There have been some recent posts in the blogosphere by those who are annoyed by parents. According to these bloggers, parents are a whiny bunch who feel entitled to time off and other benefits. They also believe that parents are indulging their kids and allowing them to be noisy on airplanes and in restaurants, which detracts from the flying/eating pleasure of the childless. The childless have the right to not hear crying kids and to not have to take on extra work responsibilities to compensate for the free loading parents.
I would love some of the childless to expand on these thoughts in my comments section and allow for some good debate. If that doesn’t happen, I will just provide links. I recently found a website for the childless to vent.
Apt. 11d 
The childless backlash is something I think a lot about as a childless person. I admit I get really annoyed when I am some place with children running around, crying babies, and where the “cult of childhood” seems to pervade. I also admit I am probably a little high maintenance about these things.
For me, it is the intrusion of children into “adult” spaces. There was a time I could go to my local coffee place, sit quietly and read my paper, and spend a certain amount of time guaranteed that I would not be sorrounded by childen. Now, my local coffee place is beginning to resemble a Gymboree where parents are sitting babies on counters, I am dodging running toddlers with my hot coffee, and every empty space is taken up by strollers and baby paraphernalia.
I realized this invasion of adult spaces when I was sitting in Starbucks writing and a small child crawled up into my chair, while his mother talked with her friend, who was holding a sleeping baby. The child that suddenly ended up in my lap started pulling on my computer cord so I tried to push him away. His admittedly embarrassed mother, seeing my discomfort, said kiddingly, “You want him?” I replied, “Only if he comes with a trust fund and a nannny.”
This invasion of adult spaces includes trying to hear the church sermon over rattling marbles and crying babies, eating dinner with friends in a nice restaurant while the kid at the next table continues to throw things on the floor, and sitting in R-rated movies and hearing parents try to hush their restless kids.
I separate adult spaces from others because I realize that when I am sitting in Wendy’s or McDonalds, I don’t really have license to be annoyed with kids. The same goes with the park and the grocery.
LikeLike
I just wanted to say thanks to Dan for being cool enough to discuss the views of the childless here. I hope others do, too, and we can have a civil discussion.
LikeLike
On a recent flight from Pennsylvania to Utah we were seated directly behind two demon-eyed toddlers and their mother. The in-flight movie was Hildalgo. Mother Protector carefully read the description of Hildalgo in her intinerary; it said “this feature has been edited for content and length.” When the film began to play, however, Mother Protector frantically pressed the flight attendant call button to demand why the film caveat warned “viewer discretion advised.” She complained, “How can the airline distract my sons? What if the movie has brief nudity? I don’t understand why viewer discretion is advised if the description says it was edited for content. The in-flight film is rated PG-13 for language and violence.” Of course, the ever patient attendant replied, “well I can file a complaint if you prefer.” She did.
I do not understand why parents think that the rest of the world is responsible for censoring information from their kids. She had the audacity to request that the film be cancelled. Why ruin it for the rest of us, childless or not. More importantly, it is a terrible day for American attitudes when parents are more concerned that their children will see a butt cheek than they are about watching violence.
LikeLike
My husband and I have been married 7 years and don’t have children (yet). We usually are the ones who end up doing most of the accommodating for our friends who do have children. We go on group camping trips with a pack of kids, out to dinner en masse (not always, but it isn’t always feasible to pay for a babysitter and we do want to get to hang out with our pals pretty regulary), we have parties where kids are welcome, although generally expected to leave early.
It mostly doesn’t bother us, because of our friends have hip and funny kiddos who are very well-behaved. And after years of knowing and being around those kids, they respect and even obey us — if one of them hits the other while their mom’s not looking, I’ve got permission to scold the one and comfort the other. Sometimes it’s a drag to always be around kids, but our friends are generally pretty considerate of adult-only situations. If we’re going to a nice restaurant, they get a babysitter. We tend to not be friends with people that are so kid-centered that they can’t talk about interesting things, or aren’t interested in doing cool stuff.
I am pretty appalled at some of the inattentive and disrespectful stunts that some parents pull in public spaces. Please, don’t make me worry that your kid is going to be hit by a car because you aren’t watching him. And if the baby won’t stop wailing at a Stereolab concert, then go home. Parents should be in charge of their kids, but they shouldn’t become so kid-centric that they become non-entities.
LikeLike
“This invasion of adult spaces includes trying to hear the church sermon over rattling marbles and crying babies, eating dinner with friends in a nice restaurant while the kid at the next table continues to throw things on the floor, and sitting in R-rated movies and hearing parents try to hush their restless kids…I separate adult spaces from others because I realize that when I am sitting in Wendy’s or McDonalds, I don’t really have license to be annoyed with kids. The same goes with the park and the grocery.”
As one who attends a church with a large number of babies and young children regularly disrupting things, and who has torn his hair out at irresponsible parents dragging their children to movies which are clearly reserved for adults, I can sympathize with Dan. He is absolutely right about the need, in principle, to show some smarts and respect in how one judges what “spaces” are appropriate for children and which aren’t, and he’s also correct that many, many parents show neither smarts nor respect. But when it comes to actually laying down guidelines as to which spaces are which, let me very tactfully (I hope) throw a grenade into this discussion. I am struck by Dan’s reference to what Starbucks used to be vs. what it is now, to his reference to nice restaurants vs. Wendy’s or McDonald’s, and I wonder whether there isn’t something class-based going on here. After all, who are these people with all these kids hanging around them, anyway? Might they not be, among other things, people wanting to have access to a certain forms of life and entertainment, but who might not always be able to afford babysitters or daycare? Are they, in other words, people acting outside their approrpiate (expected?) class and/or cultural boundaries? After all, aren’t mommies, er, not supposed to be busy, educated coffee drinkers, but rather at home with their soap operas?
