get "changed" via your "protest"?
• But no, I would say complaining about something is not dealing with it. Exactly. Not alone, it isn't.
• So, uh, what "thing" are you trying to get "changed" via your "protest"? People's attitudes about the problem. Apparently it's not a crashing success so fdar.
• Do you really think that having to travel alongside unruly children is an "injustice of the status quo"?
• If so, never have children, and if you do, make sure you're rich enough to hire private modes of transportation when you need to travel with them.
• So, all men shouldn't be treated like pedophiles, but all children, shouldn't be treated as children either. Did I get that right?
• I think most parents know that small children often react badly to the vicissitudes of air travel. I also think that they suffer as much as other passengers when their kids act up, maybe more. since it not only disturbs their enjoyment of the trip, but they have the embarrassment of feeling the emnity of the other travelers who are disturbed. And there's no way you can take a cranky toddler outside till it stops crying, as I've seen people do in restaurants. Because of that knowledge, I also think that most parents of small children don't take them with them on flights unless it's necessary. Yeah, I've seen some bratty kids on flights, but, for the most part, the parents do whatever they can to keep the damage down. That might even include letting the kid run up and down the aisles, since a toddler needs to get tired in order to fall asleep on a long flight, Think about it, if they get tired, they'll sleep, and leave you alone. In 30 years of airline travel, I haven't run into major kid related annoyances very often. Well, there was one kid related annoyance when a guy who'd had a bit too much to drink groped my pre-teen daughter when she was exiting the plane in my wake. Luckily, she completely trashed him verbally before I had a chance to get there to rip his throat out. So, yeah, coach is like Greyhound bus, and I have to think you complainers travel coach, No, really, it is kind of like third class trains in Europe, back in the 1950s except there are no chickens abd goats aboard. Coach doesn't entitle you to business class perks. If you want to deny that you're just a plebe traveler, pay to upgrade.
• Another comparison is with steerage on the old ocean liners.
• I'm so with path on this, especially since I've flown with a two-year-old multiple times now. We're lucky that our son is a good kid: on the one flight where he lost it, crying and screaming on takeoff because he was teething a molar and his ears were hurting, I ignored the seatbelt signs and locked us in a toilet until he calmed down. I learned a while back that it's pointless being embarrassed, though, as long as you're doing your best. On another flight on a 12-seater plane he was having a great time looking quietly out the window until we descended, when his ears were causing him agony. All I could do was let him cry for five looooong minutes until we landed, and the other passengers weren't overly bothered, thanks to engine noise drowning out his voice. The best a parent can do is prepare for all eventualities. This doesn't guarantee a trouble-free flight but it makes the trip less stressful for the kids, the parents, and the rest of the passengers. But I would never let a kid under the age of 16 travel alone. It's not the flight crew's job to be babysitters, and I don't expect anyone to be responsible for my child's safety except the child and us, the parents. It certainly doesn't make the airline's policy okay, but I'm more annoyed that parents can throw their child on a plane and make complete strangers liable for the kid's safety than I am at the no-lone-men rule. The flight crew are covering their asses to keep parents happy. It's insulting to men, hell yes. #2 is utterly fantastic with kids and they should be falling over themselves to have someone like him on a plane to entertain a lonely, bored kid. The same goes for most men I know, whether they're uncles, brothers, or family friends. The flight crew don't have time to filter out undesirables, though.
• Well, there's unruly and there's unruly. There is a certain level of inevitable unruliness, and that doesn't bother me. High spirits in children are actually fun to watch. It's the second level of unruliness, the monstrous behavior that goes ignored by uncaring parents, that bothers me. And not just in airplanes, either. Making the assunption that this level of behavior just "is," and isn't within the control of the parents, is a sad thing, and yes, unjust to society in general. It's also unjust to the children involved. Children who are taught by lax parents that they don't have to care how their actions affect others grow up to be adults who don't care how their actions affect others. Uncomfortable, tired children crying or getting up to stretch their legs is one thing - there's really no way (or reason) to prevent that. Throwing things, yelling, kicking...these are all things that children can be taught not to do. My parents managed it. If we were in a place where we could be taken out at the first sign of misbehavior, that's what happened. If we weren't, we were given a signal that told us in no uncertain terms what would happen later if we didn't stop. Before going into a new and potentially stressful situation like a restaurant or a long trip, we were told what was expected of us, and sometimes practiced ahead of time. That part was fun, and we got the added reward of knowing our parents were truly proud of us. I apologize for the speechifying, but it's something I feel strongly about. I know enough good, responsible parents to know that the myth of the parent who is powerless in the face of "a kid being a kid" is just that: a myth.
