It's an adult world; kids only live in it
Beth Gallagher
> make it true by saying it. Not all kids want to be good and
> please. Much as people would like to deny it, some kids are
> just bad and will continue to be bad no matter what you do.
> Sometimes they *are* a burden. That said, I believe that a lot
> of the bad behavior that I see in children every day is a
> direct result of bad parenting.
>From reading so many of your posts, I feel pretty confident
that you do not have a good handle on what "good behavior"
or "normal behavior" or genuinely bad behavior
would look like in children of various ages. Children are
not little adults. The best parent in the world cannot prevent
"bad behavior" in his/her children (of certain ages). It takes
many years to civilize a human being. That's why most parents
simply don't take kids to places where their natural behavior
would be inappropriate. However, "public places" are not "for
adults only". You need to get over that idea. There is simply
no excuse for getting in a huff about kids of a certain age,
e.g., erupting into brief yelling episodes at each other, crying
for things they want but can't have, etc., in places like the
grocery store, festivals and fairs (even those where adults
can be expected to hang out), etc. I always say that you
can't tell whether a child is "spoiled" by how (s)he behaves,
but by how his/her parent reacts. So a 20-month-old who screams
for candy in the grocery store aisle isn't necessarily spoiled.
But if her mother says "no" five times then gives in when
the kid raises the decible level, she may be.
Or they might just be having an awful day -- try giving your
fellow human beings a break for a change.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Laurel
>>From reading so many of your posts, I feel pretty confident
>that you do not have a good handle on what "good behavior"
>or "normal behavior" or genuinely bad behavior
>would look like in children of various ages.
I find it amazing that you feel justified in making this kind of statement
based on the *very* little you can tell from my posts. You have no idea
what my experiences have been and how I interact with children. I'm sure
you think that because I have no children I can't possibly understand. You
would be wrong.
> Children are not little adults.
Who said that they are? What have I ever written that indicates that I
expect them to be?
>However, "public places" are not "for adults only".
Again, I never said that they were. However, I believe that there are, or
should be, standards of behavior for public places that are simply not
being taught. It's not so much the fact that a child is behaving
inappropriately as it is that the parent's response is innapropriate.
Problem is, there are a lot of adults who don't seem to know how to behave
in public either.
>You need to get over that idea.
Thank you so much for telling me what I need. How would I know otherwise?
You need to get over the idea that your view of the world is the only
"right" one. There is room for differing opinons.
> There is simply
>no excuse for getting in a huff about kids of a certain age,
>e.g., erupting into brief yelling episodes at each other, crying
>for things they want but can't have, etc., in places like the
>grocery store, festivals and fairs (even those where adults
>can be expected to hang out), etc. I always say that you
>can't tell whether a child is "spoiled" by how (s)he behaves,
>but by how his/her parent reacts.
Exactly. If you knew anyhting about me you would understand that I don't
"get into a huff" about the behavior of children, it's the parents. And
yes, I've seen good parenting and I've seen bad parenting and I can tell
the difference.
>So a 20-month-old who screams
>for candy in the grocery store aisle isn't necessarily spoiled.
>But if her mother says "no" five times then gives in when
>the kid raises the decible level, she may be.
>Or they might just be having an awful day -- try giving your
>fellow human beings a break for a change.
Why don't you try taking your own advice for a change and give me a break?
You've made assumptions about me based on your misinterpretation of what
I've written and the fact that I don't agree with you. That's no reason
for these personal attacks that, as far as I'm concerned, should not have
been passed by the moderators.
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
--
Banty
> >However, "public places" are not "for adults only".
>
Laurel:
> Again, I never said that they were. However, I believe that there are, or
> should be, standards of behavior for public places that are simply not
> being taught. It's not so much the fact that a child is behaving
> inappropriately as it is that the parent's response is innapropriate.
> Problem is, there are a lot of adults who don't seem to know how to behave
> in public either.
Which is why I wonder - why is this discussion centered upon the
behavior of that subset of the human life cycle known as childhood?
Surely I'm more distressed and feel even occasionally threatened (and
even *have* been threatened on one occasion in my workplace) by a six
foot 6 loud-voiced bore of an adult.
Banty
(...and what does this have to do with feminism? I mean, I'm game for
the discussion, but I would like to know why it's in a moderated group
devoted to feminism?)
[Moderator's Note: apparently because of stereotypes about women
having the primary responsibility for nurture and education of
children? Efforts to take the discussion to email or another newsgroup
would not be resisted. pw]
cu...@op.net
> You have no idea what my experiences have been and how I
> interact with children. I'm sure you think that because I
> have no children I can't possibly understand. You would
> be wrong.
I can easily guess how you interact with children. The
examples you give of bad behavior never strike me as
much of anything. I know people sans kids who are great
with kids and experienced with them and kind-hearted
enough to be understanding about their annoying behavior.
Your posts are full of complaining about how bad parents
are (read: kids' behavior is) I live in this world too,
and I disagree. The behavior of many kids I encounter
is often nutty, annoying, loud, disruptive. Also normal.
Not appropriate for a seat in a nice theatre, but it'll
simply have to do in the groc. store. By this you should
not assume that my kids run wild and free in public.
My husband and I just happen to both be reserved and
overly considerate or others. So we're probably too
sensitive to how our kids normal behavior might get
in others' way. But when I see other kids acting like
kids in the groc store or wherever, I just go about my
business. Parenting, like other relationships only more
so, is highly personal; there is not one right way to
parent. That *may* be something most people only learn
when they do it themselves.
> Again, I never said that they were. However, I believe that
> there are, or should be, standards of behavior for public
> places that are simply not being taught. It's not so much
> the fact that a child is behaving inappropriately as it is
> that the parent's response is innapropriate.
But I'm guessing you think a parent can control their
kids? That's not true at certain ages. My kids are actually
quite well behaved in public (and, yes, we do have people
coming up to us in restauarants to tell us that) but the
little one (just turned 2) will occasionally decide she
*must* have or do something that I won't let her have or
do. Then, she screams. Her older brother was never a
screamer. She is a screamer. The only way to stop the
screaming in that case is to give in to her, which I
know is the *wrong* thing to do. However, it would make
her less annoying/disruptive to you. In some cases, I
can whisk her away, but if I'm, say, in line with my week's
shopping at the groc store, the hell I'm going to run away.
No harm is going to done to anyone if she screams for 2
minutes; in fact, she'll learn something. I'm dying to know:
What action on my part would demonstrate to you that I meet
your definition of a "good parent"?
> Thank you so much for telling me what I need. How would I know otherwise? You need to get over the idea that your view of the
> world is the only "right" one. There is room for differing
> opinons.
yes, but there's truly no room for stomping on other poeple
who are trying to live their lives with no harm to others.
> >can be expected to hang out), etc. I always say that you
> >can't tell whether a child is "spoiled" by how (s)he behaves,
> >but by how his/her parent reacts.
>
> Exactly. If you knew anyhting about me you would understand
> that I don't "get into a huff" about the behavior of children,
> it's the parents.
Oh, come on. That's splitting hairs.
>And yes, I've seen good parenting and I've seen bad parenting
> and I can tell the difference.
I find that very hard to believe. I have 12 nieces/nephews
whose upbringing I've been a close observer to. I have
2 kids of my own. I've always loved and wanted kids, so
I've always been a kid watcher. Even I can't tell on the
basis of one incident seen at a grocery store whether
someone is a good parent! Trust me, neither can you.
> >Or they might just be having an awful day -- try giving your
> >fellow human beings a break for a change.
--
Elisabeth Anne Riba
> . . . Efforts to take the discussion to email or another newsgroup
> would not be resisted. pw]
That would be nice, but there doesn't seem to be another forum open to
this kind of discussion.
When the CF threads started here, I tried to find a CF forum that wants
to hear from non-CF. I was interested in the activism issues that were
mentioned and wanted to find out more about the CF "platform."
I subscribed to the CF newsgroups (alt.support.childfree and
asc.moderated) briefly, but they are purely places to vent, and non-CF are
not welcome (they're explicitly excluded from posting to the moderated
newsgroup).
So I went searching for other spaces. No luck. [And I'm a library
science student with strong net-research skills; if it's out there on the
web, I can usually find it.]
I noticed one post regarding an online discussion called "CF Activists"
which "focuses more on activism, lobbying, letter writing, boycotting,
working with social issues groups, things of that nature." Sounded ideal,
but the announcement said quite bluntly that it was for CFs only, so I
didn't forge an ID and intrude.
Everything else I found on the web was either rants or supportive social
groups.
I've asked in this newsgroup and even braved a post on the CF newsgroup
seeking places to discuss the activism issues, and haven't found anything.
The best a CF friend could do was promise to keep me in mind if sie finds
out about anything.
When I first started hearing about CF, I got the impression that there was
a more organized platform underway. Something like the *current* gay
rights movement, with a list of specific, more-or-less agreed-upon
demands.
>From what I've been able to tell, the CF movement is sort of like the
early days of the gay rights movements. It's only at the level of "we're
here, we're CF, get used to it." As one person told me, most activism is
only at the personal level.
Does anybody else know of another forum we might move this discussion to?
Someplace that discusses CF issues/activism AND welcomes non-CFers?
Otherwise, somebody's going to have to create it, because I don't think
there are any right now.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Laurel
<l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Does anybody else know of another forum we might move this discussion to?
>Someplace that discusses CF issues/activism AND welcomes non-CFers?
>Otherwise, somebody's going to have to create it, because I don't think
>there are any right now.
I don't think there are any either, and I think it's unlikely that there
will be. The problem is that while you and I may be interested in having a
rational discussion about CF issues that includes both parents and
non-parents, most people on either "side" are not. My experience in this
group has been pretty typical--any hint that there are places that are not
appropriate for children, any criticism of the behavior of children, or
any suggestion that "family-friendly" policies are unfair are met with
accusations of intolerance, unrealistic expectations, and selfishness. I
know other CFers have had the same kind of experience and are
understandably reluctant to engage in discussions of CF issues with
non-CFers.
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
--
cu...@op.net
> The problem is that while you and I may be interested in
> having a rational discussion about CF issues that includes
> both parents and non-parents, most people on either "side"
> are not. My experience in this group has been pretty
> typical--any hint that there are places that are not
> appropriate for children, any criticism of the behavior of
> children, or any suggestion that "family-friendly" policies
> are unfair are met with accusations of intolerance,
> unrealistic expectations, and selfishness. I know other
> CFers have had the same kind of experience and are
> understandably reluctant to engage in discussions of CF
> issues with non-CFers.
I think the problem you and your friends have experienced
might have something to do with delivery and the way you
tend to mix up issues in a way that is very volatile. Imagine
saying you want to discuss the issue of how unheathly it is
that Americans are so overweight. You start by discussing
heart problems and then move on to how annoying it is for
fat people to take up so much room on the bus. Plus they
tend to smell. Your listeners might get a little upset, and
then you'd say that it's a shame we can't have a rational
discussion about the problems of obesity. Similarly, when
some of you CFers have discussed CF issues, you may have
started with "we should not have to feel guilty or weird
about not having kids" (no problem) or "workplace policies
should be fair and should be open to all, both CF and
childed" (no problem) or even "here are some workplace
policies I find unfair to me as a CF person, here's why,
and here's how I'd rather see workplace benefits set up."
But then you mix in how annoying you find kids' behavior,
you start using derogatory terms (moomie?), you start saying
that not having kids is better, etc. And then kids being
annoying. Really, bringing an issue like that onto a forum
like soc.feminism says something. It elevates your "little
complaints" to a higher level, at which those of us who care
about children and would like to live in an open and
compassionate society rightly get a bit nervous. People
who see kids' being annoying as a social problem may try to
do something about it, and that would undoubtedly lead to
discrimination and more exclusion, etc.
