People who hate (or even just dislike) children

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=fetus]
Really? So it’s my fault that you can’t control your screaming little brat, and don’t even want to? That, in a nutshell, is the reason people hate children, and have such disdain for many parents, including, probably, one in particular who won’t be named in this post: the assumption that the rest of the world should have to play a part in raising your little spermlets. You don’t ask everyone in the supermarket to help you advance in your career, build credit, or find your true love, do you? Of course, maybe you do, and the problem runs deeper than I thought.
[/QUOTE]

“It takes a village.” <sigh>

122

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Actually, I don’t have any assumption that the parents of a child are the ones solely responsible for their welfare or behavior (and I say this as someone without kids, FWIW). Sure, they have more responsibility than any single other person, but kids are separate people, distinct from adults in three main ways: they are more vulnerable, and they have reduced decisionmaking powers, and given a proper environment they can develop out of these two disadvantages. Our societal duty toward children is somewhat similar to our societal duty toward the mentally disabled. We must behave toward them with kindness, compassion, and respect, seeing them as people in their own right rather than as extensions of their parents. The fact that they can mature their way out of these disadvantages gives us an additional societal duty to help them in this maturation.

I know plenty of people see no such societal duty, but society at large does believe you have such a duty, and the chance of society at large changing on this matter is approximately zero. You can rage against it if it makes you happy, of course, but you’re still going to be responsible for treating children with respect, compassion, and kindness, and you’re still going to be expected to help them, however obliquely (e.g., through paying school taxes), in the process of maturation.

After all, it’s what the last generation did for you.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Good points. True enough, that’s how society works.

Now please remove your screaming kid from the restaurant, okay?

123

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
On behalf of all of us trying to read a book while eating a solitary dinner, thank you.

And that’s a good post; the whole point is that even if it’s true that a kid needs to be ignored while screaming to help him grow into a splendid adult, why am I having to pay the price for that?
[/QUOTE]

Because you will reap the benefit of living in a world filled with splended human beings.

Your parents didn’t.

124

"3. The exaggerated language of distain and dislike used when discussing children also demonstrates dislike of them - even in the context of “bad parenting”. For example, if the discussion concerned racism, someone may reply that they aren’t racist - what they dislike is people (of whatever race) who are criminal or drug dealers. But that argument would be undermined if they continually used racial epithets when discribing such “criminals”."

Well, that’s because children have more in common with one another than people of the same race do in terms of predictable behavior and to think otherwise of adults of the same race is racism but thinking children are more likely – just by being kids – to misbehave due to not yet being full socialized? Not so much.

125

[QUOTE=9thFloor]

Nope, it’s not a price that’s fair to expect us to pay. Your kids are your own reward, right? You didn’t just make them as economic units for the benefit of society, I assume. Surely their loveliness is worth giving up some of the benefits of living in society like eating out in a fine restaurant. Sorry.

In fact, other members of the same species (like me) have had the personal honor of being the one whose job it was to remove parents and their screaming kids from the room. They understood.
[/QUOTE]

Dunno who you are arguing with, since pretty well everyone agrees that there are some places - fancy restaurants being one - where kids should not be allowed to scream.

Point being that there is some level of accomodation each way that is necessary for society to work well: you and those like you have to put up with a certain amount of disruption, you are not entitled to a child-free world, but at the same time children should not be allowed everywhere.

There, that’s not so painful, is it?

126

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
“3. The exaggerated language of distain and dislike used when discussing children also demonstrates dislike of them - even in the context of “bad parenting”. For example, if the discussion concerned racism, someone may reply that they aren’t racist - what they dislike is people (of whatever race) who are criminal or drug dealers. But that argument would be undermined if they continually used racial epithets when discribing such “criminals”.”

Well, that’s because children have more in common with one another than people of the same race do in terms of predictable behavior and to think otherwise of adults of the same race is racism but thinking children are more likely – just by being kids – to misbehave due to not yet being full socialized? Not so much.
[/QUOTE]

And this relates to calling them “cuntdroppings” how?

