Great post! My brain is fried today so no real thoughts... but your post reminded me of that Sex and the City episode when Samantha is in a restaurant and is annoyed by a woman with her noisy child sitting at the table next to her. The waiter asks her not to use her cell phone as it "disturbs costumers" and she comments something along the lines of how children are more disruptive than phones. Have you seen it?
I really don't see that this is restricted to a political outlook, although maybe people who view themselves as tolerant have a little more cognitive dissonance over it.
People vary widely in ability and willingness to deal with children and probably this is true across the political spectrum. Public spaces by definition have to accommodate a variety of people, but at least where I am, we are without a general agreement on what is appropriate and what is inappropriate in these spaces. As far as I can see we don't even have a general agreement that you should not use your cellphone in a theatre.
In the absence of such agreement, you do what you feel comfortable with, subject to what you can get away with. People probably get more comfortable with asserting their preferences the more they do it. I don't remember being particularly concerned about taking my daughter places where I thought it appropriate. On the other hand, she didn't learn to sit still for more than a minute until she was about 7, so I didn't take her places where that would be a problem. On those occasions when she had to go to an event where she had to sit, I did my best to sit where she would be unobtrusive, or could leave entirely. I imagine some people might have been disturbed by her presence, but having done what I could do short of drugging her, I didn't feel particularly bad about it.
I also remember carrying her around endlessly outside a restaurant hoping she would stop crying (she didn't) and missing pretty much the whole meal because she would have detracted from everyone's meal if she had stayed inside. Even I, a big fan of children and someone not especially bothered by noise, don't really like hearing babies screaming in restaurants. and I was not comfortable subjecting everyone else to her distress calls. But without clear guidelines for public behavior, either the parent or the restaurant owner has to decide what is acceptable.
I imagine we could improve how things are designed to make it easier for kids and kidophobes to coexist, but that isn't the kind of thing that seems to get much attention. One approach that I have seen used pretty often is providing a place for kids to be left while their parents do whatever they are supposed to be doing, which isolates them from the other adults. That generally doesn't include infants, though.
The best thing I have seen for infants are soundproof booths in churches where parents can take their little bundles of noise when they go off. There might be other applications for that approach.
I'm only seeing a very tenuous, barely visible connection between women losing wages and future social security and retirement (because people who choose not to have child (saying "childless" makes one sound like a failure) consider children a choice), and subjecting those people without children to all the inconveniences that they feel they should be able to avoid (screaming, crying, inability to enjoy adult things as adults (smoke, loud music, etc)). What about people without children who pay their taxes to school districts for children they do not have, and who consciously vote in accordance to better education and healthcare for those same children that do not belong to them? Is it really so wrong that these same people who choose not to have children -- who maybe aren't "kid-people" -- just want to enjoy dinner out quietly? Or a film without screaming?
Two thoughts (one of which has already been nicely addressed above):
1) you might be setting up a false (but understandable) dichotomy between liberalism and communitarianism. (I say understandable because these are the two options we tend to hear most about.) Progressives are neither classically liberal nor, necessarily, communitarian. With progressives like Dewey (and more recently Ben Barber) there's an understanding of human interdependence and the importance of examining how we construct our social institutions without demanding that we all subsume our individuality into the communal will of some greater whole.
2) As we think of ways to make the public sphere more child-friendly, can we demarcate some spheres as less appropriate for children? (Bars, for example, or elegant restaurants.) I love that Sex in the City example cited earlier because Samantha is exactly right. She's eating in an upscale restaurant and the kid in question is pitching a fit because he doesn't like his schmanzy meal that mommy ordered for him. Perhaps the flip side of the hostile-to-families problem is the upscale yuppy "I have a right to everything I can pay for, everyone else be damned" mentality. It's a version of the liberal rights-obessed position, 'cause it is more concerned with choices available to "me" and less with the nature of the social space, the interests of the other people, or even the interests of the *child* (does anyone remember what that poor kid was being asked to eat?).
I've found that he more "mainstream" places you visit, the more family friendly they are. Go to Ruby Tuesdays for dinner and you'll see babies and kids at every table (the food/sanity trade off is worth it....especially as maddie turns toddler). Eating out along the highway in Wilkes-Barre or any other similar place, you will discover how family-friendly mainstream amerika is. Watch out though in the hip places...NYC especially. A good rule of thumb: If they don't have a high chair, don't eat there. Eat out early and all is usually well.