IleneB
to soc.feminism. I don't want to use such langauge in this group, where
it isn't appropriate. However, it concerns me that parents often see
CFers as candidates "to do something about it.. discrimination..." as
you say below. *We* are not the people who hurt children in any way.
That's left up to lousy parents, criminals, and others who engage with
children in negative ways. It worries me to see CFers perceived as
having hate speech, advocating damage, etc., when we simply don't like
children or even more simply, don't want any.
I don't enjoy the company of children, whether they're well-behaved or
not. Therefore, I avoid them in all venues where they actually belong
(age-appropriate). When I must be with them, I'm utterly courteous to
them, and even buy a second cup of lemonade and tell them to keep the
change for their hard work.
I'm mature enough to realize they are citizens with rights, and that we
all have an interest in those things we've agreed on as a society that
should be provide- like public schools, similar to highways, or police
protection. I fear that parents are so threatened by people who are
willing to state "I don't like children" that they forget that such
statements can be made by people absolutely rational enough to hold
that statement as seriously as "I don't like broccoli" therefore I
don't buy or eat broccoli. I don't expect it to be banned, or killed,
or not to exist. I wish parents could be more rational and accept that
many of us are simply not interested in their children or their
parental needs outside of that which we *as a society* deem necessary
to group concern.
And I'm concerned that "feminism" has come to mean "women who are
mothers having the same lives as men who have children or women who
don't." I'm concerned that "women" equals "mother" as a definition. And
to me, those *are* feminist issues.
Ilene B
In article <397C4D52...@op.net>, <cu...@op.net> wrote:
> People
> who see kids' being annoying as a social problem may try to
> do something about it, and that would undoubtedly lead to
> discrimination and more exclusion, etc.
--
Amy S Snyder
that in quotes because though I am CF, I am unaware of a formal
push or effort to enact reform of the tax code and such) tend
to, when they involve both the CF and parents, into ad hominem
screaming attacks. "Child Hater!" "Breeder!" "Neener neener neener!"
and so on. Selfish gets thrown about by both sides. Usenet in particular
is probably a poor forum, since it tends to attract the vitriolic
of all stripes, though moderation can sometimes get around that.
I personally would also be interested in a rational discussion
of the financial issues brought up in the CF agenda, such as reform of
the tax code, how to address workplace fairness and so on, and
have been pleased that some of that discussion has occurred here.
I believe that *those* discussions are also relevant to feminism,
since mothering and workplace issues are often front and center in feminist discussions.
When the talk moves to "Kids today are monsters!" "No they're not, you're just
an over sensitive whiner!" then I think the connection to feminism
becomes tenuous, and the odds of having any useful communication
become low.
--
------------------------------------------------
Amy Snyder Hale, Dept of Geology & Planetary Science
"When planets go around an around in circles,
Wendy
the idea of building bridges between CFs and parents, and aside from
some occasional temper flares, it's been interesting and informative.
I don't know if it's exactly what you're looking for, because the CF
movement is just getting started, so there's not a lot of organization,
although there has been talk of starting a lobbying group and some net
'zines.
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb1057445
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Banty
>
> In article <8l518m$gpk$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, Elisabeth Anne Riba
> <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Does anybody else know of another forum we might move this discussion to?
> >Someplace that discusses CF issues/activism AND welcomes non-CFers?
> >Otherwise, somebody's going to have to create it, because I don't think
> >there are any right now.
>
> I don't think there are any either, and I think it's unlikely that there
> rational discussion about CF issues that includes both parents and
> non-parents, most people on either "side" are not. My experience in this
> group has been pretty typical--any hint that there are places that are not
> appropriate for children, any criticism of the behavior of children, or
> any suggestion that "family-friendly" policies are unfair are met with
> accusations of intolerance, unrealistic expectations, and selfishness. I
> know other CFers have had the same kind of experience and are
> understandably reluctant to engage in discussions of CF issues with
> non-CFers.
Now, wait. You've seen myself, Beth Gallager, Shannon, and others state
that children do *not* belong everywhere and agree that it's important
to enforce good behavior. Indeed, I'm hard put, in searching these
threads (not quite completely in my limited time) to find anyone who has
objected and said that children belong everywhere or that they should be
allowed to act however they like. If I've missed it, please quote it.
I think Beth in her response has a good point about issues being
confused. How you're treated as a childfree person is actually quite a
separate issue from how children around you behave. Kids next door, for
instance, is not a form or vehicle of discrimination, does not impact
you any more (and probably much less) than the family with children next
door on the other side. I certainly know couples who have decided to be
childfree for reasons quite apart from their feelings about children.
It's the personal irritations and peeves of some CF's about children
that gets aired so quickly whenever this topic is brought up that
overshadows concerns more immediate to CF'dom as a decision and as a way
of life.
It does seriously undermine the issues of discrimination I would think
you'd want to concentrate on. Beth's analogy about weight was a good
one IMO, and I don't recall any of the great anti-discrimination
movements of today and the recent past being characterized by such a
tendency to devolve into everyday peeves about things which were
unmotivated by discrimination - there wasn't time and energy left for
that with bodies hanging from trees, leaders being attacked and
assassinated, and doors of opportunity being shut everywhere.
One thing to remember about any forum of exchange between different
viewpoints - people will disagree. That's hardly a reason to dismiss
the success of any such forum. Which viewpoints emerge will be those
which have stood the tests of argumentation. Yes - the "yabbuts".
Banty
IleneB
"feminist" as invective. And so we hear, "I'm not a feminist, but..."
and "Don't get me wrong, I don't hate children, but..."
Ilene B
In article <8lhur6$c77$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Amy S Snyder
<ass...@pitt.edu> wrote:
> "Child Hater!" "Breeder!" "Neener neener neener!"
> and so on. Selfish gets thrown about by both sides. Usenet in particular
> is probably a poor forum, since it tends to attract the vitriolic
> of all stripes, though moderation can sometimes get around that.
--
Banty
> mothers having the same lives as men who have children or women who
> don't." I'm concerned that "women" equals "mother" as a definition. And
> to me, those *are* feminist issues.
>
> Ilene B
Leaving the rest alone for now - why shouldn't feminism mean "women who
are mothers having the same lives as men who have children"?
Banty
Laurel
>Now, wait. You've seen myself, Beth Gallager, Shannon, and others state
>that children do *not* belong everywhere and agree that it's important
>to enforce good behavior. Indeed, I'm hard put, in searching these
>threads (not quite completely in my limited time) to find anyone who has
>objected and said that children belong everywhere or that they should be
>allowed to act however they like. If I've missed it, please quote it.
I didn't say that anyone was saying that children should be allowed
everywhere and act however they like. All I'm saying is that a CF person's
saying that they shouldn't be allowed everywhere and that bad behavior
frequently goes unchecked has resulted in the kind of accusations I
mentioned. The implication being that maybe there are a *few* places where
children do not belong and maybe there are a *few* cases of bad behavior,
but anyone who makes a big case out of it is just unreasonable. Sorry, I
didn't really want to get into this all again.
>I think Beth in her response has a good point about issues being
>confused.
I agree that the issues have become confused, although I might disagree
with Beth as to how that's happened.
>How you're treated as a childfree person is actually quite a
>separate issue from how children around you behave. Kids next door, for
>instance, is not a form or vehicle of discrimination, does not impact
>you any more (and probably much less) than the family with children next
>door on the other side. I certainly know couples who have decided to be
>childfree for reasons quite apart from their feelings about children.
>It's the personal irritations and peeves of some CF's about children
>that gets aired so quickly whenever this topic is brought up that
>overshadows concerns more immediate to CF'dom as a decision and as a way
>of life.
Very true. The problem is that many people seem to be unable to separate
the two. It's a very sensitive point with people and they assume that when
you say you're childfreee you must hate children in general and their
children in particular. It quickly becomes difficult to discuss how the
childfree are treated without at least one party to the discussion raising
confounding issues.
>One thing to remember about any forum of exchange between different
>viewpoints - people will disagree. That's hardly a reason to dismiss
>the success of any such forum. Which viewpoints emerge will be those
>which have stood the tests of argumentation. Yes - the "yabbuts".
Ok, I'm a pessimist. Not a news flash to anyone who knows me. I have no
problem discussing issues wioth people who disagree, as long as people
respect each others points of view. Because this is such an emotional
issue for some people that can be difficult. I hope I'm wrong about the
success of a forum for addressing childfree issues, if such a forum
exists.
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Laurel
>> And I'm concerned that "feminism" has come to mean "women who are
>> mothers having the same lives as men who have children or women who
>> don't." I'm concerned that "women" equals "mother" as a definition. And
>> to me, those *are* feminist issues.
>>
>> Ilene B
>
>Leaving the rest alone for now - why shouldn't feminism mean "women who
>are mothers having the same lives as men who have children"?
If that's *all* feminism means, then it doesn't have much relevance to
women without children, does it? That definition would seem to be based on
an assumption that women without children don't have any feminist issues
and is unnecessarily exclusive.
Steve
>
> I don't think there are any either, and I think it's unlikely that there
> will be. The problem is that while you and I may be interested in having a
> rational discussion about CF issues that includes both parents and
> non-parents, most people on either "side" are not.
But if people were able to see each others points and agree then there wouldn't
be anything to discuss and an empty forum.
I would encourage anyone in such a discussion to go to egroups.com.
They have a very easy to use interface. Anyone can set up a mailing list
discussion in under 10min.
I would do it. I am a CFCer who like a group, but from what I have seen of
CFCers on the internet they seem to be more of the "child hater" ilk then someone
who simply doesn't want to be a parent.
Steve
--
Eli
and I'm not sure if it made it.
Laurel wrote:
> All I'm saying is that a CF person's
> saying that they shouldn't be allowed everywhere and that bad behavior
> frequently goes unchecked has resulted in the kind of accusations I
> mentioned. The implication being that maybe there are a *few* places where
> children do not belong and maybe there are a *few* cases of bad behavior,
> but anyone who makes a big case out of it is just unreasonable. Sorry, I
> didn't really want to get into this all again.
Well, you got ME into it now :-)
What you wrote above is true, and shows that this is all a matter
of perspective and world view. If a person expects their
world to be basically an "adult" world, they view children as
some sort of visitors or guests, and expect them to behave
differently than if this was their own home and environment. Such
a person really doesn't want to have children around them anywhere,
but just accepts the fact that they have to be allowed SOME places.
In other words they feel that the kids (or rather, parents) are being
given the "privilege" to exist in the world and shouldn't abuse it.
On the other hand, the person who views the world as children + adults,
and moreover, views children as people who are in some ways
more vulnerable and need to be given more consideration, expects
the kids to consider the world their own environment and feel free
to act accordingly. In this case the acceptable behavior becomes
what is acceptable at one's home (which is much more relaxed and
permissive than being a guest). And since the world is a place for
both adults and children, they have every "right" to be in it, and
there better be a very good reason to disallow kids at any place.
So fewer places are viewed inappropriate for kids.
Of course I have presented a rather exaggerated division, but this is
just to show that both, acceptable behavior, and appropriate places
for kids, are very subjective and depends on how you view the world.
Now, I happen to be a parent who at times finds herself in the first
camp, and really want to be in child-free environment! But I do
realize that that is not the way the world is structured, and looking
at the bigger picture, I also realize that I don't even want it to be that way.
So at those times when I feel like I want to kill the parents of the little
brat in the restaurant (or more often in a plane), I just remind myself of
that fact and feel better!!
Eli
Laurel
<snip>
>
>Of course I have presented a rather exaggerated division, but this is
>just to show that both, acceptable behavior, and appropriate places
>for kids, are very subjective and depends on how you view the world.
Thank you. That was the point I was originally trying to make, before I
got everyone so confused with a poor example.
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Banty
>In article <3983301D...@attglobal.net>, tul...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>Of course I have presented a rather exaggerated division, but this is
>>just to show that both, acceptable behavior, and appropriate places
>>for kids, are very subjective and depends on how you view the world.