• Making the assunption that this level of behavior just "is," and isn't within the control of the parents, is a sad thing, and yes, unjust to society in general. Making the assumption that this second level of unruliness was what I was talking about is making an incorrect assumption. The vast majority of the many, many times I've flown over the years, the children who've been unruly around me have been of your first level of unruliness, and the parents of children who were acting up were doing everything they possibly could to calm them down. I was talking about that -- the much more likely scenario. In other words, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or some other well-known metaphor.
• I say: Preach away! Just don't put words in my mouth.
• Making the assumption that this second level of unruliness was what I was talking about is making an incorrect assumption. I don't recall making such an assumption. Just wanted to make sure everybody knew that I wasn't talking about garden-variety, low-level disturbance.
• Sorry, I got a little defensive, too. Carry on.
• Underpants - are you trying to impose your standards on all ages of traveling kids? At some ages, throwing things, yelling and kicking are the best you can expect , though none of that really lasts long for most kids. And, yeah, there are parents in the air who ignore the bad behavior, but I've not had that experience very often. But, let me ask you. Do you have a cell phone? I find cell phone owners pretty reprehensible, because they disturb my concentration when I'm out in public, and they insist on losing awareness of the surroundings whle chatting about something way differnent from the business I'm trying to complete - I mean like shopping, or something. And, I really don't want to hear their gossip, or their business discussions, but I can't help it because they intrude on my life with no concern for my sense that I own the store when I shop. And, when they're driving and talking at the same time, I can totally see that they're not paying attention to what tney're doing, well, they're intruding on my entitlement to the road I'm driving on. Jeeze, don't they know that I own the road because I'm me? Ok, so I stretched the comparison a bit, but it's not that far off. We all deal with annoyances on a regular basis. If you're travelling in coach, you have to expect some inconvenience. If it's not kids, it's the guy who falls asleep on your shoulder, or the fact that if you have several connecting flights, you may never get a meal. The best thing you can do to ratain your sanity is to ignore the transitory. Which includes kids you never have to meet again.
• This thread reminds me more and more of a thread over on Metachat recently about a Chicago cafe who essentially told patrons that they weren't welcome if their kids were rowdy.
• are you trying to impose your standards on all ages of traveling kids? No, just the ones old enough to be trained. Toddler +. And, yeah, there are parents in the air who ignore the bad behavior, but I've not had that experience very often. Either you've been very lucky or I've been very unlucky, because my experiences with the bad stuff have far outnumbered those with the mild stuff. Maybe it's geographical. But, let me ask you. Do you have a cell phone? I find cell phone owners pretty reprehensible, because they disturb my concentration when I'm out in public, and they insist on losing awareness of the surroundings whle chatting about something way differnent from the business I'm trying to complete Amen! If I have to use my cell, I go off by myself as far as I can. I certainly wouldn't try to walk down the street while using it - good way to get yourself knocked over. Jeeze, don't they know that I own the road because I'm me? I think you're saying this tongue in cheek, but plenty of people seriously feel that way. I think it's because their parents never taught them that there's a world around them full of people with the same needs and wants they have themselves. If you're travelling in coach, you have to expect some inconvenience. Absolutely. And the majority of it is either out of anybody's control or easily excusable. The ONE thing that upsets me is the overwhelming number of children who aren't being taught to consider the people around them, and whose parents think their out-of-control behavior is perfectly OK. A LOT of people think that just because they made the personal decision to reproduce, it doesn't mean that they're responsible for the results.
• During the course of a lifetime we experience many issues that can keep us from moving forward. . . . Only by releasing these issues through forgiveness can we truly arise in consciousness and take our next step in growth.
• Isn't forgiveness usually to do with when you think that somebody has done some personal wrong to you? What I'm talking about is annoyance over the failure of people raising the future leaders of our siciety. Do I forgive the kid who left the bruises on my leg? Sure. Of course. Do I stop thinking that the mentality that allows this sort of thing to keep happening is fundamentally wrong? No, of course not.
