![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think it might be unwise to start singing "Kiss a Wookie, kick a droid..." in the middle of my workplace, even if I'm listening to the credits of Raiders of the Lost Ark on my iPod...
Also, there's a riff that sounds suspiciously like "Luke and Leia's theme" from Star Wars - not completely, but quite close. I wonder if it isn't the Indy/Marion love theme?
--
And, because I can't post it in the Childfree thread without being jumped upon ("but those parents and their children have it easy, making my life hell every time I turn around! Why shouldn't they be inconvenienced for once?")
Context is a discussion about children on flights, with particular reference to screaming babies and kids whose parents won't take responsibility for their disruptive behaviour, or be proactive about keeping them entertained during the flight. Someone suggested a popup when booking flights that says something like "we notice you're travelling with an under-5 child. For the comfort and sanity of yourself and those around you, we recommend you pack a bag of toys/entertainments to keep them occupied during the flight".
And, of course, one of the ChildFree responded:
My take on children and flights is that there's a balance to be reached between the convenience of flying for parents who may have to take small children somewhere that they can't by alternative means of transport, and the consideration for other passengers who don't want to put up with the shenanigans of children whose parents won't rein them in.
When that balance isn't reached - or when either parent passengers or non-parent passengers insist that their concerns should have absolute primacy over the other parties' - then you end up with people who think that parents shouldn't travel with children anywhere, or parents who think that their children have the right to do whatever they please.
Neither group are particularly pleasant sorts of people, because both seem to expect the world to comply with their needs, their desires, their wishes, instead of being willing to give a little and take a little.
And I bet miss 'parents should never travel with children anywhere' never sat on 10x 14-hour trans-Pacific flights where you can't avoid having children on the plane.
--
Dopey business analyst is still dopey. You actually have to give me the data to look at so I can work out the problem, let alone fix it.
--
And because this is not something you put in a work email:
Don't patronise me, you twit. You're not the one working the ongoing maintenance down here on a system that change management doesn't believe in, with users who are too ingrained in their bad habits to learn good ones that will work with the new system.
And "extensive testing"? Don't make me laugh. Nothing in this system that came from the original US prototype has been 'tested extensively'. And the US prototype they tried to implement? FAILED.
Also, there's a riff that sounds suspiciously like "Luke and Leia's theme" from Star Wars - not completely, but quite close. I wonder if it isn't the Indy/Marion love theme?
--
And, because I can't post it in the Childfree thread without being jumped upon ("but those parents and their children have it easy, making my life hell every time I turn around! Why shouldn't they be inconvenienced for once?")
Context is a discussion about children on flights, with particular reference to screaming babies and kids whose parents won't take responsibility for their disruptive behaviour, or be proactive about keeping them entertained during the flight. Someone suggested a popup when booking flights that says something like "we notice you're travelling with an under-5 child. For the comfort and sanity of yourself and those around you, we recommend you pack a bag of toys/entertainments to keep them occupied during the flight".
And, of course, one of the ChildFree responded:
Personally, I'd like a pop-up that reads: "We see you're flying with a child under the age of 5. For the comfort and sanity of everyone involved we recommend that you don't."When someone called her on such sentiments, pointing out that parents also had to travel for all manner of reasons, she was jumped upon for failing to realise the sarcasm in the CF comment. Except that, based on a later post, CF commenter wasn't being "sarcastic": she really does seem to think under-5s shouldn't travel on planes for any reason. Not for funerals, distant grandparents, moving locations, military families, holidays...nothing.
~childfree person~
My take on children and flights is that there's a balance to be reached between the convenience of flying for parents who may have to take small children somewhere that they can't by alternative means of transport, and the consideration for other passengers who don't want to put up with the shenanigans of children whose parents won't rein them in.
When that balance isn't reached - or when either parent passengers or non-parent passengers insist that their concerns should have absolute primacy over the other parties' - then you end up with people who think that parents shouldn't travel with children anywhere, or parents who think that their children have the right to do whatever they please.
Neither group are particularly pleasant sorts of people, because both seem to expect the world to comply with their needs, their desires, their wishes, instead of being willing to give a little and take a little.
And I bet miss 'parents should never travel with children anywhere' never sat on 10x 14-hour trans-Pacific flights where you can't avoid having children on the plane.
