Are CF ideas feminist?
cu...@op.net
> about how single workers are descriminated against by their
> employers) was on CBC's sunday edition of This Morning along
> with a labour activist/consultant from Canada.
>
> Needless to say if this is the tact she takes in her book
> it sounds a whole lot like the 80's "me me me ME" whine all
> over again. No long-term view, no "bigger picture" of
> society, very individualized "if I don't benefit from it
> then it shouldn't exist" kind of logic.
>
> She was roundly criticized by the other talking head
> (disembodied voice? this is radio after all) - using other
> "public good" concepts like health care, and pension plans,
> not to mention basic species level biology
> What made it really quite disturbing was her appropriation of
> feminist and GLBT mantles in her fight. [snip] And no matter
> how much she tried to couch her statements in numbers, stats,
> or the old "everybody should be 100% equal, no deviation, no
> accomodation for idiosyncracies" rhetoric it did come across
> as nothing more than selfish greed.
> Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at
Yes, it is very disturbing to hear this line of nastiness
paraded around along with or as feminism. It is simple selfish
hatred and greed, masked with purposely oversimplified notions
of fairness and responsibility, buttressed with buzzthoughts
from the environmental movement, and very lightly cloaked
in, paradoxically, feminism, a movement I have always
associated with social justice and wanting to share the
privileges, at least at its best.
When this discussion first got started, and "mb" used that
"moomie," "CF," etc. jargon, I thought she was just one person
who didn't spell very well. It soon became apparent that
there were more like her out there. I have since discovered
that childfree (CF) is most definitely not synonymous with
childless. CF is a very specific movement, and for them "moomie"
is to "mother" what, for racists, "the N word" is to "a person
of African descent". Would a post get through moderation with
"the N word" in it? I doubt it and hope not. Then why was Mb
allowed to flaunt her hate-terms? Feminism may be different
things to different people, but it should not be allowed to
be used in support of hate mongering or to encourage anti-
social thought and actions, at least not without being outed.
There is actually more to fairness than an exact doling out
of all resources. (Not that CFers, mostly professional Whiteys,
would want *that*. Remember how blithely the idea that a
customer service rep could be as valuable as a techie salesman
or as deserving of perks was shrugged off?) And there's more to
"society" than living near other people or even a "safety net"
for the totally down-and-out. The existence and use of public
services (funded by our collective societal wealth), which by
their nature will not be used equally by all citizens, is not
and should not be painted as a shameful thing. It is normal,
by modern standards and definitions of society and civilization.
Have these CFers never attended public schools? Have they never
gotten tax breaks for, say, buying an expensive luxury item or
starting a business? Do they not drive on our paved roads? Can
they be sure they will need nothing from tomorrow's adults --
tomorrow's *taxpayers*? Are they prepared to forego any rights
to the services tomorrow's taxpayers may fund?
And, most of all, I ask myself, what the hell are these people
so afraid of? The world is no more child- or moomie-friendy now
than it was a decade or two ago, when they were kids and there
was no CF movement to bash them and their stuck-at-home moomies.
(Back then, doodies were invisible as such because the moomies
who mattered [middle- and upper class moomies] were all at home
hiding the kids, a state CFers would like to return us to.)
You may see more kids in restaurants these days, but don't
let that fool you. Thanks in part to right-wingers and their
successful attempts to convince American taxpayers that
civilization as we know it can continue without much of
their participation and input and without any government
protection, that CEOs and others in charge will make sure
we're all taken care of if we just let 'em do their thing,
and that anyone who isn't already rich and educated must
have done something to deserve that state of affairs,
children and their moomies are worse off than ever before.
But what business did these children have being born at
all if their moomies didn't have sizeable trust funds or rich
husbands to support them until the kids graduated Choate and
Brown and they could get back to working however the Man and
the now-accepted-into-the-power-fold CF Woman decide they
should? Shouldn't other types of shameless, irresponsible
moomies and their snot-nosed, whining offspring just die and
decrease the surpus population? And, anyway, are there no
workhouses?! (Sorry; I was temporarily transported back into
a Dickens novel.)
It is no accident that the person on the talkshow Matthew
described who defended that author was an older man. Privileged
people are often unable to recognize their own privilege.
It just seems like the natural order. "Hmmm, yes, all of us
here at the exec level are White men from privileged
backgrounds with stay-at-home wives. Must be that there are
just very few minorities, poor people, women, or fathers who
share responsibility for their kids who are as good as us."
Or could it be that you have trouble hiring minorities because
they somehow don't seem like executives (i.e., like you) and
that young women (who do so often have little kids) and fathers
who won't work 'til 10 p.m. every night and never miss a meeting
and never need to leave work to take care of a dependent cannot
possibly cut it? Could it be that you have set up a system that,
by its very structure but not out of any necessity or for good
reason, weeds out certain types of people? "Let them eat cake!"
(Oops -- damn time machine again.) That's what's meant
by the GLASS ceiling. *You* can't see it, or you can at least
plausibly pretend not to see it. Could it be that the well-
educated, conservative, childless females who now go by the
moniker "childfree" have figured out that they *can* cut it
and so are now joining their privileged male counterparts
(note that as things now stand, *they* need not be CF) in
doing what they can to preserve their invisible privilege?
Well, that does appear to be the natural order of things (as
natural as having babies), but it isn't justice and it isn't
feminism. Beth
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.
cu...@op.net
--
Kirk Job Sluder
> Yes, it is very disturbing to hear this line of nastiness
> paraded around along with or as feminism. It is simple selfish
> hatred and greed, masked with purposely oversimplified notions
> of fairness and responsibility, buttressed with buzzthoughts
> from the environmental movement, and very lightly cloaked
> in, paradoxically, feminism, a movement I have always
> associated with social justice and wanting to share the
> privileges, at least at its best.