• "No, just the ones old enough to be trained. Toddler +. " Well I don't think toddlers are all that "trainable", but what sort of problems have you had with post-toddler kids? "Either you've been very lucky or I've been very unlucky, because my experiences with the bad stuff have far outnumbered those with the mild stuff. Maybe it's geographical." What's your geography? Most of my travel has been in the US, short flights and coast to coast on a fairly regular basis, though I have flown to Mexico and Canada, and to Europe a few times. And the few problems were nothing that I could bring myself to become all that upset about. "The ONE thing that upsets me is the overwhelming number of children who aren't being taught to consider the people around them, and whose parents think their out-of-control behavior is perfectly OK'" OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF CHILDREN? How many is that? One every three flights? Or is it every ten flights? Or are there preschool groups who fly with you each time you take a trip?
• . A LOT of people think that just because they made the personal decision to reproduce, it doesn't mean that they're responsible for the results. Underpants Monster, I think you and I travel in different circles. I know very few, if any, parents who feel this way.
• OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF CHILDREN? How many is that? One every three flights? Or is it every ten flights? Or are there preschool groups who fly with you each time you take a trip? Overwhelming as in "overwhelming majority." I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I would have to estimate about two children out of three. Depending on the size of the plane/bus, it can be four or five per trip. The problems are the ones I've talked about before: yelling, kicking, playing with noisy toys, yelling, running around, jumping, yelling, throwing things, shoving, and yelling.
• Underpants Monster, I think you and I travel in different circles. I know very few, if any, parents who feel this way. I sincerely hope so. I would dearly love to think that.
• Underpants Monster, I think you and I travel in different circles. I know very few, if any, parents who feel this way. I sincerely hope so. I would dearly love to think that.
• Uh...you're welcome...I guess? To be honest, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Hmmm? Oh, just that "terse summary of situation" along with "deal with it" seems kinda vacuous, I guess. It's beneath the likes of ye, rocketman; report to the Whipping Master at your convenience. Or, more to the point, people do deal with it. Every day. I've done a great deal of domestic and international flying, and I can't remember once seeing the parent of a child in distress, for all the reasons listed by others above, accorded anything but varying degrees of sympathy, patience and / or dealing-with-it-ness. In fact, the reality is that I've seen people "dealing with it" in situations where the need to deal with it purely arises out of lack of suitable parental intervention (ie the child isn't in distress, he or she just wants to misbehave). And people deal with it anyway. To quote the boundless and ineffable wisdom of George Costanza (he was too beautiful for this world): "We're living in a society!" That implies (or should imply) a lot of things. In this situation, it implies that the parents of children in public spaces should be able to rely on sympathy and understanding from the people around them, because it's impossible to avoid situations where a child in distress will make him or herself heard despite any efforts of the parent to make it otherwise. It also implies that the people around parents of children should be able to rely on the active involvement of those parents in reducing the impact their children have, where and if that's possible, on the people around them. But even in the absence of that active involvement, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single example from years of flying where people didn't deal with it. Even those on an 18 hour flight who are going to step off the plane and straight into a meeting where their financial future might be at stake and who are expecting to be toast because of lack of sleep due to a nearby child's distress, deal with it. Doesn't mean they look forward to it. Doesn't mean that given the opportunity to bitch about it, they're not entitled to (and, you know, the bitching is probably part of the overall process of dealing with it). But, yep, dealing with it is something they're already doing.
• Maybe I just hate children - it's not outside the realm of possibility - but it seems to me that if the child in question is at an age where it can be sedated without gross physical harm, then there's no excuse for it making noise. If a child can't deal with a little ear pain without screaming, or a long flight without running up and down the aisles bothering the rest of the passengers, drug it. If the parents of the child are not willing to do that, then they shouldn't take the child on a damn plane. Same thing for movie theaters, restaurants, and other such public places. Unless I am intentionally paying attention to your child, I shouldn't ever have to know it's there.
• kafziel, please tell me you're being sarcastic.
• Gee it's just as well none of us ever played up or cried in public when we were unhappy as kids....
• Jesus. I agree with HawthorneWingo; that's got to be an intentional troll.
• Maybe this is why I have very few memories before the age of 10? Gawd, I must have been a right utter terror.
• But we could surely go the other route and insist that parents of unruly children distribute drugs to any nearby adults.
• I've heard of parents offering earplugs to neighbouring passengers as a precaution at the start of a flight.
• Yay kafziel! Yay ignorant cunts, we need more of them!
• ps, fuck off
• get it? maybe a bit too tricky for you?