>
>Thank you. That was the point I was originally trying to make, before I
>got everyone so confused with a poor example.
>
>--
>Laurel
Then which view of the world do you think is more in line with a decent
human society? I certainly would work against the prevalence of one which
relegates whole classes of human beings to a peripheral, almost apolgetic,
role. And that includes those who are children. A just and inclusive
society would be heading in the opposite direction, I should think.
Banty
Banty
>In article <397F95B0...@banet.net>, ba...@banet.net wrote:
>
>>> And I'm concerned that "feminism" has come to mean "women who are
>>> mothers having the same lives as men who have children or women who
>>> don't." I'm concerned that "women" equals "mother" as a definition. And
>>> to me, those *are* feminist issues.
>>>
>>> Ilene B
>>
>>Leaving the rest alone for now - why shouldn't feminism mean "women who
>>are mothers having the same lives as men who have children"?
>
>If that's *all* feminism means, then it doesn't have much relevance to
>women without children, does it? That definition would seem to be based on
>an assumption that women without children don't have any feminist issues
>and is unnecessarily exclusive.
>
>--
>Laurel
Certainly feminism should not mean *only* that the issues mothers face
should not have to be so different from the issues fathers face. Of course
there are many other vital concerns to feminism applying to all women.
Surely this would be a subset of concerns, though, since so many women are
mothers, don't you think?
I was asking about Ilene's statement:
>And I'm concerned that "feminism" has come to mean "women who are
>mothers having the same lives as men who have children or women who
>don't."
Since she goes on to say "...or women who don't", I didn't read this as a
statement about feminism being only about women who are mothers.
Banty
--
lc...@my-deja.com
IleneB <ile...@shore.net> wrote:
> I agree that the "side issues" (and ranting language) don't contribute
> to soc.feminism. I don't want to use such langauge in this group,
where
> it isn't appropriate. However, it concerns me that parents often see
> CFers as candidates "to do something about it.. discrimination..." as
> you say below. *We* are not the people who hurt children in any way.
> That's left up to lousy parents, criminals, and others who engage with
> children in negative ways. It worries me to see CFers perceived as
> having hate speech, advocating damage, etc., when we simply don't like
> children or even more simply, don't want any.
>
There's an article in Salon discussing the CF movement and why
it may have a "bad name" among parents and others. Its on:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/07/31/anti_child/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cu...@op.net
> It worries me to see CFers perceived as having hate speech,
> advocating damage, etc., when we simply don't like children
> or even more simply, don't want any.
But there *is* hate speech involved and some *do* advocate
"child-free" areas, fight against "family-friendly" workplaces,
etc., which some of us see as possibly discriminatory and
probably a major inconvenience to us.
> I fear that parents are so threatened by people who are
> willing to state "I don't like children" that they forget
> that such statements can be made by people absolutely rational
> enough to hold that statement as seriously as "I don't like
> broccoli" therefore I don't buy or eat broccoli.
It doesn't sound all that rational to me to compare a
vegetable with a huge cross-section of the human population.
I am not the least bit disturbed or confused by someone who
doesn't want to have kids. Congratulations on the extra free
time you'll have, the extra opportunities for travel,
education, full-on career advancement, etc. I'm ecstatically
happy with my choice and I wish the same for you. But I do
wonder about people who say they "don't like children." We're
talking about ALOT of people, of various ages, personality
types, behaviors, etc. So when someone says they don't like all
those millions of people, I wonder if there isn't something
going on there. What if I said, "I'm all for civil rights,
but I just don't like Black people." Saying one just doesn't
like such a large and various group of people sounds to me
like it must be informed by prejudice.
> I wish parents could be more rational and accept that
> many of us are simply not interested in their children or
> their parental needs outside of that which we *as a society*
> deem necessary to group concern.
Wish no more. It is a reality.
> And I'm concerned that "feminism" has come to mean "women who
> are mothers having the same lives as men who have children or
> women who don't."
It doesn't mean that. It should, IMO, though, include among
its concerns the rights and needs of women who have children,
too.
> I'm concerned that "women" equals "mother" as a definition.
It doesn't. However, the fact that so very many women (the
majority) are going to be mothers is probably going to always
mean that the two will be associated in people's minds. That
doesn't necessarily constitute prejudice.
> And to me, those *are* feminist issues.
me too. I think the issue of women being assumed to be
caregivers and mothers *is* a feminist issue and I can say that
things (perception-wise) should change for women who don't have
kids. I am not prejudiced against women who do not choose to
have kids; I'm happy to have such women and their concerns
included in "my feminism". But you don't want my concerns as
a woman who is also a mother included in "your feminism." So,
it's *you* who are doing the excluding.
Kirk Job Sluder
>
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:43:08 GMT, us03...@mindspring.com (Laurel) wrote:
>
> >In article <3983301D...@attglobal.net>, tul...@attglobal.net wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >>Of course I have presented a rather exaggerated division, but this is
> >>just to show that both, acceptable behavior, and appropriate places
> >>for kids, are very subjective and depends on how you view the world.
> >
> >Thank you. That was the point I was originally trying to make, before I
> >got everyone so confused with a poor example.
> >
> >--
> >Laurel
>
> Then which view of the world do you think is more in line with a decent
> human society? I certainly would work against the prevalence of one which
> relegates whole classes of human beings to a peripheral, almost apolgetic,
> role. And that includes those who are children. A just and inclusive
> society would be heading in the opposite direction, I should think.
I don't feel that having spaces devoted to a particular purpose or a
particular population is contrary to the goals of "a just and inclusive
society." It is almost impossible to create a space or service that is
all things to all people.
For example, I strongly feel that in regards to youth sports, children
should be central and adults peripheral. On the other hand, I enjoy not
needing to worry about the safety of small children when I lift weights
at the gym.
The question of whether a group of people should or should not be
peripheral members within a given space is pretty much taken for granted
among adults. For example, Trek conventions are for Trekkies while
non-trekkies may find the conventions to be bewildering or
incomprehensible. Religious services may have great meaning to
believers and be dreadfully dull to non-believers. Adults usually
choose which spaces and communities they participate in, while children
may be dragged along to those spaces against their will.
>
> Banty
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csl...@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
Kirk Job Sluder
> But there *is* hate speech involved and some *do* advocate
> "child-free" areas, fight against "family-friendly" workplaces,
> etc., which some of us see as possibly discriminatory and
> probably a major inconvenience to us.
While I agree on family-friendly workplaces, how are spaces for
child-free or childless adults to gather different from spaces for
women, ethnic minorities, or lesbigays to gather?
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csl...@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
IleneB
concerns from my list of priorities, feminist and otherwise. What I
*don't* want is an assumption that mothers' concerns=women's concerns.
They are a subset, and are low in my list of priorities in, say,
charitable work/contributions (except to support Planned Parenthood),
voting, writing to my reps, etc. I see this as no different than, say,
AIDS activists who are primarily interested in their own group's needs,
and not being interested in, say, breast cancer. Or much less
interested.
Women being primary caretakers (or assumed to be) isn't a matter of
policy or law, from what I see. It's a matter of negotiation in each
coupling that has children in it- a personal choice as to who will be a
primary caretaker (if either one, if there are two adults) and a
personal issue if one cannot make a suitable agreement with one's
partner.
I view feminist issues as "equality under the law/equality of
opportunity, not of outcome."
Ilene B
In article <39804E6F...@op.net>, <cu...@op.net> wrote:
> But you don't want my concerns as
> a woman who is also a mother included in "your feminism." So,
> it's *you* who are doing the excluding.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
cu...@op.net
>
> Actually, I don't particularly mind if I am excluding some
> women's concerns from my list of priorities, feminist and
> otherwise.
Oh, thanks for being so honest.
> What I *don't* want is an assumption that mothers' concerns=
> women's concerns. They are a subset,
Yes, but a perfectly relevant one, just as relevant to feminism
as the subset you are personally interested in.
> I see this as no different than, say, AIDS activists who are
> primarily interested in their own group's needs, and not
> being interested in, say, breast cancer. Or much less
> interested.
It's quite different, in fact. If one is an AIDS activist,
one is an AIDS activist. But if you say you are a "health
activist" and then try to say that breast cancer doesn't
interest you and, in fact, isn't a relevant concern of a
health activist, you're misrepresenting yourself.
If *you* don't care about certain people or their concerns,
that's your business. But don't try to exclude us from
"feminism."
IleneB
definition or anyone else's. I do find that mother=woman can create
situations/issues where my interests as a female not-mother are in
direct conflict with women who are mothers. Other than that, I consider
the choice to be a parent to be a personal decision and not a feminist
concern per se.
Ilene B
In article <398B5A37...@op.net>, <cu...@op.net> wrote:
> If *you* don't care about certain people or their concerns,
> that's your business. But don't try to exclude us from
> "feminism."
--
cu...@op.net
>
> cu...@op.net wrote:
> > But there *is* hate speech involved and some *do* advocate
> > "child-free" areas, fight against "family-friendly"
> > workplaces, etc., which some of us see as possibly
> > discriminatory and probably a major inconvenience to us.
>
> While I agree on family-friendly workplaces, how are spaces
> for child-free or childless adults to gather different from
> spaces for women, ethnic minorities, or lesbigays to gather?
Spaces for private groups of people to gather privately?
Is that all they/you are complaining about? Is anyone
preventing or condemning this? I thought people were
advocating designating some "regular places" -- places many
of us would consider "public" -- officially off limits to kids
at some times. Can you imagine making the grocery store
man-free? (Hey, only before noon!)
Banty
>Banty wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:43:08 GMT, us03...@mindspring.com (Laurel) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3983301D...@attglobal.net>, tul...@attglobal.net wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >>
>> >>Of course I have presented a rather exaggerated division, but this is
>> >>just to show that both, acceptable behavior, and appropriate places
>> >>for kids, are very subjective and depends on how you view the world.
>> >
>> >Thank you. That was the point I was originally trying to make, before I
>> >got everyone so confused with a poor example.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Laurel
>>
>> Then which view of the world do you think is more in line with a decent
>> human society? I certainly would work against the prevalence of one which
>> relegates whole classes of human beings to a peripheral, almost apolgetic,
>> role. And that includes those who are children. A just and inclusive
>> society would be heading in the opposite direction, I should think.
>
>I don't feel that having spaces devoted to a particular purpose or a
>particular population is contrary to the goals of "a just and inclusive
>society." It is almost impossible to create a space or service that is
>all things to all people.
::snip much::
I'm not sure what your point is. Not to actually unecessarily banish
certain groups is not at all the same as serving the needs of all groups at
all times.
Banty
Banty
>Women being primary caretakers (or assumed to be) isn't a matter of
>policy or law, from what I see. It's a matter of negotiation in each
>coupling that has children in it- a personal choice as to who will be a
>primary caretaker (if either one, if there are two adults) and a
>personal issue if one cannot make a suitable agreement with one's
>partner.
It used to be a matter of law. Now it remains a very pervasive social
expectation and economic structure. To such an extent that, unless a woman
is lucky in marrying one of relatively few men who want to be a stay at
home parent, she will have to deal with the (to many) awful choices of
motherhood, *or* career, or trying to do both, with unsteady help from her
partner and many of her duties in conflict. A predicament men don't by and
large face at all. These arrangements aren't made alone and without
context, Ilene.
Part of the pervasive social expectation is still that men aren't expected
to be nurturing. But that's actually changing. But the other problem is
that, because of such a long history of men's domination and position as
breadwinner, economic activity, workplace and childrearing expectations
are all built around the
breadwinner-with-all-homemaking-and-childrearing-duties-delegated-elswhere
model. The MF 9 to 5 or even many more hours at the workplace gig, with
everything else going on at the same time (like store hours, doctor's
appointments and swimming lessons) is all built around that model. This
is a source of great stress to families trying to arrange their lives
otherwise. The pressure on the part of those in our society of
conservative leaning that one parent should stay home with the children is
a reactionary measure to reinforce this old model.
