# OR, You could control your kids...



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I am in a VERY bad mood today, and this just pushed me over the edge.

We were at Costco. After shopping my DH and I sat down to eat at the Cosco food area. If you have ever been there, the tables are located just inside the exit.

There was a family of three adults and two two year old twin boys. The boys were cute, and I had just told my husband "aww, how cute".

Within minutes, the boys had finished eating and started running around the table, then around the table and out into the exiting traffic. There were litterally hundreds of people pushing large, full carts of stuff through the isle to leave the store. These two tiny kids kept having near misses, because they were too small to see over the parents head to see the carts, and too small to be seen. The three adults never even said "come here", or "walk", or anything. They just went on eating and talking.

After about seven or so trips out into the traffic, an older gentelman pushing a full and heavy cart out of the store, clipped one of the boys who had just run in front of him, the boy fell into another cart, and cut his forehead. TWO of the adults with the child jumped up to go after the older gentleman.

The dad yells "DUDE!" The mom says something to him, then they both gather up the child (who was fine, just a scratch) and they tell the man to "Watch where you are going".

My husband said "Or you could control your kids". <--couldn't believe he said that.

But, honestly, it is true. If you are going to allow your kids to run around Costco, don't expect other people to watch out for them. Why don't some parents care what their kids are doing, but want others to care?


----------



## wwinorth (Jul 30, 2005)

Quote:

My husband said "Or you could control your kids".








I always want to say it but don't. Good for him!!!


----------



## CaliMommie (Feb 11, 2004)

Good for your husband!







What did the parents do when he said that? What did the older gentleman do?


----------



## Sage_SS (Jun 1, 2007)

People like that drive me nuts, but I DO say something. I politely let them know that their child(ren) might be hurt running around in a place where its diffiicult to see them.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CaliMommie* 
Good for your husband!







What did the parents do when he said that? What did the older gentleman do?

Dad said "F*** you"

And the man was just worried about the boy, but as he left, he rolled his eyes and shook his head.


----------



## IdahoMom (Nov 8, 2005)

They'll probably sue Costco for it, and win.


----------



## Embee (May 3, 2002)

The irony never ceases to amaze me on this. Parents don't feel it's important to look after the safety of their children, but are all too happy to blame others for anything that happens to go wrong for their kids. *sigh* The two chief lessons the kids learn here?

1. That they are not important enough to their parents to be looked after properly and...

2. That when something goes wrong, DO NOT take personal responsibility, and make darned sure to blame someone else.

Arg.

The best,
Em


----------



## OakBerry (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Embee* 
The irony never ceases to amaze me on this. Parents don't feel it's important to look after the safety of their children, but are all too happy to blame others for anything that happens to go wrong for their kids. *sigh* The two chief lessons the kids learn here?

1. That they are not important enough to their parents to be looked after properly and...

2. That when something goes wrong, DO NOT take personal responsibility, and make darned sure to blame someone else.

Arg.

The best,
Em

This is so true!
This type of situation is one of my biggest pet peeves. I see it all the time....


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

Good for your husband. People are really amazing sometimes. I understand that kids will be kids, but there is a limit to that. Poor old man.







:


----------



## Tinker (Mar 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Embee* 
The irony never ceases to amaze me on this. Parents don't feel it's important to look after the safety of their children, but are all too happy to blame others for anything that happens to go wrong for their kids. *sigh* The two chief lessons the kids learn here?

1. That they are not important enough to their parents to be looked after properly and...

2. That when something goes wrong, DO NOT take personal responsibility, and make darned sure to blame someone else.

Arg.

The best,
Em


----------



## AbbieB (Mar 21, 2006)

I admit to being the parent that lets her kids do things that make all of the other parents cringe...but DUDE!

When my daughter is being very 4 and running ahead of me at a store with carts I am constantly reminding her to watch out for others, she could be knocked into. If it happened I would never think to blame the person with the cart. (For the record-I do make her get into our cart if she is having a hard time that day being aware of the other shoppers.)

I just don't get parents that don't take responsibility for their parenting choices. Poor kid.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Good for your DH! And the dad really said F-U?! GREAT example there!


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

Wow. I guess I could see parents who don't care if their kids run wild out there (I personally wouldn't do it!) but to get angry when they get hit with a cart? That's just nuts.

And dropping an F-bomb? Classy.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AbbieB* 
When my daughter is being very 4 and running ahead of me at a store with carts I am constantly reminding her to watch out for others, she could be knocked into. .

But, this was like Herding cattle through a chute. The carts were three carts across and moving fast to get to the exit. It wasn't like the occasional cart that you might pass in Wal Mart. It's like letting your 12 year old play on the freeway, then being mad at the driver when he gets hit by a car.

These parents just didn't want to be bothered. Since there were three adults, and two kids, this should have been easy. The kids still could have goofed off while they waited, but they needed a little guidance from the adults.

And as for the F-bomb, the parents were kinda young, and that isn't really unusual around here, and the way my husband said "Or you could control your kids" was pretty rude. In fact, I was a little nervous that it would escalate, but my DH dropped it after that.


----------



## AidynElyMama (Dec 5, 2007)

I still say good for him, rude or not. Maybe it will make the parents think next time.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
and the way my husband said "Or you could control your kids" was pretty rude. In fact, I was a little nervous that it would escalate, but my DH dropped it after that.

No matter who he said it it would have been rude. And it wasn't helpful. It didn't help the man or the parents diffuse anything.


----------



## nonnymoose (Mar 12, 2004)

Blunt, yes. Rude, not so sure. They DID need to control their kids, and someone else had already been affected by their failure to do so. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. I've been to Costco (okay, I practically live at Costco) and there is NO WAY I would let my kids run loose around the exit. The carts are huge, they're always piled with stuff, and there are bins full of cardboard boxes blocking everyone's sightlines.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonnymoose* 
Blunt, yes. Rude, not so sure. They DID need to control their kids

I do think it's rude. Rude to everyone involved; the kids, the parents, the OP as she cringed upon hearing her DH's interjection, and the man who felt bad and I'm sure just wanted to say sorry and get out of there without having a situation escalate.

For the record, I do not and have never controlled DS. Even when he was running ahead or wild there may have been a need to remind him to be safe but never a need to control him. Kids aren't robots or remote controlled vehicles. They don't need to be controlled.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
For the record, I do not and have never controlled DS. Even when he was running ahead or wild there may have been a need to remind him to be safe but never a need to control him. Kids aren't robots or remote controlled vehicles. They don't need to be controlled.

Then who's job is it to keep him safe? Who's job is it to keep him from hurting an elderly woman who never saw him coming? I hope you tie bells to him so people know he's running wild.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't care for the word "control" but switch it with "adequately supervise" maybe.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

I probably would have said the same thing as your husband if I had been alone.... if DH had been there I probably wouldn't have because he would have been roped-in to defending me.

It's not up to the OP or her husband to help these "parents" to diffuse anything. He was defending the older man, who was the truly injured party in this case.

The couple with the children _know better_ than to allow their small children to run around in an area like that, a large rodent would know better, but the difference is _they don't care and they expect everyone else to do so._

Don't fall into the trap of "well, *you* could have helped the situation...." that's exactly what enables these kinds of irresponsible people in the first place and allows them to bully people who are responsible.

....

Just because the parents were young shouldn't mean that one should accept the swearing and the irresponsibility. My parents had children younger than most are having them now (I realise things were different then, but still) and they would never have allowed us to behave that way or to put ourselves in jeopardy in such a way.

....

My DH saw something like this the other day, thank goodness that the child wasn't hurt.

He was working on his thesis in a coffee shoppe when a mother with a 14 month old came in. Not unusual.

What WAS unusual was that the mother got herself a coffee, sat down, took the child out of her stroller and then proceeded to read the newspaper..... while the little girl started scr*eeeeeeeee*ching like a banshee at the top of her lungs and RUNNING around the shop while people were carrying steaming hot drinks and trying to read. She didn't even look up from her paper. My husband was dumbfounded. Not only was she oblivious while her child was disrupting more than a dozen people (some of whom had their own children with them) but she was totally ignoring the fact that her child could have been seriously scalded by hot drinks that people were carrying back to their tables.

After about twenty minutes of this, several people left and the manager finally asked the woman "could you please control your child, it's disruptive and dangerous to allow her to do this" she look startled and then basically shrugged. DH left, so I don't know how much longer this went on.

Thankfully these things are rare in my neighbourhood; most parents are very attentive and responsive to their children, while at the same time, respecting the time and peace of other people around them.

The disruption without correction is bad enough... what was really appalling about this situation (and the original post in this thread) is the total disregard for the safety of the children involved.

Trin.


----------



## imatulip (Nov 18, 2007)

good for you husband. i would have thought it, but never said it.


----------



## ananas (Jun 6, 2006)

Haha, good for your husband!


----------



## lah7 (Dec 31, 2006)

He was just saying what, no doubt, countless others were thinking.

I don't think it's rude at all. It's an honest evaluation of the situation at hand. And perhaps it will be a reason for the other parents to reconsider their behavior the next time they allow their children to use a crowded store as their personal playground.


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

Good for him, my Dh would of said the same thing.

He did confront a parent yesterday at a indoor play area, the child was very visibly ill, bloody snot everywhere, glassy eyes, then she started puking everywhere, all over the slide, all the floor, And the mom just sat there, ignoring her child, pretending that nothing had happened.


----------



## nonnymoose (Mar 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Then who's job is it to keep him safe? Who's job is it to keep him from hurting an elderly woman who never saw him coming? I hope you tie bells to him so people know he's running wild.

Ditto this. Keeping some sort of handle on my sons' behavior is my JOB. Suggesting that doing so is demeaning their humanity is mighty pompous.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I don't care for the word "control" but switch it with "adequately supervise" maybe.









: - and it's not so much about controlling your kid, as being considerate of others around you - I think THAT'S the issue. I'm not hip on "controlling" my kids, but I'll be damned if they are going to be running around bothering other people out in public. If they need to run around and be crazy, we'll go home or to a playground, even if it's inconvenient for me at that time. There's a time and place for everything, and the exit area at Costco is neither the time nor the place.

I know that maybe it's semantics, but honestly when it comes to kids it's amazing what a subtle turn of a phrase and rephrasing things more positively can do.


----------



## Tinker (Mar 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rmzbm* 
Good for your DH! And the dad really said F-U?! GREAT example there!









Considering the source, are you really surprised?


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AidynElyMama* 
I still say good for him, rude or not. Maybe it will make the parents think next time.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I don't care for the word "control" but switch it with "adequately supervise" maybe.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 







: - and it's not so much about controlling your kid, as being considerate of others around you - I think THAT'S the issue. I'm not hip on "controlling" my kids, but I'll be damned if they are going to be running around bothering other people out in public. If they need to run around and be crazy, we'll go home or to a playground, even if it's inconvenient for me at that time. There's a time and place for everything, and the exit area at Costco is neither the time nor the place.

I know that maybe it's semantics, but honestly when it comes to kids it's amazing what a subtle turn of a phrase and rephrasing things more positively can do.

I agree with this. Granted, many of us have the common sense to simply say, "the kids are done sitting still, better pack up the rest of our lunch to take home and go before someone gets hurt." But that afternoon, the parents in the OP's story did not.

I get the feeling the comment the OP's DH made was more for the benefit of the man being berated for clipping the kid with his cart. Which was unfair of the parents to do. But I may have said something to the man like, "Oh it's not your fault they're little how could you see them?" and if in earshot of the parents I could turn to them and say, "Is he going to be okay? Poor little guy really needed to run off some energy. Too bad there are all these big carts around where he can't safely do that, huh?"


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

If you choose to let your children play in a cart traffic lane, that's your perogative and more power to you. However, if you CHOOSE to not supervise them or redirect them and they get run over--then you have no place to criticize the cart driver.

When you choose to yell at the person who had an accident because you didn't feel it was a big deal for your child to play in the moving lanes, then to be blunt, then you've just opened yourself up for rudeness. Natural consequences, and all that.

Maybe the kid will learn to keep more of an eye out for moving carts. Not a bad lesson, all things considered.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

That's really a nice way of putting it, Artgoddess, but, sadly, I doubt that people who are so negligent with their children in the first place would have appreciated your nuanced response or concern.

People seem to either be responsive, sensitive and considerate.... or they just *aren't.* These folk sound like they just aren't.

It's really disappointing.

I can agree to the word issue, the way we speak is important.

If I ever get into that situation with my own children or with someone who's letting his or her own children run wild in inappropriate places, I will gladly use "adequately supervise" rather than "control."

Trin.

Edited to add:

Quote:

Maybe the kid will learn to keep more of an eye out for moving carts. Not a bad lesson, all things considered.
Exactly. "Considering" that the parents in this case don't want to look out for their children, then I guess the bright side is the children might learn in their own, hard, way.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
I get the feeling the comment the OP's DH made was more for the benefit of the man being berated for clipping the kid with his cart. Which was unfair of the parents to do. But I may have said something to the man like, "Oh it's not your fault they're little how could you see them?" and if in earshot of the parents I could turn to them and say, "Is he going to be okay? Poor little guy really needed to run off some energy. Too bad there are all these big carts around where he can't safely do that, huh?"