>
> When this discussion first got started, and "mb" used that
> "moomie," "CF," etc. jargon, I thought she was just one person
> who didn't spell very well. It soon became apparent that
> there were more like her out there. I have since discovered
> that childfree (CF) is most definitely not synonymous with
> childless. CF is a very specific movement, and for them "moomie"
> is to "mother" what, for racists, "the N word" is to "a person
> of African descent". Would a post get through moderation with
> "the N word" in it? I doubt it and hope not. Then why was Mb
> allowed to flaunt her hate-terms? Feminism may be different
> things to different people, but it should not be allowed to
> be used in support of hate mongering or to encourage anti-
> social thought and actions, at least not without being outed.
blah blah blah....
Isn't this painting with just a little bit of a broad brush here?
Certainly there are a large number of people who do engage in outright
parent-bashing. However I'm not entirely convinved that this applies to
everyone who use the childfree label to describe themselves.
In part, the term ChildFree is an attempt to point out a political
aspect of our language. Just as the English language is structured
around a vision of masculinity as normal, good, right, and default, the
English language is structured around a vision of parenthood as normal,
good, right and default. The term childless, (child-less) implies that
if one does not have a child, one is missing something important from
his or her life. Not having children, and not wanting children is seen
as abnormal, bad and wrong.
The basic bottom line is that people such as myself or my partner who
don't currently wish to have children, dont' see anything wrong with not
having children, and may never have children because of a consious
choice in both lifestyle and economics are treated as both abnormal and
selfish because we consider parenthood to be an optional luxury rather
than a primary goal of a romantic partnership. Some CFers have (in my
opinion quite understandably, but not reasonably) gone beyond asserting
that being childfree is a reasonable lifestyle choice, and asserted that
parenthood is wrong. However I don't feel that these folks really
characterize the CF movement in general.
However, I cringe at the term "childless" when applied to consious
lifestyle decisions because of the implication that something is
lacking. We're not missing children from our lives, we've made a
consious decision to delay having children for a period of time that
could be 5 years, and could be the rest of our lives.
IleneB
brief definition "nothing in life is defined by gender, unless it is
genuinely defined by gender." (Side note: "Nothing is as feminist as a
buck in your pocket.")
Social justice, as admirable as it might be (and as varyingly defined)
is another issue.
Ilene B
In article <39142F82...@op.net>, <cu...@op.net> wrote:
> paradoxically, feminism, a movement I have always
> associated with social justice and wanting to share the
> privileges, at least at its best.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
IleneB
they're just plain incorrect.
Ilene B
In article <39142F82...@op.net>, <cu...@op.net> wrote:
> Could it be that the well-
> educated, conservative, childless females who now go by the
> moniker "childfree" have figured out that they *can* cut it
> and so are now joining their privileged male counterparts
> (note that as things now stand, *they* need not be CF)
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Barbara Preuninger
"moomie" is as hateful as "nigger" (not even sure what it means, exactly), but I
get the point.
I have a question, though - how would you see the ideal working world? I mean, in
some ways being "child-free" really is better for the bottom line (longer hours,
not taking time off for sick kids, etc.). Even if dads start participating on a
truly equal basis in childcare, wouldn't "child-free" couples still have an
economic advantage?
And on top of that, I think that maybe it is fair to allow people to remain
childless and benefit in some ways as a result. The key is - how do they benefit?
I see nothing wrong with childless people being able to purchase fancier houses &
cars, or go on nicer vacations, etc., because in some ways, having a child _is_ a
choice and a priviledge. I have friends who plan not to have children and other
people have told them that they are "so selfish". In their case, I think it's just
the opposite.
But here's where I strongly agree with you: I don't think that "child-free" people
should have greater access to power (as CEOs, community leaders, or politicians).
Because then there's a tendency for those in power to view children and
child-raising through inexperienced and (relatively) callous eyes. This, of
course, is bad for society (<silliness on>children are our FUUUTURRRE... think of
the CHILLLDDRENNN... <silliness off>)
I guess having a child has made me realize that even a well-meaning person who
cares about society does not see things quite as clearly before-hand. And I
realize even more now how that kind of thing works. I care more about cancer
patients, the elderly, the disabled, etc., because I understand better now that I
could/will also be in that situation someday. Not saying that having a child is
the only ways to achieve this understanding. But in general, because of that
special viewpoint, parents should be kept in the loop. And let me clarify: By
parents, I mean "moms", "primary parents", "coparents", "people who have changed X
diapers in their lifetime where X>500".
That's it for today - baby's crying, gotta go! :o)
--Barbara Preuninger
Matthew aka Tiama'at
> When this discussion first got started, and "mb" used that
> "moomie," "CF," etc. jargon, I thought she was just one person
> who didn't spell very well. It soon became apparent that
> there were more like her out there. I have since discovered
> that childfree (CF) is most definitely not synonymous with
> childless. CF is a very specific movement, and for them "moomie"
> is to "mother" what, for racists, "the N word" is to "a person
> of African descent". Would a post get through moderation with
> "the N word" in it? I doubt it and hope not.
Just a note - it probably would if used in the context of a direct
quotation.
> It is no accident that the person on the talkshow Matthew
> described who defended that author was an older man.
The older man was the radio show host, and took her side mostly as an
attempt to keep the discussion going. Having worked in radio I could
easily imagine how the author may have ended the interview if she
perceived the interview set up as a hostile ambush.
That said it was quite apparant that the host's views were somewhat
contrived (for the role he was required to play in the piece) - the
answers and questions were overly-constructed and very stilting.