Men are not in any large enough number to make a difference going to simply
put on the aprons if their '50s mothers. Who could blame them? For *both*
genders to live full and satisfying lives there have to be changes in the
way work gets done and compensated. This is slowly happening in workplace
flexible hours, telecommuting, etc. But there's a huge long way to go.
For example, it's rare that part-time workers have medical benefits, etc.,
that are such an important part of the compensation of working as
breadwinning. Even though an obvious way to balance homemaking and
childrearing duties between partners would be to each work part time. It's
still assumed that part time is supplemental income because the model still
calls for that full-time employed breadwinner in each family. If you
really believe in equal pay for equal work, you should think that perhaps
half the benefits package value be delivered to part timers. But, this
doesn't happen. Not even in cases where both partners work for the same
firm, or even in the same job! There are many other similar examples.
When certain CFs object to workplace flexibility, I see where they have
taken as an axiom the old "breadwinner" workplace, economic, and social
model. Largely because a CF person or couple wont' face the more severe
impacts of needing to arrange one's life otherwise. Suits them just
fine. And so form a self-interested reactionary force against needed
social change.
I emphasize *some* CFs. One coworker some years back traded Monday work
for Sundays. This allowed him to ski when the slopes were not busy. Then
he discovered how nice it is to have a weekday to get things accomplished
year round. The payoff for the company is greatly positive, not only in
morale (he is still there), but in his easier access to the analytical
equipment he needs on Sundays. Some CFs I know IRL see the positive
possibilities. Getting away from the old model benefits us all.
Banty
Eli
> Actually, I don't particularly mind if I am excluding some women's
> concerns from my list of priorities, feminist and otherwise.
That's fine, but only for the "otherwise" part of your concerns.
Feminist concerns do include every group of women's issues.
> I see this as no different than, say,
> AIDS activists who are primarily interested in their own group's needs,
> and not being interested in, say, breast cancer. Or much less
> interested.
Sure, but that "group" of yours isn't the feminists. Mothers
happen to be female, and feminism HAS to be concerned with them.
Perhaps you'd want to start a new movement such as "childfreewomenists"
or something....
Eli
Kirk Job Sluder
>
> Kirk Job Sluder wrote:
> >
> > cu...@op.net wrote:
> > > But there *is* hate speech involved and some *do* advocate
> > > "child-free" areas, fight against "family-friendly"
> > > workplaces, etc., which some of us see as possibly
> > > discriminatory and probably a major inconvenience to us.
> >
> > While I agree on family-friendly workplaces, how are spaces
> > for child-free or childless adults to gather different from
> > spaces for women, ethnic minorities, or lesbigays to gather?
>
> Spaces for private groups of people to gather privately?
> Is that all they/you are complaining about? Is anyone
> preventing or condemning this? I thought people were
> advocating designating some "regular places" -- places many
> of us would consider "public" -- officially off limits to kids
> at some times. Can you imagine making the grocery store
> man-free? (Hey, only before noon!)
What I'm hearing in these discussions from both some CF advocates, and
some "family friendly" advocates is an "all or nothing" approach.
Specifically I was addressing the tone in the quoted paragraph which
indicated that any advocacy of "child free" areas is considered to be a
problem.
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csl...@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
IleneB
and how they continue to reverberate socially and emotionally, like Jim
Crow laws.
But I still say that women who want to be mothers are responsible to,
if they want a partner who will stay home, to choose same, and to be
sure they, the women, can make a family-supporting income. The economic
structure you refer to is, in my opinion, ever-increasingly a matter of
choice (what people study, what jobs are available, what careers are
higher-paid). It doesn't help much to complain that "teachers aren't
paid as much as Michael Jordan." Of course they're not. For that
matter, RNs (like me) aren't paid as much as systems analysts. It's how
the economy works, and again, women who want to be mothers aren't
unaware of how the society currently operates.
To me, feminism never said that one could be in two places at once-
home with a small child, and in a job or career. Feminism might say
that "it's unfair" that men don't have to confront such a gap in their
lives and desires, but I see that as personal choice, too. Overall,
don't want to stay home with children, being supported by a wife. Women
continue to make relatively lower-income choices, when they have
choices to make. I don't see "society" changing so that men want to
stay home with kids, and women are willing to let and support them.
Whether this comes from former laws/policies, or centuries of no
control over one's biologic functions, it's a matter of personal choice
now.
Ilene B
In article <74eoos8tdt88bl85q...@4ax.com>, Banty
<ba...@banet.net> wrote:
> It used to be a matter of law. Now it remains a very pervasive social
> expectation and economic structure. To such an extent that, unless a woman
> is lucky in marrying one of relatively few men who want to be a stay at
> home parent, she will have to deal with the (to many) awful choices of
> motherhood, *or* career, or trying to do both, with unsteady help from her
> partner and many of her duties in conflict. A predicament men don't by and
> large face at all. These arrangements aren't made alone and without
> context, Ilene.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
IleneB
Ilene B
In article <398CC06C...@hotmail.com>, Eli <el...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> hat's fine, but only for the "otherwise" part of your concerns.
> Feminist concerns do include every group of women's issues.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Banty
>And I'm well aware of the former matters of law that enclosed women,
>and how they continue to reverberate socially and emotionally, like Jim
>Crow laws.
>
>But I still say that women who want to be mothers are responsible to,
>if they want a partner who will stay home, to choose same, and to be
>sure they, the women, can make a family-supporting income. The economic
>structure you refer to is, in my opinion, ever-increasingly a matter of
>choice (what people study, what jobs are available, what careers are
>higher-paid). It doesn't help much to complain that "teachers aren't
>paid as much as Michael Jordan." Of course they're not. For that
>matter, RNs (like me) aren't paid as much as systems analysts. It's how
>the economy works, and again, women who want to be mothers aren't
>unaware of how the society currently operates.
Hmmm, I didn't bring up pay at all. Can you address any of my other
specifics?
Of course women who want to be mothers are aware of how society currently
operates. Men who want to be fathers surely are, too. But women in large
numbers (like, the majority) still choose to be mothers, because they're
not going to let the *current* structure of society rob them of a very
important piece of life. Why on earth should a movement such as feminism
be at all encumbered to limit its goals to those which do not change
society for the sake of equality for women?!? (Oh, let's help women have
the same choices and opportunities as men, but let's not shake things up
too much doing it, now shall we - we might disturb those with a vested
interest in the status quo. Hmmmmph.)
>
>To me, feminism never said that one could be in two places at once-
>home with a small child, and in a job or career. Feminism might say
>that "it's unfair" that men don't have to confront such a gap in their
>lives and desires, but I see that as personal choice, too. Overall,
>don't want to stay home with children, being supported by a wife. Women
>continue to make relatively lower-income choices, when they have
>choices to make. I don't see "society" changing so that men want to
>stay home with kids, and women are willing to let and support them.
>Whether this comes from former laws/policies, or centuries of no
>control over one's biologic functions, it's a matter of personal choice
>now.
>
>Ilene B
Read my post again - I stated that men are not going to stay home, or did
you miss the meaning of my statement that men are not going to in any large
numbers don the aprons of their '50s mothers?
Y'know, being childfree is a choice, too. One which may place one's
fancies outside the strivings of many of one's neighbors. That's your bed
to sleep in. And these strivings include that women can be both mothers
and have careers and economic independance, just as fathers can, whatever
(unstated in your case) objections you might have and share with the
reactionary religious right. Feminism *does* say that, and vitally so, or
my life would be much more constrained and unhappy. And frankly I don't
see any other rational interpretation of feminism that would be about
equality, but only if you don't have a family. It makes no more sense than
you can have equality, but only if you dont' marry, or you can have
equality, but only if you don't move to Oshkosh - because these are choices
and society just isn't that way.
Banty (nothing against marriage or Oshkosh...)
IleneB
And no need to paint me with the "reactionary religious right"- I have
no particular interest in "forcing" anyone home, like the imagined
1950s. I do believe that women who want to be mothers/primary
caretakers (or sole caretakers) and be economically independent are the
ones who want government/laws/policies to make this possible, which
might be called "changing society." And I don't see this particular
change as desirable if supported by law and taxpayer money.
Obviously, I don't support motherhood per se. That's not a secret. I
agree with the former poster who pointed out that concerns of interest
to women, or most women, are encompassed by feminism. So I suppose *my*
feminism is limited. I'm not interested in giving money/voting/writing
letters to the editor/etc. in favor of motherhood.
Ilene B
In article <d7svos0bghakn7quj...@4ax.com>, Banty
<ba...@banet.net> wrote:
> Y'know, being childfree is a choice, too. One which may place one's
> fancies outside the strivings of many of one's neighbors. That's your bed
> to sleep in. And these strivings include that women can be both mothers
> and have careers and economic independance, just as fathers can, whatever
> (unstated in your case) objections you might have and share with the
> reactionary religious right
--
Banty
wrote:
>cu...@op.net wrote:
>>
>> Kirk Job Sluder wrote:
>> >
>> > cu...@op.net wrote:
>> > > But there *is* hate speech involved and some *do* advocate
>> > > "child-free" areas, fight against "family-friendly"
>> > > workplaces, etc., which some of us see as possibly
>> > > discriminatory and probably a major inconvenience to us.
>> >
>> > While I agree on family-friendly workplaces, how are spaces
>> > for child-free or childless adults to gather different from
>> > spaces for women, ethnic minorities, or lesbigays to gather?
>>
>> Spaces for private groups of people to gather privately?
>> Is that all they/you are complaining about? Is anyone
>> preventing or condemning this? I thought people were
>> advocating designating some "regular places" -- places many
>> of us would consider "public" -- officially off limits to kids
>> at some times. Can you imagine making the grocery store
>> man-free? (Hey, only before noon!)
>
>What I'm hearing in these discussions from both some CF advocates, and
>some "family friendly" advocates is an "all or nothing" approach.
>Specifically I was addressing the tone in the quoted paragraph which
>indicated that any advocacy of "child free" areas is considered to be a
>problem.
It's time to get into specifics, as long as we're going to use a forum
devoted to equality for women to discuss discrimination against another
group of people, we might as well know what we're talking about. Are we
talking about child free supper clubs? Or childfree airline flights?
Because what I've seen from some more militant childfrees *is* along the
lines of discrimination. Allowing landlords of any apartment complex of
any size to disallow children as tenants, for example.
Those who are childfree - what do you advocate in this regard? And those
who think that pushing out kids is not what choosing not to have children
oneself, speak up, too. What exactly are the feelings and intentions in
this regard? Because thus far this discussion on soc.feminism has been
somewhat cryptic about what exactly would be considered sufficiently
accomodating to childfrees.
Banty
Banty
>I don't see where I "excluded" mothers from feminism, from my
>definition or anyone else's. I do find that mother=woman can create
>situations/issues where my interests as a female not-mother are in
>direct conflict with women who are mothers. Other than that, I consider
>the choice to be a parent to be a personal decision and not a feminist
>concern per se.
>
>Ilene B
>
And myself about deciding to be childfree, per se. (Advocating arranging
the world around childfree people may or may not work against goals of
feminism, however.)
Can you please point out to us where it has been stated or presented that
woman only equals mother, and that feminism only pertains to those who are
mothers? Since I havent' detected this, I'm puzzled as to what your
complaint has been.
Kirk Job Sluder
> It's time to get into specifics, as long as we're going to use a forum
> devoted to equality for women to discuss discrimination against another
> group of people, we might as well know what we're talking about. Are we
> talking about child free supper clubs? Or childfree airline flights?
> Because what I've seen from some more militant childfrees *is* along the
> lines of discrimination. Allowing landlords of any apartment complex of
> any size to disallow children as tenants, for example.
