People who hate (or even just dislike) children

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
Absolulely the child should be brought out. By not doing so you are teaching the child that the behavior is acceptable by doing nothing at that very moment. This very situation happened to me ONCE. I brought my cart to customer service and asked them to hold it for me, brought my daughter outside. When I regained control of her (in other words, let her scream it out in the car) I went back in with her and paid for the groceries. She did NOT get to go home. She learned that screaming in the car wasn’t fun and why we were out there. But most of all, no one was subjected to her obnoxious tantrum.

Again, it is all about courtesy to others. If I can’t stand the sound of my own screaming kid, Mr. Smith behind me is hating the little brat and me for allowing it to continue in his presence.
[/QUOTE]

While this proved a good method of discipline in your case, I do not agree that this is the only good method of discipline, or always practical, or will always have the good outcome it had for you.

182

[QUOTE=Malthus]
While this proved a good method of discipline in your case, I do not agree that this is the only good method of discipline, or always practical, or will always have the good outcome it had for you.
[/quote]
It will always spare other customers an extended period of screaming. It will always inconvenience the parent.

Responsible parenting often involves a degree of inconvenience.

183

Malthus, since you continue to argue against things I haven’t said, and you refuse to acknowledge it, I hereby opt out of this discussion with you. This is like playing baseball on a hockey rink.

184

[QUOTE=Malthus]
While this proved a good method of discipline in your case, I do not agree that this is the only good method of discipline, or always practical, or will always have the good outcome it had for you.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, feel free to suggest alternatives. I think Foxy did the right thing in being considerate to the other people at the store. I suppose she could’ve tasered her kid for the same result, but going to the car for a while is okay, too.

185

I think there is this flawed idea that a child needs to accommodate the adult, when it is the adult who needs to accommodate the child.

A small child does not have the skills or experiences for successful social interaction. Like everything else, socialization is a learning process. It takes exposure and practice.

It is unfair to place social expectations on a child beyond her understanding and ability. It will only lead to frustration for both child and parent, not to mention strangers who have no interest. Children need to experience success, so take them to a child centered environment where they can practice social interaction and build confidence. Parents need time alone, so save the nice meal or movie for a time without kids. It will be much more enjoyable and far less stressful.

186

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
What about PG-13 movies (I much more commonly see young kids at these)? How much talking should be allowed before the child is removed?
[/QUOTE]

“Mommy…”
“Shhh. Quiet, now.”

“Mommy…”
“Honey, you need to be quiet.”

“Mommy…”
“THAT’S it… we are outta here!”

187

It’s not that I don’t like kids, it’s that I’m rarely around them and therefore find their behavior unfamiliar and incomprehensible. The public tantrums and the screaming are incredibly unnerving for me. Yes, I understand that kids scream and fuss and that oftentimes parents can’t do anything about it.

Let me give an example of incomprehensible: in a large group at a family restaurant I’m seated across from my cousin’s baby son. He’s fussing and everyone’s trying to unfuss him. Nothing’s working. I’m expecting the worst and I get it. The baby is now screaming. He suddenly winds up and and whips his head forward, slamming it right on the edge of the table. I’m absolutely horrified both because he might have badly injured himself and at the sheer random insanity of the event. We jump up to help, get ice, try calming him down, check for damage (nothing serious but the parents immediately rush him to a doctor. He was fine except for a spectacular bruise.)

The most awkward situation for me is when a beaming mother practically shoves her little cherub into my hands, with a look that reads, “How could anyone resist the cuteness that my little Angel?” I’m thinking, “No, I do not want to hold the live grenade, thank you.”

Like all single men, I hold the baby out at arms length (strictly a defensive posture, as any substance that’s spit up is likelier to hit the floor than my shirt.)

I look the baby in the eye and give my best “I know that you know what’s going to happen, let’s get this over with” look. S/he stares at me, face scrunches up, mouth opens, the great inhale starts (one of those time-slows-down moments for me) and the shrieking begins.

The baby, suddenly way stronger than you’d think possible in such a tiny body, then twists around faster than a greased pig and reaches for Mom, and I’m left desperately trying to not fumble the ball. I quickly hand baby back to Mom as she simpers and waits for me to reveal just how happy I am to have experienced her child. All I want at that moment is to make sure I haven’t had a stress related stroke and to change out of my now sweat-soaked shirt into a dry one.