A new note: today the same show did a piece on the double standard in
adult-minor sexual relations (prompted by a BC community rallying to the
defense of a 30y/o female teacher who was caught having a relationship
with one of her 17y/o students). Again things started out bad, but
turned into a wonderful discussion of the double standard in sexual
expression, expectations, imagery and gender-constructed roles. Of the
three panelists (the host remained, for the most part, out of the fray)
only one liked the law as is. The difference between the other two (one
man who wrote a book on the public hysteria over sexual issues and moral
panics, the other is a woman who has represented several sexual abuse
victims) differed over what to change and why - both wanted a bit more
flexibility but the man was more concerened with laws and decisions made
driven by moral outrages and panic (which is short term and almost mob
mentality) while she was concerned with keeping the law as written and
making some leeway in the sentencing (in both directions - more lenient
in some cases, and much more severe in others). For the record - the
debate focused on adolescent minors in a sexual relationship with an
adult - the very idea of very young (defined as under 16 for both sexes)
minors was never touched on except briefly in terms of the historical
development of sexual abuse laws.
I'm a bit confused, maybe I'll write a letter to the CBC - perhaps
pieces such as these are part of their weekend edition in an attempt to
have gender issues addressed. While they may be drawn from headlines
the level of discussion is much better than that found in other mediums
(private news/talk radio stations, newspapers, TV, etc).
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ "in a moment we lost our minds here
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ and lay our spirit down
WS/Soc (H) IV - Carleton U (Can)][ today we lived a thousand years
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ all we have is now" - Live
cu...@op.net
> > educated, conservative, childless females who now go by the
> > moniker "childfree" have figured out that they *can* cut it
> > and so are now joining their privileged male counterparts
> > (note that as things now stand, *they* need not be CF)
> Those are certainly a lot of assumptions about "childless
> females." And they're just plain incorrect.
> Ilene B
I tried to be clear, with all the adjectives, to differentiate
between women who don't have kids, for whatever reason, and
that specific group of people who call themselves "childfree".
I know a number of childless adults, male and female, some of
whom are childless by choice, and none of them abides by the
antisocial "CF" ideas I've heard here and elsewhere lately.
That's why it took me so long to catch on to it. B.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>> <cu...@op.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Could it be that the well-
>> > educated, conservative, childless females who now go by the
>> > moniker "childfree" have figured out that they *can* cut it
>> > and so are now joining their privileged male counterparts
>> > (note that as things now stand, *they* need not be CF)
>> Those are certainly a lot of assumptions about "childless
>> females." And they're just plain incorrect.
>> Ilene B
>I tried to be clear, with all the adjectives, to differentiate
>between women who don't have kids, for whatever reason, and
>that specific group of people who call themselves "childfree".
>I know a number of childless adults, male and female, some of
>whom are childless by choice, and none of them abides by the
>antisocial "CF" ideas I've heard here and elsewhere lately.
>That's why it took me so long to catch on to it. B.
I've spent time on the ChildFree newsgroup and had discussions with
CF folks elsewhere and
1) they are not uniformly anti-family benefits,
2) they are not uniformly anti-children,
3) most are sick and tired of people questioning their choice and
4) consequently some overreact (IMHO) to any perceived priviledge
that parents get.
Robert
Kirk Job Sluder
> I tried to be clear, with all the adjectives, to differentiate
> between women who don't have kids, for whatever reason, and
> that specific group of people who call themselves "childfree".
> I know a number of childless adults, male and female, some of
> whom are childless by choice, and none of them abides by the
> antisocial "CF" ideas I've heard here and elsewhere lately.
> That's why it took me so long to catch on to it. B.
Perhaps because many "CF" people don't abide by those ideas either.
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csl...@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
Kirk Job Sluder
issue is missing the key issue of the CF movement.
Policies such as family leave, subsidized child care, and public schools
don't just exist in isolation, but are an aspect of a larger system of
patriarchy that treats heterosexualiy as compulsory, and parenting (more
specifically mothering) as the primary goal of heterosexuality.
Painting the entire CF movement as selfish is a convenient way to avoid
the more messy issue of compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory
parenthood.
Kirk
IleneB
"antisocial." Obviously you don't agree with 'em, but that doesn't make
them wrong. And there's nothing radical about people who are "childless
by choice" using a semantically the more correct designation
"childfree."
I used to be dogless, now I'm dogged. Dogs were missing from my life,
hence the "-less." I am currently companion-less- I feel the abscence
of that kind of relationship. I am not child-"less" because they aren't
missing. Perhaps the correct use would be that those who have children
are "childed," and those of us who don't find them missing are
"neutral." Born alone into the world, die alone out of it.
And I don't consider myself "antisocial" simply because I do not
support the private expensive choice of wanting to be a parent.
Ilene B "off to go work at the Alzheimer's unit now, after I drop off a
check for the veterans' shelter. You get my drift?"
> cu...@op.net writes:
> >> <cu...@op.net> wrote:
> >I know a number of childless adults, male and female, some of
> >whom are childless by choice, and none of them abides by the
> >antisocial "CF" ideas I've heard here and elsewhere lately.
> >That's why it took me so long to catch on to it. B.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
tom_...@my-deja.com
csl...@indiana.edu wrote:
> cu...@op.net wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is very disturbing to hear this line of nastiness
> > paraded around along with or as feminism. It is simple selfish
> > hatred and greed, masked with purposely oversimplified notions
> > of fairness and responsibility, buttressed with buzzthoughts
> > from the environmental movement, and very lightly cloaked
> > in, paradoxically, feminism, a movement I have always
> > associated with social justice and wanting to share the
> > privileges, at least at its best.