LikeLike
Hi. I am a long-term childless person. I don’t think I am “annoyed” by parents, but I am sometimes surpised by the political/social decisions that parents make–I imagine that people who are parents should be among those most concerned about: environmental change, the US budget deficit, lack of health care, lack of support for education, and dozens of other topics which will fundamentally affect their children. But overall, I don’t see parents working for change, or even very aware of the world. Instead, there’s a very hermetic attention, not to the needs of all children but to an almost frightening centering on their own children. I work in higher education, and almost everyone says that “parents today” are much more likely to demand “special treatment” for their children than in the past. Even though these students are 18 (and demanding, at least here, that say, alcohol laws be bent to accomodate them) many parents seem to feel they must intercede and manage their lives, and that our policies and procedures should always work out for the benefit of their students (including things like “give the exam at another time, so we can go on a family vacation”).
LikeLike
I am 39, single, and childless, but a huge fan of children; I love to hang out with my friends and their kids. It’s interesting that you chose to link the “children shouldn’t invade our public spaces” question with the “we should do extra work to make life easier for our colleagues who are parents question.” I see these as totally different issues. I am very happy to have children invading whatever space they happen to be in (with obvious exceptions for snazzy restaurants and adult movies, and for kids whose parents pay no attention to them). But the other question is harder.
It seems to me that that second question relates to a broader one: how responsible are we for other people’s happiness? This may seem a little too broad in dealing with the academic workplace, but bear with me for a minute. I’m delighted to have my parent-friends in academia with me, but I’m not sure it should be up to me in the workplace to make their life better or easier – taking on extra committee work or advising, picking up classes at undesirable hours, etc., so that they can have more time with their family. Obviously this isn’t only a question of happiness – it’s also what’s good for the children, and I do agree that we have a shared responsibility toward the children in this society.
But – and this is where it gets complicated – I’d much rather babysit, or help my friends out in other ways, than take the extra committee work. In many ways I see my parent-friends as “having it all” – good marriages, great kids, and a good job. The fact that I don’t have a marriage or kids makes my life worse. (Obviously not all single people feel this way, but I bet a lot of us do.) So adding “work” to my life makes me less happy and makes my parent-friends more happy. I think this is at the core of some people’s complaints about accommodations to family issues.
LikeLike
I think this discussion is great because it indicates a divide between objections to kids per se (which is often perceived as the “childless” objection) and objections to parenting of said kids. That is what really gets me (and I have kids!) Parenting today seems to be centered on indulging children. I hate seeing undisciplined children acting up in a restaurant/public space, etc. There are perfectly well-behaved children in these places and those are a joy to see. But poorly behaved children are the parents’ fault–They have either taken children to a place/event where they cannot possibly behave appropriately (i.e. baby at a rock concert, three-year old at an R-rated movie), or they are unable to discipline their children.
Having lived in Cambridge, I would be very hesitant to discipline my child in public (a very gentle swat on a bottom would probably lead to me being hauled off in chains to the nearest jail as a child abused) and I understand parents’ reluctance to discipline their children in public, but something should be done about the screaming and destruction that I sometimes see when children are out in public.
This sense of indulgence also leads to the problems I see everyday as a professor–students want extra credit for the regular work they are assigned, parents ask me to indulge their children (by say, not failing them for plagiarizing) for no reason at all. I am sure it is worse in the elementary and high schools–everyone wants special treatment for their children.
LikeLike
I’m in between. I don’t have any kids of my own, but I’m a stepparent part of the time. What I find most annoying is the unwillingness of many parents to discipline their children in any way, shape, or form. I’m not talking about the occasional slip, or the occasional meltdown that is handled quickly (or even slowly) and well–stepkid has been known to have those. I’m talking about no-holds-barred craziness that puts the kids in question at risk, or that means the kid isn’t learning any manners. We keep up a narrative with the stepkid (he’s 7) about how you don’t stand in a doorway because your’re in the way, and yes it’s polite to hold the door, and “please” and “thank you” and “I’m sorry” are not optional, and so on. And, like some of the commenters above, I do think that I shouldn’t have to worry that I’m going to drop my coffee on some toddler’s head or remove a stranger toddler’s hands from my computer. i don’t care if the kid’s there, but I better know him/her before I have to interact in some major way with the kids’ behavior.
LikeLike
“Having lived in Cambridge, I would be very hesitant to discipline my child in public (a very gentle swat on a bottom would probably lead to me being hauled off in chains to the nearest jail as a child abused) and I understand parents’ reluctance to discipline their children in public, but something should be done about the screaming and destruction that I sometimes see when children are out in public.”