--
Dopey business analyst is still dopey. You actually have to give me the data to look at so I can work out the problem, let alone fix it.
--
And because this is not something you put in a work email:
Don't patronise me, you twit. You're not the one working the ongoing maintenance down here on a system that change management doesn't believe in, with users who are too ingrained in their bad habits to learn good ones that will work with the new system.
And "extensive testing"? Don't make me laugh. Nothing in this system that came from the original US prototype has been 'tested extensively'. And the US prototype they tried to implement? FAILED.
no subject
The return trip was a nightmare.
Now mind you it is a one week drive from Vermont to Texas (unless the parents switch driving and sleeping and the only stops are for food, fuel, and potty breaks. This is a) impractical with a three year old, never mind the thirteen year old and the nine year old, and b) not permitted by the school system which only grants one week for spring vacation.
This was not my first barbeque. Each child had a collection of books, small new-to-them amusements and snacks to keep busy with. The snacks were specifically to be used to encourage chewing to relieve possible ear pain on take off and landing. The three year old had her comfort animal. The first leg of the flight went okay, but when we changed planes in Chicago, the three year old had had enough. She began to wail and shriek. The flight was very full, and we had been spread out through the plane. I was alone, as were the two older kids, and my husband had the three year old. He did every thing he could to distract her, to try and determine if she was in some pain (he's a physician, and he teaches physical diagnosis to medical students and cross-covers for the practice's pediatrician, so he's good at this) to no avail. He tried everything, and he's both a good doctor and a great dad, so I know that I could not have done it better, and then he started over. Finally after two (2!) hours of this, as I could hear the exhaustion in her voice, the flight attendant asked the person next to me if he would be willing to move and sit by my husband so I could have a go at it. He agreed (and the third person by the window looked aghast - not that I blame her!) and the stewardess brought my daughter up to me.
The strange lady grabbing her stopped the kid in mid-cry, and she stiffened in panic. As she was lowered into my arms, she tried to hide inside me she was so panicked, but she had also used her absolute last measure of energy by stiffening in fear (This was a kid who had been removed from her birth family at one year of age and placed in foster care with us. I'm pretty sure she thought it was happening again.) She was so busy clinging that she forgot to scream, and within minutes she fell asleep, clinging to me with an iron grip. The passengers rose from their seats (Idiots! If she hadn't been so tired, they would have woken her for Round Two!) to give me a standing ovation. They all said it was my competence. Several people told me how foolish and inconsiderate I was to have left her with her Dad, who obviously wasn't as good with her.
Thing is, she was, and still is, more attached to him than to me (her birthmom largely rejected and ignored her, repeating the mistakes of her own childhood), and he has a real gift with kids. That's why she started out the trip with him and not me. At the gate in Houston the airline had tried to put us in 5 separate seats until we insisted that the three year old needed to be with a parent, and they agreed to move someone else so that could happen!
My husband and I were both deeply upset by what we put our fellow passengers through. We still don't know why the trip one way was fine, and the trip the other way was so traumatic. It wasn't her ears. We checked, and besides the problem didn't start until after we were levelling off, and didn't reoccur on landing. We had no way to predict or prevent it. We would have been glad to have sprung for earplugs and drinks for the entire planeload if that had been possible mid-flight. But neither of us would have been willing to forgo allowing my mother-in-law that rare treat of a visit with all of us together just to be polite to the plane load of passengers, when we had no clue that the situation would arise, and it might well have not happened, as it didn't happen on the way down to Texas.
I appreciate the fact that people who chose to be childless don't want to deal with the fuss and bother that they can cause. They chose wisely, and I thank them for that. But as you pointed out, civilized society requires that we all tolerate life's inevitable annoyances and inconveniences with a spirit of forgiveness and toleration. To do less is to invite the breakdown of civility, and ultimately of civilization. It cannot be every man/woman/faction for itself. That is Darwinian survival at its least nuanced and doesn't even work in the observed interactions of the animal world, which have shown clear instances of altruism and priority given to the survival of the group over survival of the individual. The point of civilization is that we have risen above that.
Here endeth Thothmes' Sermon for the Converted for today. Thank you for the soapbox, and may all your users suddenly get the Word and become compliant pussycats!