> >
> > When this discussion first got started, and "mb" used that
> > "moomie," "CF," etc. jargon, I thought she was just one person
> > who didn't spell very well. It soon became apparent that
> > there were more like her out there. I have since discovered
> > that childfree (CF) is most definitely not synonymous with
> > childless. CF is a very specific movement, and for them "moomie"
> > is to "mother" what, for racists, "the N word" is to "a person
> > of African descent". Would a post get through moderation with
> > "the N word" in it? I doubt it and hope not. Then why was Mb
> > allowed to flaunt her hate-terms? Feminism may be different
> > things to different people, but it should not be allowed to
> > be used in support of hate mongering or to encourage anti-
> > social thought and actions, at least not without being outed.
I see your point, but I would argue that the term 'childfree' is even
more evocative than 'childless'. Look at the other items to which we
append the word 'free': fat-free, smoke-free, sugar-free, cholesterol-
free ... all things that are deemed to be undesirable.
I agree that 'childless' is far from neutral, and can often carry a
tone of smug pity, but 'childfree' seems a far more direct statement
that children are noxious, and that their absence is a blessing.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cu...@op.net
>
> It occurs to me that Beth in her criticsm of what she sees
> as the CF issue is missing the key issue of the CF movement.
>
> Policies such as family leave, subsidized child care, and
> public schools don't just exist in isolation, but are an
> aspect of a larger system of patriarchy that treats
> heterosexualiy as compulsory, and parenting (more
> specifically mothering) as the primary goal of
> heterosexuality.
Though I can see why you might believe that "family-
friendly" employment practices are somehow meant to support
this idea that we all are or should be heterosexual parents,
I don't interpret them that way. Note that I am self-employed,
and so do not need or take advantage of any such policies.
However, I still think they support the goal of allowing
people -- men, women, and children of all varieties -- to
live decently. That some people (some but certainly not all
gays and nonparents) don't have occasion to use them does
not make them anti-gay or anti-nonparent. And I don't think
that having them is going to make anyone feel they need to
have kids to use 'em.
> Painting the entire CF movement as selfish
> is a convenient way to avoid the more messy issue of
> compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory parenthood.
Good try, but not my intention, nor the necessary or even
logical result of my criticisms of that part of the CF movement
I've been exposed to. I am quite sensitive to the situations
you term "compulsory heterosexuality and parenthood". I
sympathize fully with those who don't choose to have kids (or
who are not able to have them) and thus face inappropriate
and wrong-headed questioning from strangers and loved ones
alike. I have never criticized, or even had bad thoughts
about, people who choose not to have kids. I am sorry that
they get crap from people too stupid to get the fact that
having them is optional *in the best of circumstances* and
that choosing not to have them can be a great way to live
a life. But to take one's anger at being criticized and turn
it into an attempt to break down what I see as the basics
of civilized society (inclusiveness in the workplace, taking
care of the most needy among us, ...) is not OK. I don't
see that as some kind of lefty social activism, like you do,
but as just another way for Americans to avoid taking
part in what used to be thought of as society. Beth
> Kirk
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: Policies such as family leave, subsidized child care, and public schools
: don't just exist in isolation, but are an aspect of a larger system of
: patriarchy that treats heterosexualiy as compulsory, and parenting (more
: specifically mothering) as the primary goal of heterosexuality.
: the more messy issue of compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory
: parenthood.
I know many same-sex couples who have had children (naturally, through
surrogates, and by adopting). Don't assume only hets intend to have kids.
--
---------------> 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
>
> It occurs to me that Beth in her criticsm of what she sees
> as the CF issue is missing the key issue of the CF movement.
>
> public schools don't just exist in isolation, but are an
> aspect of a larger system of patriarchy that treats
> heterosexualiy as compulsory, and parenting (more
> specifically mothering) as the primary goal of
> heterosexuality.
Though I can see why you might believe that "family-
friendly" employment practices are somehow meant to support
this idea that we all are or should be heterosexual parents,
I don't interpret them that way. Note that I am self-employed,
and so do not need or take advantage of any such policies.
However, I still think they support the goal of allowing
people -- men, women, and children of all varieties -- to
live decently. That some people (some but certainly not all
gays, and nonparents) don't have occasion to use them does
not make them anti-gay or anti-nonparent. And I don't think
that having them is going to make anyone feel they need to
have kids to use 'em. Do they exist in the context that you
speak of? Yeh, what doesn't?
> Painting the entire CF movement as selfish
> is a convenient way to avoid the more messy issue of
> compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory parenthood.
Good try, but not my intention, nor the necessary or even
logical result of my criticisms of that part of the CF movement
I've been exposed to. I am quite sensitive to the situations
you term "compulsory heterosexuality and parenthood". I
sympathize fully with those who don't choose to have kids (or
who are not able to have them) and thus face inappropriate
and wrong-headed judgment from strangers and loved ones
alike. I have never criticized, or even had bad thoughts
about, people who choose not to have kids. I don't wonder
what's wrong with them, I can believe that they choose to be
"childfree," and, since I'm quite happy with my own choices
and don't feel I have anything to prove, I genuinely
congratulate them on the resulting free time they have. Until
recentl, I felt "I'm OK, they're OK." I am sorry that they
get crap from people too stupid to get the
fact that having them is optional *in the
best of circumstances* and that choosing not to have them can be
a great way to live
a life. But to take one's anger at being criticized and turn
it into an attempt to break down what I see as the basics
of civilized society (inclusiveness in the workplace, taking
care of the most needy among us, ...) is not OK. I don't
see that as some kind of lefty social activism, like you do,
but as just another way for Americans to avoid taking
part in what used to be thought of as society. Beth
> Kirk
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Kirk Job Sluder
>
> Kirk Job Sluder wrote:
> >
> > It occurs to me that Beth in her criticsm of what she sees
> > as the CF issue is missing the key issue of the CF movement.
> >
> > Policies such as family leave, subsidized child care, and
> > public schools don't just exist in isolation, but are an
> > aspect of a larger system of patriarchy that treats
> > heterosexualiy as compulsory, and parenting (more
> > specifically mothering) as the primary goal of
> > heterosexuality.
