PDA

View Full Version : Nadya Sulemon & 12 Kids Fly Business Class



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

UMBS Go Blue
07-14-2011, 02:42 AM
UMBS Go Blue, I think you showed me how I sound like when I think I have it all figured out and am in control of everything. :lol: Not our kids, nooooo. It does sound a little self-righteous and, well, silly. In addition to being full of inconveniences, life is also unpredictable. You can't plan and predict everything, neither can you control everything. And being to able to understand and deal with that is what being an adults entails, I think. Is it self-righteous to believe that part of being an adult entails being able to control the consequences of actions that one can reasonably plan and predict - not only one's own actions, but also predictable actions of kids under one's control or supervision - so that such actions don't inconvenience others? When one knows that a particular action - or inaction - will inconvenience others, but goes about doing it anyway, then is it silly to suggest that that exhibits negligence unbecoming of an adult, not to mention a lack of respect for others? Even when situations or consequences are unpredictable, isn't it reasonable to expect an adult to learn from them and try not to let them happen again?

Japanfan
07-14-2011, 03:12 AM
Is it self-righteous to believe that part of being an adult entails being able to control the consequences of actions that one can reasonably plan and predict - not only one's own actions, but also predictable actions of kids under one's control or supervision - so that such actions don't inconvenience others?


Perhaps not self-righteous, but short-sighted when it comes to parents' ability to control their children. Babies wail and toddlers scream, but the when is not only predictable. Some are more difficult or noisy than others, but these are natural behaviour and wailing baby/screaming toddler does not = bad parents. And they will inconvenience others, be it in a grocery store line or on a plane. That's just part of living in world populated by infants and children, as well as adults.




When one knows that a particular action - or inaction - will inconvenience others, but goes about doing it anyway, then is it silly to suggest that that exhibits negligence unbecoming of an adult, not to mention a lack of respect for others? Even when situations or consequences are unpredictable, isn't it reasonable to expect an adult to learn from them and try not to let them happen again?

Yes, I would say it is silly. It really depends on the situation. Some parents need to take a plane and need to take their kids with them - there may be no other option in some circumstances.

Drugging children to keep them quiet on planes is deplorable - I don't know how many doctors would recommend it.

Much as I don't care for wailing/crying/screaming babies and children on planes, I realize that this is what babies and children do. And be sure, it isn't fun for the parents.

Planes are uncomfortable for adults, not to mention children. And think about how awful the impact on the ears it must be for babies. Sure, there are ways to minimize the impact but it's pretty much impossible to eliminate it. I'm sure there are plenty of parents who really prefer not to travel on planes with babies.

WindSpirit
07-14-2011, 04:40 AM
Is it self-righteous to believe that part of being an adult entails being able to control the consequences of actions that one can reasonably plan and predict - not only one's own actions, but also predictable actions of kids under one's control or supervision - so that such actions don't inconvenience others? When one knows that a particular action - or inaction - will inconvenience others, but goes about doing it anyway, then is it silly to suggest that that exhibits negligence unbecoming of an adult, not to mention a lack of respect for others? Even when situations or consequences are unpredictable, isn't it reasonable to expect an adult to learn from them and try not to let them happen again? Yes, it is self-righteous if by unpredictable situations you mean people traveling with children. Since children can be unpredictable what do you suggest people with children should do? Stay home with them until they grow up? How about caretakers of people with some mental disabilities like autism, should they never take them outside because their behavior might inconvenience someone? No.

I'm all for personal responsibility and being respectful of others, so you're preaching to the choir here. I just think you're being unreasonable in your rigidity on the issue. And trust me, I'm sure that even a responsible, sensible adult like yourself has inconvenienced others more than once in your life. Different people get annoyed by different things. You can't predict how every single thing that you do will affect others. Just because it wouldn't annoy you doesn't mean it wouldn't annoy someone else. So should you stay at home because it's more than likely than you will inconvenience someone again down the line? No.

Children are part of the society. Travelling with them is absolutely normal. If I can see that the parent/guardian is doing their best, I don't care even if the child throws a tantrum, etc. Most, if not all, children will at some point in their lives. It only bothers me if the adults responsible for the child behave like they don't give a crap and don't try to resolve the issue. But by trying to resolve the issue I don't mean jumping out of the plane with their children in tuck or not travelling with them in the first place.