• planetthoughtful: It looks like you and I are in agreement. My "deal with it" comment was directed at the 'bratty kids shouldn't fly' commenters, if they were being serious (it's sometimes hard to tell). By your comments, you appear to already be dealing with it. Also, I understand that "deal with it" is often a harsh equivalent to "fuck you", but in this case I meant it as well intentioned advice. Dealing with a stranger's unruly kids is difficult. Often the best (and only) solution is to not let it bother us so much...to find our own peace within the noise and chaos. Stewing about how irresponsible the parents are just makes a bad situation worse. Some people find this hard to do, and would rather have the world changed to meet their needs. Essentially, they want the earth covered in soft leather when what they really need is to put on a pair of shoes.
• Rocket, I think that equating being frustrated at an annoying situation with wanting the whole world changed to meet someone's needs is a bit of a leap.
• It's not about being frustrated. It's comments that kids shouldn't be allowed to fly, or that people shouldn't talk on cel phones within their earshot. It's the attitude that rules should be made to make life better for them, no matter what the effects on others. I see a lot of that type of attitude lately.
• Rocket88 is spot-on about this.
• If we cannot extend even the smallest bit of equanimity and tolerance to the smallest and least socialized among us, what chance do we have of extend to our contemporaries the politeness and forebearance that is the grease of a smooth, cultured society? Have we grown so frail that a crying child is an intolerable affront? Have we grown so selfish and small that the merest impingement on our fragile sensoriums causes us to call for enforced sedation and ejection? Sometimes, the sheer, uncut Peruvian-flake pure self-centeredness of people just absolutely takes my breath away. This world would, in my opinion, be a vastly better place if all the people in it could grasp but a single concept: that *other* people are NOT mere set dressing and supporting actors in the Great and Ongoing Saga of Me, but *actual* people, with thoughts, dreams and lives of equal richness, complexity and worth as our own.
• as far as the topic of the thread: I am willing to suffer a minor inconvenience in service to help ensure the safety of a child, regardless of the percentage chance (and unspoken but concomitant thought of acceptable risk and sacrifice) of the event taking place at any single time and place.
• I think what we need is a big group hug peoples. *extends her arms* (not much to say after Fes has waxed so lyrically)
• Rocket, I didn't realize when I made my comment about a leap that we were talking the very small minority in this thread that said children should be sedated or never be allowed on planes. Fes's point about "other people" is what should drive everyone. If I'm aware of other people, then I'm going to raise my kids to be aware of other people, which means teaching them to respect those around them enough to not run around terrorizing the place like maniacs. And I'm also going to be aware that kids make noise sometimes and that I can't expect complete silence. I also think 90% of comments in this thread already fall into that middle ground.
• I think Medusa said it best. But as far as I know, you're all just constructs of my godlike imagination. Then again, that's another thread.
• If we cannot extend even the smallest bit of equanimity and tolerance to the smallest and least socialized among us You're right... those who talk loudly on their cells in a quiet restaurants or movies are those needing the most understanding. Wait, we are talking about abusive cell phoners, right?
• I think those people are overly socialised.
• That's a false memory I planted, petebest.
• Everyone knows that anyone who bothers me, for any reason, however slight, should be shot instantly.
• Unless I am intentionally paying attention to your child, I shouldn't ever have to know it's there. posted by kafziel at 06:42AM UTC on December 06, 2005 Unless I am intentionally paying attention to it's post, I shouldn't ever have to know it's there. Mkay. kafziel should be drugged before flying.
• I should be drugged before everything.
• I think its bad enough that modern living forces us to spend several hours in confined spaces with 100 other people that parents should make every effort to control their children to make the experience, at least not hideous. I can tolerate a crying child, but I'd rather that if there is an option, they not be on the plane. I wouldn't mind a separate compartment but logistically thats not likelihood. I'm not demanding it, there really is nothing I can do about it, but it would be nice, and it would probably make the responsible parents more comfortable to boot that there was a place they could take a loud child until they settle down. On the other hand, the kid that kicked my seat sporadically for 2 hours and whose parents were completely oblivious to it, I shouldn't have to tell them to control their child, I don't LIKE to have to tell them to control their child, because it makes me feel like a jerk. Same as the people with cell-phones in theatres, and the children who are utter monsters at grocery stores. I don't like feeling like a jerk, but if you don't occasionally act like a jerk and tell people that they are making this wonderful life a little more shitty, well, I don't know. Nothing ever changes, and there are more shitty-life-making people every day it seems. /hates most people //is really pretty patient with people who actually make an effort
• Anyway, I drug myself ON most plane flights because I'm stuck in a flammable metal tube dependent on lots of moving parts to stay 30,000 feet in the air with 100 other people I don't know.