>
> Though I can see why you might believe that "family-
> friendly" employment practices are somehow meant to support
> this idea that we all are or should be heterosexual parents,
> I don't interpret them that way. Note that I am self-employed,
> and so do not need or take advantage of any such policies.
> However, I still think they support the goal of allowing
> people -- men, women, and children of all varieties -- to
> live decently. That some people (some but certainly not all
> gays, and nonparents) don't have occasion to use them does
> not make them anti-gay or anti-nonparent. And I don't think
> that having them is going to make anyone feel they need to
> have kids to use 'em. Do they exist in the context that you
> speak of? Yeh, what doesn't?
Certainly I agree with you that those policies are a good thing.
However in criticizing the recognition that those policies are imbedded
within a culture of manditory heterosexuality and parenthood, you pretty
much missed the core of the CF movement which is the acknoledgement that
we live in a culture of both compulsory heterosexuality and parenthood.
> But to take one's anger at being criticized and turn
> it into an attempt to break down what I see as the basics
> of civilized society (inclusiveness in the workplace, taking
> care of the most needy among us, ...) is not OK. I don't
> see that as some kind of lefty social activism, like you do,
> but as just another way for Americans to avoid taking
> part in what used to be thought of as society. Beth
But once again, it is a mistake to criticize CF folks for something as a
whole they don't do, while failing to acknoledge the more basic critique
of compulsory heterosexuality and parenthood in our culture. To put it
bluntly most CF folks are NOT attempting to "break down the basics of
civlized society." Nor did I say that an attack on parents was ok as
"some kind of left social activism." As a result, you are not only
blatantly engaging in a mischaracterization of CF activism, but a
mischaracterization of my own opinion as well.
I'm largely taking you to task on this because I feel you are using a
tactic which I see very frequently in anti-feminist attacks on
feminism. You are selecting a handful of people you disagree with,
accusing them of the horrible, and then extending your accusation to CF
politics in general. What is ironic is that in this post you pretty
much expressed political opinions that are perhaps more in tune with how
most CF people feel about these issues, than what you accuse them of.
--
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.
Eli
> Policies such as family leave, subsidized child care, and public schools
> don't just exist in isolation, but are an aspect of a larger system of
> patriarchy that treats heterosexualiy as compulsory, and parenting (more
> specifically mothering) as the primary goal of heterosexuality.
> Painting the entire CF movement as selfish is a convenient way to avoid
> the more messy issue of compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory
> parenthood.
I am not too familiar with the CF movement and can't comment on that,
but certainly agree that policies such as family leave etc. don't exist
in isolation. I believe they exist because heterosexuality and desire
for having children is prevalent enough in humans to make it
the "default". It is much more likely that patriarchy came about because
majority of people were heterosexual and were strongly driven to have children,
and not the other way around. Of course, like most other institutions
when it became established and powerful, it reinforced the "norm" that
had given rise to it, and became hostile to anything that fell outside of its
boundaries. Society has changed, and patriarchy has lost any validity
or usefulness that it may have had in some distant past, but I can't
believe that any other system could come to existence, if it didn't
serve the goal of procreation in human societies. After all, it is only
recently (historically) that population control has become an issue. In
most of human history having babies and raising them to adulthood
has been the most important goal for individuals and society.
Eli
Vineeta Pal
> evocative than 'childless'. Look at the other items to which we append
the
> word 'free': fat-free, smoke-free, sugar-free, cholesterol- free ... all
> things that are deemed to be undesirable.
>
> I agree that 'childless' is far from neutral, and can often carry a tone
of
> smug pity, but 'childfree' seems a far more direct statement that children
> are noxious, and that their absence is a blessing.
>
that is true. i personally prefer to be called "childfree" rather than
"childless" because i have made a conscious decision to not have children,
and don't consider myself to be lacking something. on the other hand, the
term child-free has negative connotations too. how about "non-parent"
instead of "child-free"?
vineeta.
IleneB
get a whole 'nother view of "parenting as compulsory heterosexuality."
I (a straight adamantly CF woman) consider becoming a parent (male or
female) as a private, expensive hobby, and completely *a choice*, and
therefore find it odd that parents expect all sorts of subsidies and
assistance, when no one asked them to reproduce.
Ilene B
In article <39186ED3...@indiana.edu>, Kirk Job Sluder
<csl...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Policies such as family leave, subsidized child care, and public schools
> don't just exist in isolation, but are an aspect of a larger system of
> patriarchy that treats heterosexualiy as compulsory, and parenting (more
> specifically mothering) as the primary goal of heterosexuality.
--
IleneB
decades (and only in industrialized countries) where women had both the
technological means to prevent pregnancy, followed by expanded
social/economic opportunities, and available abortion. I don't think
that raising kids was so much a "goal" as it has been an inevitability.
Ilene B
In article <391CA69C...@hotmail.com>, Eli <el...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
After all, it is only
> recently (historically) that population control has become an issue. In
> most of human history having babies and raising them to adulthood
> has been the most important goal for individuals and society.
>
> Eli
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
flat...@my-deja.com
child hating, and self centered.
I love kids. I'm also cbc........I just don't want to be a parent.
Cube had a good point that many civil services are paid for by taxes
from people who will never use them ( ie, when was the last time this
year a fire truck came to your houuse).
However, I don't believe it is inpractical to make more taxes
user-based......making them more fair.
Societal child care costs are a big issue beyond just cbc folks, for
example property tax.
A lot of old folks who have paid their dues are losing homes they have
worked hard for to finance the education of other people's kids.
