news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

economic observer network yan yong/text this happened on a juneyao airlines flight: a little girl over one year old was crying non-stop, and was taken to the cabin toilet by two strangers to be disciplined - if you stop crying, you will be allowed to go out to see your grandmother, and if you continue to cry, you will be brought back in. the two passengers thought they were "setting rules" for the child, and also helping the many passengers in the cabin who could not stand the crying of the child. they posted the video of disciplining the child online, but they did not expect it to cause such a huge uproar.

from the statement released by juneyao airlines, it can be seen that the child's grandmother acquiesced at the time, and the mother who was not present also expressed understanding afterwards. but this did not calm the controversy, and public opinion was torn. some people believed that "the parents agreed, so what does it matter if netizens disagree", not to mention that the stranger in the video did not use violence against the child, but only preached. some people even said that children who cannot keep quiet should not be brought out.

there are some issues of right and wrong that need to be clarified behind this matter. the parents all agreed, so why don't netizens agree? the opponents are not meddling in other people's business, nor are they interfering in family affairs, but they see a misunderstanding in the concept. it is normal for different people to have different views on the same thing, but if it involves right and wrong, it still needs to be discussed and a consensus needs to be reached.

first of all, it needs to be clarified that this is a child over one year old, and cannot be compared with those "naughty children" who ignore the rules in public places. some parents now, under the influence of the so-called free education concept, are indeed somewhat laissez-faire in their children's upbringing, so that children of seven or eight years old have no sense of boundaries in public places, playing and fighting, and disturbing others. parents think that this is the nature of children and do not interfere or educate them. this is of course wrong, freedom has boundaries. but the child on the juneyao airlines flight is obviously different. for children over one year old, crying is a physiological instinct. if you want children of this age to understand the "altruistic" rule of "being quiet in public places", it is beyond the normal stage of their mental development and is tantamount to forcing things to grow.

second, with the tacit consent of the parents, can a stranger bring a child into a confined space to discipline him? perhaps the passenger in question thought he was just "coaxing" the child, and that "if he stops crying, he can go out to see his grandma" was a way to coax the child. i have no intention of debating differences in educational philosophy, and this does not fall into the category of "right and wrong". however, a stranger brought someone else's child into a confined space and did not allow the guardian to follow. this behavior is obviously beyond the line.

if this is tacitly accepted as "okay", or even considered as "doing good", and thus becomes a model, there are potential risks. not to mention the hidden dangers of human traffickers and child abusers, even if the person encountered is not a bad person, it will further reduce the already low tolerance for crying of young children, making the conflict more intensified. at that time, the guardian's acquiescence may have been out of helplessness. the child kept crying, and the people around him complained or looked at him strangely. the guardian was under great pressure, and coupled with a weak sense of self-rights, he "agreed". i remember taking my one-year-old child on a plane seven or eight years ago. at that time, i had no psychological pressure to worry about his crying. in recent years, the tolerance of children crying in public opinion has indeed decreased.

third, i want to discuss the right to travel. should a child who is unable to keep quiet not be taken out? this view is not only wrong, but also dangerous. some people say that children under 3 years old are not suitable for flying because the change in ear pressure will cause discomfort. the small space in the cabin is not convenient for soothing crying children. this makes sense. however, they have the right to fly, and they should not be deprived of this right just because they cannot keep quiet. of course, their guardians should do their best to prevent their children from disturbing others, bring more snacks and toys, and think of ways to minimize the impact on others when they cry. if the baby still cannot stop crying after trying their best, the guardian does not need to bear the pressure of being condemned.

in germany, there are special laws to protect people's enjoyment of "quiet time". during the statutory "quiet time", people are obliged to avoid making noise that affects others. a mother traveling in germany said that one time she couldn't fall asleep after getting up at night to feed her child, so she started washing clothes in a washing machine, and the noise was a bit loud when it was dehydrated. the next day, the neighbor upstairs knocked on the door and said that he was disturbed by washing clothes at night. however, germany, which is extremely strict on noise, regards the crying of babies as "natural sounds" and an age-appropriate behavior. babies have the right to cry anytime and anywhere. when there are cases of complaints about noisy babies and children, the law mostly stands on the side of the children and parents. "you can't expect to have a button that can be pressed to make the child quiet" - this is the concept they follow.

in addition to infants and young children, there are also some children or adults with special needs, such as those with autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. they may have sudden emotional outbursts or some uncontrollable behaviors in public places. under the view that "if you can't keep quiet, you shouldn't go out", they should not go out. but this is obviously wrong. we can require guardians to have the obligation to accompany them and the responsibility to prevent them from causing harm to others, but we cannot deprive them of the right to travel. it is estimated that there are about 20 million people with mental disabilities in china.

behind the view that "if you can't keep quiet, you shouldn't go out", there is essentially a lack of empathy for special needs groups and a lack of awareness of defending the rights of minorities. why are people with disabilities rarely seen in public in china? to a large extent, it is because their needs and rights are ignored.

fourth, infants and young children have the right to travel, and the public has the demand for quiet rest. how to resolve such contradictions? it may be difficult to have a standard solution. in the uk, you can choose between family carriages and quiet carriages when buying train tickets, and airlines will give earplugs to passengers who are close to infants and young children. cinemas will also have special shows for autism. under the social consensus that the rights of minority groups should also be valued and protected, specific technical solutions can vary according to national conditions and customs.

but there is one idea that i think is worth learning from. a psychologist recounted a personal experience. once when she was on a plane, the mother sitting next to her was a mother with two young children. the two children were very anxious since they got on the plane, which put pressure on the mother. when it was difficult to comfort the children, she became more anxious. the psychologist jokingly said to the mother of the children: "fortunately, my children have grown up. parents know that this age is simply too difficult. if you need a hand, let me know." the mother was obviously relaxed after hearing this, and the child was finally comforted. what i want to say here is that the tolerance and support of people around can help parents relax from stress, and for crying infants and young children, the relaxation of the caregiver may be the most effective way to comfort them.

some people say that people are less and less tolerant of crying babies and young children. this may be because society is too competitive and personal free time is squeezed to almost nothing. people can only seek peace on the road. this makes sense. the other side of a tense society is often fragility. it is difficult for an adult who can't take care of himself to accept the noisy and not so cute side of a child. this is a more complex and extended topic.