Parents: If the person you’re about to pass your baby to has an expression on their face which is a direct match for the one on a person about to get into a car wreck, please do not give them (me) the baby.

Oh yeah, I’ve seen several instances of parents bringing small kids and babies to R-rated films. This is not unusual.

188

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about at this point. Malthus seems to believe we don’t have a right to complain about noisy obnoxious children? But I am not reading through it all. I only came to object to this statement:

Does it make a difference if my parents could have if they had been allowed to, if the culture had allowed it? I know for a fact my mother would have aborted me if the circumstances were different.

I just hate that particular line. It assumes so many things, not least of which that the target was wanted.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. It’s a ludicrous tactic used in many conversations about such matters that foists a responsibility onto the person.

And, by the way, what was rebutted was the notion that screaming kids don’t scream in movies often, near as Malthus could figure it based on his experience.

They do, which I can attest to as a matter of fact having been at the movies every day of the week when I managed a theatre. So let’s consider that closed, shall we?

Another upthread post stated that I’ve got a responsibility to put up with a little annoyance. I don’t believe this to be true. That would mean that if I get up and leave, I’m shirking my responsibility to stay and be annoyed. Don’t think so.

If anything, my being annoyed/getting up and leaving, etc. helps socialize the child by showing them how others feel about their behavior if we’re going to talk about socializing the child so I guess I’ve done my part incidentally.

You’re welcome, kid!

189

"Mine was that, given that we were all children ourselves, and we were all socialized (or at least I presume we all were), we all have a certain minimal obligation to empathize with the socialization process of others - do unto others and all that. "

And her point, presumably, is that it doesn’t logically follow that we therefore have that obligation due to the fact that we were socialized.

Do unto others is misapplied there. If someone knocks on my door and shoves a bunch of gifts into my hand, they can’t get mad at me for not going over to their place unannounced and give them a bunch of gifts too. I didn’t ask.

That’s why the “your parents didn’t use a condom” thing makes no sense. I didn’t ask to be born.

A corollary I’m reminded of in terms of moral obligations is one of traditional Japanese honor society; that if you save someone’s life, the person can come to resent it because now they expect you’ll expect that they are honor-bound to be grateful to you for the rest of their lives for assistance that wasn’t asked for, contemplated, or desired so that they’re now forced into a moral transaction without their free will. Free will is required for morality, in my view.

Sorry if that’s too far off the beaten path.

190

[QUOTE=Malthus]
I thought I explained my position on this in previous posts. For clarity:

In short it is not that one should put up with any amount of disruption - but rather that one should attempt at the least to understand the other person’s POV. Annoyance or condemnation is sometimes, but not always, an appropriate response; that depends of course on the circumstances.

That is what I mean by “minimal empathy”. Of course it goes both ways - a parent should at the least have the same level of empathy with people going about their daily business.

To my mind, it seems that there is no really good reason why anyone is allowed to opt out of this societal duty - to put up, to the minimal extend suggested, with others who are attempting to do the best they can, and accomodate their needs.
[/QUOTE]

Because it isn’t necessary for anyone to do so.

I would agree about putting up with things like in an airplane or other situation if the parents are doing their best (which I generally assume to be the case; they are, themselves, limited in their knowledge and child-rearing skills presumably).

But in other situations, it’s irrelevant what efforts are being made one way or the other because it isn’t necessary in the first place to be there unlike an airplane.

191

"Is it enough that I feel bad for the parents with the boisterous kid, and quell my urge to suggest an extremely late-term abortion? Because I do that much."

ROFL We really should start another thread about why making of “children” (conceptually) is sooooo funny, cuz it really is. :stuck_out_tongue:

192

[QUOTE=Malthus]
I don’t want anything from anyone. Or rather, I originally wanted to debate the proposition in the OP.

The discussion has of course branched out considerably from there.

As to your specific questions - no, I do not think that expessing negative epithets on an Internet message board is an act likely to lead to violence against anyone (except, in extreme cases, computer keyboards :smiley: ) - whether those epithets are aimed at women, Blacks, children, or anyone else. My sole point was this: that message boards are in a sense subcultures which have certain cultural traits: that these traits are characterized in part by what the majority is or is not willing to tolerate without rebuke; that a trait of the subculture on this particular Board is a willingness to tolerate expressions of anger against children, that they would not tolerate in other situations. I am a member of several other boards and the different “flavour” of each is noticable.

