Mum A or Mum B

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

Mum A and mum B are both at the school were their dcs attend and are listening to a talk about some changes that are happening within the school. The person giving the talk asks that anyone with a noisy child/baby take them outside. It's difficult to hear in the room at times, as there are quite a few little one's and a slightly mumbling speaker.

Both mums have a 2yo(+) aged child. The 2 children are sort of arguing a bit over who has what chair, one of those silly non arguments that children that age have. One says this is my chair and the other says this is my chair. They are both right as they are talking about their own chairs, toddlers eh!

Mum A is telling her child to shh occassionally but isn't that concerned although her child is pretty loud. Mum B is doing the same although her child is actually being fairly quite but by arguing back (even quietly) is winding up mum A child and making it worse.

So mum B quietly tells her child to stop arguing and to play with his toy. Child quietens. Child of mum A does not but mum not worried about it and is trying to ignore her child.

Every now and then the same thing happens and mum B does something to try to stop the kids arguing (reminding her child to just play quietly and not worry about other child and trying various things) and moves her child further away which helps for a while with her child, but child of A doesn't stop making screeching noises.

Towards end of meeting, mum B reminds child one last time to be quiet so she can hear the important info being given out. Mum A says to mum B "just leave them alone, let them get on with it, they are just kids" (you need to add a "tone of voice" to this of stroppiness and a bit of a dirty look).

Now mum B never spoke to other womans child at all and only ever smiled at the child, definately didn't tell them off or anything.

Who was unreasonable? Mum A who thought they should just get on (apart from a couple of shhhess) with it as after all they are just kids, even though the speaker had asked that they be removed it they were not quiet and everyone was having a bit of trouble hearing over her child?

Or mum B whose child wasn't being that loud but was antagonising the other child and who was trying to defuse the situation between the children by getting her child to play quietly alone for a while?

PS. Was mum A unreasonable for pretty much "telling off" mum B?

(really hoping I got all the As and Bs the right way around)

[Atwaroverscrabble]

Mum a sounds like a 'slattern' who couldnt be arsed ro parent her child and has no consideration for others tbh....

[SnakeOnCrack]

Ha, are you B? I'd have told A to bugger off.

[Atwaroverscrabble]

To parent! Doh!

[BaronessOrczy]

Why does it matter? Which mum are you?

They were both BU and could have moved away from the other one.

If you were looking on and getting frustrated, why didn't you move?

[Flisspaps]

Both were unreasonable if people had been asked to take little children outside if they were noisy - if the children were being disruptive enough for Mum A and Mum B to need to speak to them, they probably shouldn't have been in the room.

In trying to shush Child B, Mum B was probably making enough noise to distract others around her.

Are you Mum B?

[manicbmc]

They were both being unreasonable. They should have taken the kids out so others could hear.

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

manicbmc Ah be re-read. . . Mum B is doing the same although her child is actually being fairly quite . . .

Child of B quietens with gentle (and quiet) reminders, child of A does not.

[manicbmc]

Yes, but child B was winding up child A. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, hence both being unreasonable.

[animula]

Don't think you're really asking about who is right or wrong but rather about why A feels it's OK to make a "power-over" statement to B, or rather, what as perceived by B to be a "power over" statement.

Well, it could be that A feels more secure in the environment than B; that A is a bit like that; that A was just making a generalised comment and B perceived it as "power over".

Could be that A genuinely feels superior to B and thus free to make comments like that, or that B feels herself to be superior to A and thus surprised that A doesn't recognise this when she makes what B perceives to be a critical remark.

Could also be that B feels very unsure about how to behave in relatively new social situations which involve children and is wondering if she's in the wrong. I'd say, don't worry: there are always fairly blunt people in this world, with differing views on things, best thing to do is let it slide right over you. As to the meeting, well seems like what needed to be heard was heard, sure the children weren't that noisy anyway, schools are used to this sort of thing, and that first message was probably intended for parents of babes in arms who can't be quietened in any way.

I'd counsel to forget about it - by the end of primary, A and B will most probably be on friendly terms anyway.

[manicbmc]

However, Mum A shouldn't have said anything to Mum B, as it's none of her business how mum B parents her child.

[BettySwollocksandaCrustyRack]

They were both BU to be honest....they should have either moved so the kids werent winding each other up or taken them outside when asked to! If I had to chose one I would say A was the worst offender :)

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

manicbmc I see what you mean, but if child of B was actually being quiet most of the time but child of A wasn't, why should child B leave. If child B left, child A may have still screeched. So still a noisy room. If child A left, there would have been quite as child B was quiet (with gentle reminders) anyway.

[manicbmc]

That's why I said both should leave.

[Anniegetyourgun]

"The person giving the talk asks that anyone with a noisy child/baby take them outside."

They didn't. Therefore both mums are BU. Next!

[Kladdkaka]

I agree, both should have taken them outside. They were both being disruptive.

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

animula That's very well thought out! I think Mum B probably felt quite takenaback that someone was telling her what to do about her child when she was already doing a successful job. Why criticise someone who is doing something that is working?

Mum B probably also felt that mum A should take her child (as the noisy one) outside. Mum B had already moved her child over as far as they could but didn't see a reason to take her child outside when they weren't even being noisy, even though they may have been a contributing factor into mum A child making noise.

Mum A would then have stayed in the room and the room would likely not have been any quieter and mum B would have missed the info for nothing.

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

Anniegetyourgun

"The person giving the talk asks that anyone with a noisy child/baby take them outside."

They didn't. Therefore both mums are BU. Next!

But child B wasn't being noisy.

[Anniegetyourgun]

It wasn't being as noisy, you said.

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

Kladdkaka I agree, both should have taken them outside. They were both being disruptive.

But . . . child B wasn't being disruptive, perhaps contributing to A being disruptive but making no significant noise themselves. Just the occassional whispered "my chair" at the other child, which was drowned out by other babies gurgling and crying a little bit anyway.

[JeremyVile]

Both unreasonable. They were asked to take noisy children outside and didn't bother.

A sounds useless, but B sounds just as annoying as her shushing etc would have just added to the noise.

Lazy mares.

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

Anniegetyourgun As I just said . . . "Just the occassional whispered "my chair" at the other child, which was drowned out by other babies gurgling and crying a little bit anyway."

So not completely silent but then they are 2! But for their age amazingly good IMO. Stayed sat on chair the whole time and played with a toy car.

[itisnearlysummer]

Mum B should have swapped seats with her child so that the children were no longer sitting next to each other.

Tis what I would have done.

[Kladdkaka]

To others, trying to listen to a mumbling speaker, that is being disruptive.

[WhoseGotMyEyebrows]

JeremyVile Both unreasonable. They were asked to take noisy children outside and didn't bother.

But why would B go outside when her child wasn't being noisy (Just the occassional whispered "my chair"). The occassional quite shh into a childs ear isn't going to disturb anyone.

[JeremyVile]

If child B really wasn't being disruptive then mum B wouldn't have felt the need to keep intervening, would she?