Delta "Family Seating"

[scrapquitler]

Because at 8 we let kids fly ALONE to visit family! If they are capable of handling that flight - of course they can be separated on the same plane!

But you have to realize that NOT EVERY 8 year old is a seasoned flier. Many children at that age have never flown before and might be scared. Personally, I never flew anywhere until I was an adult. Just because being a veteran flyer is part of YOUR childrens experience doesn't make it universal.

 

[pacrosby]

ON THIS THREAD, I've actually seen more aggressive and entitled tones from the people who don't want to switch seats, or think children should be self-sufficient, than I have from the people who want to sit with their children. Which is ironic, because most of them are professing to be angry about rudeness & entitlement. It may not be the case on every thread, but it's my perception here.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this but I'm willing to risk it.........

My husband and I were discussing the petrie dish known as the DIS last night and we came up with an interesting theory. Perhaps all these parents with these wildly mature and independent children feel the need to ridicule others in an effort to protect themelves. I mean if little Johnny, at the age of 3, is sent solo to fly around the world some might accuse his parents of being rather neglectful. But if they can lash out at the more attentive parent and say Johnny 'should' be able to do that, and in fact did so without a problem, than you can't call them neglectful.

Yes, that was an extreme example but I don't want anyone thinking I'm talking about 'them'. But let's face it, in this world of dual income households and divorced parents....many kids HAVE to be more independent whether they are ready or not. I suppose many of those parents couldn't dare face the suggestion that they could be doing their kids a disservice.

It's only a theory but it would explain the rather bizarre behavior on many of these controversial threads.

OK....donning flamesuit now

 

[seashoreCM]

Is there any rhyme or reason to unaccompanied minor seating (which may or may not piss off others). For example a girl not between two men?

Parents should not be reported to DSS for failing to pay extra so their children can sit next to them. Instead the sanctions should be taken against the "strangers" who manage to engage in unwanted touching etc. and against the airline that fails to correct any reported incidents

 

[robinb]

Perhaps all these parents with these wildly mature and independent children feel the need to ridicule others in an effort to protect themelves.

Please tell me how your posts in ths thread differ.

Every.single.one of your posts is filled with ridicule and snarkiness. Pot, kettle, black.

And people complain about today's generation and their lack of educational preparedness? The reading comprehension problems that run rampant on these boardss is frightening.

Oh my, doesn't that say it all.

I'm sorry but when you put forth an attitude like that, words like 'rude' and 'jerk' are an understatement.

I agree 100%. Alot of people just like the drama they create here on the DIS. I often wonder how many of the most difficult (we all know who they are) would put their money where their mouth is out in the real world. Very few I'm sure.

"when we're on a plane my kid knows not to bother me UNLESS there's a very good reason" says she has loosened the apron strings? That's not what it says to me.

It's no wonder she has no trouble having him at the other end of the plane. And it's no wonder he doesn't mind being there.

Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. I've previous 'experience' with that poster. Let's just say when I read that, it all came together.

oh no, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think those type of people existed (I'm SURE they do). I just meant I didn't notice any people with that attitude on this thread.

I thought that those who were concerned about families being separated were pretty reasonable....at least until they started getting beaten over the head by the natives

Yes I'm well aware of how independent your children are. Congratulations

 

[Colleen27]

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this but I'm willing to risk it.........

My husband and I were discussing the petrie dish known as the DIS last night and we came up with an interesting theory. Perhaps all these parents with these wildly mature and independent children feel the need to ridicule others in an effort to protect themelves. I mean if little Johnny, at the age of 3, is sent solo to fly around the world some might accuse his parents of being rather neglectful. But if they can lash out at the more attentive parent and say Johnny 'should' be able to do that, and in fact did so without a problem, than you can't call them neglectful.

Yes, that was an extreme example but I don't want anyone thinking I'm talking about 'them'. But let's face it, in this world of dual income households and divorced parents....many kids HAVE to be more independent whether they are ready or not. I suppose many of those parents couldn't dare face the suggestion that they could be doing their kids a disservice.

It's only a theory but it would explain the rather bizarre behavior on many of these controversial threads.

OK....donning flamesuit now

I don't think there's anything that extreme or complex at play. It is no secret that many parents who foster/encourage independence and freedom at younger ages have a fair bit of contempt for the hand-holding and hover-parenting that is so common these days. I'll admit to being a little guilty of that myself, not so much online where I don't know people's situations but definitely with regards to some parents I know IRL.

There is probably some defensiveness at play, not out of insecurity but because those parents are used to hearing the "neglect", "can't be bothered with your kids", "aren't as close a family", "poor parenting" stuff thrown around by anyone more protective than they are. It is rude and insulting. Some days it seems like parenting has become some sort of twisted contest of proving your love by doing as much as you possibly can for your kids, even things the kids should be learning to do for themselves, and anyone who refuses to play that game is so easily lumped in with the scum that genuinely neglect their children.