• Kafziel's point is his opinion. I think people should take their fuck you's, trolling, etc. back and offer a valid counterpoint. What Kafziel failed to realize is that she/he can take a sedative instead. I personally agree with him/her though, when I want to get to the cornerstore I call up my entire neighborhood and have them move the gamut five blocks north. And movie theatres? What kinds of movies are you going to that screaming toddlers would want to see, Kafziel? By the way, in order to keep from the rampant sexual profiling that occurs in certain airlines, I decided not to sex Kafziel by the comment that was made. As for VertexofLife's inherently racist statement: Look around. The white male is the most discriminated agaist. Scholarships for women? Yes. Black women? You bet! Blacks in general? Oh yeah! White males? OMFG SEXISM, OMFG RACISM. All I have to say is all men that fly aren't white, that's a elitist racist conception. When men and women get pulled aside because they're suspected terrorists (i.e. not white) that pisses me off, too. Human rights are human rights. Now please go make a post about something so that I can make irrelevant comments. I feel like I'm making a list.
• a guy who'd had a bit too much to drink groped my pre-teen daughter when she was exiting the plane in my wake Hmmm, maybe this is one they should have let sit on the wing? Without a seat belt or a child.
• Nah, she reamed him a new one, at volume, in front of a line of exiting passengers, and in a manner that amazed even me. Then did a victory walk up the long aisle and out the jetway. That may have been the first intimation that (sniffle) she didn't need me to protect her from everything.
• This is kind of off topic, but today I was in the laundromat and this 2-3 year old girl, who had been having a grand old time throwing a ball and running around, got tired and started throwing a tantrum to go home. While that was a little annoying, what *really* annoyed me is that I can't holler and yell and cry and stomp my feet when I'm cranky and need a change of venue. How awesome would that be? You're in the middle of a meeting and you just start with "I want to go home! You are all ugly and boring! AAAAAQRRRRGHGHGH!"
• There was some comedienne whose show was regularly used as a filler on Comedy Central about four-five years ago who talked about how cool it would be to be able to just yell, "NOOOOO! I DON'T WANNA!" and various other tantrumy things when someone asked us to do something.
• While I agree wholeheartedly that parents should, certainly, make an effort to keep their children in check when confined to small spaces with lot's of other people, I find that I thoroughly enjoy and revel in the sheer freedom of expression that children have. It will be restrained soon enough and I am glad that I can enjoy it versus get annoyed by it. That being said, truly annoying children often are exhibiting reaction to poor decision-making/planning by a parent. Some parents don't give a shit. I am not one of them.
• When I had a job that entailed interaction with a lot of parents and their 2- to 11-year-old kids, I ran across parents who really didn't give a shit. They were terrible to deal with, and their kids were terrible to deal with, and the best way I can describe it is by mentioning the general sense of entitlement clearly exhibited by the parents and being passed on to the children. I worked with dozens of families over time, and only a handful were this type; many were neutral, and many others were truly conscientious. It's a crapshoot as to which sort of family you'll run into in a public place... if maybe 5% of the families I ran into were like that, then my assumption is that I'll come across a family like that once every couple of weeks while I'm shopping. I now live in a very "students and singles" area, though, so the reality is that I just don't run into that many families with kids. (Example: the Target I go to most often serves the Ohio State University campus area. I see LOTS of 18-24 yr olds, and few toddlers.) As to the issue of children travelling alone... as to the many comments of the nature "Who are these people foolish enough to let their kids travel alone? Yea, verily, I never would!" I assume that the majority of you have not grown up with divorced parents who live 1000 miles apart. If I had not flown alone frequently from the ages of 11 to 14, I would never have seen my dad (I didn't visit all through high school, because I never had time, too many activities and commitments). And I certainly wouldn't have had the chance to become as comfortable travelling alone as I am now. I don't recall any really unpleasant experiences, except that I suspect one woman had her seat changed because she didn't want to sit next to a preteen. That said, I do think it's kind of nuts to put an unaccompanied child in a situation where they have to catch connecting flights. That's where the airline is likely to screw up, but even if they don't, it's hard on the kid. Sometimes the connection times are ridiculously short (and therefore involve mad dashes across strange airports, which kids shouldn't have to make), other times they're so long that it make the trip unduly boring and stressful. I suspect, into the bargain, that some of the rationale for this admittedly sexist policy has to do with the fact that male strangers can be quite a bit more intimidating to kids than most female strangers would be, in a physical way (deeper voices, larger bodies, etc). This doesn't really tie in with the "potential molestation" issue in any meaningful way. Men were always nicer to me when I was travelling alone, but I most preferred to be seated next to a girl my own age or to have an empty seat next to me so I could stretch out.