UMBS Go Blue
07-14-2011, 05:35 AM
Perhaps not self-righteous, but short-sighted when it comes to parents' ability to control their children.Is it self-righteous and short-sighted in cases where parents just aren't bothering to control their children, even when it is within their ability?


It only bothers me if the adults responsible for the child behave like they don't give a crap and don't try to resolve the issue.And these are the cases that puzzle me the most, not the less frequent cases on which you digress. How exactly would you be bothered in such a situation, and how would you think a responsible adult ought to act?


Since children can be unpredictable what do you suggest people with children should do? Stay home with them until they grow up?


So should you stay at home because it's more than likely than you will inconvenience someone again down the line? No.Are these the specific solutions I suggested, and are these the only specific solutions you can think of? Is it self-righteous to expect that human beings can learn from mistakes, analyze them, and think of gentle modifications to their behavior so they don't have to make such mistakes again? Likewise, it is self-righteous to expect that, after an unpredictable situation involving children, a parent would try to mitigate the situation while it's happening, apologize to anyone inconvenienced or directly affected, and try to coach the children to engage in more positive, constructive behavior going forward?

Japanfan
07-14-2011, 06:07 AM
Is it self-righteous and short-sighted in cases where parents just aren't bothering to control their children, even when it is within their ability?


In cases like that it is fair to ask the parents to do what is necessary - for example, if a toddler is running around on a plane or in a restaurant bothering people you could ask them to please contain the child in a sea.

But in most situations where kids seem out of control - screaming or wailing - the parents are doing their best. Remember, they have to live with that all the time and it is no fun for them.


Is it self-righteous to expect that human beings can learn from mistakes, analyze them, and think of gentle modifications to their behavior so they don't have to make such mistakes again?

Unfortunately, often just unrealistic

[QUOTE=UMBS Go Blue]
Likewise, it is self-righteous to expect that, after an unpredictable situation involving children, a parent would try to mitigate the situation while it's happening, apologize to anyone inconvenienced or directly affected, and try to coach the children to engage in more positive, constructive behavior going forward?

I think they usually do try to mitigate the situation, but may not feel a need to apologize. Adults who don't have children are a small minority. Most adults are used to the trials and tribulations of parenting/being around young children.

And I'm not sure it is fair to describe an infant or toddler who is making as fuss as engaging in negative or destructive behaviour.

Most parents do try to teach their children positive, constructive behaviour - but it takes a lot of years.

Hannahclear
07-14-2011, 06:02 PM
Seriously. Children don't come civilized. They have to be turned into civilized people. It's a process. I wake up every day, hoping to move my one year old closer to civilized, but again, process.

So basically, UMBS Go Blue, you don't have kids (at least I don't think you do) and you don't know what you're talking about. And people with kids outnumber you by far. So neener neener. :P

ETA that I wouldn't fly with my kid on a bet, but the idea that I am obligated to drug them with substances not approved for their use if F*** up logic beyond all belief. People who argue such things need their heads examined.

gkelly
07-14-2011, 07:03 PM
Adults who don't have children are a small minority. Most adults are used to the trials and tribulations of parenting/being around young children.

How do you define "small minority"? Maybe we also need to define adults and having children.

A quick search couldn't find me the exact census data. I could search the US and Canadian census sites for exactly what I'm looking for, but I'm too busy right now to go combing.

I did find some articles citing "According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400986.html)
and "In 1976, according to U.S. Census reports, 10 percent of women aged 40 to 44 were childless. In 2002, that figure was 18 percent -- or nearly one in five." (http://www.roanoke.com/extra/wb/58164) (percentages would doubtless be higher for women younger than 40, certainly for women younger than 30 or 25, but I'm not sure whether 15-year-olds should be included in the larger sample.

Anyway, although adult women with no children are certainly a minority in the US, with probably similar numbers in Canada, it's not clear that that minority could be defined as small. And I would guess that the numbers are smaller for men than for women, because it's more common for one man to have children with multiple women than the other way around.

So let's not marginalize childless adults in general as being a "small minority" in the attempt to marginalize the smaller subset of childphobic adults.