127

[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan]
I’m aware of that. But a correlation is just a hint that something else may be going on. It isn’t ``proof" of anything.

Besides, Der Trihs is completely mistaken in his assessment of the literature: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/4/824
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I saw your edit in your original post after I posted mine. It’s not proof, agreed.

Neither side has proven their view far as I can see.

128

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Question for those of you that object to parents taking children out to restaurants, because the children might behave unacceptably. What do you think about caregivers for adults with serious mental impairments–e.g., nonverbal autism? If someone takes their client out to a restaurant, and the client makes noise, are you infuriated at the caregiver?

AFAICT, the main difference between the two situations is that the child can learn proper behavior, and learning in context is an excellent way to learn.

Some of you may believe that folks with nonverbal autism ought not be allowed out in public. You may see a significant difference between the two situations that I’ve not seen.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Good point.

With the kids, I think there’s a time and place where they can be out in public and not destroy everyone else’s meal by hollering so they don’t have to come here (they can do McDs, ‘family’ restaurants, etc.); they can learn just as well at a family restaurant than at Justin’s.

With the autistic, if there are any beneficial aspects of being out in public – and even if there aren’t, actually, because yes I think they have a right to be out in public like everyone else – I think there are still times and places for where you take such a person. To use an extreme example, if I’m sitting on a subway and a person who can’t help themselves due to their illness continuously hits me in the head with their arm, I don’t think that’s appropriate no matter what they’re learning. Screaming and yelling is nonphysical, but the point remains.

Consideration has to be included for the surroundings in both cases, I think. And yes, I think more consideration is due from them than from me because there’s is the behavior that is objectively disturbing to a group of people.

If, for example, a black person goes to a traditionally all-white restaurant and that bothers the white people then too bad. What’s the difference? The difference is that, though bothered, they can still eat their meal in peace without objectively distracting things like yelling and screaming and throwing things. It’s reduced to an issue of only that person’s prejudice and they can just quietly deal with it.

Just like freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to yell fire (not all speech is the same), not all things that bother someone about others are the same; some are more objectively disrupting than others.

129

[QUOTE=Malthus]
And this relates to calling them “cuntdroppings” how?
[/QUOTE]

It’s less determinative of a bigotry due to, as noted above, the fact that everyone concedes that kids have more in common with each other and can be zinged as a group without being as suspect as when adults do it to other races, IMO.

130

Because you will reap the benefit of living in a world filled with splended human beings.

Now that’s a laugh. Have you looked around much at other people? Besides, they didn’t do it for my sake and don’t get to commandeer me in it. If I enjoy the fringe benefit of the consequence of their fucking, goodie for me.

**
Your parents didn’t.
[/QUOTE]
**

So what? This is like people saying “I’m glad I wasn’t aborted.” Makes no sense and presumes a lot.

131

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Question for those of you that object to parents taking children out to restaurants, because the children might behave unacceptably. What do you think about caregivers for adults with serious mental impairments–e.g., nonverbal autism? If someone takes their client out to a restaurant, and the client makes noise, are you infuriated at the caregiver?

AFAICT, the main difference between the two situations is that the child can learn proper behavior, and learning in context is an excellent way to learn.

Some of you may believe that folks with nonverbal autism ought not be allowed out in public. You may see a significant difference between the two situations that I’ve not seen.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

There are two cases for the kid - first, that the kid acts up once or twice, and is removed, and second, the kid acts up and the parent ignores it. I have no problem with the first case at all. We don’t rush out of a restaurant due to noise if a waiter drops a tray after all. The second I do mind.

The difference is that the kid can and should be taught manners, and removed as a part of the lesson. The adult presumably can’t be taught.
Where the cases are similar is that it is inappropriate for a caregiver to take a known disruptive adult to a good restaurant, and it is inappropriate to take a known disruptive kid to a good restaurant. I think the option of removal must exist in both cases. The big difference is that I blame the parent who won’t remove a kid for poor training, which is not true of the caretaker.