>
> Those who are childfree - what do you advocate in this regard? And those
> who think that pushing out kids is not what choosing not to have children
> oneself, speak up, too. What exactly are the feelings and intentions in
> this regard? Because thus far this discussion on soc.feminism has been
> somewhat cryptic about what exactly would be considered sufficiently
> accomodating to childfrees.
To add to my earlier post, I also think that it is also perfectly
satisfactory to have spaces and activities dedicated primarily to
children and in which childfree adults are peripheral participants. For
example, I don't have a problem that a local park is booked for the next
few days for a girls fast-pitch softball tournament. I don't have a
problem with children's museums, theatre and education activities. I
don't feel the need to insert myself as a central participant in teen
culture.
>
> Banty
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csl...@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Banty
>Yes, of course.
>
>And no need to paint me with the "reactionary religious right"- I have
>no particular interest in "forcing" anyone home, like the imagined
>1950s.
But only if they run their lives the way that suits you....
> I do believe that women who want to be mothers/primary
>caretakers (or sole caretakers) and be economically independent are the
>ones who want government/laws/policies to make this possible, which
>might be called "changing society." And I don't see this particular
>change as desirable if supported by law and taxpayer money.
>
>Obviously, I don't support motherhood per se. That's not a secret. I
>agree with the former poster who pointed out that concerns of interest
>to women, or most women, are encompassed by feminism. So I suppose *my*
>feminism is limited. I'm not interested in giving money/voting/writing
>letters to the editor/etc. in favor of motherhood.
>
>Ilene B
>
Well, I do know your objections to procreation. And, since you give that
agenda precedence, it's inevitalbe that what you'd want from feminism
would be very limited.
Banty
IleneB
limited to motherhood issues. *That* is very limiting.
Ilene B
In article <50i3ps0d8aslc2kcd...@4ax.com>, Banty
<ba...@banet.net> wrote:
> Well, I do know your objections to procreation. And, since you give that
> agenda precedence, it's inevitalbe that what you'd want from feminism
> would be very limited
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Laurel
>Then which view of the world do you think is more in line with a decent
>human society? I certainly would work against the prevalence of one which
>relegates whole classes of human beings to a peripheral, almost apolgetic,
>role. And that includes those who are children. A just and inclusive
>society would be heading in the opposite direction, I should think.
I don't understand why one has to be better than the other. Why can't we
accept that people have different views and different priorities and one
is not necessarily better than the other? Yes, you certainly can argue
that a just society would treat all citizens equally, regardless of age. I
could make an argument that children are not fully responsible for their
behavior and therefore need to have external limitations placed on them,
which might include limitations on where they allowed to be. Either is a
perfectly valid point of view, and neither is ideal. Your interpretation
that I am advocating that children should be relegated to a peripheral
role is akin to my saying that you are advocating that children be allowed
to do whatever they want to and go wherever they want to. I know you're
not saying that, just as I hope you know I am not saying that children are
insignifcant members of our society. I think what is at issue here is what
the extent of the limitations should be. It's only human nature to want
more than you have, so it's not surprising that people with children think
there should be fewer limitations on children and their parents (because
that benefits them) and people without children think there should be more
(because that benefits them).
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Banty
>In article <39877bcf...@news1.banet.net>, ba...@banet.net (Banty) wrote:
>
>>Then which view of the world do you think is more in line with a decent
>>human society? I certainly would work against the prevalence of one which
>>relegates whole classes of human beings to a peripheral, almost apolgetic,
>>role. And that includes those who are children. A just and inclusive
>>society would be heading in the opposite direction, I should think.
>
>I don't understand why one has to be better than the other.
Just to make sure we know what we're talking about - apparently you
subscribe to the view that children, and perhaps their parents, as Eli
described, should view their presence in the world as a privilege -
correct?
>Why can't we
>accept that people have different views and different priorities and one
>is not necessarily better than the other? Yes, you certainly can argue
>that a just society would treat all citizens equally, regardless of age. I
>could make an argument that children are not fully responsible for their
>behavior and therefore need to have external limitations placed on them,
>which might include limitations on where they allowed to be. Either is a
>perfectly valid point of view, and neither is ideal.
Sorry, Laurel, but it is not morally neutral to want to exclude a whole
class of people from participation in society unnecessarily. I don't think
the two world views, as Eli presented them, are morally equivalent. One
clearly places the characteristics of one group - adults, and perhaps
adults presently without children - in a status of normalcy, whilst anyone
not sharing those characteristics are placed in a status of deviant. For
what other categories of human beings do you think this would be morally
neutral compared to a view that acknowledges all people as members of
society? Take for example stutterers (and no, not all respond to therapy -
a highly successful colleague of mine stutters severely, for example). One
has to concede that the position of radio announcer would not be
appropriate, but would one be on decent moral ground to also require
stutterers not go to fancy restaurants, lest other patrons be disturbed by
their uneven, sometimes explosive cadence of speech? This - would be an
example of a difference between treating him as a full member of society,
with some few unavoidable limitations, versus not being a full member of
society, because his characteristics are defined as deviant and he hasn't
attained the privileged of participating fully. Or take Beth Gallager's
example of irritation with very overweight people.
I cannot place both world views side by side as equal. One view
implicitly defines a class of human beings as deviant. This is the way to
many kinds of injustice.
>Your interpretation
>that I am advocating that children should be relegated to a peripheral
>role is akin to my saying that you are advocating that children be allowed
>to do whatever they want to and go wherever they want to. I know you're
>not saying that, just as I hope you know I am not saying that children are
>insignifcant members of our society. I think what is at issue here is what
>the extent of the limitations should be.
And I have noted that this discussion has been somewhat cryptic when it
comes to the details that would clarify just what extents are desired.
Childfrees talk about fancy restaurants and operas, which parents and other
present have agreed, but clearly there's more because the discussion goes
on, but it remains unspoken. So, what is it you want to see? Do you think
apartment complexes should be able to say "No Children Allowed", for
example?
>It's only human nature to want
>more than you have, so it's not surprising that people with children think
>there should be fewer limitations on children and their parents (because
>that benefits them) and people without children think there should be more
>(because that benefits them).
This is an example of what has been pointed out earlier - the confusing of
different issues. You say parents should want one thing, and childfrees
want another, pertaining to the behavior of children.
Why would childfrees necessarily want more limitations on children and
their parents? Being childfree is a decision regarding whether one,
personally and/or as a couple, want to raise children. In your last
phrase, "people without children thing there should be more(because that
benefits them)" contains the implied premise that people who have decided
not to have children think themselves benefited by restricting all
children. Why would this premise be true? If I decide to attend the
University of Michigan and not Michigan State, is it to my benefit that I
see as few Michigan State logo clothes as possible? Or take Beth's example
of concern about health vs. irritation with fat people. If I embark on a
lifelong exercise and diet program such that I'm at medically defined
"ideal" weight, am I to therefore have an interest in whether or not fat
people have to pay two tickets for two seats on an airline flight?
The two, being childfree and not wanting to be around children, don't
necessarily go together. It's a hidden premise in many discussions about
CF, though, and one worth pointing out. Also, that subset of CF who made
their decision because they don't like children should consider carefully
to what extent they're justified in asking the world to accommodate their
dislike of a class of human beings. What other class of human beings
should be restricted to accommodate those who don't' like them? Can you
articulate a principle concerning what the obligations are of people are to
people who don't like them?
Banty
--
Kirk Job Sluder
> It's time to get into specifics, as long as we're going to use a forum
> devoted to equality for women to discuss discrimination against another
> group of people, we might as well know what we're talking about. Are we
> talking about child free supper clubs? Or childfree airline flights?
> Because what I've seen from some more militant childfrees *is* along the
> lines of discrimination. Allowing landlords of any apartment complex of
> any size to disallow children as tenants, for example.
Ok, for some specifics, I don't see a problem with the fact that the
weight room of the university gym I go to appears to be a child-free
space by consensus for the safety issues involved. I also don't have a
problem with that gym's policy of having designated employees only pool
time (along with designated "family" pool hours.)
I also don't see a problem with a property owner choosing to rent
primarily or exclusively to single individuals without children. Most
universities I've seen for example offer student housing explicitly to
single individuals without children or pets, with separate facilities
for married students who may or may not have children. I personally
would not choose to live in that kind of a complex.
I don't see the problem with the existance of eating establishments that
cater exclusively to individuals above drinking age. I also don't have
a problem with the fact that many theatre shows are by consensus adult
activies.
> Those who are childfree - what do you advocate in this regard? And those
> who think that pushing out kids is not what choosing not to have children
> oneself, speak up, too. What exactly are the feelings and intentions in
> this regard? Because thus far this discussion on soc.feminism has been
> somewhat cryptic about what exactly would be considered sufficiently
> accomodating to childfrees.
So far this discussion has been equally cryptic about what would be
considered sufficiently accomodating to children.
>
> Banty
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csl...@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
--
Goddess
news:o35dps8ddq4plkbvk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:33:12 GMT, us03...@mindspring.com (Laurel) wrote:
>
> >Your interpretation
> >that I am advocating that children should be relegated to a peripheral
> >role is akin to my saying that you are advocating that children be
allowed
> >to do whatever they want to and go wherever they want to. I know you're
> >not saying that, just as I hope you know I am not saying that children
are
> >insignifcant members of our society. I think what is at issue here is
what
> >the extent of the limitations should be.
>
> And I have noted that this discussion has been somewhat cryptic when it
> comes to the details that would clarify just what extents are desired.
> Childfrees talk about fancy restaurants and operas, which parents and
other
> present have agreed, but clearly there's more because the discussion goes
> on, but it remains unspoken. So, what is it you want to see? Do you
think
> apartment complexes should be able to say "No Children Allowed", for
> example?
Actually, some do already. A retirement village just recently
went up in our neighborhood. You have to be at least 55 to
get an apartment there. Children are not allowed, except for
visits of no longer than 3 days. I don't particularly see a problem
with such restrictions as long as there are other apartment
complexes that DO take children. Otherwise, we would have
a problem. Of course, those who DO have children could
build apartment complexes that ONLY take children; no one
without them could get in.
Omixochitl
<39885A93...@indiana.edu>:
>Banty wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:43:08 GMT, us03...@mindspring.com (Laurel)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3983301D...@attglobal.net>, tul...@attglobal.net
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >>
>> >>Of course I have presented a rather exaggerated division, but this
>> >>is just to show that both, acceptable behavior, and appropriate
>> >>places for kids, are very subjective and depends on how you view
>> >>the world.
>> >
>> >Thank you. That was the point I was originally trying to make, before
>> >I got everyone so confused with a poor example.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Laurel
>>
>> Then which view of the world do you think is more in line with a
>> decent human society? I certainly would work against the prevalence
>> of one which relegates whole classes of human beings to a peripheral,
>> almost apolgetic, role. And that includes those who are children. A
"Peripheral, almost apologetic role"? That makes lots of sense when you're
talking about excluding women, excluding blacks, etc.. However, it makes
less sense when you're talking about excluding children. Children do turn
into adults, while women don't turn into men and blacks don't turn into
whites (okay, a few exceptions exist, like infanticide, sex-change surgery,
and Michael Jackson).
Segregating by sex or race sends messages like "no, you can never live in
this neighborhood" and "no, you can never dine in this restaurant".
Accepting all sexes and races sends messages like "yes, you can live in
this neighborhood" and "yes, you can dine in this restaurant".
When it comes to age, however, it's a bit more complex. If you need
something now to keep using it later, segregating by age might as well send
messages like "no, you can never live in this neighborhood". After all, if
too few neighborhoods accepted children, then many would be homeless and
less likely to reach the age invited. Accepting all ages sends messages
like "yes, you can live in this neighborhood". So in these cases excluding
children is as bad as excluding a sex or an ethnic group.
