Response to "Toddlers on the T"

Love that last paragraph! So true! I don't know whether there is research specifically on bigotry, but I know that I've seen scholarly articles on just this sort of thing - humans tend to notice & remember patterns that fit what they already know or believe but dismiss & forget contrary evidence. Better & more efficient to remember where the food is or the danger is than where it isn't, but what may have once been a useful survival behavior has unpleasant consequences in other areas.

Interesting question and answers! Now, could we please talk GIANT STROLLERS on the T.?

Double-fare for people who make a second seat their personal office!

And what the heck is T.S.S.W-H.?

I do not "hate on" moms and kids. I've ridden on the T with wonderfully behaved toddlers who were perfectly capable of sitting on their mom's lap until they reached their destination. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
I was pointing out that it's not totally unreasonable to expect parents to have control over their children. As a dog-owner, I expect other dog-owners to have control over their dogs, as do other dog-less people. I do not assume that dog-less people who expect me to have control over my dog "bigots." I was simply pointing out that the problems- squirming and loud crying- is a possibility from both a toddler or a dog. No one would accept "he's tired." "he's cranky" or "he's hungry" as an excuse if my dog was barking or acting unruly, yet we are expected to accept this as an excuse from parents as to why they cannot quiet their children. I don't understand this, especially when I know people with toddlers who are capable of keeping them quiet regardless of tiredness, hungriness or irritability. Is it easy to have such control over a child? No, but who said parenting is easy?
While I fully understand that dogs are not children and vice versa, they are equally capable of annoying and disturbing others, and they do not pay to ride on the T. That is the *only* reason I made the analogy.
I am certainly not more likely to complain about children than I am to complain about dogs and I resent that accusation as a dismissal of my opinion. I am also not delusional about my dog havign the same social status as a child. I know he does not, and I certainly don't treat him as if he did.
If my neighbor's dog was barking incessantly I'd be just as likely to leave a note about it as I would if their baby was crying incessantly. In fact, I'd be *more* likely to complain about the *dog* barking because I wouldn't want that noisy dog to make the landlord re-think their pets-allowed policy. I'm *more* likely to call-out and complain about the actions of *dogs* because I know their behavior reflects upon me and my dog in other's people's eyes.
I would hope parents would feel the same way about other parents and their children.

Reindeergirl: thoughtless, stupid, selfish, wrong-headed people

Pinkkittie, the reason we have different expecations from toddlers versus dogs is because as I am *sure* you must know, dogs are developmentally very different than humans. You say you know this but then proceed to say if people can keep dogs quiet, why not toddlers?

You say "I don't understand this, especially when I know people with toddlers who are capable of keeping them quiet regardless of tiredness, hungriness or irritability. Is it easy to have such control over a child? No, but who said parenting is easy?"

Okay, look. All parents can keep their children quite some of the time, even when the child is tired, hungry, or cranky. But *no* parent can do so *all* of the time. There are no absolute fail-safes to prevent a child's tantrum. I find your analogy to dogs completely inapt to the discussion here. While children can to a limited extent be 'trained,' as we train dogs, the general task of raising a child is far more complex than simply having control. Of course it is not easy, as you say. But you seem to be saying that there are steps a parent can and should take, and that even though those steps are difficult, they will solve the problem -- that parents struggling with fussy kids are merely not willing to do the hard work of parenting. Seriously? That's where your reasoning really falls down. Parenting really does not work that way. As a mom of two very well-behaved boys -- we get regular compliments from strangers when we go out -- all my supposed "skill" in raising my kids cannot and never was able to guarantee a fuss-free T ride when they were younger.

mc,

Thank you explaining.

pinkkittie,

Unless your dog is a service dog, your dog HAS to be in your lap - it's the law. There's no lap-law for toddlers. Now, are you going to chime in on people who don't pay for a second seat, yet use it to do their laptop and paperwork? I'd love to hear your view on that.