I'm pro education. I just mentioned it as an example of the need to
target or retarget taxes
Steve
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Kirk Job Sluder
>
> Uhh.. I think if you ask any gay women about the "gayby boom," you'd
> get a whole 'nother view of "parenting as compulsory heterosexuality."
But on the other hand, gay women who have children and raise those
children in the context of a homosexual relationship are engaging in
what society defines as a radical and rebellious act. Gay parents, male
and female risk loosing custody in many areas.
Our culture still is centered on the belief that a two-parent
heterosexual household is the ideal environment for children. This is
seen not only in the attacks on single parents, but on the much harsher
attacks on gay parents.
> Ilene B
--
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.
Karen Wheless
> decades (and only in industrialized countries) where women had both the
> technological means to prevent pregnancy, followed by expanded
> social/economic opportunities, and available abortion. I don't think
> that raising kids was so much a "goal" as it has been an inevitability.
One thing struck me in reading these posts, and that's the general
assumption that it's possible today to plan pregnancy 100%. With the
current state of medicine and technology, it's possible to reduce it a
great deal, but right now even in the U.S. that number isn't 100%, at
least as far as preventing unwanted pregnancy before it occurs.* I read
recently (I can't remember the exact source, but it was in a scientific
study) that the average woman using birth control from their first sex
act to menopause would become unexpectedly pregnant once over the course
of those 20-30 years. That seemed high to me, but it's definitely not
zero, either.
Some of this is caused by social attitudes and ignorance about using
birth control (i.e. it doesn't matter "just this once", or not knowing
what medicines counteract the pill) but even if you reduced that number
by a factor of ten, that's still a significant number of unplanned
pregnancies. Not everyone can use the pill or other hormone methods
like Norplant over a lifetime, they aren't 100% effective anyway, and
other methods are even less effective. I'm not particularly convinced
that the solution "have oral sex instead" is really going to catch on
either. There's a perception here that we've found the "perfect" birth
control already, but that's not the case, and birth control research is
almost nil, between fear of lawsuits and fear of controversy and protest
from fundamentalists.
I've found all of the points of view in this discussion interesting, but
I just wanted to point out that this "ideal" of perfect birth control
isn't here yet, and it won't come in the future if we don't advocate for
more research into birth control, and counteract all the people who are
pressuring companies and government in the other direction.
Karen Wheless
*I'm strongly pro-choice, but I don't think that a plan assuming
abortion for every unwanted pregnancy is practical or right. And having
talked to a lot of birth mothers, giving up a child for adoption leaves
many birth mothers in pain for a lifetime, it may still be the best
solution to a bad situation, but I don't think it's an ideal to strive
for either.
Laurel
to try one more time. I apologize if this shows up more than once.
In article <39142F82...@op.net>, cu...@op.net wrote:
>Yes, it is very disturbing to hear this line of nastiness
>paraded around along with or as feminism.
What I find disturbing is the ease with which self-professed feminists not
only dismiss the idea of equal pay for equal work when they are not on the
losing end, but use the same rhetoric that has been used to either keep
women out of the workforce or at least keep them in lower paying jobs. If
someone tried to post a message in this group saying that it was ok to pay
men more or give them more benefits because that's what companies need to
do to attract qualified candidates and that women are just being selfish
and should quit pouting about it, it's likely that the post wouldn't make
it past the moderators. If it did, I would expect that the poster would be
ripped to shreds over it (as he or she should be). But no one seems to
have amy problem making those kinds of arguments when the people who are
at a disadvantage are just the childfree.
>When this discussion first got started, and "mb" used that
>"moomie," "CF," etc. jargon, I thought she was just one person
>who didn't spell very well. It soon became apparent that
>there were more like her out there. I have since discovered
>that childfree (CF) is most definitely not synonymous with
>childless. CF is a very specific movement, and for them "moomie"
>is to "mother" what, for racists, "the N word" is to "a person
>of African descent".
No it isn't. You have misunderstood the term and how it is used.
>Would a post get through moderation with
>"the N word" in it? I doubt it and hope not. Then why was Mb
>allowed to flaunt her hate-terms?
I guess it's easier to label something as hate speech than to try to
understand it.
>Feminism may be different
>things to different people, but it should not be allowed to
>be used in support of hate mongering or to encourage anti-
>social thought and actions, at least not without being outed.
And what is it that you're doing? You don't consider the comments you've
posted hate mongering? What I see is someone condemning an entire group of
people based on her assumptions of what those people think, believe, and
are, while making no effort to understand them. I see someone promoting a
stereotype of CF people that paints them all as selfish, uncaring,
anti-social, elitists.
>There is actually more to fairness than an exact doling out
>of all resources. (Not that CFers, mostly professional Whiteys,
>would want *that*.
Clearly you are making assumptions about an entire group of people based
on your beliefs about a few of them. I believe that's a pretty good
description of stereotyping. You don't really understand anything about CF
people, what their backgrounds are and what they want. Now, I happen to be
one of those professional "Whiteys" (I guess it's not a hate term if *you*
use it) for whom you have so much contempt (it's so much more rewarding
than being an amateur Whitey). So what? I'm not ashamed of it. I've worked
hard to get where I am. But I'm just one person, not representative of an
entire group. Go read through the stories that I've read of people (who
call themselves CF) who are struggling to get by, who can't afford a
decent place to live, who can't get decent health care and then tell me
about all of those "professional Whitey" CF people and what they want.
>Remember how blithely the idea that a
>customer service rep could be as valuable as a techie salesman
>or as deserving of perks was shrugged off?)
No, what was dismissed was the idea that this is an issue of equal pay for
equal work. I certainly wouldn't disagree that it's unfair to give perks
to one group and not another, and I said so at the time. But since we were
discussing the fairness of giving different perks to people *doing the
same job* that example is not relevant.
