O = Obvious

I would be willing to bet that what is obvious to us is not necessarily obvious to you.  Nor any other particular person.  But everyone knows that and because of it, we establish laws, regulations, rules to make it obvious what should be done, what consequences will follow certain actions, and steer us away from chaos and anarchy in our society, our cities, our families.  Right?  Some people will call them “norms,” or “appropriate” actions and to a degree, we try to fit in.  However, these things change as we humans try to better our conditions, environment, and adapt to change. Therein lies the Obvious problem/dilemma.

Right here, right now, this blog can go one of two ways—either sarcasm and satire with humor, or a deep look at the not so funny or humorous state of our national attitudes and what is happening that is so obvious to some and definitely not to others.  So which way to go?

IF we go with an intense look at where our nation is heading, we sense frustration and futility.  We see two definite divisions classified as either Red vs Blue, liberal vs conservative, and then it breaks down into truth vs lies and where the issue of what is obvious becomes tribal and exclusive.  In the microcosm of the family unit we see this division and break down into obviously right vs obviously wrong.  Anyone who has ever tried to argue with a toddler knows this.  What is it Dante wrote about the gates of hell?  Abandon all hope you who enter here?  That pretty much sums up my feelings on what I feel is obviously happening in our society and every thing it touches, including each individual.  To us it is obvious that the current state of affairs threatens our whole country in every way, and to others—well, it is not.

IF  we choose sarcasm and satire laced with some pretty dark humor, it is more pleasant to expound on without getting quite so damned depressed over the whole thing.   And we do sincerely believe humor and laughter are sanity savers.  It would also foster some hope that things can change and enlightenment can take place somewhere, somehow.

So which way to go?  Hmmmmm.  Let’s look at an adult arguing, or attempting to argue with a toddler.  Here’s the scenario.  Johnny is sitting playing with his action doll, contented, happy.  He is not forced to share with older siblings because he’s the “baby.”  Besides, the older kids don’t want his slobbered on toy anyway.  Mom is happy.  Johnny is happy.  The older kids are happy.  Dad comes home to a quiet and congenial house and everyone smiles a lot.  Then there’s a knock on the door.  Oh, wow!  Look who has come to visit!  It’s Aunt Kathy and her toddler.  Wonderful!  The two toddlers can play together and the adults can visit and the older kids can do whatever it is they do when another toddler comes into the house and that is to instinctively disappear, knowing one toddler is controllable, two less so.

Johnny eyeballs his cousin, appearing to clutch his little doll closer.  Cousin Jimmy sees the doll immediately and eye contact is made between the two.  Johnny gets up from where he was sitting, and toddles off toward the parent of choice.  Jimmy, silent but determined, follows.  The adults are oblivious to the brewing storm.  Johnny stands close to his father, in an obviously defensive posture.  Jimmy stands less than a foot away, edging forward, eyes darting between Johnny’s eyes and the doll in Johnny’s hand up by his chest.  The adults keep talking.  An outside observer sees that Jimmy obviously wants the doll and Johnny obviously is aware of that want.

Suddenly, Jimmy steps forward, both hands reaching for Johnny’s doll!  Johnny shrinks back and into his father’s knees.  The father suddenly pays attention and says to Johnny, “Why don’t you share your toy with Jimmy?” and nudges Johnny toward Jimmy while trying to extricate the toy from Johnny’s death grip on it.  Johnny screams, “NO!  MINE!” and Jimmy also screams as he lunges towards Johnny and gets his hands on the toy.  The mothers now start trying to reason with the screaming toddlers as the father tries to wrestle the toy away from four little hands clutching at it.  

The situation escalates as the mothers get louder and try to convince two toddlers to “share” and then the father booms out, “Either SHARE OR I WILL TAKE IT AWAY FROM BOTH OF YOU!”  One would think this would shock the toddlers enough to at least stop the screaming but instead, they only scream louder and have fallen to the floor to carry on their physical battle.  Words of “reason” are being screamed by adults, the two toddlers grapple for the toy, unhearing, when the father reaches in, grunts, and triumphantly stands, toy in hand.  He waves it over his head, the victor over the toddlers, and both kids start bawling and clawing at his pants leg to try to climb his frame to reach the toy.  The mothers each pick up a child to try to distract them from the toy as the father smiles and announces, “Well, I took care of THAT, now didn’t I?” and still victoriously holds the toy above everyone’s head.  At this point, it is obvious that all that was taken care of is the fact that no one has the toy except the father and no solution, resolution has been reached.  Johnny definitely did not grasp the concept of “sharing” nor did Jimmy realize he could not just take what he saw and wanted.  Wailing and temper tantrums continued by both toddlers until Jimmy’s mother finally picked him up and took him home.  Johnny got his toy back and learned that the fight was won by him as the adversary was now gone and he had what he wanted and what he felt was rightfully his.  Did anyone learn anything?  ANYONE?

Yes!  If you scream loud enough and long enough, you get what you want by forcing the intruder out.  No one wants to hear you pitch a fit, you refuse to listen or learn, and ultimately, you win.  Controls, parents, adults, cannot stop you!  YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU WANT!  And the parents say, “Well, at least the screaming stopped.  And he doesn’t understand, but he’ll grow up and get it.  He just needs time.  Anything is better than his fits of anger.”

The older kids return.  Johnny sees that one of them is holding a toy he is attracted to.  He grabs it and runs.  Chaos ensues as the older kid demands to have it back and yells for help from the parents.  Johnny is screaming and clutching once again.  The parents tell their older children to just put up with it.  Johnny will grow out of it.  And so Johnny takes what he wants, when he wants and it is obvious that no one is in control except—Johnny—who they hope will grow out of his insatiable appetite for taking what he wants regardless of who or what says he should not.

Ah, the world of toddlers.  Isn’t it rather obvious that Johnny is not going to stop what he is doing as long as there are no consequences for his selfish behavior?  Isn’t it obvious that as Johnny gets older and continues this behavior that something is awry?  Probably to everyone but Johnny—but obviously Johnny doesn’t care.  There are no “norms” or “appropriate” behaviors for Johnny.  No rules.  No laws.  Just watch Johnny and see the lengths others go to to keep him from throwing a screaming fit.  

Is it not obvious that Johnny needs to be taught through consequences?  Is it not obvious that the more Johnny careens through life, without control, the more the toddler, now growing up at least physically, is creating chaos?  Guess not.  But the obvious solution would be to teach Johnny, and remove his toys until he learns to share or not let him have any at all.  Obviously, if everyone followed Johnny’s behavior, no one and nothing would be safe from him if he desired it.  

And so it goes.  Toddlers.