 

[pacrosby]

Please tell me how your posts in ths thread differ.

Every.single.one of your posts is filled with ridicule and snarkiness. Pot, kettle, black.

I can actually defend, with clear reason, every single one of those quotes you so conveniently took out of context. Much of what I wrote that you interpreted as being snarky was not intended to be (i.e. the reading comprehension 'joke' was referring to the fact that MANY people respond on emotion and don't even take the time to read others' words carefully. I was certainlynot implying they had some type of learning disability). In other cases I was responding to someone who had very rudely responded to me in the past on some other topic. We had 'history', as they say.

If you really want me to I'll send you a pm with a clear explanation of each and every one of those but I'm not going to create public drama. Let me know ok?

This thread started out innocently enough. It went downhill only when those with their wildly mature and independent children started in. What did they expect was going to happen? You get what you sow.


(and I can only suspect what I wrote hit alittle too close to home for you to respond the way you did. I didn't call any particular poster out. I was throwing it out there as a theory and speaking in generalities.)

 

[pacrosby]

There is probably some defensiveness at play, not out of insecurity but because those parents are used to hearing the "neglect", "can't be bothered with your kids", "aren't as close a family", "poor parenting" stuff thrown around by anyone more protective than they are. It is rude and insulting. Some days it seems like parenting has become some sort of twisted contest of proving your love by doing as much as you possibly can for your kids, even things the kids should be learning to do for themselves, and anyone who refuses to play that game is so easily lumped in with the scum that genuinely neglect their children.

That's really all I was saying. But I can't get away with it because I"m perceived as the enemy. It's funny because in reality I'm generally not. I'm not that black and white. My sarcastic nature and my style of writing in my attempts to get people to see both sides of an argument, even when they disagee, gets me in trouble a great deal here on the DIS

 

[crashbb]

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this but I'm willing to risk it.........

My husband and I were discussing the petrie dish known as the DIS last night and we came up with an interesting theory. Perhaps all these parents with these wildly mature and independent children feel the need to ridicule others in an effort to protect themelves. I mean if little Johnny, at the age of 3, is sent solo to fly around the world some might accuse his parents of being rather neglectful. But if they can lash out at the more attentive parent and say Johnny 'should' be able to do that, and in fact did so without a problem, than you can't call them neglectful.

Yes, that was an extreme example but I don't want anyone thinking I'm talking about 'them'. But let's face it, in this world of dual income households and divorced parents....many kids HAVE to be more independent whether they are ready or not. I suppose many of those parents couldn't dare face the suggestion that they could be doing their kids a disservice.

It's only a theory but it would explain the rather bizarre behavior on many of these controversial threads.

OK....donning flamesuit now

I could just as easily make the argument that those saying that allowing an eight year old to sit away from a parent (as has been said here) or that it is unpardonable for people not to move for children are lashing out so that no one can call them a helicopter parent.

Again, it goes both ways.

 

[pacrosby]

I could just as easily make the argument that those saying that allowing an eight year old to sit away from a parent (as has been said here) or that it is unpardonable for people not to move for children are lashing out so that no one can call them a helicopter parent.

Again, it goes both ways.

You are absolutely right. It DOES go both ways. And THAT was my point

Maybe it's about time we all just met in the middle and allowed people to make their own choices for their own kids.

Deal?

 

[crashbb]

You are absolutely right. It DOES go both ways. And THAT was my point

Maybe it's about time we all just met in the middle and allowed people to make their own choices for their own kids.

Deal?

That may have been your point, but that is not how it comes across, I'm afraid. Every one of your examples of outrageous posters/comments have been from those who don't feel the need to sit beside their children. Any comments about outrageous posts from those who think people need to move for there children have been portrayed as simply being in response to mean posts (i.e. they were provoked by the evil postings of others).

So, based on that, you can see how other readers may have misinterpreted your meaning. Reread the post I quoted - nothing in it at all to suggest that you could make the same argument against the other side.

 

[powellrj]

Yes, that was an extreme example but I don't want anyone thinking I'm talking about 'them'. But let's face it, in this world of dual income households and divorced parents....many kids HAVE to be more independent whether they are ready or not. I suppose many of those parents couldn't dare face the suggestion that they could be doing their kids a disservice.

It's only a theory but it would explain the rather bizarre behavior on many of these controversial threads.

OK....donning flamesuit now

Actually, I think its the opposite of what you are saying. Growing up, kids had much more independence than they do now. It was nothing to have 2nd graders be latch-key kids. I know I always wanted to be one, but with a stay at home mom, it wasn't going to happen. I always wanted to be a kid who got to wear a key around their neck!

When I was a kid, my mom never knew where I was most of the time until dinner time, and she was considered one of the more over protective ones. If a kid over school age was ever made to go to the womens restroom when I was a kid, they would have died of embarrassment. A kid over 3 in a diaper was unheard of.