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty* 
That's really a nice way of putting it, Artgoddess, but, sadly, I doubt that people who are so negligent with their children in the first place would have appreciated your nuanced response or concern.

People seem to either be responsive, sensitive and considerate.... or they just *aren't.* These folk sound like they just aren't.

It's really disappointing.

See I would and have handled situations like artgoddess and I've never had anything but a thank you back. I think if you have the idea that people are responsive, sensitive and considerate...or they just aren't you're more likely to meet only those two poles. But in my experience if you move through life with the idea that people are just doing what they can each particular moment than I find people aren't one of the other often they're both and neither. Sometimes they're just tired, stressed, in a crisis...whatever and that's the moment I've caught them in. That's all. And when I step in without judgment I'm responded to without judgment. It's amazing how it can turn an interaction around. In the OP's example if I had commented the way her husband did I would have done nothing to improve anything for my trouble and only caused myself frustration while furthering the bad energy surrounding the incident. I would have stepped in in the same way artgoddess suggested or not at all.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Then who's job is it to keep him safe? Who's job is it to keep him from hurting an elderly woman who never saw him coming? I hope you tie bells to him so people know he's running wild.

I don't need to control him to keep him safe I remind him of the hazards around him and then he decides if he'd rather head home, the park, slow down, but still walk ahead, walk with me etc. I don't control him anymore than he or his dad control me. We're a family not the army. He's 7 now an long past his toddler days of running in grocery stores but in all that time he never injured someone or himself so I think we did OK. It was just approached respectfully.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
I don't need to control him to keep him safe I remind him of the hazards around him and then he decides if he'd rather head home, the park, slow down, but still walk ahead, walk with me etc. I don't control him anymore than he or his dad control me.

But as the OP said, the adults in this situation were not even doing that with their two very young children. If they had been, even if an accident occured, the setup for "rudeness" most likely would not have occured. The parents wouldn't be feeling the rush of guilt and anger that probably instigated the dad's yelling/solely blaming the man pushing the cart, and others would have less of a leg to stand on as far as being distressed/dismayed at the *total* lack of supervision or care directed at the kids in the first place.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
I don't need to control him to keep him safe I remind him of the hazards around him and then he decides if he'd rather head home, the park, slow down, but still walk ahead, walk with me etc. I don't control him anymore than he or his dad control me. We're a family not the army. .

So, if Mom or Dad had said "You might get hurt". That would have been good enough, then the boys could make the choice based on "you might get hurt" and if they chose to keep doing that, it is still O.K, because they know the risks involved. When the child gets hurt, he already knew the risks, so it's a live and learn situation?

I was watching some show on Spike TV the other day and they were showing videos of boys who were riding skateboards down hand rails of tall concrete stairways. Then of course the boys fell. All were injured, some just broke an ankle or arm, but a few had serious head injuries. (I have no idea WHY they show this on Spike TV)

But, what I am getting at, is if your son were going to ride a skateboard down a stairway with a 20 foot drop on the other side, is it NOT o.k for someone to control your son and stop him? Or should that be the choice of a 14 year old boy to make on his own?


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
My husband said "Or you could control your kids". <--couldn't believe he said that.

I would have cringed too if DH said that. And later, would have asked him to next time, if we are ever placed in that type of situation, please keep the comment to yourself or wait until we get inside the car and vent *to me* if you have to.

Whether it's rude or not, what you don't want to happen is to further aggravate the scene than it already it is (the man saying F You).

Unless you are ready to deal with a potential (uglier) confrontation (you just never know with flaring tempers) OR that could result in both families (including your's) asked to leave Costco's.

In this case, I would have let Management or an Associate handle it and inwardly sigh with relief.

Just my personal opinion.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmommy* 
I would have cringed too if DH said that. And later, would have asked him to next time, if we are ever placed in that type of situation, please keep the comment to yourself or wait until we get inside the car and vent *to me* if you have to.

Whether it's rude or not, what you don't want to happen is to further aggravate the scene than it already it is (the man saying F You).

Unless you are ready to deal with a potential (uglier) confrontation (you just never know with flaring tempers) OR that could result in both families (including your's) asked to leave Costco's.

In this case, I would have let Management or an Associate handle it and inwardly sigh with relief.

Just my personal opinion.


THAT is exactly my opinion too. He doesn't "get it" though. He's the guy driving down the freeway yelling at the other drivers who can't even hear him. Driving anywhere with him is stressful.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
But, what I am getting at, is if your son were going to ride a skateboard down a stairway with a 20 foot drop on the other side, is it NOT o.k for someone to control your son and stop him? Or should that be the choice of a 14 year old boy to make on his own?

Or girl. I was that girl. And I was glad it was my choice to make. I'm glad nobody controlled street greats like Natas Copus or aerial greats like Tony Hawk (who turned pro at 14) from making that choice (over and over again) because without their choices we'd never have the 900, the Stalefish, the Mctwist (the first time I saw Tony Hawk land this live I lost it - so great) etc etc. For Hawk the dozen or so concussions, fractured pelvis and skull, broken bones and endless stitches are worth it 'cause he loves what he does. He did at 7, 9, 12, 14 and on right up to now at a few months away from 40. I don't think just because he wasn't always 40 doesn't mean he shouldn't have been able to make his own choices when it came to his safety. I'm glad his parents didn't either.

Someone may want to remind my son what could happen (I do) but if he thinks the result outweighs the risk (like Tony being the first person ever to land a McTwist - to this day he can't land it everytime) then I don't want anyone stopping him. Some passions come with more risk than others - sports is one of them, and so long as other people aren't put at risk then it's a go for me.

DS running around like the children in the OP could or couldn't involve another person getting hurt so I'd have to actually be in the situation and assess it with him to answer anything like that. But skateboarding I know - I have the scars to remind me of what I did and how much I loved it.


----------



## aprildawn (Apr 1, 2004)

Well, I've been known to run off my mouth and say things like the OP's DH. I often regret it. But it just comes out before I can stop myself.

As for the word "control" - it sounds like he said it on the spur of the moment. Meaning being - "supervise your children and they might not have been hurt." I agree that the words we choose carry weight, but it's not like he had time to say it, think it over for a minute, delete it, and use another word. I think it's silly to let this thread deteriorate to a debate about the word "control." What did the OP's DH mean? Considering this is MDC, I have a pretty good feeling he meant, "supervise," and I doubt he meant, "force your children into submission."

When I see kids acting like that it's annoying to me because 1) they could get hurt, 2) they could hurt someone else, 3) it's hard for me to keep my own kids from joining in. They see other kids having a grand time, and I'm a big meanie because I won't let them run around, too. "You might get hurt," just doesn't carry much weight w/o experience of having been hurt while doing something similar behind it.

And I feel bad for the guy who ran into the kid.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Well, apparently, the parents of the small child *weren't* ok with the child making his own "choice" to get clipped by the shopping cart, as evidenced by the way they responded to the older gentleman who accidentally hit their child.

It's one thing to allow your child to do something, knowing you will accept the consequences (ie...my 18month old, despite me warning her that it will hurt if she keeps trying to drop herself off the top of the couch, does so, and, as I suspected, hurts herself (not seriously - I'm not letting her juggle swords or anything). I am willing to accept that, console her, and don't get mad at her or the couch for her, and, fine, lesson learned.). But, if I did that at a friend's house - let her climb the couch, climb over, and drop down - , and then got mad at my friend for having a couch, not having the couch against a wall, etc. that would be out of line.

Parents have to expect that if they let their child run around in a potentially injurious setting that their child could, indeed, be injured. If they're NOT okay with that, then they need to stop the actions before it leads to injury. Not get angry at the older gentleman who accidentally hit their child.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
Parents have to expect that if they let their child run around in a potentially injurious setting that their child could, indeed, be injured. If they're NOT okay with that, then they need to stop the actions before it leads to injury. Not get angry at the older gentleman who accidentally hit their child.

I agree. And who knows, maybe these parents usually feel this way but something else was up? Or maybe they don't and their response was par for the course. All I was getting at is the OP's DH's involvement did nothing to help anyone and only frustrated the situation. I was not defending the parents reaction but writing that when I see stuff like that if I'm going to insert myself into the situation it's going to be in a way that helps. It's not going to be just to vent my frustration because that's just done to make myself feel better without effecting any change. What was furthered? With a rude interjection do you really think the parents are going to be more likely to re-think their response to the accident or are they more likely to tell the OP's DH to @#!4 off?


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

We all control our children to some degree. You make choices that affect them that are not under their control - therefore, you are in control. It's just semantics.

That said, yes, it was rude of your dh to make that comment, but it seems like it was made in the context of trying to help out the elderly man who hit the kids by accident.

One time dh and I were in a bbq restaurant (very casual place, but we happened to not have our kids with us). There was a toy/play area right behind our table, and about 3 kids were sitting there very nicely playing with toys. This guy gets up to leave, and the kids are blocking his pathway, even though they are right next to the toys. The man made a very rude comment to the children (I forget exactly what he said, but something along the lines of "Are you just going to sit there or get out my way?"). Anyhow, my dh looked up at him and said "You don't need to talk to them like that, you can just go around them." It came out rather rude, and I immediately tensed waiting for the fight to break out. Instead the guy just starting yelling in general about people not supervising their kids. My dh is not the confontrational type, at all. I was shocked he said anything.

Sometimes these things just happen. I'm glad it didn't escalate in your case. And maybe they will think twice about it next time.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
I agree. And who knows, maybe these parents usually feel this way but something else was up? Or maybe they don't and their response was par for the course. All I was getting at is the OP's DH's involvement did nothing to help anyone and only frustrated the situation. I was not defending the parents reaction but writing that when I see stuff like that if I'm going to insert myself into the situation it's going to be in a way that helps. It's not going to be just to vent my frustration because that's just done to make myself feel better without effecting any change. What was furthered? With a rude interjection do you really think the parents are going to be more likely to re-think their response to the accident or are they more likely to tell the OP's DH to @#!4 off?

Well, but then maybe the OP's husband has his own stuff he's dealing with, too. So if we can wrap our compassion around the parents who weren't supervising -- but were still very rude to an elderly gentleman for not doing THEIR job of supervising, I think there should be enough compassion to cover the OP's husband, too.

Actually, I think the dh's comment might've done some good in the long run. Those parents now know that if they try to lash out and blame others when their kids get hurt, someone's likely to call them on their idiocy.

My dh had a similar experience in a store recently, where a dad made a rude comment, because he thought dh was going to bump into his child (the child wasn't watching where he was going). Dh felt rather offended, since he'd made a special effort to avoid the absent-minded child, and didn't bump into him.

Dh didn't say anything back -- but rudeness like this can really set you off, you know? I think if someone present had said something to back up dh, it might've helped to off-set the effect (on dh) of the irrational rudeness of the parent who apparently saw no reason to exhort his child to pay more attention to his surroundings.

I'm not saying he had to "control" his child -- but if your child's wandering around in a crowded place with his mind elsewhere, why would you be stupidly commenting that another shopper "needs to watch where he's going?" Why not just provide your child with the following information: "If you want to hang out in another world, that's cool -- but you might bump into somebody or something in _this_ world, and get hurt. Are you cool with that, son?"


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty* 
That's really a nice way of putting it, Artgoddess, but, sadly, I doubt that people who are so negligent with their children in the first place would have appreciated your nuanced response or concern.

People seem to either be responsive, sensitive and considerate.... or they just *aren't.* These folk sound like they just aren't.

It's really disappointing.

They may not be responsive in a positive way. Who knows. But I would not feel right about myself if I wasn't polite in the interaction.


----------



## MichelleS (May 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Dad said "F*** you"

And the man was just worried about the boy, but as he left, he rolled his eyes and shook his head.

Classy. I just love enlightened parents like this!


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
I
When you choose to yell at the person who had an accident because you didn't feel it was a big deal for your child to play in the moving lanes, then to be blunt, then you've just opened yourself up for rudeness. Natural consequences, and all that.


----------



## pigpokey (Feb 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
But, what I am getting at, is if your son were going to ride a skateboard down a stairway with a 20 foot drop on the other side, is it NOT o.k for someone to control your son and stop him? Or should that be the choice of a 14 year old boy to make on his own?

My prediction is that because I let my nearly 3 year old try things that other people wouldn't, that by the time he tries to do anything with the realistic chance of serious injury, he will (1) appreciate it fully and (2) have done the work beforehand to minimize that chance -- worked up to it, as all good athletes do.

I cannot imagine myself blaming the man with the shopping cart. I would have been tripping over myself telling the man it was not his fault.

I am frequently telling my son that it is not his fault that he is too short to be seen. He will grow out of it. Until then he needs to take some precautions.