The stuff you quoted was all in the context of discussing whether the analogy raised was reasonable or not.

I would not “preclude” you or anyone from venting in any way. I am merely observing and commenting - triggered by the OP - that the OP is in my opinion correct: not about you personally, but about the board.

Sadly, I seem to have aroused a certain amount of animocity myself, maybe because of my own abrasive style of arguing. This gets in the way of actual debate.
[/QUOTE]

Personally, the animosity – if we’re calling it that – from me is to the POV you’re expressing not against you personally (a distinction I’ve found some have a hard time maintaining, perhaps understandably so, in other threads).

One interesting thing you said though up there and it’s again probably another thread but I, actually, would be more inclined to suspect a slippery slope of violence with regards to online epithets based, say, on race than about kids.

193

"No-one is arguing that removal from the society of others (or, if you prefer, “a public space”) is not, under certain circumstances, a good disciplinary method; it is not however always and under every circumstances the best or most appropriate method."

Who cares if it’s a good disciplinary method one way or the other? It’s rude.

Which goes, again, to my responsibility to raising the kid. Now I’ve expected to involve myself in consideration of whether or not removing them is a good thing for their discipline? I just want to try to mix the sugar around in this iced tea furiously fast enough that when I go to sip it I can still get a couple stray crystals to go into my mouth before they all pile on the bottom. I have a responsibility to do so.

194

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
May I make a suggestion? Let’s quit discussing extreme cases, because everyone agrees at the extreme, and folks are falsely claiming that their opponents in this discussion hold absurd positions at the extreme (the folks who don’t like kids wish the world had no kids in it, the folks who like kids think you ought to put up with temper tantrums in public).

There are more interesting cases. How well-socialized should a kid be before being taken to a quiet, reasonably fancy restaurant? What should be the limits of behavior before the kid is taken out of the restaurant? What tools may a parent reasonably use short of removing the child if, for example, the child is just talking really loudly, or has decided to crawl under the table to play a game?

What about PG-13 movies (I much more commonly see young kids at these)? How much talking should be allowed before the child is removed? Is the amount here different from what it’d be at a PG or G-rated movie?

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Dear Dork (couldn’t resist ;)),

Good questions and more interesting and relevant in my view.

My opinions on those Q’s are: well-socialized enough that he/she can respond reasonably predictably and quickly to their parent’s corrections. So, if they scream or act loudly I don’t see a problem. People can drop dishes too, that’s loud. But they should be well-socialized enough (and the kitchen should be well-trained enough) to be able to stop screaming after being told to do so (if you keep dropping dishes over and over and over and over, shattering them on the ground every 5 minutes I think the manager may wish he’d been aborted). Limits of behavior? Persistence of misbehavior (aka screaming). Throwing things at other patrons. Tools? I’m not much interested in how to raise a kid but since I chose to dive in – and just talking out of my ass cuz I don’t know how to raise a kid – I’d say one of the appropriate tools is to tell the child to lower their voice. Whether or not they wanna hit their kid is their business but frankly if I see much of that, I’m gonna wanna leave anyway cuz it’s disturbing whether it’s a good way to raise the kid or not. Crawling under the table? Don’t see a problem with it.

No audible talking should be allowed in a movie theatre for an R-rated flick; you bring up PG and PG-13 and G which are much more relevant good examples.

In a G, I think it’s pretty much conceded that we’re all here babysitting to one degree or another so while it’s equally justifiable to remove someone who’s making noise (from the position of management), I think it’s unlikely to be of as much concern to others there because they all know what the gig is and it fits.

As to PG and PG-13, I think it depends if it’s kids chattering or if it’s a child hollering at the top of their lungs.

195

[QUOTE=fetus]
Malthus, since you continue to argue against things I haven’t said, and you refuse to acknowledge it, I hereby opt out of this discussion with you. This is like playing baseball on a hockey rink.
[/QUOTE]

“slip, sliiiidin’ awaay, slip, sliiiidin’ awaaayyyyy…” (see, I can empathize with others) :smiley:

196

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
“Mommy…”
“Shhh. Quiet, now.”

“Mommy…”
“Honey, you need to be quiet.”