Now anyone who treated their kids they way we were treated growing up would be turned over to protective services. I remember a few years ago watching a show where the guest said that most kids in the early sitcoms would have been taken away from their parents nowadays for neglect, where it was just how parenting was.

 

[pacrosby]

That may have been your point, but that is not how it comes across, I'm afraid. Every one of your examples of outrageous posters/comments have been from those who don't feel the need to sit beside their children. Any comments about outrageous posts from those who think people need to move for there children have been portrayed as simply being in response to mean posts (i.e. they were provoked by the evil postings of others).

So, based on that, you can see how other readers may have misinterpreted your meaning. Reread the post I quoted - nothing in it at all to suggest that you could make the same argument against the other side.

Perhaps, but that is because...in this thread....it all started very innocently until more than a few posters took out their holier than thou hats and talked about how ANY and ALL children should be able to sit by themselves yadayadayada. It starts as just a little comment and builds and builds. If I'm remembering correctly the most outrageous posts from the other side simply came as a means of defense. When you throw the first punch, what do you expect? (not YOU specifically).

This isn't about helicopter parents. It's about wanting to be able to sit next to your kids.

 

[robinb]

I can actually defend, with clear reason, every single one of those quotes you so conveniently took out of context. Much of what I wrote that you interpreted as being snarky was not intended to be (i.e. the reading comprehension 'joke' was referring to the fact that MANY people respond on emotion and don't even take the time to read others' words carefully. I was certainlynot implying they had some type of learning disability). In other cases I was responding to someone who had very rudely responded to me in the past on some other topic. We had 'history', as they say.

If you really want me to I'll send you a pm with a clear explanation of each and every one of those but I'm not going to create public drama. Let me know ok?

This thread started out innocently enough. It went downhill only when those with their wildly mature and independent children started in. What did they expect was going to happen? You get what you sow.


(and I can only suspect what I wrote hit alittle too close to home for you to respond the way you did. I didn't call any particular poster out. I was throwing it out there as a theory and speaking in generalities.)

How could I take your words out on context when I quoted 6 out of 8 of them in their entirety?

You complain that they thread went downhill after some people posted their differing opinions, but you gave it a big shove yourself. Replying rudely to someone just because they replied rudely to you just escalates the discussion in the wrong direction. You do indeed get what you sow and you have been sowing disharmony and discontent on the thread while calling out other posters for being rude and and ridiculing others at the same time .

 

[crashbb]

Maybe it's about time we all just met in the middle and allowed people to make their own choices for their own kids.

Deal?

Only if, included in that deal, is the fact that your choices for your kids should not involve other people having to change to accommodate them, without risk of being called rude jerks. Again, using the general "you".

In other words, sit beside your kids if you want to do so, but YOU (general you) have to be the one making the compromises to make it happen, not the general public.

Oh, we are just going to have to agree to disagree about the fact that "the most outrageous posts from the other side simply came as a means of defense." Both sides gave as good as each other.

 

[pacrosby]

Actually, I think its the opposite of what you are saying. Growing up, kids had much more independence than they do now. It was nothing to have 2nd graders be latch-key kids. I know I always wanted to be one, but with a stay at home mom, it wasn't going to happen. I always wanted to be a kid who got to wear a key around their neck!

When I was a kid, my mom never knew where I was most of the time until dinner time, and she was considered one of the more over protective ones. If a kid over school age was ever made to go to the womens restroom when I was a kid, they would have died of embarrassment. A kid over 3 in a diaper was unheard of.

Now anyone who treated their kids they way we were treated growing up would be turned over to protective services. I remember a few years ago watching a show where the guest said that most kids in the early sitcoms would have been taken away from their parents nowadays for neglect, where it was just how parenting was.

Well, I'm almost 50 and there weren't any latch key kids that I recall growing up because most of our moms were either home all day or at the very least by the time we got home from school. They made our meals, they did our laundry, they drove us to the mall (things that others here on the DIS define as overprotective and babying), some of us had chores while others did not. They didn't let us date until we were older.

No they didn't push 7 yo around in strollers but few took their kids to places laid out like WDW back then; places where you would need to walk around for 8+ hours didn't really didn't really exist. Who knows what they would've done if they did.

No they didn't take their 7 yo in the bathroom either but they weren't constantly bombarded by news media reporting incidences of molestation. Who knows how they would react if they were.

No, they didn't argue with teachers about grades and hover as much over homework but in todays socieity many are sooooo concerned about their kids getting into the 'right' colleges lest they be doomed for life. That wasn't a concern when I was a kid. Wno knows how parents would've reacted if it was.