----------



## Kessed (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
Or girl. I was that girl. And I was glad it was my choice to make. I'm glad nobody controlled street greats like Natas Copus or aerial greats like Tony Hawk (who turned pro at 14) from making that choice (over and over again) because without their choices we'd never have the 900, the Stalefish, the Mctwist (the first time I saw Tony Hawk land this live I lost it - so great) etc etc. For Hawk the dozen or so concussions, fractured pelvis and skull, broken bones and endless stitches are worth it 'cause he loves what he does. He did at 7, 9, 12, 14 and on right up to now at a few months away from 40. I don't think just because he wasn't always 40 doesn't mean he shouldn't have been able to make his own choices when it came to his safety. I'm glad his parents didn't either.

But the difference is the number of parties involved. In your example, the kid on the skateboard is only going to affect themself. In the OPs story - the kid affect some innocent 3rd party - the old man.

I think it's fine to let your kids take chances. But those chances should impact other people.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
But the difference is the number of parties involved. In your example, the kid on the skateboard is only going to affect themself. In the OPs story - the kid affect some innocent 3rd party - the old man.

I think it's fine to let your kids take chances. But those chances should impact other people.

I said that in the same post. The part you quoted was in answer to a question I was asked about skateboarding and whether or not I think an adult should stop my son from doing something dangerous like rail riding with stairs on one side and a huge drop on the other and I said no.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"My prediction is that because I let my nearly 3 year old try things that other people wouldn't, that by the time he tries to do anything with the realistic chance of serious injury, he will (1) appreciate it fully and (2) have done the work beforehand to minimize that chance -- worked up to it, as all good athletes do."

I thought brain studies of children and of adolescents had established that, in fact, they are not that great at weighing risks and establishing realistic outcomes since certain parts of the brain are not yet fully developed.


----------



## loitering (Mar 27, 2006)

What your dh said is one of those things I would LOVE to say, but would never have the guts to!


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
Some passions come with more risk than others - sports is one of them, and so long as other people aren't put at risk then it's a go for me.

DS running around like the children in the OP could or couldn't involve another person getting hurt so I'd have to actually be in the situation and assess it with him to answer anything like that.

But again, the problem is that the parents in this situation, for whatever reason, were NOT being conscientious of their children endangering other people who were just trying to leave the store. I maintain that is the single issue here - that the parents weren't attending their children. Granted, the OP's DH's statement was blunt and not something I'd personally say, but I don't think enough people stand up against rudeness and inconsideration these days, I wish more people would speak out when things like this happen...it's difficult to think off the top of your head sometimes to come up with the right words to say. I think his intent was right on, and I wish more people would be involved with interactions like this. I think this is part of the problem, we're so in the "don't tell me what to do!" frame of mind in our society, that nobody wants to get involved in situations anymore.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Why not just provide your child with the following information: "If you want to hang out in another world, that's cool -- but you might bump into somebody or something in _this_ world, and get hurt. Are you cool with that, son?"

Actually, I have to take issue with this, too, because it could be that absentminded wandering or running around could actually hurt *another* person (trying to avoid the kid, trying to stop their cart from completely running the child over, etc.) so it's not just the _child_ potentially getting hurt, it's others around them having to "watch out" for the child instead of the child being taken to a more appropriate place to burn off their energy. Believe me, I get that it's not always convenient - I've had the 3-1/2-yr-old who just doesn't want to stay by the cart, and doesn't want to ride in it too...I've had the 16-month-old have the ear-piercing screaming fit in the middle of the frozen food section - and I've left a cart full of stuff instead of putting him and other people in peril or extreme discomfort...my golden rule has been and will always be, "My right to be out in public having fun/doing my errands ends where it negatively impacts yours", and that extends to my kids, as well....but in my experience, a majority of people don't think that way anymore, consideration for others seems to be something that is not valued as much in our society (obviously there are still people out there who are considerate, but I've seen more people like the rude, inattentive parents in the OP than considerate ones.)


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

for those of you who are getting hung up on "control" - would it make a difference if her husband had said "how about you parent your babies?" or "how about you get up off you lazy butt and protect your babies" or "how about you keep your babies out of peoples way"


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Why not just provide your child with the following information: "If you want to hang out in another world, that's cool -- but you might bump into somebody or something in _this_ world, and get hurt. Are you cool with that, son?"

My kid falls down, he gets up and brushes himself off.

My kid runs into his grandmother who just had a hip replacement? He knocks her down and potentially injures her badly or causes her healing hip to get knocked out of joint - an excruciatingly painful thingn.

"are you cool with that" just doesn't cover that.

My kid is one of those kids who is just not very aware of his body's placement in space, and he needs reminders, regularly, to be aware of where he's going. And I have had to reach out, many times, and put a hand on his shoulder to prevent him from running into someone, knocking over a small child or older person, or knocking over store displays.

I don't consider this some kind of non-gentle parenting, even though I choose to physically control his trajectory in space. He doesn't want to hurt someone else, and he is not really capbable, even at 7, of *getting* that a fall that is just no big deal to *him* could be life-changing to the little old woman in the Target parking lot.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

ITA with your DH.


----------



## AidynElyMama (Dec 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
Actually, I have to take issue with this, too, because it could be that absentminded wandering or running around could actually hurt *another* person (trying to avoid the kid, trying to stop their cart from completely running the child over, etc.) so it's not just the _child_ potentially getting hurt, it's others around them having to "watch out" for the child instead of the child being taken to a more appropriate place to burn off their energy. Believe me, I get that it's not always convenient - I've had the 3-1/2-yr-old who just doesn't want to stay by the cart, and doesn't want to ride in it too...I've had the 16-month-old have the ear-piercing screaming fit in the middle of the frozen food section - and I've left a cart full of stuff instead of putting him and other people in peril or extreme discomfort...my golden rule has been and will always be, "My right to be out in public having fun/doing my errands ends where it negatively impacts yours", and that extends to my kids, as well....but in my experience, a majority of people don't think that way anymore, consideration for others seems to be something that is not valued as much in our society (obviously there are still people out there who are considerate, but I've seen more people like the rude, inattentive parents in the OP than considerate ones.)

















Exactly.

Had those parents in the OP not blamed an innocent old man for the actions of their son, I'm sure that OP's DH wouldn't have said anything. I still think those parents needed a wake up call.

When my kids are screaming, squirrelling, whatever and others are going to be annoyed or bothered or caught up in a situation similiar to the OP, I remove myself. It isn't always convenient, it isn't always easy, but I feel it's my responsibility. That's why I shop early in the morning at the grocery store, there are fewer people and less of a chance I will be put in a situation of this kind. In some instances, like on an airplane, it's not feasible, but I think people expect kids to act up in those situations and deal with it. I don't think the same applys for people trying to get their heavily loaded carts out the door at Costco. Bottom line, these parents were not respecting the rights of others or properly managing their children, and that gives others involved who are being negatively affected the right to speak up. The old man probably had no idea what was even going on, and I applaud OPs DH for speaking up and telling it like it was.

In this situation, I don't think it's about taking risks, it's about respecting the rights of others around you. I agree that children should be allowed to take risks (to a point) because they will be learning experience. I allow my son to do things that I may not want him to because I know that when he has a negative experience, he'll remember it the next time, a time when I may not be there to supervise. However, that right ends when others are involved, for example, if we are alone at a park, I may let him climb backwards up a slide, swing a different way on a swing, etc, but if that same park were busy, I wouldn't let him climb up the slide backwards for fear another child would slide down and they would both get hurt. Furthermore, should that happen due to my lack of supervision, I wouldn't yell at the other child, "why didn't you watch where you were going?", I would tell my child to apologize for using the slide in an innapropriate manner and causing the crash. How will my children ever learn to respect others if they don't see a good example of it from me?


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

This is an interesting post for me, because my youngest two boys are extremely physically active and precocious. I have been dealing with the ramifications of their mobility since they were walking at 8 and 9 months old (they're 4 and 2 now). They each climbed and ran by 10-11 months. The point: my ability to "control" their activity is next to nil -- I have to direct them, know their limits, and let them do things that other people would never let their children do.

That said, they are NEVER allowed to wantonly endanger other people. Once they get to the point where sitting down and waiting isn't cutting it for them, then we try to occupy them in other ways or we leave if necessary (unless there is an appropriate outlet available to them). There is a time and place for everything, and a busy shopping area isn't the place for 2 year olds to run off steam.

While I don't have a problem with the comment made by the OP's Dh under the circumstances, I can't say that I want more people to "speak up". It seems like people are always willing to speak up and put my children (and others) in their "place", or to parent them when they think I'm not. I can't tell you how many times I've been in my own home and my children are climbing on the porch rails or the counters or whatever, and some random stranger (the mailman or the cable guy or whoever) tells them to get down because they'll get hurt. Then *I* get the look that says that I should be "controlling" them. It doesn't happen that much in public or in other people's houses because a) Dh and I take great pains to teach them to respect other people and their property, as well as to secure their own safety b) we try not to push them past their limits and c) we head them off at the pass whenever possible. But, at home and in certain structured areas, I know their physical abilities and limitations (and they do, too, as well as possible at their age), and I have to respect their need to do things that children their age often don't.

The last time that someone said something to me in public, it was an employee at Target who decided to block my way because my 4 year old had crawled onto the bottom rack of my cart while I was loading it at the checkout. I noticed that he was down there as I started to push it, and decided to let him stay until I could get to the side wall opposite the carts (about 10 -20 feet), out of the way of other shoppers. The guy says "Uh, that's not safe. Uh, he could..." "Yes, thank you, I know. We're going to that wall over there..." "Uh, no, that's not safe, uh..." "We're going to the wall, out of everyone's way" "That's not safe, you can't let him do that..." "I know my own son, excuse me, please"... At which point, he finally moved out of the way so that I could cross the dangerous 10 feet and extract my son from the bottom of the cart. In the meantime, I had turned bright red, was extremely embarrassed by my inability to speak and by the fact that he wouldn't allow me through, and so forth. I was trying not to think about all of the children who had been in truly unsafe situations in that very store while I was shopping.

So, I guess, if you *do* decide to speak up, please make certain that someone or something is actually in danger, and that the parents/caregivers are actually ignoring the behavior for an extended period of time (sometimes it takes me 20 seconds to realize that my child is climbing the shoe rack because I was *gasp* looking at the shoes for a second). Sometimes I think that the parents who are trying to be responsible with their kiddos become easy scapegoats for all of the parents who just don't care what their kiddos do -- we're easy because we DO care, and we DO try.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 
So, I guess, if you *do* decide to speak up, please make certain that someone or something is actually in danger, and that the parents/caregivers are actually ignoring the behavior for an extended period of time (sometimes it takes me 20 seconds to realize that my child is climbing the shoe rack because I was *gasp* looking at the shoes for a second). Sometimes I think that the parents who are trying to be responsible with their kiddos become easy scapegoats for all of the parents who just don't care what their kiddos do -- we're easy because we DO care, and we DO try.

I totally agree with this - and also want to recognize that I advocate people being direct, but as polite as possible. If you see a parent _parenting_ a child, even if it takes 20 seconds to notice something going on, that's a WAY different scenario than 3 adults sitting at a table ignoring 2 toddlers running around for several minutes. BIG difference.

From the OP:

Quote:

Within minutes, the boys had finished eating and started running around the table, then around the table and out into the exiting traffic. There were litterally hundreds of people pushing large, full carts of stuff through the isle to leave the store. These two tiny kids kept having near misses, because they were too small to see over the parents head to see the carts, and too small to be seen. The three adults never even said "come here", or "walk", or anything. They just went on eating and talking.

After about seven or so trips out into the traffic
Waaaaaaay different than you seeing your kid on the bottom of your own cart and pushing it, IMO. You see your kid, you evaluate the situation - the only potential damage in the scenario is to your own son if he falls out. I understand not wanting to paint with a wide brush and have people micromanaging strangers' parenting. I think there's a major difference between situations, and the OP situation was definitely one where there was potential for harm not only to the children, but to others as well.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AidynElyMama* 
Had those parents in the OP not blamed an innocent old man for the actions of their son, I'm sure that OP's DH wouldn't have said anything. I still think those parents needed a wake up call.

When my kids are screaming, squirrelling, whatever and others are going to be annoyed or bothered or caught up in a situation similiar to the OP, I remove myself. It isn't always convenient, it isn't always easy, but I feel it's my responsibility. That's why I shop early in the morning at the grocery store, there are fewer people and less of a chance I will be put in a situation of this kind. In some instances, like on an airplane, it's not feasible, but I think people expect kids to act up in those situations and deal with it. I don't think the same applys for people trying to get their heavily loaded carts out the door at Costco. Bottom line, these parents were not respecting the rights of others or properly managing their children, and that gives others involved who are being negatively affected the right to speak up. The old man probably had no idea what was even going on, and I applaud OPs DH for speaking up and telling it like it was.