Off topic, but it must be said: the enormous resistance that our individualistic and indulgent society has developed against 1) people sticking their noses into other peoples’ business, and 2) parents punishing their children as appropriate, have combined to wreck havoc in our neighborhoods. Is it worth the benefit of preserving someone’s dignity (or, more commonly, avoiding a hefty dose of liberal guilt) to endure the cost of a violent, undisciplined, unsupervised child in a public place? I don’t think so. I think, somehow or another, we need to remember how to tell kids who are acting up to sit down and mind their manner, and how to remind parents that they have a civic obligation to do so.
LikeLike
I had to break this post up as it was getting too long. The other concern is that of childless people who do extra work–I believe committee work was specifically mentioned. At least in academe, I think this perception is somewhat out of place. I have been both the overworked childless person and the overworked person with child (I am a committee magnet, somehow). The administration has never given my work to someone else because I have a family; what has changed is that I only now feel comfortable turning down work because I have a family.
My priorities have changed. I also now feel more comfortable taking 2 weeks instead of 1 to return student papers. Before I had my family, I was really, really, really invested in my job as an English professor, which was not perhaps totally healthy for me because I would also get highly upset/angry/depressed that I was investing so much of _myself_ in my students and doing so much for my institution, and getting (much of the time) so little in return from both. However, now on bad days when my students haven’t read and complain about having to write _another_ paper, I don’t feel as bad because I am not devoting my whole life to these students.
I can’t speak for other professions, but I think academics are so invested mentally and psychologically in our jobs that it prevents us from turning down unreasonable requests on our time, whether they be from students who want to discuss their papers or committee tasks.
LikeLike
The last time we took a flight back from Seattle to NJ, the people in front of us turned around at the end of the flight and said: “Your children are so well-behaved. We hardly knew they were here.” This happens to us on almost any flight we take with our kids.
My husband and I take pride in the fact that our children do not disrupt the flights, and we also feel a little snug when we hear such comments because we also see the eyes of terror as we embark. What I mean is the the childless people immediately assume the worse when they see a family get on the plane. I know, I used to be one of those people too.
But here’s something you don’t know. Most flights our children are not angels. We ourselves feel a certain panic about being trapped on an airplane with our kids too — it isn’t natural for kids to be strapped into seats for hours. The flights are endless for us, as we do our best to entertain our kids for hours and keep them from disturbing anyone else. So they may appear to be quiet and cooperative, but that is because my husband and I are jumping through hoops to keep them that way.
I guess the question becomes why do we do it? Because we have the right to travel just like anyone else. Because we risk the “work” it takes during flight to enjoy a family vacation and meet up with family out Arizona. Because the more we travel, the better the kids become at it and the less work it becomes.
And now I ask a another question. Why don’t airlines cater to families more? The food is not edible to most kids. The bathrooms are incompatible with changing diapers. The movies are inappropriate. Would it hurt to keep the back of the plane reserved for loud, and disruptive groups and let them show a kid-appropriate movie to the back of the plane? Well, since the majority of travel is paid for by business travelers, I realize that nobody is going to start catering to kids anytime soon (unless Disney creates an airline).
But, I can dream I guess. Until that day, I’ll keep lugging my personal arsenal of DVD’s aboard the plane, so that should we be delayed I can pop SpongeBob on my laptop and settle the kids down so the people in front of us can recline in their seats and sleep.
I just want childless couples to know that we are aware of their comfort, and we do our best to accomodate them. And it would be nice if we weren’t treated like second class citizens, especially when we are paying for four seats out of our own pockets, not the corporation’s.
And if there was another way to fly — without disrupting the lives of single business travellers — I would gladly take it.
LikeLike
1. As a person with children, who used to not have children (isn’t that everyone with children?) I think we parents can see both sides of the issue. So I’m conflicted. We were recently at a wedding, where my 1-year-old was running around (in an age-appropriate way) during the cake-cutting, bride-father dance, etc. Was that inappropriate? Maybe it was. It probably was really annoying to some childless guests. On the other hand, the kids were specifically invited. One would have to assume that if kids are to be invited, then are invited as children, and can act appropriately.
2. On a separate topic, one area where I side with the “childless” relates back to the “professor moms” discussion. We all make choices. If I’m a professional, and decide that I want to use some of my time for socially constructive activities (construct houses for Habitat for Humanity, run a Soup Kitchen, tutor orphans . . .) that makes me a better person, but I don’t expect it to help me get tenure. To the extent that parents want to be graded on a “mommy” scale, however, that would make up for their lack of scholarship, I think that being a parent (and devoting time to raising the child) is a choice just like running a soup kitchen.
More rewards go to the single-minded. I kind of makes up for the fact that they’re not well-rounded.
LikeLike
This has been fascinating.
I have another confession to make and it is likely going to be controversial: I consider one of those “adult spaces” to be the workplace and am not overjoyed when co-workers bring children to work and meetings. I have recognized the necessity of it and that it is considered “family-friendly,” but it is yet another intrusion of children into spaces that were once thought of us “adult.”
The whole concept of “family friendly” is important and as someone who focuses their work on the workplace, it has meant a small revolution for work. Still, family friendly gives little accommodation to the needs of the childless and it is a “bonus-plus” benefit that means parents and married people are being paid more than single people or same-sex couples.
LikeLike
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/03/20040305_a_main.asp
March 5, 2004 episode of the public radio talk show “The Connection” about the rights of the childless. I’m a father of young kids, I should disclose, but I found some of the statements on behalf of the “childfree” to be quite whiny and self-centered.