“Mommy…”
“THAT’S it… we are outta here!”
[/QUOTE]
:smiley:

I’m reminded of something similar that happened when I was five. My mom was on the phone in the kitchen. I came running in from the den.

“Mommy…”
“Shhh. Quiet, now.”

“Mommy…”
“Honey, you need to be quiet.”

“But Mommy…”
“What is it?!”

“The TV’s on fire.”

Sometimes it pays to listen to kids.

Gee, you’re holding the poor kid out at arm’s length, and the kid, suddenly feeling its support disappear and realizing it’s suspended a dangerous length above the ground by a very nervous person, desperately tries to get back to its mom? Go figure.

Yeah, I know you didn’t want to hold the kid in the first place. But here’s a hint: if you hold the kid close to you, it’s a lot less likely to freak out, and the chances that it’ll spit up on you are pretty slim. If you prefer the shrieky-terrified-tot dance to the remote risk of ralphing, that’s your prerogative, natch.

9thfloor, I think your answers to my questions are all reasonable.

Daniel

197

I know all about kids,I was one myself once and at that time I used to hang out with other kids so they’re no mystery to me.

Virtually all kids are cute and entertaining…to their parents,to the rest of the world they’re not cute,not entertaining and not particulary a pleasure to be around,not even to other parents.

Unfortunately the over proud parents of otherwise unexceptional kids,have to keep telling the world how fantastic their kids are because it means that they,the parents,are somehow specially gifted for producing such talented offspring and take exception when others dont share their opinion.

For the record I do find some kids to be cute AND great personalities,I find some to be quite loathsome and the majority dont really impact on me one way or the other emotionally.

As a rule of thumb I’ve found that the more loathsome the kid,the more bragging and boasting about the kid by its parents.

198

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
I know all about kids,I was one myself once and at that time I used to hang out with other kids so they’re no mystery to me.

Virtually all kids are cute and entertaining…to their parents,to the rest of the world they’re not cute,not entertaining and not particulary a pleasure to be around,not even to other parents.

Unfortunately the over proud parents of otherwise unexceptional kids,have to keep telling the world how fantastic their kids are because it means that they,the parents,are somehow specially gifted for producing such talented offspring and take exception when others dont share their opinion.

For the record I do find some kids to be cute AND great personalities,I find some to be quite loathsome and the majority dont really impact on me one way or the other emotionally.

As a rule of thumb I’ve found that the more loathsome the kid,the more bragging and boasting about the kid by its parents.
[/QUOTE]

It occurred to me as I have been keeping up and throwing my two cents into this thread that I never addressed the OP.

Personally, I dislike children. I love mine but I am not particularly fond of dealing with their BS let alone their little snot nosed friends. I do not consider myself a particularly good parent. I lack patience and if anyone has remembered some previous threads I have started, I spoil the heck out of them. That being said, I do not agree that the most loathsome kids get bragged about the most. I find the most loathsome get no attention whatsoever either good or bad, and that is what makes them out of control. The most arrogant children are the ones that get that over inflated, special snowflake attitude from their parents. I’d rather have the former than the latter in my face. The brats are easier to control on play dates because they seem to look for attention of any kind. The arrogant kids demand it and seem to think their playdates are with me.

Yeah, not so much. Go play legos and stop interrupting my reading.

199

[QUOTE=Eupe Lipnerp]

Parents: If the person you’re about to pass your baby to has an expression on their face which is a direct match for the one on a person about to get into a car wreck, please do not give them (me) the baby.

[/QUOTE]

The way to avoid that is to keep your arms behind your back, or at least glued to your sides. That way they have to keep it to themselves or risk an unpleasant dropping incident. It also helps if you can back up about 3 steps while keeping your arms down. Do not reach out. Do not even look as if you might reach out.

I learned this from my mom trying to force every kid she’s ever come across on me since I was about 10. Works every time!

200

[QUOTE=Katriona]
The way to avoid that is to keep your arms behind your back, or at least glued to your sides. That way they have to keep it to themselves or risk an unpleasant dropping incident. It also helps if you can back up about 3 steps while keeping your arms down. Do not reach out. Do not even look as if you might reach out.

I learned this from my mom trying to force every kid she’s ever come across on me since I was about 10. Works every time!
[/QUOTE]
This of course works best if you’re not sitting down, in which case, pesky “you really like babies, you just don’t know it” people have been known to just dump the little thing into your lap.