• When men and women get pulled aside because they're suspected terrorists (i.e. not white) that pisses me off, too. Actually, not to agree with the inherent racism and / or sexism, but post 9/11 experiences from travelling into and around the US as a foreigner have led me to believe that any male travelling alone, regardless of color or culture, should anticipate some extra attention during the boarding process at US airports. Of the dozen or so flights I've taken in the US, most for which I was unaccompanied, I was singled out for extra searching and questioning the majority of the time. I was, in fact, told several times that my profile (male / unaccompanied / foreign) fit a profile requiring extra attention. I took this to be a pragmatic approach to fasttracking the need to at least appear to be applying extra effort to airline security, so it was something I got used to and which I factored into my expectations of catching a flight.
• When I see a child throwing a tantrum in public, I'm always tempted to throw one of my own. I bet seeing a grown woman screaming and flailing on the floor would be enough to make the kid forget what he was whining about.
• Um Koko, Meredithea, I have actually pulled that one - it worked - I threatened to do it and then started on. Men i worked with had no idea how to deal - i got what wanted - made us all smell like roses - although they had a little trouble with the reasons section of the report - undignified yes - but on occasion - the mere threat.... Also worked with unruly babysat child - never seen anyone throw a larger tantrum than he (albeit mine was controlled and deliberate - i think..) quiet as a mouse Bliss pure bliss Oh PS work tantrums in well controlled environment with controlled lab rats!)
• any male travelling alone, regardless of color or culture, should anticipate some extra attention during the boarding process at US airports I have flown 6 or 7 times since then and no extra attention for me yet. I usually look unshaven and pretty sleazy too.
• Oh you meant if you were foreign? That makes more sense.
• I got a pretty nasty stare from a woman as we were leaving a theater because I dropped a few f-bombs within earshot of her kids when discussing the movie. She was the only one there with kids. This rated R movie was likewise full of profanity. Fuck her. I did it on purpose. I'm the idiot though, because if she's dumb enough to not see her hypocrisy, she's too dumb to get my hint.
• Oh you meant if you were foreign? That makes more sense. Sorry, yes, should have made that more clear.
• Silly foreigners. Will they never learn?
• . . . don't even have the decency to speak English.
• Silly foreigners. Will they never learn? One of these days we intend to learn. Seriously, it's pencilled in our diary somewhere.
• I got a pretty nasty stare from a woman as we were leaving a theater because I dropped a few f-bombs within earshot of her kids when discussing the movie. The following happened in the row in front of me at 'Walk the line" BABY: [cries] MALE PATRON: SSSSHHH! FATHER: Dont you "shush" my kid! Fuck you! FUCK YOU! [father exits with baby]
• Kids on airplanes... problem typically solved by powerbook, dvd movie, (or just ipod) and noise cancelling headphones... never travel without them.. shuts the rest of the world out...reduces the stress of flying by about 80%
• ... or just plain foam earplugs, if you're not a millionaire like HuronBob ...
• a few vodkas doesn't hurt either.
• I enjoy screw!
• *bolts!*
• You know, the best way to calm a rowdy kid on a plane is to invite him to sit in your lap, offer him some candy ... oh wait, this is how the thread started ...
• [father exits with baby] And they say complaining does no good!
• Good on you, Path. Sounds like you've raised one assertive kiddo. Kids of all ages: QUESTION AUTHORITY! except you there--siddown and shaddup
• Kids of all ages: QUESTION AUTHORITY! Yes'm.
• But for Lust But for lust we could be friends. On each other's necks could weep: In each other's arms could sleep In the calm the cradle lends. Lends awhile, and takes away. But for hunger, but for fear, Calm could be our day and year From the yellow to the grey: From the gold to the grey hair, From the passions we could rest. But for passions we could feast On compassion everywhere. Even in this night I know, By the awful living dead, By this craving tear I shed, Somehwere, somewhere it is so. -- Ruth P{itter
• Quite touching.
• QUESTION AUTHORITY! I've always wanted to transpose those bumper stickers with the "Kill your television" ones. Question your television, and ...
• I love where this thread has gone - i hate children on longhaul flights but then i expect it because that is what i can afford - BUT qualify - cannot do anything about the infants - it is not their fault -want to terminate with extreme prejudice the ones over 5 whose parents do not control - rephrase - want to terminate with extreme prejudice the parents!
• Path - well done@!!!!!