http://ocregister.com/ocregister/life/columns/article_1265759.php
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Airline column creates some turbulence
JENNY SOKOL
Columnist
The Orange County Register
bjs92@adelphia.net
It's not unusual for one of my columns to strike a nerve with readers. It is unusual, however, for one to expose a nerve and rub it raw, compelling readers to flood my inbox with e-mails.
Such was the case of last week's column titled, "His Crime? Being only 3 years old," in which I poked fun at a grumpy airline passenger seated next to my youngster.
Readers were "mortified" and "appalled" by my words, convinced that I had taught my son that it's acceptable to infringe upon the rights of others, and then giggle and name call in the aftermath.
Point taken.
My column didn't address the fact that I came aboard with games, books and snacks for both of my children and ensured they were quiet and entertained during the flight. There was no yelling, crying or kicking of seatbacks.
I didn't clarify that I drank some of my son's water to help prevent him from spilling on 36D, that we practically whispered the entire flight so she could sleep and that I didn't switch seats with my son because I thought my children would be quieter separated.
Small children are not flawless, however, and evidently some of their parents aren't either.
The aim of most of my columns is to bring a bit of tongue-in-cheek levity to readers on a Wednesday morning, not to incite anger and discontent. Apparently, airline courtesy is not a subject to take lightly.
Readers scolded me for not appropriately disciplining my child. They shamed me for my lack of sensitivity towards the woman in 36D, who very well may have been ill or returning from a funeral.
These same readers who implored me to be more kind and understanding also wrote that they hated me and wanted to vomit on me. They called me a witch, wished they could dump ice water on my head and spill a variety of different beverages on me. One suggested I might as well ask my child to urinate on the passenger next to me. A few admitted they hated kids and parents like me, who can't control them.
It turns out terrorism isn't the only thing passengers should fret about before boarding a plane. As evidenced by the responses I received, there are some seriously hostile passengers onboard.
My suggestion to the airlines is that pre-flight, passengers join hands in a gigantic circle. (ALERT - this is the levity part that I mentioned earlier) Passengers could share flight expectations and anxieties. At that time, it would be appropriate to voice feelings of dread to families traveling with rambunctious children. Perhaps the meeting could adjourn with a song, moment of silence or prayer.
Next, we segregate into sections. Families with children in one area. Chatterboxes and those looking to make friends in another. Those who desire sleep or who do not want to speak or make eye contact with their seatmates in yet another. We happily board the plane by sections, the play group headed to the rear of the plane.
Alternatively, we take the advice of a reader and create entire "child-free" flights.
In all seriousness, my apologies to the kind teachers, parents and grandparents who seemed legitimately saddened by my lapse in parental judgment, as well as to the Wicca supporter who pointed out that witches aren't bad people.
And to those of you reading this in John Wayne airport pre-flight, I wish you the best of luck with your seating assignment.
CONTACT US: bjs92@adelphia.net
Labels: cfbc, childfree by choice, news, parenthood, parents
said...I can see where the original piece can be taken as a sign of all that's wrong with permissive parents whose "angels" can do no wrong. But I also thought the original piece was told more for humor. Or maybe humor isn't quite the right word. But I felt like she was making a choice as a writer to play up the connection between telling her son that the lady might not like kids because she's a witch and "melting the witch" rather than truly presenting this story as an example of how to get back at someone who doesn't dote on your children. So that's why she wouldn't bring up the board games and other strategies to keep the children well-behaved. The whole thing was set up to end her story with a twist of sorts.
said...I tend to think that a writer of columns in the Life section of a newspaper has a public responsibility to either not condone, or at very least not perpetuate, negative stereotypes. Or, if you're going to overly rely on stereotypes in order to set up a tone for an article, then the article should be working somehow to demonstrate how these stereotypes work in the world and how we can overcome them. The original article accomplished neither of these things.
However, regardless of what I might think an article in a newspaper should be working toward, I think the messages encoded in the article are still there and I think they are still despicable.
I'll agree that her son was a victim of being three years old. He was a hapless victim--but not a victim of the "wicked witch," but a victim of a passive-aggresive mother who used him to punish the woman in the next seat.
Honestly, in my opinion, it doesn't matter that she left out the tidbits about how she brought along books or games to keep her child(ren) occupied. She still 1) allowed her son to sit next to another adult and 2) allowed her spill-prone son to grasp a full cup of water on an airplane (which isn't stable anyway) knowing full well that he would most likely spill it on the person sitting next to him and 3) grinned at him proudly when he spilt the water on the woman, which not only reinforces her previous two self-righteous choices, but teaches her son not to respect others.
Oh yeah. But it's satire.
Haha.
Her son wasn't being loud or obnoxious, that wasn't the point of the article, so I understand why she chose not to include it originally. However, I still maintain that if she wanted to at least be viewed less like a Wicked Witch herself, then that information might have quelled the uproar. Somewhat. Maybe.
I imagine her working against a deadline at 3 o'clock in the morning, wracking her brains about what she could possibly write about. And suddenly this funny little anecdote comes to mind. And maybe her family really loves The Wizard of Oz, and she's even able to work that metaphor into the narrative. But I think, upon retro-reflection she was surprised at how much of herself and her prejudices leaked out through the article, and I think she was then surprised at how readers were able to pick up on that prejudice. Then I think she was surprised at the reaction to those harmless satirical prejudices being communicated. And I think that's why her apology isn't really an apology, because she still feels self-righteous about the spilt water on the sleeping woman.
And I'll continue to think that's pretty horrible.
said...Thanks for posting a follow-up on this story. I was so enraged at the original article that the only reason I didn't write to vent my spleen at this "columnist" is that the OC Register website is set up too poorly for me to figure out what email address to use for letters to the editor.
Now having seen this "apology," it occurs to me that there may be a completely different explanation for the problem from those that have been proposed. Not that I disagree with you or anyone else, but consider: perhaps the problem is not so much that she's a bad mother or a bad human being (both of which I'm sure are true), but that she's a bad writer.
said...I like that interpretation better than thinking she's just a bad human being raising someone to be another bad human being.
Post a Comment