Modern Culture Children... What's the Excuse??

Why do people excuse children from good behaviour at things such as music recitals or plays, leaving them home instead of bringing them along, when those same children are quite likely sitting around at home with a sitter watching television or a movie? How is it that people think two hours of listening to music is not something a four and six year old could handle doing, but the same four and six year old could watch two or three hours of television without them, or anyone else batting an eye?

I don't think that "it's going to be a long time to sit and listen" should be an excuse. Children are forced to sit for two hours at a time in school, they are allowed to sit for a few hours at a time at home in front of the television, and sometimes (though now a days it isn't often) children will sit and read for a few hours at a time. But as soon as you want to TAKE them somewhere? It's too long for them to sit and be quiet.

Hmm... what's the difference? I do have a theory. I think our society has been conditioned to treat children very differently than they ought to be. Children have very few expectations placed on them in the modern culture. They are often permitted to talk during church (if they are taken to church at all) and sometimes during school. Television has advertisements, so they don't have to keep their brains on one subject for more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time, and have a three minute break every ten to fifteen minutes so they can talk, run, and jump, and ignore what is going on.

A hundred and fifty years ago, a child of any age, be they four, ten, or any other age, would have been expected to be still, not just quiet, for a full church service every Sunday morning, sometimes stretching to two or three hours in length. Even one little fidget would have been good for a whipping. They were then expected to sit for the same length of time, in the same manner for the Sunday evening service, and Wednesday service as well! They were expected to sit quietly in school, no fidgeting, no talking. Parents didn't simply leave their children home because they were "afraid of how their child would behave", because they knew their children were trained better than to misbehave in church, school, or any other social situation in which quite, appropriate decorum was necessary. Why should it be any different now??

We took our niece and nephew to a music recital yesterday afternoon, expecting it to be about an hour, maybe just slightly more. It turned out it was two hours long. Well, there was a brief intermission half way through, and at that point we already had people commenting on how well behaved the kids were, and how they wouldn't have dared bring their own children or grandchildren to something such as this. They were even surprised when they found out we were planning to stay for the second half! Why should they be surprised, when we came in the first place?? The kids made it through the second half of the program just fine as well. We didn't force them to be perfectly still, though we also didn't permit them to be entirely distracting to those around us. We were seated in the front row, so they were able to see what was going on, and we were sure to tell them the composer's names, and the title of the song (if it had something more "titly" than "opus 81. no 3." or whatever, lol). The kids kept the beat, pretended to be conductors, found pieces they particularly enjoyed, and ones they didn't really like. Yes, by the end, they were getting fidgety, but having been told to be quiet, they remained relatively so, right through not just the first hour, but the second hour as well.

Were we brave to try taking them to something like that? Maybe in some people's minds. Many informed us they felt we were brave to have done so. We simply told them they had been well trained by those who care for them, because we had only had to tell them they were to be quiet while there were people on the stage.

In my mind, though, those people who don't teach their children to be quiet when they are told to be, and who are too afraid of how their children will behave at somewhere to be willing to take them, are doing their children a great disservice. How many things will modern children miss out on? How many events will be "too long" or "too difficult" for children to experience? Why should a four or five year old not watch The Nutcracker (unless you have a problem with the dancer's attire)? Why should they not attend a music recital? Why should they not listen to two hours of a symphony, or go sit through a two or three hour play with only a fifteen minute intermission? What's wrong with them going to a wedding, funeral, or any other church thing, for that matter? Why should children be excused from the church service so they can play in the nursery, or go to Sunday school? What is wrong with them simply attending church with their family, and having Sunday school at another time?

What is the difference between any of that, and television? Only one thing: In order to attend anything at which they must be quiet, children must be taught from the very start to sit and be quiet for periods of time, gradually increasing the length of time, instead of permitting their minds to only focus on the subject for a few minutes at a time and then babble away every ten or fifteen minutes. I think that is a pretty significant difference.

...and people wonder why we don't want a television in our home...

And of course... that's my opinion, and hopefully I haven't hit anyone's nerves (unless you agree with me, lol). I have aimed not to insult anyone, but really... if you are insulted, because you can't make your child be quiet for an hour or two in a public location, maybe you need to work on it a little.