In this situation, I don't think it's about taking risks, it's about respecting the rights of others around you. I agree that children should be allowed to take risks (to a point) because they will be learning experience. I allow my son to do things that I may not want him to because I know that when he has a negative experience, he'll remember it the next time, a time when I may not be there to supervise. However, that right ends when others are involved, for example, if we are alone at a park, I may let him climb backwards up a slide, swing a different way on a swing, etc, but if that same park were busy, I wouldn't let him climb up the slide backwards for fear another child would slide down and they would both get hurt. Furthermore, should that happen due to my lack of supervision, I wouldn't yell at the other child, "why didn't you watch where you were going?", I would tell my child to apologize for using the slide in an innapropriate manner and causing the crash. How will my children ever learn to respect others if they don't see a good example of it from me?

ITA. The kids in this situation (and that of the woman in the coffee shop) are not only in danger, but perhaps most importantly, are learning horrible habits of how to act around and how to treat others. Their parents' reaction was truly awful.

In general, I think our society has a terribly intolerance for children, and their need to act like children. However, it is parents like those in the op that give people the fuel/justification to be intolerant of all children who are being heard instead of being seen.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I totally agree with this - and also want to recognize that I advocate people being direct, but as polite as possible. If you see a parent _parenting_ a child, even if it takes 20 seconds to notice something going on, that's a WAY different scenario than 3 adults sitting at a table ignoring 2 toddlers running around for several minutes. BIG difference.

From the OP:

Waaaaaaay different than you seeing your kid on the bottom of your own cart and pushing it, IMO. You see your kid, you evaluate the situation - the only potential damage in the scenario is to your own son if he falls out. I understand not wanting to paint with a wide brush and have people micromanaging strangers' parenting. I think there's a major difference between situations, and the OP situation was definitely one where there was potential for harm not only to the children, but to others as well.

Oh, ITA w/you -- I was just reacting to some of the calls for more people to speak up. I'm totally fine with someone saying something when the situation warrants it (as it does in the op and w/the woman in the coffee shop), but I distrust most people's ability to make that call.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 
ITA. The kids in this situation (and that of the woman in the coffee shop) are not only in danger, but perhaps most importantly, are learning horrible habits of how to act around and how to treat others. Their parents' reaction was truly awful.

As was the OP's DH's. If I was the OP I would be asking him to talk with our DS about how reacting that way is not something we want him learning from us. And had DS and I been passing when the whole thing went down I'd be talking to him about how the parents and the Op's Dh were both wrong and we'd be brainstorming ways to handle situations like that without aggressive language and tones. There are so many ways to respectfully handle situations like that if you feel the need to jump in. I really don't see any difference between the parents' FU and the DH's call to control the kids - they were both rude and angry and uncalled for.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
As was the OP's DH's. If I was the OP I would be asking him to talk with our DS about how reacting that way is not something we want him learning from us. And had DS and I been passing when the whole thing went down I'd be talking to him about how the parents and the Op's Dh were both wrong and we'd be brainstorming ways to handle situations like that without aggressive language and tones. There are so many ways to respectfully handle situations like that if you feel the need to jump in. I really don't see any difference between the parents' FU and the DH's call to control the kids - they were both rude and angry and uncalled for.

I do agree -- we don't always say the right things at the right time, which is one reason I tend not to say anything unless I'm sure that it's actually going to do some good. I can't fault the OP's Dh for speaking up, under the circumstances, but I doubt that it really did anyone any good. These sorts of comments are usually self-indulgent, in that they make the speaker and those around him/her feel better for confronting the person, but they have little practical value.

Hindsight is always better and all that, but the time to speak up was probably *before* the kids actually got hit with the cart, since it was obvious that someone was going to get hurt eventually, and equally obvious that the parents weren't going to do anything to prevent it without some prompting. After the fact, it was probably better to say something directly to the injured party (the older man).


----------



## swellmomma (Jan 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 
While I don't have a problem with the comment made by the OP's Dh under the circumstances, I can't say that I want more people to "speak up". It seems like people are always willing to speak up and put my children (and others) in their "place", or to parent them when they think I'm not. I can't tell you how many times I've been in my own home and my children are climbing on the porch rails or the counters or whatever, and some random stranger (the mailman or the cable guy or whoever) tells them to get down because they'll get hurt. Then *I* get the look that says that I should be "controlling" them. It doesn't happen that much in public or in other people's houses because a) Dh and I take great pains to teach them to respect other people and their property, as well as to secure their own safety b) we try not to push them past their limits and c) we head them off at the pass whenever possible. But, at home and in certain structured areas, I know their physical abilities and limitations (and they do, too, as well as possible at their age), and I have to respect their need to do things that children their age often don't.


I hear you on this. We have a few busy boday neighbors who are forever telling my kids to stop doing something(climbing trees for exmple, or helping the neighbor ont eh roof of hte shed) and then add to that "you mom should be watching you better". My 9 year old has now taken to telling the one neighbor where she can shove it, not something I condone but I understand where he is coming from.

As for the situation at hand. I have thought those smae thoughts as the OP's dh, I jsut don't voice them loudly, though I have said things to my kids, like "That is why I have tou stay with me, or not do ___". I have a hard enough time keeping track of my own 4 kids I don't need to be worrying about what other people are letting their kids do. If you let your kid run around in an area where they could get clipped by a cart, don't get mad when it happens. I am too busy trying to stear my cart while keeping my own kids safe a zoo like that, I am not watching for little johnny with the inattentive parents to come darting out.

I'm all for givng children freedom to move and explore but their is a time and place for everything. I do not make my children stay right by my side in the store, heck when my ds was angry the other day at walmart while I was waiting to get fabric cut I let him go a few aisles down on his own to look at stuff while he calmed down. However, I do not allow them to run lile wild animals all over the store, if they are running around they must hold the cart. Freedom is given when they can be mindful of others, and be aware of the surroundings. When Dd wanted to walk through walmart playing her Nintendo DS I said okay BUT I had to hold her collar while we walked to guide her around people and obstacles. These parents did not give their children freedom while supervising, they just turned them loose without a second thought.

I had someone step in at the walmart I was at as we were leaving to give her2 cents to my kids. See as I was paying they were checking out the sale stuff that they put out across from the tills. I could see them, and if they started fighting I brought them back to me. THey weren't being bad at all, but certainly not perfect. Anyway after paying, and then getting coats on a zippered, getting my 4 year old back in the cart and giving reminders of parking lot safety(by this point it was dark), this woman who had been behind me in line comes up and asks the kids "who just came to your house the other day" My kids say no one, we weren't home(we did xmas at grandma's). SHe says "didn't santa come? why did he come" Ceilidh says Because she loves us (they know the truth about santa) so the lady looks puzzled at dd saying SHE, and proceeds to say "If you keep being bad like wee were today Santa is never bringingyou anything again". My 9 year old says "I wouldn't worry about that", DD looks at little brother (who still believes) then up at me and says "do you want to tell her or should I" The lady was so confused and then started to think I had mouthy kids. I jsut shook my head and kept walking. I was tempted to put her in her place but decided to teach my kids it is better to let them look the fool for opening their mouth by us just walking away. DD asked later if someone forgot to tell the lady Santa wasn't real.

ANyway the point of the story is the last thing we need is more interference from people who think they know how someone else's children should behave. The only time I step in is if a child is clearly in danger, for example I once took a 2 year old off a store ladder that looks close to toppling(it was not fully set up), and brought him back to his mom. I didn't jkudge her, just said "they get away so fast don't they, it looked like the ladder he was one was going to fall" and walked away. WHen you approach a parent without judgement and without telling them or thier kids to behave in a certian manner they typically offer a thank you not get offended.


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 

*Dad said "F*** you"*



Wow. What intelligence.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

A risk you take when you inject yourself into stranger's lives is that they might tell you to f off.

Sounds like your husband is comfortable with this trade-off, but you are not. Perhaps a conversation with your husband is in order if his behavior is uncomfortable for you.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'm not saying he had to "control" his child -- but if your child's wandering around in a crowded place with his mind elsewhere, why would you be stupidly commenting that another shopper "needs to watch where he's going?" Why not just provide your child with the following information: "If you want to hang out in another world, that's cool -- but you might bump into somebody or something in _this_ world, and get hurt. Are you cool with that, son?"

I totally agree with the posters who called me on the above comment, and pointed out that being absentminded can hurt other people, too. I was actually being sarcastic when I said that; it's honestly not what I'd say to my own children.

I was just irritated that the dad I talked about was so rude to my dh: he seemed to think it was up to everyone else to keep an eye on his ds and keep out of his way -- similar to the way the young parents in the opening post blamed the elderly gentleman for their son getting hurt.

In reality, I don't expect my small children to always be aware of every possible way their actions can have an impact on themselves or others. It's MY job to be supervising, and intervening if they're doing something that can cause harm.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 

In reality, I don't expect my small children to always be aware of every possible way their actions can have an impact on themselves or others. It's MY job to be supervising, and intervening if they're doing something that can cause harm.

Yep!

A sweet story: My children and I were navigating our way through a busy aisle last weekend, when a teenage boy (also navigating a cart) and my oldest (7) collided (neither was doing anything other than trying to get through) -- they simultaneously turned to each other and said, "Oh! Excuse me!!" and "No, that's all right!"... Obviously, my parental services were not needed in that situation!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I agree with those who said it would have been better for the OP's husband to simply say something kind to the elderly gentleman, rather than directly confronting the parents. But I also agree that it's hard to think these things through on the spur-of-the-moment.

If you see someone being mistreated, and feel compelled to speak up in the victim's defense, I think your good intentions will usually outweigh your inability to think of the exact perfect thing to say.

Ultimately, I believe the dh's response MAY very well have been encouraging to the elderly gentleman, since the unsupervising dad was so very very rude.

I disagree with those who said the OP's dh was rude to say what he said -- mainly because he wasn't just going up and injecting himself into a stranger's life: the rude dad had just injected himself into the elderly gentleman's life, and the OP's dh was speaking up in the elderly gentleman's defense.

If the parents had been conscientious enough to simply comfort their son, and had left the elderly gentleman alone as he proceeded to his car, totally unaware that a child had been clipped by his cart -- well, then, in that case it would've been rude for the OP's dh to inject himself into those other parents' lives.

But, as we know, they decided to inject themselves, possibly to the extent of really messing up an elderly man's day. It was caring, not rude, of the OP's husband to say what he did in that context.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Agreed, Mammalmamma.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Obviously the way the parent of the twins responded was very rude and not very classy.

But, wouldn't it be nice if we actually lived in a culture where watching out for children was... well, EVERYONE'S responsibility?

How hard is it, really, to keep an eye out for young'uns? Don't we do it all of the time? I sometimes don't have my DS with me while shopping, but I ALWAYS look out for where I'm going and make sure that stray kids do have a parent somewhere keeping an eye on them.

I thought it took a village... and here we are blaming parents because they do it *all* on their own. I mean if it takes a village - doesn't it take a village? Isn't that kinda what it means?

I've noticed that people from more child-friendly (seeming) cultures, few though they are (the cultures that are child friendly that is), they just don't mind kids running around as much.

Just being devil's advocate...


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I personally find saying something nice to one person *as a way to say something rude to another person* to be very passive aggressive. I'm not saying this is what you would be doing mammalmama, but I know it is what I would be doing.







So I go for the direct, albeit rude, approach.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I personally find saying something nice to one person *as a way to say something rude to another person* to be very passive aggressive. I'm not saying this is what you would be doing mammalmama, but I know it is what I would be doing.







So I go for the direct, albeit rude, approach.

Oh, definitely! If you're wanting to say something to the rude person, you should definitely direct your comment to HIM, rather than being passive-aggressive. It wasn't accurate for me to say that it would have been better to just speak to the elderly gentleman.

As I said in a previous post, I think it's possible that the rude dad will now be less likely to think he can attack elderly people for clipping his kids with their carts. The elderly man may have seemed like a "safe" target for his aggression -- but the OP's dh has now demonstrated that some (younger, stronger) people are not okay with this.

So I actually disagree with the posters who are sure that the OP's dh did absolutely nothing to help the situation.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 
Obviously the way the parent of the twins responded was very rude and not very classy.

But, wouldn't it be nice if we actually lived in a culture where watching out for children was... well, EVERYONE'S responsibility?

How hard is it, really, to keep an eye out for young'uns? Don't we do it all of the time? I sometimes don't have my DS with me while shopping, but I ALWAYS look out for where I'm going and make sure that stray kids do have a parent somewhere keeping an eye on them.

I thought it took a village... and here we are blaming parents because they do it *all* on their own. I mean if it takes a village - doesn't it take a village? Isn't that kinda what it means?

I've noticed that people from more child-friendly (seeming) cultures, few though they are (the cultures that are child friendly that is), they just don't mind kids running around as much.

Just being devil's advocate...

But aren't these child-friendly cultures also rich in respect for the elderly? Can you imagine someone in one of these cultures attacking an elderly person for accidentally clipping a child with his shopping-cart?

Of course, in these cultures, maybe elderly people only go out surrounded by all their extended-family members. So someone else would be pushing their cart for them, anyway.