I wonder if some who are reading and commenting here realize that they were once toddlers, with someone caring for them and teaching them to navigate life. If you keep that in mind, I believe it is much more difficult to be harsh on parents and children.

reindeer girl- I think those people are usually found on the commuter rail. I don't often take the commuter rail because I live in the city, so I rarely have to deal with them. I cannot rightly share an opinion on that which I am not familiar. I also have to say that I find the commuter rail much more enjoyable than the subway because I never have trouble finding a seat. I've also never encountered a screaming child on the commuter rail, and if they squirmed, I wouldn't notice because I've never had to sit directly next to one on the commuter rail either. The commuter rail is a different animal than the subway.
If someone has a bag, papers, laptop or whatever on the seat next to them and someone needs it, they should move their stuff and people shouldn't be afraid to ask them to. That is the clearly stated policy of the MBTA, so personal "opinion has little to do with it. It's the rule.

jlen- Dogs are very developmentally different. They rarely progress past the IQ of a human 5 year old except in some cases and you can put shock collars on them if you'd like.
I'm not suggesting using the same techniques to control a child as one would a dog, but I'm incredulous to believe that *nothing* can be done when a child throws a tantrum. That's certainly not the approach my mother took with me, that my aunts take with their children or that my friends take with their children, and all those children are very pleasant to be around. "*Nothing* can be done" is the attitude my sister in law takes with her children, and they're brats.
In my experience, if a child is screaming and the parent is doing what they can to calm them, their child usually calms a little, if not completely, and I give them an A for effort. If a child is screaming on the T and the parent does nothing and their child screams away, I'm going to think they could have done more. And I would hope that if someone had a chid that, in spite of their best efforts, always threw huge fits and could not be comforted- that rather than give up on trying to comfort them, they give up on the idea of taking the subway at rush hour.

Marcus brought some entertainment to the rather monotonous reasonableness with some good old fashioned hating on kids and moms.

And this is interesting:

And, possibly, bigots are bothered more by the irritating actions of people they are bigoted against.

Yes, clearly irritation at badly-behaved toddlers on the T is nothing but bigotry. Otherwise we'd be expressing equal derision at all the adults in suits who throw their sippy cups at the floor. Why single out toddlers--just because that is the subject of the thread? Pure bigotry, obviously.

There was no "hating on" children or parents in my post. I gave an example of good parenting on public transportation. I pointed out that many aggrieved T-riders were parents, too. In fact, what I talked about was behavior--which is what this blog is supposed to be about. Or were we supposed to discuss toddlers on the T without mentioning children or parents? Perhaps we are permitted to talk about them, but only in dulcet tones of worshipful praise? If they are always so perfect, or at least so innocent, why were they the topic of a blog post at all?

Of course, if the purpose of this blog is simply to provide a venue for insulting its readers--which you have done several times now--perhaps you should change the name.

The characterization of Marcus' comments are exactly what I was talking about - the idea that if anyone ever so much as suggests that perhaps a parent should be more considerate of the people around their child, we are called child-hating bigots. Please. Marcus and I and several other posters suggested that, as long as we were on the subject of toddlers on the T, the issue was less about who gets a seat and more about people with a sense of entitlement and an expectation of different rules. The only bigotry I see here is the continued derision of anyone who suggests that a parent is accountable for the actions of his or her child and should not expect a free pass on account of their generous act of increasing overpopulation.

And as for Daughter, yes, I was a child once - and so help me, I never saw the inside of a nice restaurant or public transportation at rush hour until I was old enough to be able to behave myself.

I'm surprised by all the confusion the subject of "etiquette with children" brings up. It's really not difficult if you keep one simple truth in mind: children are human beings, and are entitled, in ALL circumstances, to be treated as such. They are not hobbies, or exotic pets. They are people, just like you and I are. Would you suggest that a person of short stature should sit on his or her companion's lap because it would make your T ride more comfortable? I thought not.

On the topic of how "inconsiderate" it is for parents to dare to bring a child on the T during rush hour, please keep in mind that the T is the main form of transportation for many people. That means, if someone is dropping his/her child off at daycare, preschool, etc., they will often utilize the T for this purpose (as is suggested by anyone with a smidgen of environmental sense). If someone happens to be riding the T during rush hour with a child in order to attend a playdate, well, deal with it. They have as much right to be on the T as anyone else, including both those clad in business suits and tourists heading to the Freedom Trail.

For those firmly taking the "Waaah waaah, we don't have kids and shouldn't have to put up with yours" side, I empathize. I used to say narcissistic thoughtless things like that back before I had a child, too. However, having a child has taught me something--that my child's safety, and my perception of it, will always, always, ALWAYS trump any concern about a random adult's comfort. Therefore, if I don't feel my child will be able to sit safely on my lap, he's getting a seat. Of course I will stand and offer my own seat to an elderly (etc.) person, but don't expect that I should put your anyone's desire to plop down and commence scrolling through that iPhone before the safety of my child.

Excuse you, Amanda. Your comment was thoughtless and hurtful.

The blanket assumption that childless adults (especially women "of a certain age") are self-absorbed / kid-haters is insulting, ignorant and unkind. Some of us cannot have children, even though we would very much like to have them. Comments and attitudes such as yours do not help. Thank you.