After all, many adults who don't have children of their own often spend plenty of time around other people's children in their extended families, neighborhoods, or workplaces -- would fit into the "most adults" category in the second sentence quoted above -- and have some understanding and sympathy for the challenges involved in socializing children's behavior.

taf2002
07-14-2011, 08:28 PM
I am childless & I know that I can be intolerant of small children disturbing me, but even though no one enjoys the sound of a baby crying (least of all its parent), on airlines I am a lot more patient than usual because this is a situation in which parents have no choice. People have to fly at times & they aren't allowed to check their children with their baggage. I have even been known to offer help to woman flying with their children & without other adult help. (One woman thrust her baby into my arms when I offered to help with her bags...I really was offering to get her bag down from the overhead but whatever.:lol: )

Japanfan
07-15-2011, 12:00 AM
How do you define "small minority"? Maybe we also need to define adults and having children.


I would guess that a maximum 20% of adults over 40 have children but it is probably closer to 10%. Whether or not that is small depends on your perspective. I'm perfectly fine with just saying 'minority'.




I did find some articles citing "According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976."


The statistic isn't meaningful in terms of how many women are childless for life, as a lot of women don't have children until they are in their 30s.

gkelly
07-15-2011, 01:53 AM
The statistic isn't meaningful in terms of how many women are childless for life, as a lot of women don't have children until they are in their 30s.

Nevertheless, women (and men) in their 20s and 30s who have no children yet still fall into the category of adults who have no children, which you claimed was a small minority of all adults.

And their tolerance for children's public misbehavior may change once they (or their friends and siblings) reach the parenting phase of life.

If the adjective "small" is to be appropriate at all, it would only make sense if applied to adults who have already reached middle age, not all adults.

Japanfan
07-15-2011, 03:06 AM
Nevertheless, women (and men) in their 20s and 30s who have no children yet still fall into the category of adults who have no children, which you claimed was a small minority of all adults.


I am referring to adults who have no children at all. Whether you have them at 16 or 36 really doesn't matter in terms of what percentage of the population has children.




If the adjective "small" is to be appropriate at all, it would only make sense if applied to adults who have already reached middle age, not all adults.

What proportion of the total population has children? What percentage of middle aged adults have had children?

gkelly
07-15-2011, 04:14 AM
I am referring to adults who have no children at all. Whether you have them at 16 or 36 really doesn't matter in terms of what percentage of the population has children.

If someone is going to have children starting at 36 but is currently 32 and therefore doesn't have any children yet, she is part of the population of adults who currently don't have children. You seem to be counting her as part of the population of adults who do have children, looking at her life from an omniscient perspective. But we can only go by what has actually happened in the past and present, not the future.


What proportion of the total population has children? What percentage of middle aged adults have had children?

I'm not going to track down the research, but extrapolating from the two statistics cited earlier, I'd estimate that significantly less than half of the total population has children, considering that a considerable segment of that total population are children.

If you mean total portion of the adult population, with "adult" being defined as starting at age 18 or 21, then maybe 60% more or less, leaving a large minority who do not currently have children but may or may not become parents in the future.

Percentage of middle-aged adults who have had children? Maybe as much as 80%. Which is certainly a significant majority, but as part of the minority which is not tiny, I don't like being told that it is a small minority with the implication that people who belong to that minority don't matter.

Numbers aside, I also don't like to see this turned into a debate between parents and childless people who pass judgment on parents, since I don't happen to fit either of those categories. A little less generalizing on both sides would be welcome.

Japanfan
07-15-2011, 09:48 AM
Percentage of middle-aged adults who have had children? Maybe as much as 80%. Which is certainly a significant majority, but as part of the minority which is not tiny, I don't like being told that it is a small minority with the implication that people who belong to that minority don't matter.


Gkelly, I don't think I implied that childless people are a small minority who don't matter. It certainly was not my intention - I have no children myself and am past child-bearing years.

taf2002
07-15-2011, 03:50 PM
I don't see that it matters what percentage of the population has children or not. Let's hope people keep having kids, otherwise the human race will die out. IME the majority of people who have kids do the best they can to raise them. And when parents are at least trying, what can you do but tolerate in silence? It's the parents who let their kids run around unrestrained that bother me. And we can't expect parents to be the heavy 24 hrs a day. You have to let kids be kids without trying to quash them all the time.

Cachoo
07-16-2011, 12:35 AM
I am not judging parents or children at all when I say that I would pay a bit more to fly on a toddlerless flight if I were flying say from the US to Austrailia. That is a long time for a child that young to be in a confined space and as a trip like that might be a once in a lifetime experience for me I would want to take advantage of any perk. And I am sorry to say that I view that as a perk. I love children btw.