I think it’s rude to allow your child to run wild and disturb other people in public spaces. It’s ridiculous to expect a commercial airline to cater to small kids in the films they show. This just strikes me as common sense, although I’m sure that as working parents feel more pressed for time, they bring their children into “adult” settings and push the envelope fairly often.
As a worker, I appreciate others’ understanding if I am called away because a child is sick or has a soccer game or the like. But I don’t take that understanding for granted, I compensate for the time I miss, and I would never assume that I ought to get assigned a lighter workload (and collect the same salary) as a colleague with no kids.
The flip side of the question, Are the childless responsible for the happiness of their co-workers with families? is, Does society have any collective responsibility for child rearing? Even the childless need for there to BE a next generation of responsible citizens / productive workers.
Re: students expecting indulgent treatment in college — That’s a shame. That’s something I hope I’ll keep in mind as I prepare my kids for higher education and adulthood. But don’t underestimate the anxiety families feel about the costs and the stakes of a good college education today.
LikeLike
I’m interested by the notion of “adult” places. I agree that there are some, but am not sure where the boundary is, especially having lived in Germany, which is much more child- and dog-friendly. While I agree that movie ratings are good indicators (but face it, adults don’t know how to behave in movies anymore, either), as are super-quiet restaurant surroundings, I can’t think of many other clear indicators.
Maybe the question is less one of “adult” space and more one of “adult” behavior. Something akin to the difference between “indoor” and “outdoor” voices?
I don’t have kids, and understand neither the resentment towards the familied nor the expectation of special privilege for having one. Kids, families, elderly parents — even needy SOs and pets just ARE. I prefer that my students not bring their kids to class, but it’s happened. As long as the child isn’t disruptive, it’s not that big a deal. I think that one of the great advantages/disadvantages of academia is that our lives and our work aren’t clearly divided. We regularly put in 60-hour weeks, and expect our families to gie us space to work at home — it seems natural that the trade-off would be home sometimes infringing on work.
LikeLike
Oops — clarification — the whiny and self-centered statements were on the radio show I referenced, not on this page (where the discussion has been thoughtful and civil).
LikeLike
Okay, yeah, ADM just reminded me that pets in public spaces really get me steamed up. Especially when the owner is holding the leash and engaged in a conversation and the animal is sniffing my crotch. Talk about your “adult” spaces!
Meanwhile, I frequent a coffee shop where I would sometimes bring my baby (while she was sleeping) to enjoy a drink and a magazine. One day, the person at the next couple had a (well behaved) puppy. Another regular, whom I did not know by name, but I know to be childless, walked over to our section, clearly saw the baby and the puppy, and said, “Oh, how cute!” directed to the dog owner. They then entered into a discussion about age, breed, etc. My baby, besides being very cute as well, is a freakin’ person!
I now hate this woman (whom I still see every few days at the coffeehouse) with a white-hot passion completely out of proportion to the alleged slight.
LikeLike
RB – Don’t even get me started on dogs.
LikeLike
I was a city dweller for a very long time. And living in such cramped quarters, you have to used to a whole lot of people and their annoying habits.
Fat people take up two extra seats on a bus, so I have to stand. Old people block the narrow aisles in supermarkets. Dominicans play their music too loud. Handicapped people stop the bus, the driver has to lower the platform for them, and then I’m late to work. Not to mention all the dog poop from the dog owners.
Not sure what my point is, except that everybody is annoying and allowances have to be made for some groups.
LikeLike
I have 2 kids, 3 and 7. I’m 41. I spent about 10 years (from 18-28) in college and graduate school, thinking, most of the time, how wierd and unnatural it was not to be around children AT ALL. The privatisation of public space gives people a sense that somehow they are enittled to be in ‘child-free’ spaces as if children aren’t a normal natural part of the world. (Wait, Dan, I’m not trying to piss you off, just bear with me). But that appearance is just a function of i) the extraordinary low levels of fertility, ii) the extraoridnarily high levels of longevity and iii) the astonishing, and truly depressing, paucity of genuinely public space in the US. Even the quasi-public space we have is invaded constantly by coporate expression. Normal people don’t need TV, movies, music and advertisements in their faces all the time everywhere they go. So whereas Chris Markum’s flying mother sounds a bit overprotective, I think its entirely reasonable to object to the airline selling tickets to children and then showing movies that it would be reasonable to think inappropriate for children to see, in a plane, where one cannot stop them seeing the movie.
So, I think Dan is wrong to claim Starbucks, or wherever as a child-free space. But I think he is completely entitled to be treated respectfully by other human beings over the age of about 2, wherever he is. Parents routinely seem to assume that systematic bad, loud, rude behaviour is normal and natural. Well, it isn’t. If my child misbehaves in a public space I WANT other people to chide them (calmly, carefully, not cruelly). I do this to other kids, and expect it to be done to mine. Otherwise they think that basic standards of polite behaviour are just some wierd eccentricity that I am trying to impose on them, and other people don’t value. And, while babies cry, and young toddlers are very hard to control, Dan should feel entitled to intervene against clear bad behaviour by any child older than 2 (or so). And people who can’t control their kids should keep them away from other adults who want to avoid them.
Russell, as so often, nails it. But it is very hard for people who are unaccustomed to even seeing, let alone dealing with, children, to participate in regulating their behaviour. And, as Russell indicates, lots of people see what is in fact a rather unexceptionable civic duty (helping to induct children into appropriate norms) as an interference in the family life of others.