Just playing devil's advocate.







But yes, I agree that the scenario you shared would be very nice.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Well, when I say that after the fact it would have been better to say something directly to the older man, I meant to him and him alone -- not out loud. I agree with thismama in that saying something nice to one person can often be a passive-aggressive way to be rude to someone else -- my mom does it all of the time, and I'm prone to doing it, as well.









I do think, though, that one rude action does not warrant another, and that while speaking up in such a way may temporarily make everyone feel better, in the long run it does a big disservice to the society and to the children watching. It's a verbal punishment, and often sparks a contest of wills, hence the "F-you". Instead of making the parents realize what they were doing wrong, it put them on the defensive, and made them feel justified in thinking they were the victims. They didn't go home thinking, "Wow, we treated that old man poorly, and we need to keep a better eye on the kids." They went home thinking, "Can you believe that old man hit our kid, and that stranger had the gall to say something about it? Well, *I* told *him* what he could do..."
As for the old man, well, he probably just felt bad about the whole incident, and went home grumbling about kids today.

However, as I said before, I think that the OP's dh's heart was in the right place, and I agree that it's very hard to come up with the "right" words on the spur of the moment.

I also agree that many of these situations could be avoided if our society were more child friendly AND more respectful of the elderly.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

re: speaking up, I'm not necessarily talking about taking people to task for their parenting skills, I think I'm talking more about speaking up against people being treated really rudely. The elderly man was treated incredibly rudely by the parents in the OP...and the OP's DH, as someone else said, was in a roundabout way defending him - though probably not in the most idyllic way.

I guess I just think if enough people would stand up against being unnecessarily rude to each other and (gently) call people out for being unnecessarily rude to others, maybe things would be a little more polite and friendly out and about i npublc instead of what I've seen. Or maybe it wouls start more fistfights. I dunno, maybe I'm just naive, or some other Pollyanna-type thing.

Sigh.

ETA: Or maybe I'd like to see more people gently calling others out when they are rude to them. Like, I would have *loved* to see the elderly man in the OP say something in a calm, polite manner, like, "There's no need to speak to me that way. It was an accident, it's difficult to see small children over these big carts, especially when they're running and not accompanied by an adult. I'm glad neither of us were seriously injured." KWIM?


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AidynElyMama* 
When my kids are screaming, squirrelling, whatever and others are going to be annoyed or bothered or caught up in a situation similiar to the OP, I remove myself. It isn't always convenient, it isn't always easy, but I feel it's my responsibility.

I don't view it as my job to make sure others aren't annoyed by my children. Now, I don't let my kids touch other people or anything like that, but if they annoy someone because they're talking loudly or laughing (yes, people get annoyed by this), then that's too bad. There are plenty of adults who do things that annoy me, but I don't ask them to come to the store at a less convenient time because of it.

Here's an example: I went into the post office with DS who was maybe 18 months at the time. He ran down the middle of the aisle where the PO boxes are. A woman was getting mail from her box. DS wasn't within 5 feet of her. She didn't have to move over, watch out for him, or anything. She turned around and said, "you need to go back by your mother now."

So, yep, I responded and said, "and you need to mind your own business and think about being nicer."

She huffed and walked off.

Was I rude to her? Probably. Was it deserved? Yep. It wasn't her place to say anything just because she didn't like my son being in her general vicinity. People seem to think they can treat children like pets; it annoys me to no end.

I don't think there's a polite way to tell other people how to parent. I allow my children more freedom than most parents. I've seen people smack their kids for getting five feet ahead of them. Holy cow! Even if I spanked my kids, I'd be hard pressed to do it for that kind of behavior. That's absolutely terrible, so no, I would never want those people commenting on my parenting.

In the OP's case, yes, hubby was rude. He wasn't particularly helpful. It really was none of his business. But, hey, I've said things like that before, too, in the heat of the moment.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

You know she may have actually been more worried about your son running away from his mother than about your son bothering her.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
No matter who he said it it would have been rude. And it wasn't helpful. It didn't help the man or the parents diffuse anything.

Honestly?
Too bad.

People who allow their children to disregard the reasonable rules of social interaction and common sense are irresponsible. They should be informed often and bluntly (not obscenely, mind you, but bluntly) that their choice to allow their children to behave in this manner is unacceptable. That is the natural consequence of their decision.

Frankly, I doubt whether any gentle







: advice or intentionally helpful words would sink in with people such as the ones described by the OP. Gentle reminders are lost on some people and bluntness is sometimes more effective as a tool for change.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa* 
I do think it's rude. Rude to everyone involved; the kids, the parents, the OP as she cringed upon hearing her DH's interjection, and the man who felt bad and I'm sure just wanted to say sorry and get out of there without having a situation escalate.

For the record, I do not and have never controlled DS. Even when he was running ahead or wild there may have been a need to remind him to be safe but never a need to control him. Kids aren't robots or remote controlled vehicles. They don't need to be controlled.

You say "control" like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonnymoose* 
Ditto this. Keeping some sort of handle on my sons' behavior is my JOB. Suggesting that doing so is demeaning their humanity is mighty pompous.

Thank you for saying this! Might I add "Mighty absurd" as well?









As adorable as children can be, their adorableness does not imply or suggest any kind of natural moral superiority in their unvarnished, uncivilized, uncontrolled state. Like all animals -- and I include humans in this -- children need to be taught the ground rules of functioning within their society and environment.

If there were a mother wolf who refused to (for example) teach her wolf puppy how to interact with the other wolves, we would think there was something seriously screwed up with that wolf mother. We would also expect -- and reasonably so -- that the other wolves would be kicking some puppy butt reaaaaaly soon, or if that they did not, or if the puppy refused to learn, that would be one dead puppy.

It's not so different with human beings. In fact, I would argue that it's different only in that we have less fur.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
But aren't these child-friendly cultures also rich in respect for the elderly? Can you imagine someone in one of these cultures attacking an elderly person for accidentally clipping a child with his shopping-cart?

Sure... I wasn't negating any of that. Lots of things would be different if we respected older people AND children more. ITA with you.

I think there are three problems in the OP that we are all talking about on different levels:

1. The fact that the children were running around "loose"
2. The fact that the father of the children was rude to the older gentleman
3. The fact the her DH was rude to the parents of the child

So, I agree that if our culture was more respectful then #1 and #2 would both be very different.

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up because we treat older people/the elderly like CRAP in our culture. As if they're useless. It's so sad.







I'm not saying I see anyone in this thread doing that, just speaking in generalities.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
You know she may have actually been more worried about your son running away from his mother than about your son bothering her.

umm yeah . . thats what i was thinking. She was probably concerned that a baby that young could easily get hurt or separated from his mommy.

I think some people really are so defensive about their parenting (or lack there of) that they see a rude and judgmental person around every corner when what is really being expressed is love and concern. I for one would have been hapy if someone gently guided my child back to where I was.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
I don't view it as my job to make sure others aren't annoyed by my children. Now, I don't let my kids touch other people or anything like that, but if they annoy someone because they're talking loudly or laughing (yes, people get annoyed by this), then that's too bad.

<snip> Here's an example: I went into the post office with DS who was maybe 18 months at the time. He ran down the middle of the aisle where the PO boxes are. A woman was getting mail from her box. DS wasn't within 5 feet of her. She didn't have to move over, watch out for him, or anything. She turned around and said, "you need to go back by your mother now."

I have to respectfully agree with the PP who said she was probably thinking more about your son getting away from your line of sight than him annoying her. Or about maybe someone coming around a corner and bumping into him, or something. While I agree that her delivery wasn't the best, I think her intentions were good....

and this brings me back to the whole "don't tell me what to do!" mentality, that apparently really bugs me. I guess I just wished people looked out for each other a little more, didn't automatically assing bad intentions to strangers getting involved, and didn't take personal offense when someone else offered an opinion. The whole "village" thing, you know? I want to believe if people cared about other peope more, situations like these would happen less.

What if the lady said something like, "wow, you sure are fast! be sure to not get too far from your mommy!" - would that be offensive too? I can't see how that would be rude, and might be a hepful reminder to a little one.

I guess the problem is knowing the right thing to say to not offend someone..but it seems clear by this thread that many people are easily offended by any intimation of disagreement with parenting.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
I think some people really are so defensive about their parenting (or lack there of) that they see a rude and judgmental person around every corner when what is really being expressed is love and concern. I for one would have been hapy if someone gently guided my child back to where I was.









: that was what I was trying to say in one of my paragraphs above.


----------



## Organicavocado (Mar 15, 2006)

-grunt- This stuff happens to me all the time. At costco, too LOL

Last week or so I was walking for the checkout (no cart) and these two kids came out of nowhere (maybe behind me?) and cut me off. I'm cumbersome-style preggo and can't stop on a dime anymore, so kid #1 runs SMACK into my belly and trips, so I trip over his leg and somehow manage to not go down, I turn to the kid on the floor and say "Oh honey! You gotta watch out.. are you alright?" and Big Bad Daddy comes and scoops him up, glowers at me like I am Giant Child Trampler, grabs the other by the hand and stomps off with him STILL glowering at me. If I wasn't completely exhausted, I would have said something rude to him or rolled my eyes or something, but at that point I had been run into/over/around so much by kids that day (holidays ugh) that I just wanted to go home and go to bed and hide LOL

Good for the OP's husband. I really don't have a problem with the word control used in this context. We can exercise some amount of control without breaking out the handcuffs and torture devices... Supervision IS control if you are doing anything other than just staring at them blankly with no intention of doing anything... what is supervision without correction of an issue? It shouldn't have gotten to the point where the kids run into someone's cart, and it shouldn't have gotten to the point where I was being tripped up by a running child. You are responsible for your children and even if you want them to learn consequences of their actions, doing so at someone else's expense is rude and dangerous.


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Thank you for saying this! Might I add "Mighty absurd" as well?









As adorable as children can be, their adorableness does not imply or suggest any kind of natural moral superiority in their unvarnished, uncivilized, uncontrolled state. Like all animals -- and I include humans in this -- children need to be taught the ground rules of functioning within their society and environment.

If there were a mother wolf who refused to (for example) teach her wolf puppy how to interact with the other wolves, we would think there was something seriously screwed up with that wolf mother. We would also expect -- and reasonably so -- that the other wolves would be kicking some puppy butt reaaaaaly soon, or if that they did not, or if the puppy refused to learn, that would be one dead puppy.

It's not so different with human beings. In fact, I would argue that it's different only in that we have less fur.

kinda been lurking on here debating weather to post. I had to comment on this. Honestly, are you being sarcastic here? This is suprising. I totally dissagree with this. Animals, humans, we all have a continuum, and that inner want and voice is of ecceptance. Children tend to want to be a part of their society and behave in a way that is favorable to their culture. I don't think any wolf, or any other animal for that matter, has to 'teach' their youngsters to behave in a favorable manner. In fact, by constantly interjecting, and projecting to our children what is expected of them, and 'controlling' their actions, what we are really teaching them is that they are not in 'controll' of themselves. Meaning they can basically feel free to do whatever they want, because someone is there to tell them weather it is right or wrong. This isn't to say that people don't make mistakes. We do, and we learn from them. I obviously am not about to sit back and watch my child do something obserdly dangerous. However, I know she never would, because she is in controll of her own safety.

P.S- I don't think it was appropriate for the parents in the OP's story to blame anyone for their child getting hurt.


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I have to respectfully agree with the PP who said she was probably thinking more about your son getting away from your line of sight than him annoying her. Or about maybe someone coming around a corner and bumping into him, or something. While I agree that her delivery wasn't the best, I think her intentions were good....

and this brings me back to the whole "don't tell me what to do!" mentality, that apparently really bugs me. I guess I just wished people looked out for each other a little more, didn't automatically assing bad intentions to strangers getting involved, and didn't take personal offense when someone else offered an opinion. The whole "village" thing, you know? I want to believe if people cared about other peope more, situations like these would happen less.

What if the lady said something like, "wow, you sure are fast! be sure to not get too far from your mommy!" - would that be offensive too? I can't see how that would be rude, and might be a hepful reminder to a little one.

I guess the problem is knowing the right thing to say to not offend someone..but it seems clear by this thread that many people are easily offended by any intimation of disagreement with parenting.


I would not be offended if this situation happend to me, however I WOULD be irritated silently later. I don't like it when people make comments to my DD to "be carefull" or "go back to mom". It: 1) insinuates that I am not watching her. 2) projects that she is not aware of where I am 3) goes directly againts the way I am raising her.