> And there's more to
>"society" than living near other people or even a "safety net"
>for the totally down-and-out. The existence and use of public
>services (funded by our collective societal wealth), which by
>their nature will not be used equally by all citizens, is not
>and should not be painted as a shameful thing. It is normal,
>by modern standards and definitions of society and civilization.
>Have these CFers never attended public schools? Have they never
>gotten tax breaks for, say, buying an expensive luxury item or
>starting a business? Do they not drive on our paved roads? Can
>they be sure they will need nothing from tomorrow's adults --
>tomorrow's *taxpayers*? Are they prepared to forego any rights
>to the services tomorrow's taxpayers may fund?
Show me where anyone said that CF people shouldn't have to pay taxes and
don't derive benefits from at least some of the services those taxes
provide. The issue is whether we should have to pay *more* taxes simply
because we don't have children, which is the current situation. This
becomes a particularly interesting issue when you have parents who want a
tax break because they send their kids to private schools and think they
shouldn't have to help pay for the public schools.
>And, most of all, I ask myself, what the hell are these people
>so afraid of?
Afraid? No, tired. Tired of working more for less pay, tired of paying
more than our fair share in taxes, tired of being told when we need
assistance from programs that are supported by those taxes that we are not
elegible because we don't have children, tired of being treated like we're
unstable or immature because we made a choice not to reproduce, tired of
being told that nothing we choose to do can possibly be as important as
raising children, tired of constantly being asked to make sacrifices for
other people's choices, and tired of being reminded daily that we have
less value than not only adults with children, but the children
themselves.
One might just as well ask what the parents are so afraid of. What is so
threatening about the idea of giving each employee a set amount of money
and then letting them choose from a list of available benefits? Could it
be that even though they would never admit it they know that they are
getting more than their childfree counterparts and are afraid they would
lose under this kind of system?
>The world is no more child- or moomie-friendy now
>than it was a decade or two ago, when they were kids and there
>was no CF movement to bash them and their stuck-at-home moomies.
>(Back then, doodies were invisible as such because the moomies
>who mattered [middle- and upper class moomies] were all at home
>hiding the kids, a state CFers would like to return us to.)
This is no more true that the rest of your streotyped image of CF people.
Everyone has their own reasons for having and not having children. Your
reasons for having children are not the same as anyone else's, and my
reasons for not having them are not the same as anyone's. Yes, there are
CF people who hate children and would prefer not to ever see them out in
public. More typical are the people who don't mind children as long as
they are in places that are appropriate to their ages and as long as they
act like civilized humans instead of wild animals. If I go to McDonald's,
or the zoo, or a G-rated movie, it would be stupid not to expect there to
be children there. Will they still get on my nerves? Yeah, but that's my
problem. If I go to an epensive restaurant, or a concert, or a movie rated
PG and up and see infants and toddlers who are only there because their
parents didn't get a babysitter is it unreasonable for me to be annoyed? I
don't think so. The biggest complaint is not with children, but with the
parents who take them to places where they will be bored and restless,
refuse to discipline them, and expect everyone else to accomodate them
wherever they go.
>>It is no accident that the person on the talkshow Matthew
>described who defended that author was an older man. Privileged
>people are often unable to recognize their own privilege.
Exactly the point I would make about many parents.
>Could it be that the well-educated, conservative, childless females who
now go >by the moniker "childfree" have figured out that they *can* cut it
>and so are now joining their privileged male counterparts
>(note that as things now stand, *they* need not be CF) in
>doing what they can to preserve their invisible privilege?
I think that's the first time anyone has ever called me conservative. I
still don't understand what privilege you think it is that I have and am
trying to preserve at the expense of mothers. If you're arguing that women
are bearing an unfair share of childcare duties and fathers have an easier
time of it in the workplace than mothers because of it, I agree. How am I
contributing to that problem?
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
Nicole Delessert Shields
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendel.csc.smith.edu
Organization: Smith College, Northampton Mass, USA
Lines: 24
On 16 May 2000, Laurel wrote:
> >When this discussion first got started, and "mb" used that
> >"moomie," "CF," etc. jargon, I thought she was just one person
> >who didn't spell very well. It soon became apparent that
> >there were more like her out there. I have since discovered
> >that childfree (CF) is most definitely not synonymous with
> >childless. CF is a very specific movement, and for them "moomie"
> >is to "mother" what, for racists, "the N word" is to "a person
> >of African descent".
>
> No it isn't. You have misunderstood the term and how it is used.
Give me an f'ing break. I'm all for equal pay for equal work, just to let
you know how I stand, and where my biases lie. I bleieve in pitching in
occasionally to help cover people's lives, of course, everyone gets sick
sometimes, everyone has family events sometimes, emergencies happen, but
not as a regular thing.
But "moomie"? MOOmie? Come on... it basically implies that mothers are
nothing but breeding cows.
-Nicole
lc...@my-deja.com
<us035114-160...@user-2ivf85v.dialup.mindspring.com>,
us03...@mindspring.com (Laurel) wrote:
> What I find disturbing is the ease with which self-professed feminists
not
> only dismiss the idea of equal pay for equal work when they are not on
the
> losing end, but use the same rhetoric that has been used to either
keep
> women out of the workforce or at least keep them in lower paying jobs.
If
> someone tried to post a message in this group saying that it was ok to
pay
> men more or give them more benefits because that's what companies need
to
> do to attract qualified candidates and that women are just being
selfish
> and should quit pouting about it, it's likely that the post wouldn't
make
> it past the moderators. If it did, I would expect that the poster
would be
> ripped to shreds over it (as he or she should be). But no one seems to
> have amy problem making those kinds of arguments when the people who
are
> at a disadvantage are just the childfree.