The workplace issue is complicated. Most workplaces in the history of human beings have not been child-free. But some should be (mines, parliaments, steelmills, a good number of shops, etc). I am very conscious on those occasions that I take my daughter to class with me that many female and some male students find it very distracting (as I would have done), because they inhabit a wierd, child-free, social environment, and they therefore are fascinated by this strange being (even though my daughter is, always, silent and well-behaved). On the other hand, the reason they find her distracting is because they inhabit an unnatural environment; if children were around more, they would be less distracting. And, I think it is valuable for the students to, occasionally, see a father looking after his daughter, and to see, frankly, a child sufficiently self-controlled and well-behaved that she does not distract me from teaching. (And I only take her when the only real alternative is not going).
LikeLike
Another comment on workplaces and meetings: it is incumbent on colleagues to be sensitive to what of their behaviours interfere with their colleagues ability to work effectively. Some people behave in meetings in entirley coutnerproductive and unhelpful ways. This is wrong. Bringing children to a work situation in which one knows they will inhibit one’s colleagues’ ability to function well is similarly wrong. Thi is probably just re-iterating what is basically an amendment to Dan’s suggestion: some work situations should be adult spaces, some don’t always have to be; but which is which will sometimes depend on the particular quirks of the people who inhabit the space (and we should be sensitive to such things).
I am allergic to, irrationally scared of, and extremely ill-disposed to, dogs. I don’t like having them brought into offices. I guess that if I had a colleague who had the same response to children I would think children shouldn’t be in the office either. But if not, its ok.
LikeLike
“The flip side of the question, Are the childless responsible for the happiness of their co-workers with families? is, Does society have any collective responsibility for child rearing? Even the childless need for there to BE a next generation of responsible citizens / productive workers.”
I’ve tried this argument on childless who believe that they have no responsibilities at all towards the well-being of children and their parents. They argue that (1) parenting is a choice, and people can be expected to take responsibility for the consequences, (2a) they don’t care whether the world continues or not, or (2b) as long as there are enough people willing to have children under the current conditions, there’s no need for support and/or compensation.
If I then counterargue that, well, fertility rates are really low, they respond that we should open all borders. There are plenty of kids in India. And it’s good for the environment anyway, to have less people on earth.
What might seem a as a convincing argument for redistribution towards parents and kids for one person, doesn’t convince others. My intutitions are also to support parents and children, but I haven’t seen many really good arguments to support this intutition. The strongest arguments have to do with supporting the skills, autonomy and opportunity of the kids, but that doesn’t always justify policies that weaken the burdens for parents. The “public goods” argument gets us somewhere, but not very far (and it would also mean that children can become “public bads”, like in China. Do we like that?)
LikeLike
Wow. It’s fascinating to hear so many different perspectives on this.
I think when children grow up in neighborhoods where they are part of a community, where they interact with adults on a daily basis, they learn appropriate behavoirs from these adults. The kid who acts rude in the bodega gets yelled at by the owner and he learns not to be rude if he wants to shop there. The kid who rides his bike across a neighbor’s lawn gets yelled at (or talked to) by the neighbor and he learns not ride his bike on the lawn. In that way the whole community, not just the parents, are responsible for raising the children in the community.
We are pretty far from this ideal. So many adults are afraid to ever talk to or in any way reprimand someone else’s kid. It has suddenly become taboo. So the entire responsiblity of teaching the children appropriate behavoir rests on the parents, who are (as we’ve discussed this week) rather overworked, tired out, and stressed. I don’t think it’s a healthy situation. Sadly, we don’t live in communities any more …. except for that one person from Philadelphia who posted something earlier this week.
LikeLike
Ingrid: I have trouble seeing how someone can appeal to strict libertarianism AND to concern for the environment (seems inconsistent to me).
Isn’t parenting more than a choice? (If everybody chose No, there would be negative consequences for your childless friends.) Isn’t it a social if not biological imperative?
LikeLike
I agree with Harry and others about unnatural child-free zones creating a weird and false sense of society. It’s normal to be around a diversity of ages, and I’m often struck by how rarely I see elderly people in my realm. Children and dogs and cats (and sometimes even chickens! our neighbors in the alley keep chickens… in LA county, no less!) are more common than old folks.
It would be nice if parents were more amenable to me saying ‘excuse me’ to a child who is lost in their own world and is blocking a sidewalk, or if parents would apologize when their child is being obnoxious, just so that I can be gracious about it and smile at the child, even while enforcing the idea that it’s not appropriate to be screechy and loud in public. But parents can be trigger-quick with defenses and anger — no different from road rage and lack of manners in general these days.
Here’s one difference: I live in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, and there tends to be much different attitude about children here. Many people in this blog conference have commented about the class divide and lower income families not being able to make a choice about working or staying home. But what I observe in my neighborhood is that there is a much more communal attitude about children. Someone generally is home with the kids, maybe a grandmother or a dad who works the late shift, or an aunt who keeps all the cousins along with her own kids. The parks around here are full of kids and their caretakers and it’s quite refreshing.
The children in my neighborhood tend to be polite and responsive to all adults. I’ve taken my friends’ kids to our local park many times, and there are always kids who invite the boys to play with them, and other mothers who will offer them cookies or juice or whatever they’re giving their kids. It’s pretty impressive, actually, and a lot better than the bored kids who misbehave while their moms are chatting with friends over Starbucks.