If you don't need something now to keep using it later, excluding children
is not as bad as excluding a sex or an ethnic group. Segregating by age
sends messages like "yes, you can dine in this restaurant once you're old
enough to know better than to throw food". Accepting all ages sends
messages like "yes, you can dine in this restaurant and must act like an
adult even though you're 1 year old" or "yes, you can dine in this
restaurant and throw food".
>> just and inclusive society would be heading in the opposite direction,
>> I should think.
>
>I don't feel that having spaces devoted to a particular purpose or a
>particular population is contrary to the goals of "a just and inclusive
>society." It is almost impossible to create a space or service that is
>all things to all people.
Libraries seem to be trying. A recent survey at Boston Public Library's
main branch asked, among other things: do you want a food court here?
On the other hand, they're maintaining separate spaces and services within
their mission of "Library Service", with age separation. All the adult
stuff is kept together and sorted by subject instead of by age (even the
large print books don't have any "for elders" signs). In the children's
section the books are split up by age first and then sorted by subject, and
the books for older kids (teens and preteens) aren't even on the same floor
as the books for prereaders and elementary schoolers.
If by "child-friendly" you mean a space that welcomes all children, instead
of welcoming some children and not some others, then "child-friendly"
spaces would definitely be almost impossible to create.
>For example, I strongly feel that in regards to youth sports, children
>should be central and adults peripheral. On the other hand, I enjoy not
>needing to worry about the safety of small children when I lift weights
>at the gym.
A very good example. Another one is child labor laws.
>The question of whether a group of people should or should not be
>peripheral members within a given space is pretty much taken for granted
>among adults. For example, Trek conventions are for Trekkies while
>non-trekkies may find the conventions to be bewildering or
>incomprehensible. Religious services may have great meaning to
>believers and be dreadfully dull to non-believers. Adults usually
>choose which spaces and communities they participate in, while children
>may be dragged along to those spaces against their will.
Another good observation. As for children being dragged places, this means
that inviting a child somewhere isn't necessarily pro-child and not
inviting him/her isn't necessarily anti-child. This is especially true
among children: what's normal for one child's age group can be
inappropriate for another child's age group and that age group's venues.
For example, babies tend to be disturbed by loud noises (such as movie
theatre soundtracks) and can wail loudly enough to muffle them (such as
making movie dialogue hard to understand). This is normal. Older kids can
be loud in theatres too ("Pikachu!", "Charizard!", etc. when the characters
appear on screen) but often don't want the entire movie muffled by random
noise ("Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"). This is normal too. However, if a 9-
-year-old wants to see Pokemon 2000, dragging his/her baby sibling along
and keeping the baby there after s/he starts to scream is not a pro-child
thing for their caretaker to do.
- The baby will be upset by hearing loud noise instead of peace and quiet,
is too young to know what a movie is, and won't be a baby forever so s/he
can wait to see movies later.
- The 9-year-old and other child Pokemon fans there will get irritated
since they can't hear the story as well.
- The adult anime fans there will get irritated since they can't hear the
story as well (whether they're parents or not).
- The caretaker will benefit if s/he didn't care about hearing the story
and only cares about convenience (whether s/he's their parent paying less
or their babysitter paid more for childcare).
So none of the children and only one of the adults in the theatre benefit.
Looks like an anti-child situation to me.
Omixochitl
Kirk Job Sluder
Of course, doesn't this assume that there is such a thing called
"society" that can be considered monolithic. It is entirely possible to
look at separate spaces as pluralistic. For example, as an adult male
without children, I'm quite marginal in children's museums, sporting
events and playgrounds. More importantly, as an adult, I SHOULD be
marginal in those spaces because if I was not, my voice as a 5'11" fully
grown male might quickly overwhelm the children's voices. It doesn't
mean that I'm deviant, only that I'm not a central focus of that space.
Likewise, I really don't care to accomodate the needs and desires of
straights in queerspace, or conservative Christians in my worship
services. Giving straights and conservative Christians equal, perhaps
even dominant voices in those spaces would quickly destroy the ability
of those spaces to serve my needs. It does not mean that straights or
Conservative Christians are "deviant" or "abnormal" only that they are
not the central focus of the space in question. To spin off of your
example, I also fully support the fact that people with speech and
hearing disabilities who use ASL as their primary language of discourse,
have their own cultural spaces and their own University. As a hearing
person who uses English as a primary language and has the fluency of a
2-year-old in ASL, it would not further social justice for me to demand
both inclusion and accomodation into that culture.
Earlier today I attended a worship service that was very well structured
to accomodate both Children's culture and Adult's culture. The first
half of the service was for all ages. Then the second half of the
service, the children went to their own space, and the adults had their
own space in which they were free to talk. In addition the Church had
room where adults could take fussy children and still listen to the
adult service.
I felt this was an excellent way to accomodate both the needs of adults
to engage in discourse at their level, and the needs of children to
engage in discourse at their level.
> I cannot place both world views side by side as equal. One view
> implicitly defines a class of human beings as deviant. This is the way to
> many kinds of injustice.
On the other hand, demanding that all cultural activities be conducted
to your norms and level of discourse is also the way to many kinds of
injustice.
> >Your interpretation
> >that I am advocating that children should be relegated to a peripheral
> >role is akin to my saying that you are advocating that children be allowed
> >to do whatever they want to and go wherever they want to. I know you're
> >not saying that, just as I hope you know I am not saying that children are
> >insignifcant members of our society. I think what is at issue here is what
> >the extent of the limitations should be.
>
> And I have noted that this discussion has been somewhat cryptic when it
> comes to the details that would clarify just what extents are desired.
> Childfrees talk about fancy restaurants and operas, which parents and other
> present have agreed, but clearly there's more because the discussion goes
> on, but it remains unspoken. So, what is it you want to see? Do you think
> apartment complexes should be able to say "No Children Allowed", for
> example?
And I've noted that this discussion has been equally cryptic when it
comes to details about how much inclusion is wanted. If there has been
agreement about fancy restaurants and operas. I don't recall seeing it
on this thread. What is it do you want to see?
Housing is a bit of a tricky issue. Most university housing for example
is designed for single individuals sharing rooms with a person of the
same sex and approximately the same age for example. So far, I don't
see a problem with special-purpose housing designed to facilitate the
needs of single adults in some contexts.
> >It's only human nature to want
> >more than you have, so it's not surprising that people with children think
> >there should be fewer limitations on children and their parents (because
> >that benefits them) and people without children think there should be more
> >(because that benefits them).
>
> This is an example of what has been pointed out earlier - the confusing of
> different issues. You say parents should want one thing, and childfrees
> want another, pertaining to the behavior of children.
>
> Why would childfrees necessarily want more limitations on children and
> their parents? Being childfree is a decision regarding whether one,
> personally and/or as a couple, want to raise children. In your last
> phrase, "people without children thing there should be more(because that
> benefits them)" contains the implied premise that people who have decided
> not to have children think themselves benefited by restricting all
> children. Why would this premise be true? If I decide to attend the
> University of Michigan and not Michigan State, is it to my benefit that I
> see as few Michigan State logo clothes as possible? Or take Beth's example
> of concern about health vs. irritation with fat people. If I embark on a
> lifelong exercise and diet program such that I'm at medically defined
> "ideal" weight, am I to therefore have an interest in whether or not fat
> people have to pay two tickets for two seats on an airline flight?
It is to my interest to have the option of engaging in spaces where I
don't need to worry about the needs and concerns of children present.
Spaces in which my participation is unlikely to be disrupted by the
needs of a young child. Spaces in which I don't need to worry if the
content of my discourse is going to bore children who don't have the
cognitive abilities or experience to understand what I'm saying. Spaces
where I don't have to worry about pissing a parent off if they feel my
content or language in inappropriate for their child. To pull an
educational psychology term, out of my hat, it is to my interest to
participate in discursive communities with my peers.
Likewise, I think that children need the exact same thing. I think
children need to engage in discursive communities with their peers, with
minimal guidance and interference from parents or other adults. I would
also suggest that the growing problems with youth sports is due to the
failure of adults to respect the children's need for children's space.
> The two, being childfree and not wanting to be around children, don't
> necessarily go together. It's a hidden premise in many discussions about
> CF, though, and one worth pointing out. Also, that subset of CF who made
> their decision because they don't like children should consider carefully
> to what extent they're justified in asking the world to accommodate their
> dislike of a class of human beings. What other class of human beings
> should be restricted to accommodate those who don't' like them? Can you
> articulate a principle concerning what the obligations are of people are to
> people who don't like them?
I agree with this. But I also think that people who have children
should consider carefully to what extent they're justified in asking the
world to accommodate their desire to have their children included in
every activity. What I'm hearing in your posts is an implicit sense of
entitlement claimed on behalf of children that is quite cryptic in terms
of how far it extends.
And a more important question, do the children in question really want
to be dragged into every space where adults are talking about "adult
stuff." For some reason I'm reminded of my granfather's birthday. I
was hanging out in another room with one of my teen cousins when my
other two teen cousins came running away from the living room, "They are
talking about the stock market AGAIN! YUCK!"
cu...@op.net
think that parents who refuse to limit *themselves* in where
they bring their kids [like the truly rare parent who wants
to bring the baby to Le Fancee Restaurant Francais] are cut
from the same cloth as childfrees who think any public space
they happen to be in should now be childfree.
Kirk Job Sluder wrote:
>
> Of course, doesn't this assume that there is such a thing
> called "society" that can be considered monolithic. It is
> entirely possible to look at separate spaces as pluralistic.
> For example, as an adult male without children, I'm quite
> marginal in children's museums, sporting events and
> playgrounds. More importantly, as an adult, I SHOULD be
> marginal in those spaces because if I was not, my voice as
> a 5'11" fully grown male might quickly overwhelm the
> children's voices.
Marginal, you may be. But you're not prohibited from even
being there.
>[snip] To spin off of your example, I also fully support the
> fact that people with speech and hearing disabilities who
> use ASL as their primary language of discourse, have their
> own cultural spaces and their own University. As a hearing
> person who uses English as a primary language and has the
> fluency of a 2-year-old in ASL, it would not further social
> justice for me to demand both inclusion and accomodation
> into that culture.
OK, let's not forget here that children kind of "go with"
parents. When you prohibit children from attending something,
you either prohibit their parents from attending or put
the parents in a situation in which they must find childcare.
In some cases, that would be fine; in other cases, IMO, that
would not. Whether or not it's fine, IMO, would depend on
(1) how often and how important it is for the parents to need
to be in a place and (2) how disruptive the presence of
children of a certain age would be to the essence of a place
or activity. So, work and the grocery store are two places
where people have to frequently and regularly go, but I think
most of us (hmmm, ??) would agree that most/all workplaces
would be highly disrupted by the presence of young'uns,
whereas the essence of grocery shopping would remain intact
with young'uns around. Agree so far?
[snip]
> And I've noted that this discussion has been equally cryptic
> when it comes to details about how much inclusion is wanted.
>If there has been agreement about fancy restaurants and operas.
> I don't recall seeing it on this thread.
What do you need, an official role call and vote? Gallagher
here; I vote against kids at the opera and fancy restaurants.
But let me say this: are we talking about a "parents shouldn't"
or "parents mayn't" bring their kids? I think I might feel
differently about these two, depending on the case.
I feel fine with the amt. of true restriction that exists right
now. Do you all? I also feel fine with the amt. of social
discouragement that exists that usually already prevents
parents from bringing too-young kids to places where
relative quiet and peace are required. I would probably feel
uncomfortable with more formal restrictions than exist now.
How about you all?
> > >It's only human nature to want
> > >more than you have, so it's not surprising that people
> > >with children think there should be fewer limitations on
> > > children and their parents (because that benefits them)
> > > and people without children think there should be more
> > >(because that benefits them).
Not sure who wrote the above, but the premise is WRONG.
It is not my experience that parents want fewer limitations
on kids and parents. They object to the added ones that some
childfrees appear to be advocating. What kind of existing
limitations have you heard parents griping about?
