Purple-faced, crying, furious, desperate and panicked because the kid doesn't have a little snack? Are you kidding me?

Can Bazelon please slap her child as hard as she can, for his sake, before I have to do it?

Are there are any normal children left in the Western world any more? Or, rather, in the world of upper middle class, post-modern, over-educated, New York suburb dwelling, NPR-listening, intellectual, Summer-in the-Hamptons, Montessori style families?

It's amazing how all of these neuroses, syndromes, out-of-whack biologies, panic attacks, existential crises, mood swings and disorders seem to particularly afflict children of well-off Ivy League graduates.

Of course, all of these behaviors have always existed throughout childhood. It's why they call it "childhood." Your child isn't broken if he throws a fit when he's hungry; he's just a regular kid who needs his parents to demand that he pull himself together, wait for dinner, and to punish him if he continues acting up.

You'll notice these diseases don't seem to afflict children of the poor and lower middle class at nearly the same rate. These parents don't have time to follow their children around as if they were rare Amazonian butterflies, monitoring every possible biological, psychological and developmental need moment-to-moment as if the fate of the universe were linked to the child's constant happiness.

Normal parents don't give every unwanted childhood behavior a three letter acronym, write books about them and create a support group. Instead they discipline the kid for his sake and everyone else's.

What kind of person is this Simon going to become in a few years? A happy person in control of his own impulses and able to experience empathy for others? Or a fragile, neurotic, self-absorbed, tyrannical little weirdo?

The irony of his parents' style is that all of their good intentions, their obsessive care, will likely not create the well adjusted child who lends compassion to others which they would want. It can create a miserable, sociopathic permanent child.

hear hear. this is insane. The kid is *either* a badly spoiled brat, in which case he needs to be punished severely until he straightens out, *or* mentally challenged, in which case it's probably legally-actionable negligence to leave him with untrained volunteer parents to take care of him. There's no other explanation for this kind of behavior.

"You'll notice these diseases don't seem to afflict children of the poor and lower middle class at nearly the same rate. These parents don't have time to follow their children around as if they were rare Amazonian butterflies, monitoring every possible biological, psychological and developmental need moment-to-moment as if the fate of the universe were linked to the child's constant happiness."

Really. Have you checked out the special ed classes at your local inner-city school? They are stuffed with children with oppositional defiant disorder, bipolar disorder, etc.

EarlyBird:

You'll notice these diseases don't seem to afflict children of the poor and lower middle class at nearly the same rate. These parents don't have time to follow their children around as if they were rare Amazonian butterflies, monitoring every possible biological, psychological and developmental need moment-to-moment as if the fate of the universe were linked to the child's constant happiness.

You'll notice that the vast majority of convicted felons come from the background you describe. Doesn't speak well for those parents.

I suspect that this kind of situation happens to kids from all walks of life, not just the well-off demographic you describe. Feel free to continue pulling "facts" out of thin air, though.

Some parents care, others see the kid as being the problem, rather than having a problem. Kids with problems who don't get help sometimes work it out, and sometimes "cope" with violence, withdrawal, and further anti-social behaviors.

Slapping the shit out of a kid is simply wrong, but it is also not productive. Doesn't work too well on adults, either.

Oh I'm all for segregating Simon into special ed if he's got a mental disease. He probably *does* have a mental disease, in which case his mother is probably criminally negligent for leaving him with those other parents. If a mom tried to foist her mentally disabled son onto me for a field trip I'd tell her to go to hell, and I'd probably sue her for putting me at risk of inadvertently hurting the poor retard.

This kid probably *does* have a serious mental disorder...but if he doesn't, then he's just a spoiled brat who needs to be hit. The first course of action is not helping him to find his stupid veggie sticks - it's getting him to a psychiatrist to be evaluated. Then, if he gets a clean bill of mental health, take away the snacks and everything else he likes and just smack him until he learns he cannot behave that way in public. Parents need to sack the f up.

I couldn’t quite understand why she would need to slap the kid. Because he is hungry? Or because he is scared? Or for showing his emotions the only way he knows how to show them?

All kids throw tantrums, turn purple and cry screaming between ages of 3 and 5. A then all of them stop. It doesn’t matter if the parents indulge them, punish them or don’t pay attention to them.. All kids get the message eventually, just in different ways. And the way parents react is mostly relevant to their own nature - angry, compassionate or cruel.

They may stop if they don't receive positive reinforcement every time they throw a hissy fit. The writer is providing tons of positive reinforcement. What's his motivation to stop? He has every motivation to continue.

Meanwhile, it might not hurt him to meet some kids who are lucky to get veggie sticks once a month . . . if ever.