I know it comes from a good place, wich is why I would never comment on it, but I am DD mom, I know her limits, and more importantly, SHE knows her limits.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MammaB21* 
kinda been lurking on here debating weather to post. I had to comment on this. Honestly, are you being sarcastic here? This is suprising. I totally dissagree with this. Animals, humans, we all have a continuum, and that inner want and voice is of ecceptance. Children tend to want to be a part of their society and behave in a way that is favorable to their culture. I don't think any wolf, or any other animal for that matter, has to 'teach' their youngsters to behave in a favorable manner. In fact, by constantly interjecting, and projecting to our children what is expected of them, and 'controlling' their actions, what we are really teaching them is that they are not in 'controll' of themselves. Meaning they can basically feel free to do whatever they want, because someone is there to tell them weather it is right or wrong. This isn't to say that people don't make mistakes. We do, and we learn from them. I obviously am not about to sit back and watch my child do something obserdly dangerous. However, I know she never would, because she is in controll of her own safety.

Don't you think your dd knows her limits of safety b/c you've taught her? You seem to be implying that children inherently know their limits and know how to even discover how to find acceptance without having to be taught it or modeled it or with frankly any outside input at all. I think parenting is a balance of telling your child what to do, modeling it and letting them discover themselves by making mistakes. Young children model the behavior that their parents model for them or tell them to do in a desire to continue to have their love and acceptance. Someone still has to show them or tell them what that behavior is. Standing over your child every second and dictating their every movement, I'd agree with you. But there is a wide range of parenting between that absurd extreme and the other one of letting them do whatever they want with little to no guidance.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MammaB21* 
kinda been lurking on here debating weather to post. I had to comment on this. Honestly, are you being sarcastic here?
\

No. I am just reluctant to toe the oft-repeated MDC party line that imposing reasonable, age-appropriate limits on a child, saying "no" and meaning it, or teaching one's child to have a reasonable degree of respect for other people is being a fascist.

Quote:



This is suprising. I totally dissagree with this. Animals, humans, we all have a continuum, and that inner want and voice is of ecceptance. Children tend to want to be a part of their society and behave in a way that is favorable to their culture.
For the most part, children will behave in the way they are raised by their parents, their most immediate "society."

Quote:


I don't think any wolf, or any other animal for that matter, has to 'teach' their youngsters to behave in a favorable manner.
Others who are more educated in this area than I can confirm or deny, but it is my understanding that wolves constantly reinforce (among other things) appropriate wolf behavior in the pack hierarchy. Should a growing wolf act in a way that is inappropriate for its pack position, it gets nipped -- or worse. Ultimately, the wolf learns to follow the rules of its society or it gets excluded -- or worse.

Quote:



In fact, by constantly interjecting, and projecting to our children what is expected of them, and 'controlling' their actions, what we are really teaching them is that they are not in 'controll' of themselves.
This is nothing but the truth, whether legally, physically, or ethically. Children are _not_ wholly in control of themselves, nor should they be. As children grow and mature, they can and should be given more control and more choices appropriate to their age and developing judgment, but for the most part (and especially when very young), they are not experienced personally nor vicariously enough to make all judgments for themselves. This is where the job -- as one other poster aptly put it -- of a parent comes in: to guide, to teach, or to (metaphorically, not physically) "nip" inappropriate, dangerous, or impolite behavior in the bud rather than allowing bad behavior in the name of freedom or respect. While one person may be celebrating her child's decision to run around Costco without regard for others' safety or his own as an example of untrammeled freedom and unspoiled nature, others among us are wishing less-than-generous thoughts upon that child and his or her parents -- or seeing a lawsuit waiting to happen. Genuine discipline (in the sense of teaching) is more than a job, though -- it is an obligation, a responsibility, and for most of us (I would hope), a pleasure.

Quote:

Meaning they can basically feel free to do whatever they want, because someone is there to tell them weather it is right or wrong. This isn't to say that people don't make mistakes. We do, and we learn from them. I obviously am not about to sit back and watch my child do something obserdly dangerous. However, I know she never would, because she is in controll of her own safety.

P.S- I don't think it was appropriate for the parents in the OP's story to blame anyone for their child getting hurt.
On this, we certainly agree.


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
Don't you think your dd knows her limits of safety b/c you've taught her? You seem to be implying that children inherently know their limits and know how to even discover how to find acceptance without having to be taught it or modeled it or with frankly any outside input at all. I think parenting is a balance of telling your child what to do, modeling it and letting them discover themselves by making mistakes. Young children model the behavior that their parents model for them or tell them to do in a desire to continue to have their love and acceptance. Someone still has to show them or tell them what that behavior is. Standing over your child every second and dictating their every movement, I'd agree with you. But there is a wide range of parenting between that absurd extreme and the other one of letting them do whatever they want with little to no guidance.

No I don't think she knows her limits of safety because I have tought her, because I haven't in the traditional sense of 'teaching'. I don't have to tell my DD that fire is hot, or that jumping off the couch will hurt, or that running away from me could be dangerous. This is all human nature. I agree with you about balancing parenting. I never said I didn't give DD guidance at all. I guess I don't agree that you 'have' to tell your child what is expected of them. I don't have long talks about sharing, although my not even 2 year old does it remarkably well. I don't tell her before a play date not to hit, pull hair, bite, or kick, but she is very loving and gentle to her peers.


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

"No. I am just reluctant to toe the oft-repeated MDC party line that imposing reasonable, age-appropriate limits on a child, saying "no" and meaning it, or teaching one's child to have a reasonable degree of respect for other people is being a fascist."

I am not apposed to limitations. I just think we go about 'imposing' them in different ways.

"For the most part, children will behave in the way they are raised by their parents, their most immediate "society."

I agree. This is where modeling behavior comes in. And by society, I ment her emediate 'pack' wich would be the family. I just don't agree with 'raising' her. I guide her in her path threw life. I offer my wisdome, my experiences, my help, and intervine if absolutely necessary. But it usually isn't.









"Others who are more educated in this area than I can confirm or deny, but it is my understanding that wolves constantly reinforce (among other things) appropriate wolf behavior in the pack hierarchy. Should a growing wolf act in a way that is inappropriate for its pack position, it gets nipped -- or worse. Ultimately, the wolf learns to follow the rules of its society or it gets excluded -- or worse."

From what I understand any animal within a pack will naturally model bahavior. It is not taught. Punishment, or consequence for bad behavior is diffrent than teaching good behavior. I do not let my child "run wild". There are guidelines, and those are mostly common sense among bothe her and I.

"This is nothing but the truth, whether legally, physically, or ethically. Children are _not_ wholly in control of themselves, nor should they be. As children grow and mature, they can and should be given more control and more choices appropriate to their age and developing judgment, but for the most part (and especially when very young), they are not experienced personally nor vicariously enough to make all judgments for themselves. This is where the job -- as one other poster aptly put it -- of a parent comes in: to guide, to teach, or to (metaphorically, not physically) "nip" inappropriate, dangerous, or impolite behavior in the bud rather than allowing bad behavior in the name of freedom or respect. While one person may be celebrating her child's decision to run around Costco without regard for others' safety or his own as an example of untrammeled freedom and unspoiled nature, others among us are wishing less-than-generous thoughts upon that child and his or her parents -- or seeing a lawsuit waiting to happen. Genuine discipline (in the sense of teaching) is more than a job, though -- it is an obligation, a responsibility, and for most of us (I would hope), a pleasure."

Fist of all, I don't condone bad behavior. I don't see where anyone would think that from reading my posts. What I said was that there maybe wouldn't be as much bad behavior if we had a little more trust in our childrens ability to make the right choices. I do believe that children should be in controll of themselves. At any age. I feel like I am being missunderstood. I don't agree with the parents who let their child put others in danger, I would never do that. As far as others possibly wishing 'less-then-generous' thoughts about my DD.







As long as she's not hurting anyone, I'd say too bad I guess.

"On this, we certainly agree."








Good to know we agree on something









Gotta love the debate thought, I love talking about this subject, very interesting to me. On a side note, just curious if anyone here has read The Continuum Consept.


----------



## swellmomma (Jan 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MammaB21* 
No I don't think she knows her limits of safety because I have tought her, because I haven't in the traditional sense of 'teaching'. I don't have to tell my DD that fire is hot, or that jumping off the couch will hurt, or that running away from me could be dangerous. This is all human nature. I agree with you about balancing parenting. I never said I didn't give DD guidance at all. I guess I don't agree that you 'have' to tell your child what is expected of them. I don't have long talks about sharing, although my not even 2 year old does it remarkably well. I don't tell her before a play date not to hit, pull hair, bite, or kick, but she is very loving and gentle to her peers.

I think it is great that she seems to have the type of personality that this all comes naturally too. Until my 4yr old was nearing 4 he was like that. My oldest 2 were a different scenario. They are extremely spirited children, extremely bright and virtually no impulse control. My oldest had figured out how to climb out of his crib at night and unlock the front deadbolt to let himself out. HE was and still is at 9 a runner. at 6 months he started smearing feces and did that daily sometimes more than once a day for 4 years. HE threw our bunny out the 2nd floor window at the age of 5. That's just tip of the iceberg. With out someone consistantly on him, teachinghim proper behaviour he would be dead or have killed someone else with his behaviours. At 5 h had to be hospitalized int eh children's mental health ward for a couple weeks until we could help him in the way he needed.

My point is, raising children is never black or white. Your child has done marvelously just having you there to guide her, and not have to tell her how to behave in certian situations, or stop her from dangerous behaviour etc. NOt all children are like that and DO need someone to step in and be that voice for them. I do "control" my kids but it's not a harsh thing, it's not full of punishments, or restraints or what not. But They do need me to remind them of their behaviour and what expected behaviours are, life would have been so much easier if they just instinctively knew how to behave but they don't


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

Swellmomma- Totally agree, every child is different. Parenting is not black and white.

Just to get this straight one more time, I DO stop dangerous behavior when it happends. DD has had her fair share of times she pushed her own limits. Many of these times I have had to stop and ask myself why. Most of the time there is an outside influence that is causing her to bahave in a less then favorable way. In that case, I don't 'punish' her, simply re-direct her actions, or explain why X situation is not a good idea in the future. There are also times I have watched her test her own boundaries. I have to say, it is so preciuos to watch her step up onto a stool and say "jump", and slowly bounce while she contimplates if this is a wise decision to make. I love watching her so proud of herself.

We try really hard around here to not set her up for failure by projecting onto her that we assume she will fail. We trust her.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:

Others who are more educated in this area than I can confirm or deny, but it is my understanding that wolves constantly reinforce (among other things) appropriate wolf behavior in the pack hierarchy. Should a growing wolf act in a way that is inappropriate for its pack position, it gets nipped -- or worse. Ultimately, the wolf learns to follow the rules of its society or it gets excluded -- or worse.
Yep. Just about all social animals make sure baby animals know the rules. THey are not born knowing how to treat others. They *are* born ready to observe and figure out what it takes to get along.

Children are born innately perceptive of what their parents (and eventually other grownups) are doing. They begin to mimic facial expressions within hours of birth. They do this because their first task - their most important one - is to figure out these big creatures who have so much power over them, and to figure out how to live with other people.

And so they explore. They try things on for size, they do things and see what the reactions of other people will be. And if other people do not react by making it clear what is appropriate behavior for their group/pack/tribe/troop, then the child will not learn what is considered appropriate. "Appropriate," by the way, varies culturally fairly widely, so its not like there is one set of rules that all babies can be born knowing.

(I really recommend "The Scientist in the Crib" for more on some of this, as well as discussions of language acquisition, etc. Its a really readable, and fascinating, book about child development, written by the folks who run the Baby Lab at ... (forget which) major university. Cool stuff).


----------



## Petronella (Aug 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Dad said "F*** you"

Ooh. *Classy.*


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MammaB21* 
Swellmomma- Totally agree, every child is different. Parenting is not black and white.

Just to get this straight one more time, I DO stop dangerous behavior when it happends. DD has had her fair share of times she pushed her own limits. Many of these times I have had to stop and ask myself why. Most of the time there is an outside influence that is causing her to bahave in a less then favorable way. In that case, I don't 'punish' her, simply re-direct her actions, or explain why X situation is not a good idea in the future. There are also times I have watched her test her own boundaries. I have to say, it is so preciuos to watch her step up onto a stool and say "jump", and slowly bounce while she contimplates if this is a wise decision to make. I love watching her so proud of herself.

We try really hard around here to not set her up for failure by projecting onto her that we assume she will fail. We trust her.


I'm glad that you brought this up... in this culture we teach children that they are idiots without any common sense. We teach them this because we believe it (collective we).

Trying to apply it to the original situation - while the child probably learned a bit about not horsing around in front of carts from the experience, children do just have a natural energy that they need to expend... perhaps as a culture we could show a bit more patience for this. They have a NEED to run around like maniacs, and lots of times that isn't going to be convenient.

I'm not sure how useful it is for a PP to compare humans to a wolf pack. We are different in so many ways it's not really a comparison. However, I will point out that in a wolf pack, if a pup starts biting the ear of an elder, they get nipped by the elder. The mother doesn't hang out and rush in to take care of it when it happens.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 

I'm not sure how useful it is for a PP to compare humans to a wolf pack. We are different in so many ways it's not really a comparison. However, I will point out that in a wolf pack, if a pup starts biting the ear of an elder, they get nipped by the elder. The mother doesn't hang out and rush in to take care of it when it happens.