LikeLike
I have 2 primary complaints, as a childless person.
1) Children are not disciplined and kept in check. The wild running around that RB referred to as “appropriate” is only appropriate for children in their own home and yard, or a friend’s home and yard. Such actions are never appropriate in a public setting or a large gathering where there is no seperation. If I had behaved in such a fasion as a child, I would have been spanked.
I see no reason why parents should be excused from exerting control over their children. Indeed, it is the parents’ purpose to do so.
2) I object to demands being placed upon me to give support to parents when I have no children and no desire for children. Having children is a personal choice and the responsibility should be placed upon the persons who make that choice. The extent to which I am forced to give support should be limited to the paying of my property taxes, which in most jurisdictions are primarily used to support education. I received a public education and must therefore be willing to contribute to that system. However, my parents weren’t given the support (outside of our immediate family) that parents today seem to think they are entitled to.
LikeLike
Megan, you’re on to something very important (but, frankly, very difficult to pin down and very difficult to say without tripping over all sorts of supposed class and ethnic sensitivities)–there is a certain truth to the claim that non-upper- or upper-middle class (read: non-professional; also read: mostly non-white) neighborhoods generally exhibit a greater degree of cohesion and responsibility when it comes to taking care of, disciplining, and creating appropriate spaces for kids. Perhaps this is simply because they casually tolerate in a far wider range of contexts. If I have any kind of critique of the “no-kids-at-Starbucks” mentality to make, it’s not just that many Starbucks-going (mostly white, mostly professional) parents don’t discipline their kids adequately–though that is true. But it’s also the reverse: that, as Harry put it, certain socio-economic practices have allowed many people to presume the existence of certain “kid-free” norms in all sorts of areas where, in less structured (i.e., usually poorer) communities, there’s no illusion that such presumptions are appropriate. In a movie theater, especially one showing a moving clearly pitched to a mature, adult audience? Children clearly do not belong there, and we should be more willing to shoulder our civic responsibility and engage in a little communal policing as necessary. But how about, say, an airplane? Well, in that case, you’re talking about a mode of transportation open to the paying public; some basic civility is still to be expected of the child (or more likely, the child’s parents) sitting behind you, of course, but perhaps in that case a little class critique ought to attend the urge to engage in policing beforehand, to determine whether or not it’s really appropriate to expect some vague child-free spatial norm to exist on an ordinary Northwest flight to Atlanta.
LikeLike
I think we need to be careful about idealizing working-class and minority communities, as Megan and Russell have. I also live in a predominately Latino neighborhood (predominately new immigrants, many of them undocumented) and while I see greater cohesion, I also see high levels of non-involvement and children left for hours and hours at a time with little supervision. There is a reason that some place as banal as Northern Virginia (the often affluent suburbs of Washington, D.C.) has over 30 gangs, many of them Latino, operating. And it’s not because of this idealized belief that upper-class whites are somehow neglecting parenting while minority and working-class parents have somehow cornered the market on effective parenting.
LikeLike
Mike, you’re right, of course, that there’s more going on than just the social dynamics of class. There is also the matter of poverty, which can debase any family’s or community’s sense of involvement and discipline, as well as lousy parenting habits which are perpetuated over the generations (especially if we’re talking about absent fathers, teen-age mothers, and lots of welfare dependency). There are plenty of trashy neighborhoods around here where I live, black and white, and I hope I wouldn’t allow my class/cultural analysis of parenting styles to prevent me from recognizing a lousy mother, abusive father, or dissolute home when I see one. All I really mean to say, I guess, is that it’s a fine line to draw, between where legitimate expectations of responsibility for children ends and class-ingrained expectations for “space” begin.
LikeLike
Russell, that’s a good point.
LikeLike
I want to address the “picking up the slack” issue. I am all for parents having flexibility in their work so that they can attend games & can go to school events.
But, if you don’t serve on a committee & I do, or you don’t stay late, but I do. Who should get the promotion? If I get it, has that penalized the parent? If the parent gets the promotion, has that penalized me?
I work in private industry & there was such a complaint. I worked longer hours, because one woman often had to leave early to pick up her kids. She often left during the day to take care of school issues. (We had deadlines & her leaving early didn’t change the deadlines.) I got the promotion as my reward. Putting in those hours just to “help” is sooo not happening. The company is trying to be family friendly. They offer 1/2 day per month (bankable), “family time”, paid time off in addition to other leave, (for parents only)that can be used for going to school events, drs appointments or leaving early, so she lost no pay for those days & she lost no vacation time or sick time. But she felt she was being penalized for being a parent. (I do have aging parents that need to be driven to the dr – but that doesn’t qualify for “family time”.)
How do we prevent either side from feeling penalized? I felt that I earned that promotion, she felt cheated. How much slack is one child worth? What if you have more than one child? Do you get more slack? Who should pick up the slack? Should it be men who are fathers, or just the childless? What if everyone in the office has kids?
I often feel that when the discussion comes up where I work it takes the form of “because I have kids, what I want takes priority.”
In an ideal world, companies would hire more people to pick up the slack. We’re not in that ideal world. If you take time off, someone else has to do the work. I’m the only one without kids, so here, it’s me. I’m exhausted & looking for a new job.