I've done a lot of thinking about this -- as a childless person. In some ways, kids in public are like cell phones. The cell phone itself isn't a nusance, it is the person's use of the phone in an annoying and obnoxious way that is a problem for me.
Likewise, kids themselves aren't the problem, it is their parents who are unprepared t to bring little ones out in public and who refuse to set-limits or recognize the limits set by others that are the problem. For example, sitting in front of a 2 year-old on an airplane, whose mother didn't think to bring a whole bunch of stuff for that 2 year-old to do... it isn't the kid's fault that her mother is an idiot and thus the kid is reduced to kicking my seat from Chicago to LA... it is the mother's fault.
Another example, at my gym it isn't my responsibility to watch the 3 year-old in the hot tub while her father stands in front of the sign prohibiting kids in the hot tub and flirts with the lifegaurd.
So, don't be one of those parents and those of us without childrent won't have a problem with you...
I guess I'm not sure who these anti-children, anti-family progressives are. Living on Long Island, the expectation is that everyone has kids, and there seems to be an awkward silence after someone says "do you have kids" and I say "No."
That's not to say that every employer tries hard to accomodate parents -- not many employers offer parents services for looking after their children, and few employers offer good parental leave for new parents. We could be more supportive of families.
Of course, there is a question about what counts as fair and equal treatment under the law, and whether parents or non-parents are discriminated against. It does sound a little silly to say that having kids is just a lifestyle choice comparable to buying a nice house. On the other hand, maybe what the progressives you refer to are reacting against is the normative assumption that everyone should have kids, and they want the social and legal legitimation of their lack of children.
interesting I should read this post the morning after I spent my evening last night eating dinner at a nice restaurant being watched by a 3 or 4 year old girl child who was standing beside my table at my elbow staring at me (and who did not belong to my party) while her mother and father were two feet away paying absolutely no attention to their child or the other patrons.
I agree that to me, as a childFREE person, the whole of society seems to be structured around families (not necessarily children per se, but a patriarchal nuclear family model).
I appreciate that parents are often in a bind because they can't secure child care, or because child care is sometimes very expensive, and that parents are often also very tired after a long day of dealing with the seemingly endless energy of their children.
however, I also don't want to have to deal with the repercussions of that. I jsut want to sit down to a nice meal in a fairly upscale restaurant and enjoy some time unwinding. I would imagine at least some of the other patrons have children that they wanted to have some time away from as well.
I'm maybe particularly sensitive to this because I used to work in the spa industry, where a serene atmosphere is pretty important to most patrons. nevertheless, mothers would bring their babies and children with them to the spa all the time. I find it highly inconsiderate. And as an employee trying to provide a high quality service, to be distracted by children and babies was very annpying.
I also don't think that all childFREE people feel as I do. Furthermore, I don't complain about having a good portion of my earnings paid out to people who do have children, in terms of baby bonuses, schools, health care, and other tax breaks. I don't complain b/c I know parents are raising the generation who will one day run my government and work to provide me with social security.
I don't think it's too much to ask that parents respect some degree of boundaries and respect for others by not bringing their children with them every single place they go. I avoid places where I know there will be children; I don't go out to eat at places where I know there is likely to be a family seated beside me, and I dont go to see movies at times when I know it is likely there will be a small child sitting near me. It would be nice if parents would have a little courtesy. I get that parents are often stressed and strapped. but come on. there are places appropriate for kids and there are places not appropriate for kids.
and what to do when a child is standing beside you watching you eat and their parents are not paying the slightest bit of attention? do you ask the parents politely to get the kid out of your face? do you ask the child to please go away and not bother you? I find this a very confusing situation that I have encountered FAR TOO OFTEN. Sometimes I have asked the parents directly to please ask their kid to stop kicking my chair on the airplane or the movie theatre, b/c I know sometimes parents zone out. But sometimes my request is met with a glare of hostility (most often an apology, however). Other times I have spoken directly to the child and asked them to please stop doing whatever rude thing they are doing (sometimes I have had to do this after asking the parent), and this never seems to get a good response either from the child or the parent. Is it better to treat the child as an autonomous being, or as as extention or property of the parent?