I'm not going to disagree with you about fewer kids playing outside unsupervised and all that goes with that but organized activities didn't exist to the extent that they do now. Many kids are simply too busy to play outside (sad, yes I know). But..... there are kids that still do play today (mine included...they were out in the woods in their fort last night until 8:30, well after dark ).

I also won't disagree about the increased worry that exists nowadays BUT eventhough I'm not one of those worriers, I do 'understand' why others may be. I said it before in another thread....society has to take some responsibility for this attitude amongst many of these parents. They didn't suddenly wake up one morning and decide to be overprotective. They've been bombarded with messages and have reacted in turn.

My post was clearly not meant to offend every person with a more independent, mature child, regardless of why they may be that way (and I do apologize to those who may have misinterpreted my intent). It was more in response to the attitude of SOME people on this and other theads whose kids are maximally independent. There actually was a recent thread where people were calling kids who didn't make their own breakfasts and do their own laundry coddled and babied! It's those kinds of attitudes that perplex me. And my theory would kind of explain alittle of that.

 

[pacrosby]

Only if, included in that deal, is the fact that your choices for your kids should not involve other people having to change to accommodate them, without risk of being called rude jerks. Again, using the general "you".

In other words, sit beside your kids if you want to do so, but YOU (general you) have to be the one making the compromises to make it happen, not the general public.

Oh, we are just going to have to agree to disagree about the fact that "the most outrageous posts from the other side simply came as a means of defense." Both sides gave as good as each other.

I agree to that deal 100% (maybe that surprises you?)


And I'll admit, I may be biased to the side that leans towards helicoptering (not that I"M a helicopter parent........far from it......nor do I belive wanting your kids to be sitting next to you on an airplane equates with helicoptering). Maybe it's just the threads I tend to be drawn to but I see much more bashing from the 'my kid is so independent and your kid is such a baby' side. And the exact same posters getting in all their little digs. It just makes my head ache.

 

[pacrosby]

How could I take your words out on context when I quoted 6 out of 8 of them in their entirety?

You complain that they thread went downhill after some people posted their differing opinions, but you gave it a big shove yourself. Replying rudely to someone just because they replied rudely to you just escalates the discussion in the wrong direction. You do indeed get what you sow and you have been sowing disharmony and discontent on the thread while calling out other posters for being rude and and ridiculing others at the same time .

Because you posted them without including the post that I was commenting on. The words by themselves mean absolutely nothing unless you understand 'why' they were being said. I'm talking 'full' context.

But of course you know that. You did it the way you did because you knew it made me 'look' bad. But anyone who has truly followed the thread knows how each of those comments came about.

And, no, I personally don't believe that replying rudely to someone who is known to throw snide rude comments around at others is out of line. 'They' get what they sow. Maybe if they start to see how it feels they'll knock it off and play nice. I try very hard never to come out swinging without what I believe to be a good reason. On occasion I do lose my head but when I do I generally end up apologizing in the end. Many posters here know that.


ETA: I once had people jump all over me becasue I decided to keep my son out of K until 6 instead of sending him at 5. This, a child who has a life threatening medical condition (we're a Make a Wish family...that's how I found the DIS). The cr* that was thrown my way. The accusations. It was disgusting. It was that experience that made me extremely sensitive to the holier than thou crowd.....the I parent so much better than you crowd....... I'm sorry, I can't just sit by and watch it happen to others. I just want people to allow others to make their own decisions for their families without being subject to the attitude. It's generally not necessary to jump into a thread that's discussing A so that you can tell everyone that you believe B. When people do it, unless they are very careful about how they do it, they are generally trying to make some sort of statement. And when the ship eventually sinks....they really have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[pacrosby]

Sorry to be taking up so much real estate here. But when people quote me and call me out....I feel it only polite to respond.

I'm off to a party for the rest of the day. Any further questions for me will have to wait.

Play on

 

[seashoreCM]

Decide if sitting apart is enough of a problem that you will wait on a later flight in order to be seated together.

Note that hardly anyone will decide it that way if it costs more such as requiring a change fee or paying the current available fare for the proposed flight.

I once had people jump all over me becasue I decided to keep my son out of K until 6 instead of sending him at 5.

If people are going to jump all over you whether or not they were jumping to conclusions*, then I say it is okay to say you did things the way you wanted to "because you wanted to" without going into detail.

* Should I say, "... especially if it seems they were jumping to conclusions ..."?

OT for English and law majors: "It's a long story and I plan to bite the apple multiple times if I try to tell that story."

 

[pacrosby]

If people are going to jump all over you whether or not they were jumping to conclusions*, then I say it is okay to say you did things the way you wanted to "because you wanted to" without going into detail.

* Should I say, "... especially if it seems they were jumping to conclusions ..."?

One last peek before I go and I read this......huh?

Actually that was a long drawn out thread (over a year ago) and I attempted over and over again to explain the particulars but it didn't matter. I was clearly just one of those overprotective parents


bye now