LikeLike
Sorry, I should have clarified. I live in a neighborhood where many upwardly mobile Hispanic families have settled. It’s not cheap to own a home here (it’s LA county — nothing’s cheap anymore — median home price is $400K), and so many working families pitch in to buy homes together, which means there are more people around to help out with children. There’s a more communal attitude in general, and my neighbors and friends tend to be less entranced by the idea of work being the ultimate dream: it’s more about home ownership and family.
LikeLike
I live in a largely hispanic neighborhood in LA, too. Contrary to the observations of Megan (esp.) and Russell, the children in our neighborhood are poorly supervised and just as likely to be little hellions as anywhere else I have seen. There is a lot of vandalism occuring by the actions of the neighborhood children, sometimes when their parents are watching, and nothing is done about it. Now, our neighborhood on the edge of an improving area, so hasn’t started seeing the improvements from just a couple of blocks over yet. But as long as the neighborhood is facing these difficulties, why would the landlords want to improve the quality of their buildings?
LikeLike
Sarah –
I understand your resentment. My best friend is single and works as an editor of a major publishing firm. Her hours are insane. She doesn’t get home until 9:00 every night and has almost no social life. She periodically gets annoyed at another editor who leaves at 5:00 to pick up the kids from daycare.
I think the problem isn’t the parents who leave early. That’s not why my friend puts in those long hours. It’s because her company doesn’t hire new people and expects the existing employees to work harder. As people leave, they aren’t replaced. And the only way that stock values go up, is if profits constantly rise. It’s the company’s fault, not the parent’s fault, that Susan puts in those insane hours.
And of course, you should be able to leave early to care for aging parents. Care work is care work and should be equally respected.
LikeLike
I’d like to clarify a few things from my earlier post. The company I work for is trying to address family issues by granting “family time.” I think it is a stupid way to do it, but I appreciate that they are trying. Before, people were expected to use vacation time to leave early etc. (It can be used in 1/2 hour increments.) Some complained that they were being forced to use vacation to care for kids. So, let’s have “family time.” It would have been better to announce that vacation time was being increased, so that using it for those purposes wouldn’t be such a burden. That would be better than making parents some special protected class. At what age (child) this benefit will phase out hasn’t been determined yet.
I am disturbed that you seem to think that the company is just evil or greedy because I end up working so many hours. You appear to assume that they can just change it. This isn’t a corporation, it is a single proprietorship. I see the financial statements & know how much the owner can take home. (It wouldn’t be enough for me to have the risk & those headaches.) Everyone here is on salary & there isn’t money to hire more people. I’ve suggested putting people on hourly wages or have them go to part time so we can hire more. We actually ran all the numbers, and with the costs of unemployment, employer FICA’s, health insurance, disability insurance, (even if we prorated employer contributions to insurance),vacation benefits, sick leave, 401K, etc, PLUS, two more employees moves the company to a different level – subjecting it to more regulation (cobra among other things)& further raising costs- it can’t be done now. The additional revenue the extra employees could be expected to generate (in the current climate) wouldn’t cover it. The owner would make less than I do.
It is too easy to put the burden on employers. I belong to several business groups, and I know small business owners that want to have these kinds of policies, but can’t afford them. They can’t offer job sharing because then they have too many employees & have to comply with additional well meaning regulations that could easily drive them out of business.
Before parents start to demand special services from employers they have to recognize business realities. To pay for two more employees, the company would have to cut some other benefit, or cut the wages of the people who leave early.
The issue of who picks up the slack has to be addressed in the context of these realities. We need some way to make it workable for parents and childless people & not drive small companies out of business. Saying it is the company’s fault & they should just step up, is naive.
LikeLike
Sarah,
I am curious why your employer didn’t just increase vacation, which would benefit all employees, instead of creating “family time?’ As someone who writes about workplaces, it seems like one of those great examples of offering elite benefits to a specific group of employees.
As a single person, for instance, I have to use my vacation leave to be at home when I need to have maintenance done on my home. I can’t rely on a non-working spouse or another person who has more flexibility. Thus, I am forced to use my “vacation” to deal with an unplanned event. Yet, my married co-worker (or even single co-worker with a child) is given the additional benefit–and thus additional compensation–to take care of an unplanned event.
LikeLike
Mike,
I agree it should have been an increase in vacation. The rationale given for doing it this way is: some employees opt to be covered under their spouses health insurance, so the company doesn’t pay anything for them & doesn’t increase their compensation because they aren’t using the benefit (company pays 100% of insurance). Also, some people have family policies & again compensation isn’t increased for those who don’t. This is supposed to be a benefit that only kicks in if you “opt” for it.
But it isn’t just for unplanned events. It can be used for attending baseball & soccer games, or just leaving early to pick up kids which happens quite regularly. Also, as opposed to vacation time, no notice is needed to use family time. Which means that there have been several occasions on which someone has announced at 1:30 that they are taking family time. So, to meet tomorrow’s deadline, which could have been done with no one working late if everyone was there during the regular work day, now requires 1 or 2 people to work late. (You can’t even get a temp for soemthing like this.) It is a really STUPID policy.
Obviously, I’m not waiting around for them to fix it. I have several interviews lined up & I am gone.