I love the point about how, in many cases, it isn't about the presence of the children but the cluelessness of the parent. As a counterexample to the clueless parent, I offer the following tale, as I've been thinking about it ever since I read this post:
I was in the supermarket the other day, and this obviously overburdened woman with two toddlers was making her way down the dairy isle. Well, one of the kids didn't want to sit in the cart where he's supposed to, and he started to throw a fit. You could see the tantrum start to bubble up, and I braced myself (with annoyance) for the ensuing scream. Just as the kid was about to let rip, the mom gently but firmly put her hand over his mouth and quietly insisted "you HAVE to sit down." I never wanted to hug a stranger so much in my life. She was a total hero to me. Doing the shopping by herself with her two kids and still considerate and thoughtful of others (who may have had far fewer burdens to bear at the moment) at the same time. She was awesome.
As to this one:
"Is it better to treat the child as an autonomous being, or as as extention or property of the parent?"
This question has fascinated me for some time. I always think that it makes sense to treat the child as much like an autonomous being as seems reasonable (perhaps going up to someone else's infant and instructing them not to cry would be an inappropriate attempt to recognize autonomy). But this would mean you'd really have to speak to them as a reasonable person and not try to parent them yourself. In other words "please stop kicking my seat," would be appropriate, while a lesson on why it's wrong to kick your seat would perhaps cross boundaries.
Then again, any time an adult speaks directly to a child he or she doesn't know, everyone's child-abuse radar goes off, and I don't know what to do about that.
When I lived in Barbadoes, one of the first cultural differences I picked up on was the attitude to kids. They seemed to belong to everyone, and in fact the kids called adults who weren't blood kin "uncle" and "aunt." (The first time this happened to me, I was floored. By the time I left Barbadoes, I found it the most natural thing in the world, and actually quite miss it here in the States.) A kid with whom you had only the slightest acquaintance had no hesitation in walking through your front door and going straight to the refrigerator, or running up to you for a hug and a cookie if a knee got skinned. It was only the uptight Anglo tourists who found this uncomfortable or unseemly. If a kid was acting up in public or just being bored, restless, or energetic, all the adults in the vicinity took responsibility. Depending on the situation and the temperaments involved, some scolded the kid, others played with the kid, still others distracted the kid, others comforted the kid. But what absolutely wasn't in the realm of possibilities was wishing that the kid was out of sight, gone, exiled. Kids weren't made to be invisible fifth wheels when around adults, and they sure weren't seen as unwelcomed pests or perpetual annoyances. They were part of the natural landscape, everyone was "related" to them, and everyone took responsibility for them.
My friends who travel in the global south tell me similar stories.
Bring Maddie back to campus OFTEN!! It was SOOOO good having a little one around again. Having her with us really does keep us mindful of the good stuff, and less obsessive about the stupid stuff.
I have learned that I committed a PC faux pas. I will refrain from saying childless and say childFREE from now on.
I really don't see that this is restricted to a political outlook, although maybe people who view themselves as tolerant have a little more cognitive dissonance over it.
You're right. It isn't restricted to political outlook. But my point is that it seems odd to me that lefties and feminists embrace this view. Many of the responses here only underscore that.
So the more I mull over the bulk of these comments, the more I am convinced that my point about public space is right. Americans believe it is their right to be free from squawking children. Kerry's example of Barbadoes illustrates the point nicely. There is not expectation that people can be free of children. Now, perhaps our way of inhabiting space is preferable? Nonetheless, the expectation is that children should be seen but not heard.
From a linguistic point of view, I think the the "childless" vs "childFREE" distinction rather interesting for two distinct reasons.
First, is that "childless" is a pretty simple word construction using the appropriate suffix to turn the noun "child" into an adjective and at the same time confer the meaning "without." Lexically, it seems to me to be an entirely appropriate term to use. Nor do the pragmatics of either term seem to carry with it a negative connotation (the standard target of PCness) outside of the meaning of "-less".
I presume, however, that the real reason people object to "childless" is that "-less" is a privative sufix, and so carries with it the connotation of "deprivation," which people take to imply that being "childless" means something along the lines of "deprived of children" which then has an implicit value judgment. Perhaps, though I think "without" is the standard reading of "-less," but that's not really my point.