I don’t think he is throwing a hissy fit. He is just hungry. He doesn’t enjoy the situation. He will stop when he learns how to find his snack, what to do if he doesn’t find it, how to cope with his frustration. And he will learn as all kids do, there isn’t a 10-year old kid that throws himself on the ground, kicks his legs in the air and starts screaming. The easiest way to teach him is to slap him. Yes, he will find out, that he’ll not only be hungry and scared, but it will hurt as well and be humiliating.

And he definitely doesn’t have any fault that there are kids that don’t have veggie sticks)))

Now that's funny....rare amazonian butterflies...ha ha

Anyway, kids should not be throwing temper tantrums at 5 years old. Being the mother of a 2 year old I have done a little bit of research on the topic and found that temper tantrums in normal children are the result of an inability to communicate and the frustration that results. I never read that a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum because he can't find his snack in his bookbag is acceptable behavior.

I subscribe the theory with my child that if you are going to show your ass, please do so in the comfort of your own home with your loving parents as the only witnesses. Show your ass in front of anyone else and we are going to have a problem.

The solution is simple - "Simon - your snack is in your bag - look more closely next time and if I find you having a meltdown of this magnitude again we are going straight home and I will seriously think about continuing this test of independence in the future."

I don't advocate hitting Simon. We don't hit other adults, so we shouldn't hit children...ever.

But, Simon is being raised to believe that nothing should ever deviate from his expectations. He has been taught that his wants and needs are above everyone else's. If this isn't true, than why was he eating the other children's snacks when he couldn't find his own? Life doesn't follow a straight and clear cut path at all times. There are going to be annoyances and there are going to be times when Simon will be unable to control his life situation.

I'm actually afraid of running into Simon (or someone like him) in 20 years right after he has had something not go his way, and being the brunt of an adult version of his tantrum.

elso:

But, Simon is being raised to believe that nothing should ever deviate from his expectations. He has been taught that his wants and needs are above everyone else's. If this isn't true, than why was he eating the other children's snacks when he couldn't find his own?

Why indeed? Maybe because he asked, and they were nice enough to share with him? Or maybe one of the other helicopter moms felt sorry for him? Or maybe he slapped the shit out of another kid and stole his snack?

Plenty of options, but not all of them support him being a sociopathic egomaniac.

Your violent outburst again the writer suggest that your own upbringing did not do the world a favor.

My criticism: Where's the research? Where's the interview with a pediatrician? Where's the stats? One hopes for some good, useful information in a Slate article.

M.

Where did you read that he was thought that way? On the contrary, the article was about how to correct his behavior. The author just didn’t assume that his behavior is a sign of some evil nature, inflated ego or unreasonable demands. And frankly I can’t understand how so many people can think of this first when we speak of a 5-year old.

" Life doesn't follow a straight and clear cut path at all times. There are going to be annoyances and there are going to be times when Simon will be unable to control his life situation. "

That is very true. But this is not an easy lesson to learn. Look how many full grown people haven’t learned that sometimes you just can’t make your child stop crying and that does not lead to any terrible consequences.

"The author just didn’t assume that his behavior is a sign of some evil nature, ...."

Simon's behavior is perfectly natural and normal, and anything but evil. He's a regular kid.

So what? He still needs to be shown how to fit into a social structure if he is going to be tolerable to himself and others. He still needs to be raised.

Growing up and being a happy person is to a great degree about harnessing our nature, our appetites, and learning to channel our feelings into something non-destructive if not productive. It has to do with self control. Parents are a huge part of that.

"... inflated ego or unreasonable demands."

Oh, but he certainly does have these traits, being again, a normal child of his age. And again it is his parents' duty to show him to think about people other than himself, and to begin to differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable demands. Simon is not still an infant.

Something like: "Simon, you will not freak out and make everyone around you upset. You are not going to die if we can't find your snacks. You will deal with a bit of hunger until we can find something for you. Now behave yourself or you will be punished."

Oh how dreadful, how barbaric such spirit-crushing parenting is! In fact, this makes for a much happier, healthier Simon.

He could end up like the really nice German Shepherd who is never trained by his owners to stop jumping up on guests and peeing in the house, and so is constantly having to be scolded, pushed away and locked in the garage. It's cruel not to socialize pets, and cruel not to socialize kids.

"Something like: "Simon, you will not freak out and make everyone around you upset. You are not going to die if we can't find your snacks. You will deal with a bit of hunger until we can find something for you. Now behave yourself or you will be punished."

I think the author says just that, without the part about the punishment, because, why would you punish something that is perfectly normal, as you said. She is just not focusing on the idea that Simon has to suppress his emotions so he won’t annoy the others with his crying, but to teach him what to do in order not to get frustrated, not cry and in that way benefit the others by not annoying them.

As I said, people react mainly according to their own nature. When somebody focuses their message first on the fact the child has to learn to think about other people, so he won’t annoy them, they actually don’t think exactly about the child at that moment, but of their own annoyment.