Stop Passing The Buck!

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/15/woman-sues-mcdonalds-over-happy-meals/?hpt=Sbin&hpt=C2

I find it strange that, despite my having no children, I feel so strongly about parenting, or a lack thereof, in the world today. I'd venture a guess that many people who read this article (link above), especially those without children, would come away from it thinking about how overly litigious our society is and perhaps how ridiculous it is that this kind of suit is even allowed face time in a courtroom. Some may read it and be bothered by the fact that our civil legal system has been reduced to being little more than a lottery. I understand those interpretations, and I agree with them all, but when I read it, parenting is the glaring issue.

Monet Parham of California is suing McDonald's because of Happy Meals, specifically because of the influence the toys therein have on child behavior. “We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat."

It irritates me that parenting today too often is a pass-the-buck institution. Instead of the actual parents bearing the responsibility of raising their children, they place that responsibility on anyone else they can. They expect the teachers and school administrators to raise their children during the day but still maintain the ability to focus on educating them. They expect the leader of their extracurricular activities to parent while they're practicing a sport or an instrument. They expect PlayStation 3 to keep them busy and quiet until it's time for them to go to bed or go back to school on Monday.

They pass that buck so they don't have to do any parenting and if something goes wrong they have someone else to blame. If their kid learns the term “oral sex” then it's the school system's fault because they carry dictionaries that include the term. If a kid gets into a fight or shoots up a school then it's the video games or the music or the movies that exposed, and encouraged, violence to their kids. If a kid throws a tantrum because they want a Happy Meal with an Aladdin toy then it's because McDonald's is “dangling a toy in front of a small child”.

Yes, companies will market towards children and they'd be silly not to do so. Children are potential new regular customers of their product for a lifetime. Children may be the only demographic whose tastes are a constant. All children like toys, candy, and Disney movies. Additionally, since there is no sign that people are going to stop making babies (given how much we enjoy the process that leads to conception), it's a demographic that is here to stay.

Just because a commercial or a gimmick or a shiny toy on the end cap of the aisle at the drug store catches the eye of a child and tempts the child to want it, it doesn't mean the child has to get it. I was about ten or eleven when the original Nintendo was released. It was on everyone's Christmas and birthday list. My parents weren't budging on their decision not to buy one. Despite my wanting to play “Mario Brothers” and “Contra” and “Double Dragon” as my friends were doing, it wasn't going to happen … at least not at our house. If I wanted to waste my allotted play time at a friend's house playing video games, I was free to do so. They knew I wouldn't do that very often, however, because they knew my love for playing outside (remember that?) was too strong. They knew I'd much rather spend my allotted play time shooting baskets, or playing playground football or baseball. In my parents' mind it didn't make sense to buy a Nintendo anyway, because it was limited in functionality. Why let their children having something that is only used for video games when we had a computer on which we could play games and had the option to do something educational? They didn't, they said no.

No.

No, I think, is the most important word in child-raising. If it is said often enough, and followed through upon, it's quite powerful. No is more than a response to a question. No is integral in distinguishing right from wrong. No is the foundation for character. It is the basis of safety. Life, whether we realize it or not, is often more about not doing than doing. We say no to things far more often than we realize and that's because saying no to those things have become a part of our natural reactions, our routines, and our habits. We say no every time we use pot holders (no to pain), or put on a jacket (no to potential illness), or even wiping our shoes against the mat before entering a house (no to disrespect). We say no every time we go to work or school (no to laziness and to letting others down).

No is what leads to respect, responsibility, and fairness; without no, they cannot exist.

Parents stop blaming everyone else for your inability to say no and/or your ability to follow through with it. No is only as effective as its permanence. Saying no and changing it to a yes only makes saying no useless; that's the kryptonite to the superpowers no possesses. If you don't want your kids to eat at McDonald's then don't give them McDonald's. If you don't like that the Happy Meal has a toy, don't order a Happy Meal, or throw the toy away.

Children can't be reasonably expected to learn restraint when the parents don't have the wherewithal to demonstrate it themselves.

It's not McDonald's' job to teach your kids restraint, nor is it their job to teach you how to be an effective parent. Stop passing the buck to others for your lack of parental control.

Is it really everyone else's fault?

No.