The second interesting thing is that "-free" used here as a suffix also seems to be employed as a privative suffix. In which case, it is hard to see the real difference between "-free" and "-less" except that whereas "-less" might indicate "deprived" to some, "-free" will instead indicate "unencumbered." But that seems to be a similar value judgment in the complete opposite direction! Instead of saying that one who does not have children is deprived of children, it might conversely implicate that one who does have children is restricted or encumbered.
Curious indeed!
I think you should reconsider your conclusions about public space in Amercia. Most Americans seem very tolerant of kids, though of course nowhere near the level of the global south. We have learned to go to family-friendly places. A restuarant in Cambridge where a liberal grad student is trying to study is not a family-friendly place to go for dinner (even if they do have a high chair). However, if you stop in an Amish run meat and potato place in Central PA, people will be cool as they all either have kids or grandkids of their own. Sadly, this makes it hard as a vegetarian former hipster to be out and about. The one time someone actually suggested we should have gotten a baby sitter was when we when to the high-end vegan place in NYC on 72nd street. Since it was 5:30, most people had kids, but the one couple that didn't actually verbally attacked us for bringing a kid out. Fortunately the management was on our side, but we no longer go back there and eat at the noisy burrito place instead. So, I think you are dealing with a fairly niche problem: high-maintenence, hip, childfree, folks who are not in the majority and the elite snobs. Ironically, the meat and potato amerikans have proved to me the more tolerant (too bad I don't like their spaces....). This is not a big surprise to me; we live in a very divided country.
Kerry's point about the rest of the world is true,and not just the global south. If you want a taste of Sweden, go to IKEA. There is a place for kids to play in EVERY room; they have a free daycare; they even give you free diapers; and when you eat there is a kids play area in the center of the cafeteria.
"Nonetheless, the expectation is that children should be seen but not heard."
That seems a bit of a straw-response to what nearly everyone here has been saying. Almost to a person, the response has been that there should be the opportunity (I don't know whether anyone called it a right), in some places and under some conditions, to be without children in the vicinity. And, yes, part of socializing children in this "uptight" country of ours involves teaching them not to kick other people's chairs, stare, or sceam at the top of their lungs. Of course, this takes time and effort, and I, at least, am certainly not advocating a bunch of silent little mice everywhere. But there's a difference between "seen but not heard" and running rampant all over creation.
"There is a place for kids to play in EVERY room; they have a free daycare; they even give you free diapers; and when you eat there is a kids play area in the center of the cafeteria."
I think something like this is a *great* idea that any progressive would get behind. If the kids are in a kid play space then they aren't screaming in your ear while you shop or struggling to sit still at a grown-up table when they really want to run and play, etc. It also goes nicely with Spaz's original point about how we construct public space. Making a space child friendly doesn't just mean you can bring your child anywhere you want. It means appropriate spaces get constructed in ways that are appropriate for children's energies and attention spans and so forth.
So, I think you are dealing with a fairly niche problem: high-maintenence, hip, childfree, folks who are not in the majority and the elite snobs.
I fit the childfree part, but certainly not the rest. And I'm still trying to figure out why being "free from squawking children" in public spaces is so wrong. Why can't people who don't have/want children be able to enjoy the peace that should come with that? Why are we suddenly being demonized by this? Where is the compromise here? I find myself in very few places that don't allow children and more times than not the people with the kids are allowed to be there regardless of how loud their children get (in fact, I can't think of one time that I or anyone around me said anything to those parents, or children). If anything, I see the compromise on my part as a childfree person. I eat, I listen to kids screaming, and I say nothing. Am I really the bad person for getting re-seated in a quieter section of the restaurant and making the parents feel bad?
