Unnatural Relationships

As I read the first few paragraphs of "Unnatural Consequences" (Youth Truth,
v. 1, issue 3), I found myself nodding in agreement.  Ah yes, I thought, I'm
familiar with that technique, and it is horrible -- parents making up
punishments for certain behaviors and pretending that they are "natural
consequences".

But the author's example (in which the mother of "Little Billy" talks him
through the possible risks of playing with food at a fancy restaurant and
prepares to defend him if anyone objects) presents a demeaning picture of
children and a distortion of the meaning of "respect" for a child.

Respect for children and their rights means no double standards.  It means
permitting them to engage in any activity that would be acceptable for
adults, but it also means expecting the same standards of behavior (which
vary from place to place) that are expected of adults.  Tolerance and support
of improper behavior from children simply because they are children is not
"taking children seriously".

I am not saying that children must never play -- people of all ages need to
play.  And children should not be forced to be in formal situations where
they must "behave properly".  But if a child chooses (as "Little Billy"
did) to go to a fancy restaurant which doesn't tolerate playfulness, they
should conform to the same standards as all the other diners.

I am shocked by the author's view of the waiter's disapproval: "The waiter
doesn't matter because he is not in a relationship with the child".  Excuse
me, I rather believe that every person matters and that the waiter is in
a relationship with the child; both the child and the mother should have
respect for the waiter's feelings and needs.  The waiter may feel that part
of his job is to maintain the decorum of the atmosphere, and that allowing
people to play with food may threaten his livelihood.  I think that's pretty
important!

What if "Little Billy" had wanted to attend a film -- not a Disney
extravaganza in which audience reaction was expected, but a drama on some
moving or sensitive subject -- and then proceeded to talk through the whole
movie?  This would interfere with everyone else's appreciation of the film,
including the mother's, I would think.  But the author of "Unnatural
Consequences" would say, that doesn't matter, because the only important
thing is the mother's relationship with the child.

I do agree with the author that when negative consequences occur, it is good
to "make ... light of the situation" and help the child "see the funny side
of it", rather than scolding or saying "I told you so".  But I think parents
should take that view even before the consequences occur.  The mother in
the story, instead of simply enjoying her dinner with her son, seems to have
a duty to be constantly aware of any negative consequences that might occur,
always on the lookout for ways to avoid them, always finding non-judgmental
words to explain them to her son without "distressing" him.  She sees her son
not as a fellow human being but as some precious and fragile creature in need
of her constant intervention.  Her relationship with him is "you and me
against the world" instead of "you and me in the world".  Sounds like an
unnatural relationship to me.

Susan Wishnetsky