132

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Dunno who you are arguing with, since pretty well everyone agrees that there are some places - fancy restaurants being one - where kids should not be allowed to scream.

Point being that there is some level of accomodation each way that is necessary for society to work well: you and those like you have to put up with a certain amount of disruption, you are not entitled to a child-free world, but at the same time children should not be allowed everywhere.

There, that’s not so painful, is it?
[/QUOTE]

I most certainly am entitled to a child-free world in a fine restaurant.

I don’t know who you’re arguing with, but I didn’t say that children all over the planet should be exterminated.

There’s no accommodation needed whatsoever if time/place is respected.

I’m not complaining about children screaming in places where it’s appropriate or unavoidable (like the post office or something).

So, maybe we were never disagreeing in the first place. Thanks for the lecture though.

133

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
It’s less determinative of a bigotry due to, as noted above, the fact that everyone concedes that kids have more in common with each other and can be zinged as a group without being as suspect as when adults do it to other races, IMO.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I can see that to a degree.

But again, my original point was more that the use of language indicates hostility to the group, and not whether such hostility was justified (or irrational or immoral or whatever).

In short, it was aimed at the effect of the use of the language. The contention I was making (and I don’t see it as very controversial, really) is that use of such language and humour within a subculture indicates a certain degree of tolerated hostility towards the group “zinged” within that subculture.

It is an entirely seperate issue as to whether that hostility ought to be tolerated. I concede that there are good, logical arguments for stereotyping children as loud and disruptive - as a group, they often are. The level of hostility is somewhat unpleasant though, to me at least.

After all, one of the reasons hostility towards racial or ethnic groups has fallen out of favour is that such groups have been historically subject to violence. More recently, hateful or scornful remarks directed at women as a group have fallen out of favour for the same reason, among others. Why not hateful or scornful remarks directed against children? After all, children are more likely to be the target of violence in our society than most other groups.

134

[QUOTE=9thFloor]

Now that’s a laugh. Have you looked around much at other people? Besides, they didn’t do it for my sake and don’t get to commandeer me in it. If I enjoy the fringe benefit of the consequence of their fucking, goodie for me.
[/quote]

Yes, goodie for you. Why is it unfair for you to shoulder some of the burdens of society - when you also reap the benefits?

You are in effect demanding welfare while refusing to pay taxes. Why should anyone have sympathy with that?

No it isn’t.

Unless you were raised in isolation, it means that others had to put up with your socialization. That’s why it isn’t unfair for you to put up with the socialization of others.

It is known as “reciprocity”.

135

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I most certainly am entitled to a child-free world in a fine restaurant.

I don’t know who you’re arguing with, but I didn’t say that children all over the planet should be exterminated.

There’s no accommodation needed whatsoever if time/place is respected.

I’m not complaining about children screaming in places where it’s appropriate or unavoidable (like the post office or something).

So, maybe we were never disagreeing in the first place. Thanks for the lecture though.
[/QUOTE]

I dunno. Is the total sum of your argument that you are entitled to dine in a fine restaurant and read your book in peace?

If so, I agree.

136

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Ummm, what? That’s exactly the quote I was referring to, and exactly why I was referring to it - as an example of hyperbole, the horrors of child misbehaviour.
[/quote]
Um, no, that’s not so, Malthus. What you actually said was

Taken in context, you’re clearly ridiculing a poster for purportedly expecting calm and quiet at a kid-centered restaurant. I mention this not to beat on you personally, but because it’s an example of what you’ve repeatedly done in this thread - and, what the OP basically involves - seizing on extreme points of view (or exaggerating reasonable ones) that differ with yours so you can denounce them as over the top, while dismissing or ignoring rational, non-vituperative points.

It’s a common enough debate tactic. I’m disappointed to see you using it. It doesn’t address what most of us on the other side of the fence are asking, which boils down to trying to be considerate to others.