I thought I recalled a post, either here, or possibly elsewhere, where the point of the piece was saying that women who choose not to have children are treated as, somehow, failures as women, and that, of course, was wrong. Why would women in particular get this kind of consideration, but people without children in general are expected to join into the parenting, when they have chosen not to be parents? It's not a perfect comparison, but the point is the consideration of ones rights. As a woman, I feel like I do have a right to make my own decisions and not be made to feel inadequate later. As a person without children, I do feel that it's my right to be unencumbered in public spaces by the children of others. Like i said before, I support what's good for children, and I pay for it without complaint. I am all for the betterment of all children, everywhere, on just a human level, and for society as a whole. But, really, insisting that everyone should commit themselves to the children of others in such a intimate, personal way is really negating our rights to chose to not have kids and not have to deal with everything that comes with having kids.
zeek--
Well, I think you are onto something. The most tolerant spaces for chidlren are often on the political right or religious spaces. And yet, these are not necessarily the spaces I want to be in either. So, maybe I am frustrated as a former hipster.
IsThatLatin--
I am not indicting you. In fact, what is become clear in this dialogue is that many women do get insulted (I am guessing by more traditional women) for being child-Free. I, hopefully, don't fit that bill. I am not trying to guilt you out or make you feel bad for wanting child-free spaces.
I am really just musing on what I think is a way that we carve up public spaces. Zeek has pointed out that there are mainstream or more right-leaning spaces that accommodate kids (however, I hate to think of the Amish as right-leaning). So, clearly the progressives--hipster types?--are more interested in child-free spaces. And, surely they should exist.
One last thought--I wonder to what degree the bad behavior of children is wholly the fault of parents. Sure, many parents are not good disciplinarians or they might not monitor their children well in public space. I don't deny that. But, it seems that there are larger reasons for why children might not be so well socialized in public space?
Jeff M -
even as I advocate the use of "childfree" rather than "childless" - because of exactly what you describe, the value judgment that I am "less" of a woman for not having children (although, what is a "woman" anyway? but I digress) - I also agree that on the other hand, "childfree" does have connotations of children as encumberances, and those who have them as being imprisoned by them.
however, as a person who actually does view children in this way, it seems fitting! :P
This isn't a ditch I want to die in, but "childfree" really sets my teeth on edge. Pest-free. Cancer-free. Debt-free. Drug-free. Parasite-free. Pain-free. Etc. The "x-free" expression seems to suggest being rid of something that's undesirable, a nuisance, a debility, a weight. What a message.
I find it ironic to read someone complaining about their rights to quiet enjoyment of "public" space. Since when have our public spaces been defined that way? We live in a society where people can protest and make music (with permits), where trucks rumble, where people smoke cigarettes, and where we all accept lots of compromises from what we would tolerate in "private." The idea that kids are a problem of public space smacks as absurd. What we need are more kid friendly public spaces, not less.
I think it is worth pointing out that the same issues we are talking about apply to other groups: the elderly, the handicapped, and others. I am used to living in countries where old and young take care of one another and where family is more central than the individual. In such places, 20 and 30 year olds--whether they have children or not-- are living with and taking care of old and young people and it is the focus of life, not being able to sit and drink a cappachino in peace and quiet in a "public" space.
I would like to see our society embrace art and life in public spaces, to allow for more free expression, not less.
"The "x-free" expression seems to suggest being rid of something that's undesirable, a nuisance, a debility, a weight. What a message."
The only issue I'd take with your interpretation is the word "rid." It may sound like I'm nitpicking, but I think an important point is operative here. To be "rid" of something seems to imply that one had it, and now, thankfully it's gone. Am I cancer free if I've never had cancer or only if I've survived it? If I'm childfree because I'm *rid* of a child, then I already had one. Being child-free would then either be appropriate only to deadbeat parents or the parents of those who just left the nest for college or some such thing (ha ha, just kidding). Anyway, it would indeed be chilling to want to be free of one's existing children because they are perceived as nothing but a nuisance. That's why birth control is such a great thing.
In the case of someone who is free to choose not to have children (and so many are still NOT free to do this), the burdens involved together with the lack of the "aw, I want one!" instinct may make parenting seem more like a burden and a nuisance that one is thankfully free to avoid if one chooses. And given the population crisis on the planet, it doesn't seem so bad if the people who perceive kids to be a nuisance and a burden don't add to the population.
"But, it seems that there are larger reasons for why children might not be so well socialized in public space?"