> It is to my interest to have the option of engaging in spaces
> where I don't need to worry about the needs and concerns of
> children present.
Why would you ever have to, unless you'd been specifically
asked to babysit or otherwise help out?
> Spaces in which my participation is unlikely to be disrupted
> by the needs of a young child.
Whether or not the rest of us find this fair would, of
course, depend on what space and what kind of participation
you're looking for. We know that some childfrees find
they cannot "participate" in the grocery store "space"
when kids are present. That sounds to me like a personal
problem for the childfree. You agree? However, if you mean a
movie in a movie theatre, then, yes, the presence of a baby
could very well prevent you from the kind of "participation"
most moviegoers rightly expect.
> Spaces in which I don't need to worry if the content of my
> discourse is going to bore children who don't have the
> cognitive abilities or experience to understand what I'm
> saying.
Again, why would you worry about that? Are you talking about
giving a speech? Then, in most cases, it's understood that you
are speaking to the grownups, and if they bring their kids,
it's their problem to keep them happy. Are you talking about
a conversation? Parents have conversations that don't involve
their kids all the time. That's normal life. Sometimes kids
misbehave while parents do that; kids then need to be
dealt with in some way appropriate for their ages.
When I take my kids to a restaurant, I bring quiet toys and
books with me; I don't expect the staff or other diners to
amuse my kids so that said staff or other diners are not
tortured by said bored kids. Same would be true if I had to
bring my kids to, say, a public (school board, zoning
committee) meeting. I would not expect the members/speakers to
wear clown suits or pass out juice boxes, but nor would I think
it right for them to prohibit kids from being in that room
just because the topic is not "for kids".
> Spaces where I don't have to worry about pissing a parent
> off if they feel my content or language in inappropriate
> for their child.
Could you give some specifics, or perhaps an example of a
time and place when you felt you *should* have been able to
use language inappropriate for kids but there were kids
present? In "public," I don't see the presence of kids being
much of an added difficulty in this regard. Lots of gronwups
are offended by the type of language that most people would
consider inappropriate for kids. I curse a lot, but almost
never out in public loud enough for anyone outside my group
to hear, and that's true whether or not there are kids
present. Now, if a parent brings a kid to a discussion group
on, say, sexual abuse, I think everyone should feel free to
go ahead and talk freely. That is the parent's problem. Should
parents be *prevented* from bringing 5 year olds to such a
discussion group? If I were running one, I would not think I
would need to be so formal about it, but if I found that
parents repeatedly brought very young kids and that it made
other participants nervous or was upsetting to the kids, then,
yes, I'd formally ask that kids under X years of age not be
brought. Sound reasonable?
> To pull an educational psychology term, out of my hat, it
> is to my interest to participate in discursive communities
> with my peers.
Does the simple presence of kids prevent you from doing that
in many cases? Kids can play next to adults who are talking.
Yes, they sometimes interrupt, but that isn't so very bad,
is it? This is not to say that I don't think there are *lots*
of times when it's more fun or more appropriate or even,
in some cases, really important, for kids to be left out,
but the simple fact that kids are not what an event is
about should not automatically mean that they should be
left home.
> Likewise, I think that children need the exact same thing.
> I think children need to engage in discursive communities
> with their peers, with minimal guidance and interference
> from parents or other adults.
It sounds like you might be saying more than that: that kids
should *only* be present among discursive communities made
up of their peers or those devtoed to then and that their
presence is *only* appropriate when the event is child-oriented.
I strongly disagree. As I've said before, yes, there are "kid
things" and "adult things" but most of world is not and should
not be defined as such, IMO.
> I agree with this. But I also think that people who have
> children should consider carefully to what extent they're
> justified in asking the world to accommodate their desire to
> have their children included in every activity.
I bring my kids along with me almost everywhere (never
fear, I don't do much). I do not, however, often ask the
world to accomodate or include them per se. I take care of
them; they are simply "there" for the rest of you. I don't
take my kids to business meetings or let them interfere in
business calls; I will not bring them to fancy restaurants if
I ever go to one again; I will not bring them to bed and
breakfasts until they're *much* older; I would not bring them
to hear the Phila. Orchestra or Marah; I will not bring them
next month when I go out at night with a group of friends I
haven't seen in a while.
However, I do very often bring them to non-child-oriented
places, where adults often go with other adults. The places
that spring to mind are our art museum and a certain decent
but not fancy restaurant in our neighborhood. In both cases,
I do not at all expect that anything special be done for them
or me. I know how to manage my kids in such places. They
are not allowed to run around in the galleries or aisles.
They are not allowed to scream bloody murder. Taking my kids
to such places is hard work for me, but it's worth it. I *do*
feel entitled to have my kids with me in such places, for
their and my sakes. I enjoy having them there (I also enjoy
going without them sometimes!); they enjoy and learn from
being there; there is in fact no reason why they should not
be there as long as their behavior permits. I do not feel that
their presence, expect in perhaps two nightmarish cases in the
past 5 years of parenting, genuinely interfered with any
reasonable adult's enjoyment of the place.
How do I define reasonable in this case? I can only do so by
example. Being offended by a kid saying, loudly, "COOL!" about
a gory painting or, in a normal tone of voice, "[giggle] I see
his penis" about a statue is not reasonable. Feeling your
lunch was ruined if a child falls off his chair once at the
table next to you or laughs out loud a couple of times is not
reasonable. (Again, this is not a fancy place by any stretch,
but nor is it a crappy chain or fast food.)
> And a more important question, do the children in question
> really want to be dragged into every space where adults are
> talking about "adult stuff."
You think this is a more important question? To me, this is
beside the point. I actually really hate the idea of making a
kid's world a little play paradise, where everything they do
and everywhere they go is all about them. My kids inhabit this
world with me. We do lots of things *just* for them, but they
also must accompany me on errands and they must amuse
themselves while I do my grownup things. They must do these
things not only because I refuse to leave them with a
babysitter every time I need to do these things, but also
because all this is just life being lived. Kids should indeed
be part of most of that, both because they are entitled to be
and because how else will they learn to be?
> For some reason I'm reminded of my granfather's birthday.
> I was hanging out in another room with one of my teen
> cousins when my other two teen cousins came running away
> from the living room, "They are talking about the stock
> market AGAIN! YUCK!"
So the kids should not have been allowed to be there and/or
it was unfair of their parents to subject them to being in a
place where grownups were being grownups? Is that what you're
saying?
Banty
What general principle of rights is it that you understand that if a person
has a right one time, but not another, without reason or due process, it's
not denial of rights?? If women have to sit in the back of the bus
Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but not other times, they're to feel "yes, you can
sit anywhere on the bus"? Your whole premise doesn't make sense.
Now, when it comes to children, due to their immature state, *where
necessary*, they have special rights (parents' support and protection) and
some rights they don't have (vote, run for office, drink alcoholic
beverages). It has nothing to do with "yes, you can" messages. It has
everything to do with reason and due process (transferral of
responsibilities to adoptive parents, for example).
::snip::
>>> just and inclusive society would be heading in the opposite direction,
>>> I should think.
>>
>>I don't feel that having spaces devoted to a particular purpose or a
>>particular population is contrary to the goals of "a just and inclusive
>>society." It is almost impossible to create a space or service that is
>>all things to all people.
>
>Libraries seem to be trying. A recent survey at Boston Public Library's
>main branch asked, among other things: do you want a food court here?
>
>On the other hand, they're maintaining separate spaces and services within
>their mission of "Library Service", with age separation. All the adult
>stuff is kept together and sorted by subject instead of by age (even the
>large print books don't have any "for elders" signs). In the children's
>section the books are split up by age first and then sorted by subject, and
>the books for older kids (teens and preteens) aren't even on the same floor
>as the books for prereaders and elementary schoolers.
So, do you think it "mystery buff friendly" when they have special sections
and lectures devoted to mysteries? Libraries separate things by interest.
That's the whole Dewey or Congressional system. I'm not sure I understand
your point.
No one's asking every place be geared to children, or 45 year old New
Yorkers originally from Texas, or recently graduated college educated
contributors to soc.feminism. Or Trekkies or devotees of philately. Just
that doors not be shut without just cause, and certainly not to cater to
the sentiments of people who don't' like whole other classes of people.
Banty
Banty
>Banty <ba...@banet.net> wrote in message
>news:o35dps8ddq4plkbvk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:33:12 GMT, us03...@mindspring.com (Laurel) wrote:
>>
>> >Your interpretation
>> >that I am advocating that children should be relegated to a peripheral
>> >role is akin to my saying that you are advocating that children be
>allowed
>> >to do whatever they want to and go wherever they want to. I know you're
>> >not saying that, just as I hope you know I am not saying that children
>are
>> >insignifcant members of our society. I think what is at issue here is
>what
>> >the extent of the limitations should be.
>>
>> And I have noted that this discussion has been somewhat cryptic when it
>> comes to the details that would clarify just what extents are desired.
>> Childfrees talk about fancy restaurants and operas, which parents and
>other
>> present have agreed, but clearly there's more because the discussion goes
>> on, but it remains unspoken. So, what is it you want to see? Do you
>think
>> apartment complexes should be able to say "No Children Allowed", for
>> example?
>
>Actually, some do already. A retirement village just recently
>went up in our neighborhood. You have to be at least 55 to
>get an apartment there. Children are not allowed, except for
>visits of no longer than 3 days.
This is a specific exception of the Fair Housing Act. Housing arrangements
for those over 55 are allowed to have restrictions for tenants based on age
and family status. Such complexes are required to have facitilities
directed to independant living for older people, and the exemption is
intended to allow such unique facilities to be had by those over a certain
age and those married to them. Some, not all, have taken advantage of this
exempion to disallow children and set up other restrictions. This is not
something which applies as a general principle, is controversial (heavy
lobbying by the AARP has a lot to do with its passing), and may be up for
constitutional challenge.
http://www.efn.org/~fairhous/eng/legalres/federal/fhaa100.htm#100.10
This is the only kind of housing complex operated for profit which has such
as exception, as I understand it. By the way, housing not for profit and
not for the general public is also an exception - things like church
retreat facilities and college student housing. College student housing
has been brought up in these CF a couple of times already. Again, this
situation is a special case; college housing is not considered public
housing. I think it's understood, at least by me, that we're talking about
housing open to the general public.
> I don't particularly see a problem
>with such restrictions as long as there are other apartment
>complexes that DO take children. Otherwise, we would have
>a problem. Of course, those who DO have children could
>build apartment complexes that ONLY take children; no one
>without them could get in.
>
Why would you have no problem with this? What other category of persons
would you happily see restricted in public housing? As long as they could
live somewhere else.....?
There *has* been situations in the past where housing is allowed to have no
children. Since children cause somewhat more wear and tear, many landlords
would make this restriction (keep in mind many landlords would make *any*
restriction they could - it took a court case to allow all NYC tenants to
hang picture on their walls!) Families with children would be concentrated
in fewer and fewer apartment complexes when even moderate landlords who
would otherwise allow them felt they had to make sure theirs is not one of
the few densly packed with children. The few remaining, being a rare
commodity, charged high rents and generally took advantage of the
situation. This is the path that housing has taken in the past concerning
race and ethnicity before the Fair Housing Act. I don't want to see a
repeat of this, not for any category of person.
Banty
Banty
And....? I haven't seen anyone post a sign saying "No 5'11" males
allowed".
>
>Likewise, I really don't care to accomodate the needs and desires of
>straights in queerspace, or conservative Christians in my worship
>services. Giving straights and conservative Christians equal, perhaps
>even dominant voices in those spaces would quickly destroy the ability
>of those spaces to serve my needs. It does not mean that straights or
>Conservative Christians are "deviant" or "abnormal" only that they are
>not the central focus of the space in question. To spin off of your
>example, I also fully support the fact that people with speech and
>hearing disabilities who use ASL as their primary language of discourse,
>have their own cultural spaces and their own University. As a hearing
>person who uses English as a primary language and has the fluency of a
>2-year-old in ASL, it would not further social justice for me to demand
>both inclusion and accomodation into that culture.