LikeLike
One last comment & I’ll leave it alone. Health insurance, with some getting “more” and compensation not adjusted, doesn’t bother me. Some companies offer day care in the building. I can’t use that benefit & it doesn’t bother me. It does bother me that some parents think they are entitled to more time off or less responsibility at work (for the same pay), just because they are parents.
Companies need to be more employee friendly, I prefer that term to family friendly. But we can’t have a serious debate about how to change business if we dismiss the issue of who does the work by saying companies should just hire more people. That’s fine in theory, but it ignores the realities of what actually happens. If we ignore that, then we have bad policies in which some people get a better quality of life at the expenses of others.
LikeLike
Sarah, I didn’t sense anybody trying to demonize your company. Partly due to e-mail and mobile phones and Fed Ex, we’re ALL more prone to deadlines and crash times at work. Maybe your company or business isn’t a good example. But I sense that 40 hours a week isn’t the standard for white collar work anymore — that all our employers would like to get 50-60 hours out of us. I sometimes read with curiosity and a little bit of envy about European countries where a 40 hour workweek or less is the norm, and productivity is not drastically reduced.
My wife works too, and if a child gets sick or we have to call a plumber or something, we put our heads together and see who has an unbreakable conflict at work and who can possibly stay home. We worry a lot about pulling our weight in our jobs as well as in the household. Sarah, in the situation you described, I’d say you clearly deserved the promotion. Your company shouldn’t grade parents on a curve. Personally, for at least a few years, I’m not thinking in terms of being promoted or really excelling at work, I’m thinking of surviving.
Don’t know if anybody saw “60 Minutes” last night — a feature on professional women taking a hiatus in their careers to be full-time parents. It was a fairly thoughtful piece, but one undercurrent, to me anyway, was that Lesley Stahl was a little bit miffed that after all the crap she (and other women of her generation) took to carve out a place for women in the workplace, that the younger generation was “opting out” of that struggle.
LikeLike
“My baby, besides being very cute as well, is a freakin’ person!”
OK, late hit here, but: Let me get this straight: you’re incensed because someone complimented a dog and not your precious offspring? Maybe that person prefers puppies, not babies. It’s VERY possible.
Or, maybe your child is not as cute as you believe. (huge eye roll)
LikeLike
As a childfree person, here’s my two cents.
I have a lot of reasons for choosing not to have children. Before you ask why I used the word “choosing” here is my reasoning: if it is not a biological requirement, then it is not a choice. Food, water, and shelter are required; human beings are not required to have children in order to continue living. (I’m not talking about perpetuation of the species, I’m talking about individual survival here.)
That aside… Among those reasons are: my health, my temperament, and freedom of choice. My health is admittedly not all that great. I have some trouble with my weight for various reasons. I am deaf, and I haven’t determined whether it is genetic. I would hate to knowingly risk a future child’s health for the sake of reproducing. I have very little intuition for mothering, nor patience.
When it comes to “adult space” and a family’s right to do things as a family… There are limits. A family does not have to be restricted to eating only at fast-food places because of the fact that they have children. However, if you bring your children to a sit-down restaurant, please have the decency to teach your children to behave properly. Yes, children must learn, so errors are to be expected. However, if your child is disturbing other patrons and you aren’t correcting their behavior, you are going about it the wrong way.
I went to The Outback with my fiance recently and saw both possible outcomes. There was a family with a four-or-five year old boy and a girl who looked about six or seven. The little boy fussed a bit – something about his favorite toy being forgotten – but the parents quickly distracted him and there was not a peep from that table all evening. On the other side of the entire restaurant, there was a family with two toddlers. These children were allowed to run around the restaurant, screaming and laughing. Their crying could be heard clearly across the entire restaurant. These parents made it hard for us to enjoy our meal. (At one point, one of these toddlers came up to our table and nearly pulled a glass of water down on itself!)
The upshot, basically, is that there are certain places in which an adult should be able to expect adult company. An R-rated movie is one such place. A corporate workplace is another.
Family environments include: airplanes, most restaurants, most stores, parks, et cetera. HOWEVER, simply because it’s plausible for a child to be present, that does not exclude its parents from their responsibilities. They should actually PARENT their children, and keep them safe from harm – and protect other people around them from their children. 😉
LikeLike
But there ARE childfree spaces. It has NOTHING to do with class; the fact that kids either do not always act well enough to be someplace nice, or they will not appreciate it (why give filet mignon to a toddler who only wants a burger and fries, or take a five-year-old on a cruise they won’t remember in a year?).
Why does a child need to be in Starbucks since it is generally accepted that children do not need to be drinking coffee? Since that is what a Starbucks is for, why should they be there? I don’t much drink, so there’s no reason for me to be in a bar; it is a me-free space.
R-rated movies are childfree spaces. No small child needs to see an R-rated movie and subject other patrons to their boredom or fear.
I am childfree, yes. And, I don’t like loud, annoying, disruptive people, period (you should listen to me on a rant about the people in the dorms and the sorority/fraternity members around here). The disruptive people I see in most places (except around school) are children whose parents haven’t taught them to be quiet in public. Why should I have to listen to a child shrieking like a pissed-off hawk in tones audible through the entirety of Meijer’s, and listen to it for the ten minutes it goes on? If people would frown upon me for doing the same, then they should frown on the child’s parents as well for not quieting her and teaching her that such behavior is not cool. My mom did; that’s why I DON’T go around shrieking in public like that child.
LikeLike