I think this is a great question, and one I've been musing about all afternoon since I read Kerry's post about Barbadian child-rearing practices and public spaces. I've only been to Barbados briefly, but I'm willing to speculate that the kids are better behaved, even while being rambunctious. I'm further speculating that, if the kids belong to everyone, then everyone plays a role in the parenting, including disciplining (I don't mean corporal punishment or "time outs," I mean correcting behavior with a simple "don't do that!"). I'm guessing non-related adults in that culture are less hesistant than we are to directly communicate to children that they have gotten out of control. I don't know how different things are among islands in the West Indies, but Jamaica suddenly comes to mind, and I can't imagine any Jamaican being flummoxed because they can't figure out whether it's appropriate to tell a staring kid to get out of her/his face. (S)he'd just do it, and rather authoritatively!
I also wonder what this all has to do with our relatively recent (and middle class) cultural invention of childhood and all the protectiveness and isolation from the public sphere that it implies. But I've already gone on too long.
P.S. In short, it come full circle to this business of children being private choices in the sense of classical liberalism. If they're private choices, then they're private property. If they're private property, then they do not belong in the public sphere. But if they are brought into the public sphere, we must not infringe on the property of others.
Okay, I'm done for the moment. I swear.
For all the talk of "family values" our society really isn't welcoming of children or parents. No day care, no health care, no work structure that allows parents to be parents, no real education.
OTOH, I do feel resentfull of people who have large families. I'll gladly die to protect the right of women to choose, but overpopulation is killing this planet. Children create externalities that the rest of us must suffer and/or pay for. I guess that my bottom line is that everyone is entitled to one or maybe two children and society ought to support people so that they can be good parents. Beyond that, you're impinging on the rest of us.
The new blog look/color scheme is nice!!
I think it would be helpful to return to the question of whether or not commercial spaces is the same as public space. There aren't enough of them, to be sure, but we do have public spaces: parks, libraries, museums, schools (although I'm pretty sure that we'd all agree that access to these should be controlled). And the question of how public commercial spaces are or should be has been a hot legal question for decades (as aspazia briefly notes). I for one don't want to lump the two together entirely, given the ease with which the corporate world has already bought what should be public and shared.
We probably can all agree, regardless of personal choices or non-choices (there are plenty of people without children for whom it was not a choice!), that our national conception of family (a female parent at home and a male parent earning enough money to support his spouse and children) does a poor job of representing the lives of most Americans and that, as a result, our policies are wholly inadequate.
But there's a difference between "seen but not heard" and running rampant all over creation.
That's such a southern-style phrasing (All over creation!), but I completely concur with the sentiment. There is a large difference between not having your seat kicked for a six hour flight, and having children vanish like magic simply because you happen to be in public and haven't the patience for them or the desire to be around them.
One the one hand, I do believe having children is a choice for which the parents alone are responsible. I haven't the foggiest notion how it could be otherwise. However, once a person is in this world, we--as moral agents--have duties towards them. And we can't escape that. Disciplining a child you don't know is likely to overstep your bounds both with the child and with the parent, but the standoff attitude we have in this country seems largely detrimental. It creates an "us" and "them" mentality within the populace, which just makes it seem permissible to avoid problems. This is the same attitude that makes one go, "Well, it's not MY problem, so I don't have to deal with it".
Children are a part of our community. To exclude them is just as wrong as to exclude anyone else. I understand that we all want "me" time, but when you step out your door you have given up the right to have that. You are now in the public realm, and you're going to have all the hassles and pleasures that come with it.
There are places that are geared away from children. When you take your girlfriend to a high class restaurant to "pop the question", you don't want to have to yell over a child in order to do so. But if you attend a PG movie you better accept that you're going to have children present, and they are not all going to stay in their seats, and be quiet for 90 minutes.
We would do well to have a more communitarian approach to life and society in general, in regards to children, adults, the elderly--simply people at large--but I haven't a clue as to how we can make the adjustment. Personally, Sebald and James are welcome any time. Roger is welcome if he comes complete with a diaper bag and all other necessary regalia, but would I say that if I did not know Hanno and Angela? I'm not sure. And there's the rub.
Maddie is welcome if Spaz agrees not to wrestle me into a political debate. I cannot manage with an infant and a feminista simultaneously. I have my limits.