The mother wolf also won't sue.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

In answer to MammaB21, I've read and learned a lot from *The Continuum Concept*. Some of it I've been able to apply to my parenting, and some of it I haven't.

While I certainly don't perceive my children as idiots -- I'm definitely more like an American in my built-in feeling that *I* need to look out for their safety. It's fascinating to hear about Yequana babies handling sharp machete-blades without ever cutting themselves, playing right next to open fires without ever getting burned, and running in and out of thatch-roofed huts with hot fire-brands, and never starting a fire.

It's also fascinating to hear about children going out on the river in groups where the oldest child's about 6, and no one ever drowning. Liedloff makes a good point: if a child realizes, early on, that no one but him is going to look out for his safety, he assumes the responsibility -- but if he gets accustomed to someone else looking out for him, he relaxes about it and releases the responsibility to the other person.

As enthralled as I am with the whole Yequana way of life, I simply *can't* be like a Yequana mother in all respects. I'd go crazy if dangerously sharp objects were strewn all around my children's play area; I simply couldn't leave it like that. I simply couldn't feel okay about them going off to the river (or pool, or busy street) on their own, at the young ages that the Yequana children go to the river.

Obviously (at least judging by Liedloff's observations), Yequana children have way fewer accidents than American children do. So I'm certainly not faulting their parenting. But since I really can't *do it* myself in all its totality, I'd be seriously endangering my little ones if, now that they've come to entrust their safekeeping to me, I suddenly released it back to them -- and left the sharp knife out for the baby to play with, let her crawl around right next to a deep pit, and so on.

My children have come to trust that if something they're doing or exploring isn't safe, I'm going to say something and redirect them, and help them find safer ways to do the things they want to do. So if I decide, "I'm going to be like a Yequana mom today," and just leave them to themselves, they're likely to assume that there's no danger in whatever they're about to do (since I'm not intervening).

I'm not saying I can't learn to have more confidence in my children's abilities: I certainly am working to grow in this area. I just think it's dangerous to copy one aspect of a culture without regard for the other aspects that bring it into balance and make it work.

As an example, arranged marriages are the norm in some cultures, and some brides and grooms marry without ever having met one another beforehand. These marriages often work out, but I think the balancing factors are that they come from very similar backgrounds, and there are family members or other go-betweens who get to know both families and thoroughly vet things out.

But it would be very stupid for me to say, "Since marriages in this other country work out so well, I'm going to do like they do and marry some man I've never met (i.e. someone I've written to on the internet)." That really doesn't suffice as "following the pattern of the other culture," where there's some trusted individual to act as a go-between, and where there's more of a synonomous way of life from family to family.

For me to marry an "American" I've met on the internet, is simply a whole different kettle of fish. One American may have absolutely nothing in common with another. We don't have one synonymous culture that's played out in similar ways from family to family. So, in copying *just one aspect* of this other culture (marrying someone who's a complete stranger to me), I'm really not doing things the way people in this culture do.

I'd be stupid to expect the same degree of success (and of course, there's the whole "nuther" issue of whether I really define a successful marriage in the same way that a woman in this other culture would).

In conclusion, reading *The Continuum Concept* gives me tremendous food for thought, as I ponder various ways to apply these concepts to my own life and parenting. I just think I need to be realistic, and not too hard on myself, when it's obvious that there's an area where I just can't be like a Yequana mom.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
In answer to MammaB21, I've read and learned a lot from *The Continuum Concept*. Some of it I've been able to apply to my parenting, and some of it I haven't.

While I certainly don't perceive my children as idiots -- I'm definitely more like an American in my built-in feeling that *I* need to look out for their safety. It's fascinating to hear about Yequana babies handling sharp machete-blades without ever cutting themselves, playing right next to open fires without ever getting burned, and running in and out of thatch-roofed huts with hot fire-brands, and never starting a fire.

It's also fascinating to hear about children going out on the river in groups where the oldest child's about 6, and no one ever drowning. Liedloff makes a good point: if a child realizes, early on, that no one but him is going to look out for his safety, he assumes the responsibility -- but if he gets accustomed to someone else looking out for him, he relaxes about it and releases the responsibility to the other person.

As enthralled as I am with the whole Yequana way of life, I simply *can't* be like a Yequana mother in all respects. I'd go crazy if dangerously sharp objects were strewn all around my children's play area; I simply couldn't leave it like that. I simply couldn't feel okay about them going off to the river (or pool, or busy street) on their own, at the young ages that the Yequana children go to the river.

Obviously (at least judging by Liedloff's observations), Yequana children have way fewer accidents than American children do. So I'm certainly not faulting their parenting. But since I really can't *do it* myself in all its totality, I'd be seriously endangering my little ones if, now that they've come to entrust their safekeeping to me, I suddenly released it back to them -- and left the sharp knife out for the baby to play with, let her crawl around right next to a deep pit, and so on.

My children have come to trust that if something they're doing or exploring isn't safe, I'm going to say something and redirect them, and help them find safer ways to do the things they want to do. So if I decide, "I'm going to be like a Yequana mom today," and just leave them to themselves, they're likely to assume that there's no danger in whatever they're about to do (since I'm not intervening).

I'm not saying I can't learn to have more confidence in my children's abilities: I certainly am working to grow in this area. I just think it's dangerous to copy one aspect of a culture without regard for the other aspects that bring it into balance and make it work.

As an example, arranged marriages are the norm in some cultures, and some brides and grooms marry without ever having met one another beforehand. These marriages often work out, but I think the balancing factors are that they come from very similar backgrounds, and there are family members or other go-betweens who get to know both families and thoroughly vet things out.

But it would be very stupid for me to say, "Since marriages in this other country work out so well, I'm going to do like they do and marry some man I've never met (i.e. someone I've written to on the internet)." That really doesn't suffice as "following the pattern of the other culture," where there's some trusted individual to act as a go-between, and where there's more of a synonomous way of life from family to family.

For me to marry an "American" I've met on the internet, is simply a whole different kettle of fish. One American may have absolutely nothing in common with another. We don't have one synonymous culture that's played out in similar ways from family to family. So, in copying *just one aspect* of this other culture (marrying someone who's a complete stranger to me), I'm really not doing things the way people in this culture do.

I'd be stupid to expect the same degree of success (and of course, there's the whole "nuther" issue of whether I really define a successful marriage in the same way that a woman in this other culture would).

In conclusion, reading *The Continuum Concept* gives me tremendous food for thought, as I ponder various ways to apply these concepts to my own life and parenting. I just think I need to be realistic, and not too hard on myself, when it's obvious that there's an area where I just can't be like a Yequana mom.

I would love, LOVE to see objective statistics on Yequana death rates. I don't think TCC is necessarily an unimpeachable source.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Me too.

I got the same reaction from "Our Babies, Ourselves" when she talked about babies of some tribe just "knowing" not to fall over the sheer cliffs to the rocks and river below without a speck of intervention from the parents..... I'm sure each generation learns from the one child who doesn't know any better and falls screaming to his or her death.

My 2 year old sister sure didn't "just know" not to run away from my Dad along a busy canyon highway and miss getting crushed by a tractor-trailer truck by mere inches... that was just sheer LUCK.

Trin.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I would love, LOVE to see objective statistics on Yequana death rates. I don't think TCC is necessarily an unimpeachable source.

I agree.

And back to the wolf example: I'm not an expert, but I've read all of Jean Craighead George's _*Julie of the Wolves*_ books. One thing that was interesting to me, was that when Amaroq and his mate had their first litter of pups (in *Julie's Wolf Pack*), they grieved over the ones who died (if I remember right, it was 4 out of 7: I think 2 acted unwisely and approached a mama bear, and 2 fell off a cliff), but they didn't seem to feel guilt in the same way that *I* would, and in the same way that I think most *people* would, at the death of even ONE child, let alone four.

Of course, the book is one human's guess as to what wolves are actually thinking and saying to one another -- but if it really is common, as the author says, for only a few from each wolf-litter to survive, it stands to reason that there wouldn't be the same overwhelming remorse as what people experience at the loss of even one child.

On the one hand, I realize that wolves do guide their young. At the same time, they (like the Yequana) do seem to leave it up to the young to figure out more things on their own. So I wonder if people like the Yequana might also cope with a child's accidental death without becoming overwhelmed by guilt -- I don't mean I think they wouldn't _grieve_, I just wonder if the grief would be as likely to turn to self-recrimination.

Of course, I'm speaking from the vantage point of living in a privileged nation where it's unusual for babies NOT to survive into adulthood. I imagine the coping-mechanisms are way different for mothers in countries where the death rates are much higher (and of course, I'm not sure if death-rates are higher among Yequana children).

I'm not saying those mothers love their children any less deeply than I love mine -- only that maybe they wouldn't feel as responsible as I'd feel if one of my children suffered an accidental death.

They'd still grieve as much -- only maybe they wouldn't be as sure that it was "all their fault."

I'd be interested to learn more about the degree of responsibility that Yequana mothers feel if their children get into accidents that cause them to be killed or severely injured.

The only example Liedloff (TCC) shared (that I can remember) is of the boy who accidentally shot another boy in the abdomen (I think) with an arrow. Liedloff said the injured child's mother heard about what happened, but went about her work rather than rushing to Liedloff's tent where she was treating the boy. She stopped to check in on him once, then went back about her work, seemingly unconcerned even though Liedloff was worried about the possibility of internal injury.

So again, I'm thinking there are many aspects to other cultures that are quite a mystery to me. If something like this happened to my child, I can't fathom not dropping everything to stay by her side.

Just as it would be wrong for me to criticize this other mother for her seeming unconcern (unconcern as it appeared to me), when I really don't understand how the situation was perceived by her -- I think it's wrong when others criticize parents in our culture for our seeming "over-protectiveness."

Respect for all cultures should include respect for our own culture.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'm not saying those mothers love their children any less deeply than I love mine -- only that maybe they wouldn't feel as responsible as I'd feel if one of my children suffered an accidental death.

They'd still grieve as much -- only maybe they wouldn't be as sure that it was "all their fault."

I think that this attitude/belief system was actually very much at play in our own culture up until the 80's/90's. Many, many children were killed/died in ways that we consider to be preventable (drowning, farm accidents, etc). The parents of these children were devastated, but usually considered the accident to be an unlucky event, rather than something that they could have prevented (in general -- I'm sure that individual parents experienced varying levels of personal guilt).

While children certainly still die in these sorts of accidents today, the number seems to be less pervasive, and the parents involved bear much more of the blame than parents of 40-50 years ago. Death itself was also much more pervasive then than it is now -- many, many sibling groups experienced the loss of at least one sibling before full adulthood. My great-grandmother lost three of her four siblings before they turned 18 -- one died beside her of yellow typhoid when she was 3, one drowned in a lake when he was 15, and one died in the war when he was 17. My grandmother's generation experienced a slightly lower level of loss, but still more than today. I think that the less prevalent death is in a society, the more concerned we become overall with safety. Death is less an Angel in the Night, and more something that we have control over. Ultimately, it becomes our responsibility to prevent it.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 
I think that this attitude/belief system was actually very much at play in our own culture up until the 80's/90's. Many, many children were killed/died in ways that we consider to be preventable (drowning, farm accidents, etc). The parents of these children were devastated, but usually considered the accident to be an unlucky event, rather than something that they could have prevented (in general -- I'm sure that individual parents experienced varying levels of personal guilt).

While children certainly still die in these sorts of accidents today, the number seems to be less pervasive, and the parents involved bear much more of the blame than parents of 40-50 years ago. Death itself was also much more pervasive then than it is now -- many, many sibling groups experienced the loss of at least one sibling before full adulthood. My great-grandmother lost three of her four siblings before they turned 18 -- one died beside her of yellow typhoid when she was 3, one drowned in a lake when he was 15, and one died in the war when he was 17. My grandmother's generation experienced a slightly lower level of loss, but still more than today. I think that the less prevalent death is in a society, the more concerned we become overall with safety. Death is less an Angel in the Night, and more something that we have control over. Ultimately, it becomes our responsibility to prevent it.

I think you're right -- and this sense of lack of control probably led to a more fatalistic, cavalier attitude (or one of willful ignorance).

Take my MIL, whom I love. She didn't want to put on her seat belt because it was too much of a PITA -- and given her physical condition, I certainly agree, but I was offering to put it on and take it off _for_ her. She basically said, "We were only going a short way."

I realized her POV and mine were basically completely different. She was seeing the seat belt as essentially unnecessary -- something that, if the circumstances made it a bit inconvenient, could be blown off. I was thinking that short distance or long, the laws of physics don't care, and that it's a really, REALLY big PITA to die or to be in the emergency room with head trauma. She was feeling more fatalistic; I was feeling more personally responsible/to blame.

I did get her to let me put on and take off the belt, though.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
I think you're right -- and this sense of lack of control probably led to a more fatalistic, cavalier attitude (or one of willful ignorance).

