And you’re completely fucking wrong about dogs.

Parenthood for any individual is usually a choice. Parenthood and children, looked at more broadly, are not.
It’s unreasonable to the point of ridiculousness to expect to live in a society and not be around children at least some of the time.

I think part of the sentiment from the anti-children crowd is how arises from dining, and the evaporation of adult-only spaces. In my view, having such outlets is also important for a well functioning society.

Have any of you experienced that babysitters are not as easy to find as when we were kids? While you can get babysitters from an agency, the cost is high enough that they are often reserved only for special occasions.

Having a better market for babysitters under $10 an hour would definitely help get the rugrats out of your hair. If you don’t like dining with children, make the world a better place: Befriend a neighbor who is a parent, and offer to watch their kids from time to time.

Which brings us to another problem: Without stable neighborhoods where we know our neighbors, parents will not trust their kids easily to others.

All of these factors lead to a higher than expected prevalence of children in environments that used to be primarily for adults.

I don’t have any easy answers.

I do have more of a right to be on an airplane than you and your child – because I’m considerably more qualified, by virtue of age and experience, to ensure I won’t violate essential courtesies.

I must disagree. I pay the same fare, and need to go to the same place, and there may be no other practical way to get from point A to point B except by plane.

Parenting is immensely rewarding, but it’s emotionally challenging.

Many who say “I wish they would parent” often wish for a magic button or mean “parent MY WAY which often means, in our society, hit them and that’ll learn ‘em

As for those who say that reasoning with the kids is somehow wrong. Well, I agree that a tantrum is not the time to engage in Socratic dialogue. Reasoning should occur after the kids have calmed down, in private. However, I still feel that if the kids are suffering, that their needs (as opposed to their stated wants) should be addressed.

Kids needs should also be taken into account. For instance, in a one hour grocery trip, kids are going to get antsy and might start fighting just to relieve tension. You may need to engage them in age appropriate activities, or arrange to make more frequent, but shorter trips. You can’t eliminate tantrums (they’re kids after all). But parents are obliged to minimize the risk.

I don’t intend it that way, and I don’t mean this analogy to be taken as an attempt to use people with disabilities as a lever to improve public support for parents and children. I recognize that adults with disabilities are often treated far more disrespectfully than parents and their children are, and my argument is in large part an argument for greater respect and accommodation for adults (and, crucially, children) with disabilities themselves.

Trishka, there’s a difference between saying that a parent is responsible for his or her child’s behavior and saying that a parent is responsible for ensuring that his or her child behaves exactly as an adult would. I’d agree with the first proposition, but not with the second.

As for the Tourette’s situation, let me refine the analogy.

Assume a public space — airplane, restaurant, meeting, museum, line at the DMV, supermarket. Take your pick. Imagine two hypothetical patrons, each entering into the space for the same reasons.

Patron one is a parent with an infant child. He or she has made a good-faith effort to secure childcare, and hasn’t been successful. Patron two is an adult with Tourette syndrome. He or she has made a good-faith effort to ensure that he or she won’t vocalize that day, and hasn’t been successful. Neither can leave and return on another occasion — in each case, it’s a matter of remaining or giving up on the event (or errand) entirely.

Assume that the infant isn’t crying, or being otherwise disruptive, except that he or she is occasionally babbling. Assume that the frequency, duration, and volume of the infant’s babbling is the same as that of the vocalizations of the person with Tourette syndrome. Assume that each of the two adults is making a similarly conscientious effort to keep the disruption to a minimum.

Two adults. One with a disability, one with an infant. Each is disrupting the environment to the same degree. Does one have more or less of a right to remain than the other? Should one be more or less apologetic than the other? Should one be more or less embarrassed than the other?

Seems to me that if we can say that in a situation in which all other variables are equal, a person caring for an infant and a person living with a disability have equal rights and obligations in public space, that’s an insight that has really interesting consequences.

EG Says:
June 11th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Doesn’t mean everyone has to feel good about being around a 3 year old who is overtired or is having a tandrum. It’s (among other things) the expectation that I am not going to be irritated that irritates me.

In that case, I totally have more of a right to be on an airplane than you do, because not only will I not violate essential courtesies, but I will actually go out of my way to help out people having difficulties when travelling, including the difficulties of travelling with children.

*Claps*

*Cheers*

Oh, and Roy? You’re a class act.

How do you know they don’t work in one of the myriad areas – education, hospitals, government – where policies that affect parents and children are determined?

Hmmm. I think I’m onto something here. As others have pointed out on this thread, while it’s de rigeur to be verbally pro-child, actual government and corporate policies continue to be the opposite.