"Most public space in the United States is intolerant of children. Squawking babies annoy customers in restaurants, patients in waiting rooms, etc. Many establishments are expressly not for families to frequent--loud music, smoke and happy hours. Very few workplaces would allow an employee to bring his or her children with them to work. You get the picture. When you have a tiny infant, like I do, it takes a lot of psychological work to get up the nerve to go out and enjoy public spaces--gosh, maybe I am talking about commercial spaces?--without caring about the dirty looks and sighs from people who can't stand your infant's cries."
No, it's just the public space YOU want to be in that is intolerant of children. Take your kid to the park, the zoo, the pizza parlor, the fair, the mall, the grocery store, the toy store, movies that are appropriate for their age, and so on, and so on, and so on, and you will find that there are plenty of places tolerant of children.
Loud music, smoke, and happy hours. Are you serious? That sounds like a bar, toots, and you're not supposed to go into a bar unless you're 21 or over. Are you honestly suggesting you wish you could bring your kid into a bar?
Workplaces don't allow children for a good reason - they are a huge distraction. If an employee is helping a customer in a call center, should they have to put up with a crying child in the next cubicle and shout over the sound of that child to communicate with the customer? Any time someone brings a baby or toddler into my office, there's a flock of people around them and a good hour of productivity is lost.
It sounds to me like you want to bring your child into all of the places you used to frequent before you had her. Well, too bad. It never ceases to amaze me that people, pre-kid, will have no problem with the way an establishment runs things or the people in it until they try to return post-kid, with kid, and find that everyone is such a meanie because they don't want to smell a poopy diaper, hear a baby scream, or put up with food being flung.
There was a time when parents had good common sense and did not bring their kids to public places where they might disturb others until they were well trained at home to be considerate of others.
Babies are too young to be brought to many public places where people try to take them nowadays. Selfish parents are those who want to be to live their lives as they did when they were unencumbered by kids. So they have no compunction about insisting the rest of the world take on the burden of responsibility they themselves do not want.
Stay home with your kid if she is too young to behave properly in public. You be the grownup and accept that having a child changes your life. Sometimes not the way you want but you should have thought of that before you took on the responsibility of giving birth.
Spaz, when you got Maddie's nursery ready, did you go with soft blues and pinks, or did you opt for chartreuse and magenta with black lights? Do you play lullabies by Brahms, or do you blare Queensryche at jet decibel levels?
Children are easily overwhelmed by the world around them. Even as an adult, I often feel sensory overload depending on my surroundings. But I don't cry. I leave my surroundings for something more pleasant, if that is an option. I certainly don't have a temper tantrum and tell the DJ at the Woodlands to play some Raffi.
A child cannot make this decision. They cry because the person responsible for them made a poor choice in venues and they want them to make a different, better choice.
For all your bleating about being a feminist, it seems like your choice and what is convenient for your child is all that matters.
Why don't you schlep your kid over to a party on Ross Street some Friday night and ask them to turn the music down because, you know, there's a CHILD here and ALL must adjust to YOU and YOUR CHILD?
For all your bleating about being a feminist, it seems like your choice and what is convenient for your child is all that matters.
Good lord. What a phrase. Bleating! So, what I am curious about how you have managed to mangle my argument about public space and liberalism into a bleating feminist wanting to make the world over for her own convenience. I am guessing that this is your strategy for entering into the debate because it is much easier to turn my argument and my questions into a bleating feminist rant than take them seriously as worthy questions to think about.
Good points, Jim. I see so many parents bringing their small children to places not only inappropriate for them but unpleasant as well.
Just a few weeks ago I saw a small child injured in a tavern when she got under a table and someone not knowing she was there tried to move it. The child had no business being there to begin with but her selfish parents obviously did not want to loose their precious night out just for the sake of their child.
I think that some parents refuse to admit their having children has changed their lives. They want to be the "hip" parents; the "cool" parents. They don't want to give up the freedom they had before they had kids. And they don't care who is inconvenienced even if it is their own children.
There are plenty of places that are geared towards children. There are safe and good places the kids will be happy in.
But as long as selfish parents put themselves first they will continue to make their kids and everyone around them miserable by taking them to places where they do not belong.
Typical HipMoooooooooooo. Wants the public to accommodate her and her spawn, but doesn't want to accommodate anybody else.
What a surprise that Moo Ph.D. is on your blogroll. Another breeder twat who thinks the world should revolve around Da Pweshus Cheeeldrunnnn™.
Commenting by HaloScan