Take my MIL, whom I love. She didn't want to put on her seat belt because it was too much of a PITA -- and given her physical condition, I certainly agree, but I was offering to put it on and take it off _for_ her. She basically said, "We were only going a short way."

I realized her POV and mine were basically completely different. She was seeing the seat belt as essentially unnecessary -- something that, if the circumstances made it a bit inconvenient, could be blown off. I was thinking that short distance or long, the laws of physics don't care, and that it's a really, REALLY big PITA to die or to be in the emergency room with head trauma. She was feeling more fatalistic; I was feeling more personally responsible/to blame.

I did get her to let me put on and take off the belt, though.









It seems like you were being fatalistic, not your MIL.

Does she normally wear a seat belt or just blow them off entirely?


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

It is so interesting to hear everyones different points of veiw.

*Mammal_mamma* I liked your post and mostly agree with it. Although I found the Yequana tribe and traditions with safety to be interesting, most of it is impossible to apply in our culture. I certainly don't let my 2 year old play with sharp knives. Our society is just different. First of all, to have a child in TOTAL control of their safety, our entire society would have to be on board. I may give her control, but Grammie may not. Just that little bit of exposure is detramental, in my opinion. Also, our invoronement is way different. We have to worry about cars, electronics, furniture, chemicals, the list goes on. In my life, I try to implament these consepts as much as possible since I do agree with the idea. I certainly don't compare allowing my 2 year old to walk beside me in a store, to playing with a knife.
I have seen first hand how much being 'controlling' can have negetive side effects on our DD. My husband is strougling with this, and the times he starts up with, "no, don't touch that," "don't do that" "do this" she changes. Sometimes I am even suprised at what she can do, and how mature she can be. I don't mean to be dissrepectfull of anyone elses parenting styles. But I do know how it feels to be missunderstood, and have people assume I am a 'bad' mom, or disstracted, because I am not at the play place right behind my DD helping her with her every move. When she falls, I don't jump up. In fact, I don't acknoweledge it at all most of the time. (wich is hard, because inside I am on edge) I am allways there if she needs me, but she usually never does. She just gets right up and brushes herself off and tries again. Then I see another kid fall down and up jumps a parent running to their aid, and sure enough the kid freaks out, screams and cries. Of course every child is different. Maybe DD is just alittle more easy going.

About the boy in the Yaquana tribe who got shot with an arrow, I see what you mean. But I remember other examples about children doing painfull procedures, (even husbands) and the mothers would be their with them and allow the child/husband to cry (wich is not emasculating in their culture) without putting herself in the place of pain. If she tries to emagine the pain, she can't fully be there the way she needs to be. Also, she won't give anymore or any less compasion than what is needed. She is only there if she is called upon.


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 
It seems like you were being fatalistic, not your MIL.

Maybe we're at cross purposes as to how we're interpreting the word "fatalistic"? Hey, I'm not a complete language god, but I thought (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that fatalism was basically this attitude of, "Whatever happens was meant to happen; I can't do anything to change my inevitable destiny," so if God wants me to go through the windshield, wearing a seat belt won't change that. Anyhoo, that's what I meant.

Quote:



Does she normally wear a seat belt or just blow them off entirely?
She's off and on about it, depending on how her arms feel, how heavy a coat she's wearing, how far she's going, and so on. I, thinking that you CAN prevent your death -- or hey, at least forestall it! -- wear mine all the time, and really wish she would too.


----------



## baltic_ballet (May 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
What if the lady said something like, "wow, you sure are fast! be sure to not get too far from your mommy!" - would that be offensive too? I can't see how that would be rude, and might be a hepful reminder to a little one.

I agree with your suggestion - some adults are not used to being around little children and therefore don't know an appropriate way to talk to them.

Re: the original post - many a time have I wanted to speak up about a Childs bad behaviour but I never do as I am terrible at confrontation and you never know who your dealing with and if they will turn nasty. I think you DH was brave to say something.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

MammaB21, your dd does sound very easy-going, as well as advanced, to be able to calmly walk beside your shopping cart at age 2. I'm sure some of this is related to her knowledge that you trust her and expect her to exercise good sense -- but some is likely simply due to temperament and advanced cognitive ability.

My older dd developed very early in her verbal communications skills -- and by the time she was 2, I could sit on our front porch and watch her playing in the yard, even though our yard had no fence. She knew she could play freely in our yard, and in the yards on either side of us when the children were out there, and she understood about staying away from the street and not going beyond the range where I could supervise her. If she wanted to go further for some reason, she'd ask me to come with her.

Based on my experience with dd1, when I saw children her age and older whose mothers had to chase them -- because they'd disregard important information and take off running into the street, or running beyond where their mothers could see them -- I assumed those mothers simply never took time to talk to their little ones like human beings, you know, that they just treated them like dumb beasts so that was how the children behaved.

Enter dd2, just a totally different child from dd1. I'd say that verbally she's blossoming about a year later than dd1. And at almost 3 she still thinks it's funny to run into the street. We do have a fenced-in yard now, which is good, 'cause if we didn't it'd be so scary to take her outdoors.

Yes, I do remember about the Yequana men being able to cry and get comforted by wives/mothers. It's also very interesting to hear what theatermom and Meg Murry had to say about the effects of a fatalistic attitude. If you feel like you have little or no control, and really can't prevent accidental deaths, you're less likely to try or to feel guilty when they happen -- though of course you're still going to grieve over the loss of your loved one.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Based on my experience with dd1, when I saw children her age and older whose mothers had to chase them -- because they'd disregard important information and take off running into the street, or running beyond where their mothers could see them -- I assumed those mothers simply never took time to talk to their little ones like human beings, you know, that they just treated them like dumb beasts so that was how the children behaved.

Enter dd2, just a totally different child from dd1. I'd say that verbally she's blossoming about a year later than dd1. And at almost 3 she still thinks it's funny to run into the street. We do have a fenced-in yard now, which is good, 'cause if we didn't it'd be so scary to take her outdoors.









I've eaten a *lot* of humble pie since my second child was born; I thought I was SO AWESOME at AP with my very easygoing, very social, very independent fristborn DS....then, enter DD.







She puts the 'attachment' in Attachment Parenting







, and is different from DS in almost every way. So many things that I thought were the parents' "fault", I found out have a LOT to do with the child's personality and temperament.







Things that were easy with DS are challenging; things that were challenging with DS seem easier with DD.

Annnnnnyway...just a long way of saying that while I think that parenting can do a lot for a kid, their temperament and personality does a LOT, too...so we shouldn't take too much credit if our kids are easy OR challenging.


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Yes, I do remember about the Yequana men being able to cry and get comforted by wives/mothers. It's also very interesting to hear what theatermom and Meg Murry had to say about the effects of a fatalistic attitude. If you feel like you have little or no control, and really can't prevent accidental deaths, you're less likely to try or to feel guilty when they happen -- though of course you're still going to grieve over the loss of your loved one.

Yup, this was interesting to me too. I wondered about this when you first brought up the guilt aspect. I don't condone not wearing a seat belt. However, I do think it is interesting to meet people who are so secure and certain in their lives that they literally let whatever happens, happen. At the same time I wonder how much this is reflected on their childhood. Maybe they are just used to putting the controll into someone elses hands?? (I think this is what you were getting at?)

Totally agree with all who are saying temperament has lots to do with it. I like to think I have some influence though,


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MammaB21* 
However, I do think it is interesting to meet people who are so secure and certain in their lives that they literally let whatever happens, happen. At the same time I wonder how much this is reflected on their childhood. Maybe they are just used to putting the controll into someone elses hands?? (I think this is what you were getting at?)

Hmmm. It actually seems like the inverse with the Yequana, at least from Liedloff's description. Because they have tons of freedom as children, and their parents trust them to look out for their own safety (i.e. the babies playing with the machete-blades). They're definitely not used to putting their safety in the hands of others.

Of course, I'm not sure that the Yequana are fatalistic about accidents or death. But it sounds like they ARE "so secure and certain in their lives that they literally let whatever happens, happen."

I'm eager to hear more thoughts on this.


----------



## MammaB21 (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Hmmm. It actually seems like the inverse with the Yequana, at least from Liedloff's description. Because they have tons of freedom as children, and their parents trust them to look out for their own safety (i.e. the babies playing with the machete-blades). They're definitely not used to putting their safety in the hands of others.

Of course, I'm not sure that the Yequana are fatalistic about accidents or death. But it sounds like they ARE "so secure and certain in their lives that they literally let whatever happens, happen."

I'm eager to hear more thoughts on this.

I don't think they are fatalistic iether. I think I was trying to say that the more freedom we give our kids early on, the more likely they are to be responsible later on in life. Instead of becoming adults who are searching for something, or looking for someone to mother them. I don't quite think the example of not wearing a seat belt falls into this catergory. I think this probably falls more in a faith in a higher being, (wich could also be not taking control or responsibility). But that is an interely different debate.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 







I've eaten a *lot* of humble pie since my second child was born; I thought I was SO AWESOME at AP with my very easygoing, very social, very independent fristborn DS....then, enter DD.









LOL! I had mine in the reverse order. I spent a lot of time questioning my parenting. Then I had DD and _everything_ worked with her, and I realized why I got all those disapproving looks the first time round. IT really _can_ be as easy as just saying "I need you to hold my hand in the parking lot so cars don't hit you." It really _can_ be as simple as "Its time to leave the park, would you like to say goodbye to the swings?"

If DD had been my first, I probably would have been one of those smug mamas. And it probably would have been worse for DS, because rather than saying "Well, I guess that technique doesn't work, lets find something that does," I would most likely (knowing me) have persevered with "It worked for DD, why doesn't it work for DS? There must be something wrong with him and if I keep trying, eventually it'll work."


----------



## Meg Murry. (Sep 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
If you feel like you have little or no control, and really can't prevent accidental deaths, you're less likely to try or to feel guilty when they happen -- though of course you're still going to grieve over the loss of your loved one.

Yes, I think so too -- and in a previous era where the average joe basically HAD far less control over many fatal things (polio, typhoid, scarlet fever, spoiled food, vitamin deficiency, car accidents) than we do now, that lack of guilt was probably both practical and necessary for ongoing mental health. Now that we can control (to a greater degree) many fatal things, we feel more guilt along with our greater sense of responsibility. However, we're still pretty fatalistic on a number of things that are considered "normal" by society -- like for example, if your kid died of e. coli poisoning from eating a burger, I think many people would feel as if "it just happened" and "they couldn't have prevented this" because eating meat is the norm. We haven't taken responsibility (or as much responsibility) for the ethics of our food choices, among other things.


----------



## AuntLavender (Apr 22, 2002)

At Bed Bath and Beyond I was with my oldest (11-ds) and youngest dd (8) looking for American Girl stuff for my oldest dd who will be 10 this month. We saw an 18 mo-2 yo adorable toddler girl slathering herself with lotion. Where was mom? Finally mom comes over and says "no-no" and slaps the girls hands. Then after we check out we see the girl mouthing a cellophane wrapped bar of glycerine soap. No mom in sight again!?! I bring the girl a paper towel from the sink area they have and she says "Thank you". Mom never saw me wipe heavily perfumed lotion off her child. She never heard my children telling her dd knock knock jokes.

When we left she said "bye bye" and we said "Good bye neglect-a-rino!" THAT WAS HEARD! Bwa ha ha ha!

Sincerely,
Debra, homeschooling mom of 4


----------



## ehcor (Jun 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kessed* 
But the difference is the number of parties involved. In your example, the kid on the skateboard is only going to affect themself. In the OPs story - the kid affect some innocent 3rd party - the old man.

I think it's fine to let your kids take chances. But those chances should impact other people.

THANK YOU! That was running through my head as well . . .I was rammed into by a four year old pushing a cart in Target (the scene of many rude incidents like the op mentioned at Costco). He was hurt too when he lost control of the cart and the mom's smug response was "See what happens when you don't pay attention"--which is hardly helpful to say to a small child in pain, but what I really felt like saying to her was "Gee, great that you feel he's grasped the consequences--what about me lady?" She didn't apologize or anything--thankfully my husband was able to distract me so I didn't explode . . .(edited to add--explode not just from being hit--it was an accident--but from her allowing her small child to push a loaded cart in a huge, busy store).


----------



## Wolfmeis (Nov 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Others who are more educated in this area than I can confirm or deny, but it is my understanding that wolves constantly reinforce (among other things) appropriate wolf behavior in the pack hierarchy. Should a growing wolf act in a way that is inappropriate for its pack position, it gets nipped -- or worse. Ultimately, the wolf learns to follow the rules of its society or it gets excluded -- or worse.

This is absolutely true. Wolves are hierarchal, pack animals. If a wolf doesn't conform to pack behaviour, the wolf is disciplined, without any discussion or warning. Wolves that don't want to obey, don't get the luxury of deciding whether they stay in the pack.

Discipline is love. You don't have to beat, malign or crush the spirit in your child to teach them the ways to best navigate the waters of society.


----------