137

[QUOTE=Malthus]
The issue is whether use of language demonstrates hostility towards the target. Your point (if I understand it) is that this is true, but that the target is an acceptable one in one case (in the case of “children” or “American Idol”) and an unacceptable one in another (ethnicity, religion).
[/quote]

No, my point was that your comparison was a spectacular failure. Yes, people use over-the-top hyperbole to describe children. They also use over-the-top hyperbole to describe crappy TV. Why? Because over-the-top hyperbole is fun. Using race and religion to make this point is dumb, because race and religion (and, to a lesser-but-growing extent, sexuality) are considered special cases in Western society, and have much more complex and arcane rules about when and how you can joke about them without causing offence. The fact that people here would react negatively to over-the-top racist hyperbole doesn’t tell us anything about any other sort of over-the-top hyperbole at all.

Not to mention, if you’re trying to make a point to someone, comparing them to racists is almost never going to help, as they’re more likely to reply to a perceived moral equivalence, and not to whatever other point you were trying to make. If you don’t intend a moral equivalence (and I am not at all convinced that you did not), then it’s generally a good idea to find a less inflamatory comparison.

138

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Um, no, that’s not so, Malthus. What you actually said wasTaken in context, you’re clearly ridiculing a poster for purportedly expecting calm and quiet at a kid-centered restaurant. I mention this not to beat on you personally, but because it’s an example of what you’ve repeatedly done in this thread - and, what the OP basically involves - seizing on extreme points of view (or exaggerating reasonable ones) that differ with yours so you can denounce them as over the top, while dismissing or ignoring rational, non-vituperative points.

It’s a common enough debate tactic. I’m disappointed to see you using it. It doesn’t address what most of us on the other side of the fence are asking, which boils down to trying to be considerate to others.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I disagree. I believe I have been attempting as best I can to respond to arguments as they were made. I do not believe I am “ridiculing” anyone, or “denouncing” anyone; let alone “ignoring rational, non-vituperative points”.

I am sorry you feel so strongly about the matter. I am only interested in debate on the topic, not in personal attacks.

To restate - the topic at hand is whether or not there exists a certain level of hostility towards children on this Board - the issue of whether hostility is justified, or doesn’t exist at all and is really hostility directed at the rudeness of parents is a side-issue. To my mind, the fact that in bringing up and discussing the topic hostility is created isn’t surprising, but I do believe I’ve been more the target of hostility than the provider of it.

139

[QUOTE=Miller]
No, my point was that your comparison was a spectacular failure. Yes, people use over-the-top hyperbole to describe children. They also use over-the-top hyperbole to describe crappy TV. Why? Because over-the-top hyperbole is fun. Using race and religion to make this point is dumb, because race and religion (and, to a lesser-but-growing extent, sexuality) are considered special cases in Western society, and have much more complex and arcane rules about when and how you can joke about them without causing offence. The fact that people here would react negatively to over-the-top racist hyperbole doesn’t tell us anything about any other sort of over-the-top hyperbole at all.

Not to mention, if you’re trying to make a point to someone, comparing them to racists is almost never going to help, as they’re more likely to reply to a perceived moral equivalence, and not to whatever other point you were trying to make. If you don’t intend a moral equivalence (and I am not at all convinced that you did not), then it’s generally a good idea to find a less inflamatory comparison.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree with your first point and agree in part with your second.

Use of over the top hyperbole is both fun as you say, and indicates a certain level of hostility towards the target. This is true irrespecitve of what the target is - whether it is women, children, or what-have-you.

The second issue is whether that hostility is tolerated - and there is where your “arcane rules” come into play.

In my opinion, the “arcane rules” of general society (that is, outside of an anonymous Internet board) dictate not making such jokes about children in public, whereas no such rules forbid making fun of crappy TV. So they are not in the same category.

That is why the issue is raised in the OP - why is “fun” hostility towards children “okay” here, on this Board, when other forms of “fun” hostility aren’t?

140

[whitney]

  • I believe that children are our future, treat them well and let them lead the waay, Show them all the beauty they posses insiiiiide*
    [/Whitney]

:: pulls the record needle,ZZZZIP!::

Blah,Blah,Blaaah

Just keep the brats under control,Im trying to eat in peace…emkay?

-TM