>
I think about 99% of your point (and a lot of Omixochitl's as well) is
addressed simply by noting that those interested in a cultural event,
gathering, happening, friend's home, whatever, will go and participate and
those not interested will by and large will not. That's where you get the
social space to commisserate, celebrate, chum around. No exclusion
necessary. The Metropolitan Museum of Art doens't have a sign on the door
saying "No WWF Fans Allowed", but I'm pretty sure you won't see a staged
wrestling match there. Most of these complaints about who wants to be
around whom are really quite beside the issue of actual exclusion.
::snip::
>
>> I cannot place both world views side by side as equal. One view
>> implicitly defines a class of human beings as deviant. This is the way to
>> many kinds of injustice.
>
>On the other hand, demanding that all cultural activities be conducted
>to your norms and level of discourse is also the way to many kinds of
>injustice.
>
I dont' think anyone is demanding that.
>> >Your interpretation
>> >that I am advocating that children should be relegated to a peripheral
>> >role is akin to my saying that you are advocating that children be allowed
>> >to do whatever they want to and go wherever they want to. I know you're
>> >not saying that, just as I hope you know I am not saying that children are
>> >insignifcant members of our society. I think what is at issue here is what
>> >the extent of the limitations should be.
>>
>> And I have noted that this discussion has been somewhat cryptic when it
>> comes to the details that would clarify just what extents are desired.
>> Childfrees talk about fancy restaurants and operas, which parents and other
>> present have agreed, but clearly there's more because the discussion goes
>> on, but it remains unspoken. So, what is it you want to see? Do you think
>> apartment complexes should be able to say "No Children Allowed", for
>> example?
>
>And I've noted that this discussion has been equally cryptic when it
>comes to details about how much inclusion is wanted. If there has been
>agreement about fancy restaurants and operas. I don't recall seeing it
>on this thread. What is it do you want to see?
I've stated it before in this forum. That children be excluded by law or
by convention only where they are likely to be disruptive to the purpose of
the place. That includes the oft-repeated opera, some weddings, etc.
Performances and rituals mostly. Certain safety issues (driving, and it
does make sense to be that children under a certain age be banned from a
weightroom). That does not include grocery stores, airplane flights, or
living in a house, or any other everyday matters of living and getting
things done.
>
>Housing is a bit of a tricky issue. Most university housing for example
>is designed for single individuals sharing rooms with a person of the
>same sex and approximately the same age for example. So far, I don't
>see a problem with special-purpose housing designed to facilitate the
>needs of single adults in some contexts.
I addressed this elsewhere.
::snip::
>
>It is to my interest to have the option of engaging in spaces where I
>don't need to worry about the needs and concerns of children present.
>Spaces in which my participation is unlikely to be disrupted by the
>needs of a young child. Spaces in which I don't need to worry if the
>content of my discourse is going to bore children who don't have the
>cognitive abilities or experience to understand what I'm saying. Spaces
>where I don't have to worry about pissing a parent off if they feel my
>content or language in inappropriate for their child. To pull an
>educational psychology term, out of my hat, it is to my interest to
>participate in discursive communities with my peers.
You don't have to worry about the "content of your discourse" boring
children. Surely you dont' labor under the illusion that the content of
your discourse wouldn't be boring to some adults?? (meant in a sense
applying to everybody)
>
>Likewise, I think that children need the exact same thing. I think
>children need to engage in discursive communities with their peers, with
>minimal guidance and interference from parents or other adults. I would
>also suggest that the growing problems with youth sports is due to the
>failure of adults to respect the children's need for children's space.
>
This strikes me as very odd. Why is there a need for such a separate
space? Or are you saying only *sometimes*. Because it reads like you mean
that children and adults should operate in separate spheres. I think Beth
did handle this point very well.
Banty
Kirk Job Sluder
> Kirk Job Sluder wrote:
> >
> > Of course, doesn't this assume that there is such a thing
> > called "society" that can be considered monolithic. It is
> > entirely possible to look at separate spaces as pluralistic.
> > For example, as an adult male without children, I'm quite
> > marginal in children's museums, sporting events and
> > playgrounds. More importantly, as an adult, I SHOULD be
> > marginal in those spaces because if I was not, my voice as
> > a 5'11" fully grown male might quickly overwhelm the
> > children's voices.
>
> Marginal, you may be. But you're not prohibited from even
> being there.
I don't see a problem with me being prohibited in some cases. After
all, as a 193 lb adult, I put considerably additional strain on
children's equipment.
>
> >[snip] To spin off of your example, I also fully support the
> > fact that people with speech and hearing disabilities who
> > use ASL as their primary language of discourse, have their
> > own cultural spaces and their own University. As a hearing
> > person who uses English as a primary language and has the
> > fluency of a 2-year-old in ASL, it would not further social
> > justice for me to demand both inclusion and accomodation
> > into that culture.
>
> OK, let's not forget here that children kind of "go with"
> parents. When you prohibit children from attending something,
> you either prohibit their parents from attending or put
> the parents in a situation in which they must find childcare.
> In some cases, that would be fine; in other cases, IMO, that
> would not. Whether or not it's fine, IMO, would depend on
> (1) how often and how important it is for the parents to need
> to be in a place and (2) how disruptive the presence of
> children of a certain age would be to the essence of a place
> or activity. So, work and the grocery store are two places
> where people have to frequently and regularly go, but I think
> most of us (hmmm, ??) would agree that most/all workplaces
> would be highly disrupted by the presence of young'uns,
> whereas the essence of grocery shopping would remain intact
> with young'uns around. Agree so far?
Yep, I'm also I'm more than happy to leave this up to a social consensus
rather than some kind of direct "prohibition."
> [snip]
> > And I've noted that this discussion has been equally cryptic
> > when it comes to details about how much inclusion is wanted.
> >If there has been agreement about fancy restaurants and operas.
> > I don't recall seeing it on this thread.
>
> What do you need, an official role call and vote? Gallagher
> here; I vote against kids at the opera and fancy restaurants.
>
> But let me say this: are we talking about a "parents shouldn't"
> or "parents mayn't" bring their kids? I think I might feel
> differently about these two, depending on the case.
I'm simply suggesting that both sides could define exactly what is
advocated a bit better.
> I feel fine with the amt. of true restriction that exists right
> now. Do you all? I also feel fine with the amt. of social
> discouragement that exists that usually already prevents
> parents from bringing too-young kids to places where
> relative quiet and peace are required. I would probably feel
> uncomfortable with more formal restrictions than exist now.
> How about you all?
I feel occasionally uncomfortable but I suspect the parents who are in
those situations are equally uncomfortable. I also don't feel
uncomfortable with the current existence of adults-only housing units
and vacation resorts although I usually choose not to patronize those
spaces.
> > For some reason I'm reminded of my granfather's birthday.
> > I was hanging out in another room with one of my teen
> > cousins when my other two teen cousins came running away
> > from the living room, "They are talking about the stock
> > market AGAIN! YUCK!"
>
> So the kids should not have been allowed to be there and/or
> it was unfair of their parents to subject them to being in a
> place where grownups were being grownups? Is that what you're
> saying?
I'm saying that the difference between the spaces was defined by a
complex consensus-building process. What I'm hearing in the pro-child
posts is that this consensus-building process has come to a wrong
decision if children are not accomodated as central members. Perhaps
I'm reading a bit too much in the language being used.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>>particular population is contrary to the goals of "a just and inclusive
>>society." It is almost impossible to create a space or service that is
>>all things to all people.
> Libraries seem to be trying. A recent survey at Boston Public Library's
> main branch asked, among other things: do you want a food court here?
> On the other hand, they're maintaining separate spaces and services within
> their mission of "Library Service", with age separation. All the adult
> stuff is kept together and sorted by subject instead of by age (even the
> large print books don't have any "for elders" signs). In the children's
> section the books are split up by age first and then sorted by subject, and
> the books for older kids (teens and preteens) aren't even on the same floor
> as the books for prereaders and elementary schoolers.
> If by "child-friendly" you mean a space that welcomes all children, instead
> of welcoming some children and not some others, then "child-friendly"
> spaces would definitely be almost impossible to create.
However, *NOTHING* prohibits kids from browsing, reading or checking out
materials in the adult section, and nothing prohibits adults from the
same in the kids section. The ALA (American Library Association) Code of
Ethics prohibits discrimination, including age discrimination.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
cu...@op.net
> > > For some reason I'm reminded of my granfather's birthday.
> > > I was hanging out in another room with one of my teen
> > > cousins when my other two teen cousins came running away
> > > from the living room, "They are talking about the stock
> > > market AGAIN! YUCK!"
> >
> > So the kids should not have been allowed to be there and/or
> > it was unfair of their parents to subject them to being in a
> > place where grownups were being grownups? Is that what you're
> > saying?
>
> has come to a wrong decision if children are not accomodated
> as central members. Perhaps I'm reading a bit too much in
> the language being used.
Perhaps, because I for one have not advocated *accomodation*
for children in non-child-oriented spaces. As I have said, I
believe my kids should be able to come along to *most* places
where I can be, but I don't necessarily expect accomodation per
se. That said, I generally consider it a good sign when people
and organizations want to make the smallest among us happy
and welcome. :)
Eli
discourse reminded me of a related issue that may only be indirectly related to
feminism -- though I think it would be more fitting for "humanism" !
cu...@op.net wrote:
> > Likewise, I think that children need the exact same thing.
> > I think children need to engage in discursive communities
> > with their peers, with minimal guidance and interference
> > from parents or other adults.
> It sounds like you might be saying more than that: that kids
> should *only* be present among discursive communities made
> up of their peers or those devtoed to then and that their
> presence is *only* appropriate when the event is child-oriented.
> I strongly disagree. As I've said before, yes, there are "kid
> things" and "adult things" but most of world is not and should
> not be defined as such, IMO.
When I first came to the US from Middle East (where I was born and raised) one of
the cultural shocks for me was how much this society was segregated by age.
Everyone seemed to only want to socialize with their peer group, and most young
people that I met at the university would only tolerate their elder family members
occasionally, when they had to. I was never invited to parties of my age group
where parents and other older relatives were present. I was used to always be
with extended families and friends of all ages. Where I came from, it was unheard
of to invite a young member of a family to a party and exclude the older
generation. Sure, we did have peer parties sometimes, but even then, when it was at
someone's home, their parents would attend and socialize with the guests. Most of
the social activities, however, included people of different generations.
Later when I had kids myself, I realized that in this culture from a very early age
children are segregated. Birthday parties of kids as young as 3 were held in
special places with just the same age kids present, and parents at best would stay
outside or in another room. By the time kids are 8 or 10, they almost have all of
their social activities set up with their own age group exclusively. Kids as young
as 8 or 10 are sent away to sleep- away camps for weeks at a time, and they don't
mind it, because apparently they can only have fun when they are with their peers.
Children don't learn how to live with, give to, and take from older people except
for their parents.
I wonder if this early segregation causes people to be so intolerant of the elder
members of even their own families. The way older people are treated in here was
very shocking to me. Many times they are considered burdens, and pushed away from
everyday life, or at best tolerated -- but very rarely really wanted or respected.
The first time I visited a couple in a retirement community, I thought to myself
that my grandparents would rather die than live isolated from their family (kids
and all), and only get occasional visits from them.
To me, being with your peers exclusively (or even most of the time) is not the way
humans are meant to live. Of course it is at times easier not to have to
accommodate people who have different needs than ourselves, but everything has a
price. And perhaps the price of being with our own age group all the time when we
are young is to be considered useless and put away to live only with our own age
group when we get older.
Eli