While reading the New York Times online, I came across an article that made me stop, laugh, and then think. On March 24, 2011, a discussion was presented on one of the NYT blogs about leashing one’s children. It referenced an article originally from the April issue of Parents magazine and was written by the author of one of the regular advice columnis, Judith Goldberg. The timing was too perfect since I have brought this up on multiple occasions among friends, though I didn’t see this article until afterwards.
The blog describes that, “three sentences brought 100 e-mails.” I’ve provided a link to the NYT blog, but below is what was written in Parents magazine:
“Leashes are for dogs. You wouldn’t put your child in a crate, or let him poop on the sidewalk, right? If you have a bolter, invest in a cheap umbrella stroller with a buckle.”
Not only is this argument hilarious, but it also fits perfectly into an RCL blog post. Three short sentences acquired numerous responses from people with varying perspectives. But, while reading through these comments, it is not only her point that exasperates the readers but also her tone and manner of delivery. Her tone is interpreted as aggressive and even rude. As such, the responses are very defensive.
I cannot help but wonder what wold have happened had the author used a different tone in her article. Her point would likely still have been met with counterarguments, but I doubt that they would have attacked her as personally, as well.
Regardless, it was fun read and interesting to see the many opinions!
Thats really funny..something like that I think people usually have very strong opinions about so it makes sense that such extreme answers were provided...amanda what do you think =p
ReplyDeletesooooo angry just had an amazing comment and it got deleted!!!!!! Anyway, I think this article is hilarious and the tone (which I interpreted as sarcastic) was completely appropriate for the stance the author was taking (by which the way I total agree with). The "child-leash" is a very sensitive issue. One parent (usually a smothering overprotective mother) will claim they will do anything to protect their child and the leash enables them this ability. Others claim it dehumanizes the child, infringes childhood freedom, and limits the child's ability to learn through natural instinct.
ReplyDeleteGabby,
ReplyDeleteThis is so funny. When I see little kids walking around on a leash I laugh, but then I start to feel bad for them. If my parents put me on a leash when I was little, I would be scarred for life. Kids are people too, and should be treated like people! If they are old enough to be out of a stroller, they are old enough to hold their parents hand and walk beside them. Great post!
Sophia
This post is hilarious, and for some reason, it reminds me of a comment someone made (I think it may have been you) about Amanda being one of those kids on leashes. ;)
ReplyDeleteI feel like the leashes issue is sensitive mainly because it puts animals and children equal in one way, but at the same time, it isn't necessarily a bad idea. When my sister was younger and we went to the store, i used to hang onto her hood or sleeve while we walked, so as to not lose her. Leashes are sorta like that, but they give the kids a little more leeway to wander XP
I WAS NOT A LEASH KID
ReplyDeletebut I did poop on the sidewalk, once.
*kidding