I'm sorry, did I say kid-haters? Let me re-scan my comment. Oh, no, there it is--I said narcissistic, which is not the same thing. To expect that others, especially helpless others, should suffer discomfort so that you will not IS narcissistic.

To clarify, I never said nor implied that everyone who, for whatever reason, cannot have a child is a kid-hater. What I said was that people with a "Waaah waaah, we don't have kids and shouldn't have to put up with yours" attitude are narcissistic and thoughtless. I stand by that statement.

On the other hand, I will say that implying that someone shouldn't stand up for her own child's rights as a human being because you "cannot have them and would very much like to" is, well, quite self-absorbed.

That means, if someone is dropping his/her child off at daycare, preschool, etc., they will often utilize the T for this purpose (as is suggested by anyone with a smidgen of environmental sense)

This sentence makes clear that you did not bother to actually read the comments you are criticizing, thus relieving the rest of us of any obligation to read the rest of yours. Though your calling others "narcissistic" was indeed a humorous highlight.

Amanda, for what it's worth, I understood what you meant the first go-round and all you said was exactly what I've felt during this whole set of threads. Thank you.

From an at-home mom who follows the 'prescription' that pediatricians recommend my child be involved in weekly playgroups to get socialization, I can relate to moms who must use the T to reach theirs...and that it is no whim to do so during rush hour or otherwise.

Amanda said, "Would you suggest that a person of short stature should sit on his or her companion's lap because it would make your T ride more comfortable?"

I love that!

I'm very late to this thread, but read through everything just now. What I don't understand is why, on a crowded subway, toddlers should be expected to give up their seats before able-bodied adults. If a person who looks as if they may have difficulty standing boards my subway car and all seats are taken, including mine, I'm not going to look around and be like, "Well, that toddler really should get up and give that person his/her seat." No, I'M going to get up and give that person my seat.

I don't understand the issue here. And I have to say, I've never seen a screaming toddler on the subway. Usually they are fascinated with and distracted by the strange looking people and noises .

Amanda,

Just read your response (#14).

You said, "I'm sorry, did I say kid-haters?"

Actually, no, you did not. I apologize for implying that you did in my comment (#13).

I have no response to the rest of your comment.

able-bodied adults... oh, you mean those of us who work all day standing on our feet and are eager to get a seat when the T comes so that the long ride home is not also spent standing on already swollen ankles?
Your kid sitting on your lap or you giving up your seat for your child is what should happen so that those of us who are tired and sore from working can take a load off on our ride home. I'm not staying make them stand and fend for themselves. I mean that if you expect someone to make a sacrifice for your kid, you should be the first in line to do so, give up YOUR seat or share it.

and not wanting to hear a screaming toddler after a long day of work makes me narcissistic? really? I would think that makes me normal.
what strikes me as selfish is acting like your screaming child doesn't impose upon other people at all.

"able-bodied adults... oh, you mean those of us who work all day standing on our feet and are eager to get a seat when the T comes so that the long ride home is not also spent standing on already swollen ankles?
Your kid sitting on your lap or you giving up your seat for your child is what should happen so that those of us who are tired and sore from working can take a load off on our ride home."

You do realize that there are plenty of people who work all day standing on their feet who THEN have to pick up their toddler and take him/her home on the T, right? That parent standing while their kid sits may be just exactly as tired, if not more so, from working as you (general "you") are, and now s/he has to go home and not have the luxury of kicking back in front of CSI or whathaveyou, because the child needs to be fed, bathed and paid attention to. They don't get to stop hearing the toddler when they get off the T, because hey, the toddler has to go home with them, what with being a member of the family and all.

Something that I haven't seen anyone address, in this thread or the other, is that while typical toddlers may be able to be calmed, non-typical toddlers (e.g. kids with autism or other neurological disorders) may not be calmable. They can't be hushed because their brains honestly cannot process whatever's going on, including efforts to soothe them, and their only recourse is to tantrum. These families still have to get their kids to appointments and daycare and such, and if they don't have access to a car, well...

Heck, my nephew as a toddler had a screaming meltdown in Barnes and Noble (because he was asleep when we went in and freaked out when he woke up IN THE CAFE OMG), and my sister couldn't calm him down by holding him, and then she couldn't get him back into the stroller, even with my help, because he was arching his back so hard; we couldn't carry him out because he was flailing too much for that to be safe, and by the end of it, they were both in tears and many bookstore patrons were angry.

And he's an only-slightly-oddly-wired eight-year-old now.