>
The problem I have with this argument is that no one is forcing
the childfree not to have or adopt children. Their child-free
state is a choice for almost all. As soon as they choose
to have children, anyone can partake of any parent-friendly
benifits regardless of their gender, marital state or sexual
orientation.
Also, there are many benifits that are offerred that I, as
a parent who chooses to be a parent, cannot take advantage
of because I do not have the time to spare. E.g: I eat lunch
working at my desk rather than in the lovely on-site cafeteria
because I need to leave by 5:30 pm to pick up my son from daycare.
I don't participate in subsidized company team sports because
I don't have the time. I don't use the on-site gym because I
don't have the time. I think that non-parents do have the
opportunity to take advantage of many benifits offered.
Non-parents, at least those who live with a partner, have a
standard-of-living advantage over parents with identical incomes
just from the fact that they do not need to support children.
A subsidized daycare benifit (and these are usually not large
anyway) is in no way going to offset this. It doesn't seem
to be a big deal.
I suppose one could theoretically demolish all on-site
gym and cafeterias, demolish all on-site daycares and
give everyone cash instead and tell them to find their
own places to eat, work out and mind children. However,
I think a lot of people would miss the convenience of these
perks. Or one, could let someone choose cash and then
forbid them to ever use the on-site facilities (perhaps
by instituting a badging or ticketing method). Would
employees really prefer this environment? I don't think
so.
> One might just as well ask what the parents are so afraid of. What is
so
> threatening about the idea of giving each employee a set amount of
money
> and then letting them choose from a list of available benefits? Could
it
> be that even though they would never admit it they know that they are
> getting more than their childfree counterparts and are afraid they
would
> lose under this kind of system?
Hell no. I don't care. The money the child-free would get
in lieu of subsidized child-care wouldn't be much anyway.
This is much more of an emotional argument rather than substantive
percent dollars.
(From what I've seen, its really not subsidized very much!).
I *would* object if the convenience of having the employer
offer the perk in the first place was removed. (e.g. by
removing the "on-siteness" or convenience of the benifits in order
not to offend any non-parent by acknowleging the existence of
parents in the workplace.)
Lisa
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Eli
> Societal child care costs are a big issue beyond just cbc folks, for
> example property tax.
>
> A lot of old folks who have paid their dues are losing homes they have
> worked hard for to finance the education of other people's kids.
Is this true? Could you please give a reference? I have a hard time
believing that many elderly people are losing their homes because of
the local school taxes. In many communities low-income retirees are
given property tax reductions. They are much more likely to be subsidized
by the tax dollars of those younger people with kids (whose education they are
contributing to) in SS and Medicare benefits - far more than they ever paid
into the system. Younger folks would do much better, financially,
to exempt the elderly from paying school taxes, and in return, target all
the dollars that they now pay for the older peoples' benefits to their own
children's education.
Humans are social beings. We all depend on each other and society at
one time or other, and in different forms. This totally individualistic view
of people (me for me and no one else) is very new, and in my opinion,
not only impractical, but damaging to individuals and the health of society.
Eli
Daniel B. Holzman
Laurel <us03...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> If
>someone tried to post a message in this group saying that it was ok to pay
>men more or give them more benefits because that's what companies need to
>do to attract qualified candidates and that women are just being selfish
>and should quit pouting about it, it's likely that the post wouldn't make
>it past the moderators.
If anyone's suggest paying parents more or giving them more benefits, I
missed it. Just because someone chooses not to take an advantage of a
benefit does not mean that the benefit has not been offered. Arguing
that the childless and child free are disadvantaged here is rather like
arguing that men are disadvantaged because some employers offer women
leave during pregnancy.
[regarding the terms "moomie" and "doodie"
>No it isn't. You have misunderstood the term and how it is used.
[...]
>I guess it's easier to label something as hate speech than to try to
>understand it.
If the description of the two terms is innacurate, an explanation what
they actually do mean would have been a wonderful thing to put here.
It's hard to credit your complaint that someone doesn't try to understand
something if you don't try to explain it.
>This
>becomes a particularly interesting issue when you have parents who want a
>tax break because they send their kids to private schools and think they
>shouldn't have to help pay for the public schools.
Since those parents do in fact help pay for the public schools, I don't
see it as all that interesting.
--
Judith Huszar
> In article <us035114-160...@user-2ivf85v.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> Laurel <us03...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > If
> >someone tried to post a message in this group saying that it was ok to pay
> >men more or give them more benefits because that's what companies need to
> >do to attract qualified candidates and that women are just being selfish
> >and should quit pouting about it, it's likely that the post wouldn't make
> >it past the moderators.
>
> If anyone's suggest paying parents more or giving them more benefits, I
> missed it. Just because someone chooses not to take an advantage of a
> benefit does not mean that the benefit has not been offered. Arguing
> that the childless and child free are disadvantaged here is rather like
> arguing that men are disadvantaged because some employers offer women
> leave during pregnancy.
>
> [regarding the terms "moomie" and "doodie"
>
> >No it isn't. You have misunderstood the term and how it is used.
>
> [...]
>
> >I guess it's easier to label something as hate speech than to try to
> >understand it.
>
> If the description of the two terms is innacurate, an explanation what
> they actually do mean would have been a wonderful thing to put here.
> It's hard to credit your complaint that someone doesn't try to understand
> something if you don't try to explain it.
>
> >This
> >becomes a particularly interesting issue when you have parents who want a
> >tax break because they send their kids to private schools and think they
> >shouldn't have to help pay for the public schools.
>
> Since those parents do in fact help pay for the public schools, I don't
> see it as all that interesting.
i believe the "interesting" part is: would the childfree who also subsidize public
schools get to keep their money/contribution?
>
>
> --
Barbara Preuninger
> Another example has occurred to me:
>
> Like many employers, my employer offers tuition reimbursement. Since I
> am not choosing to further my academic education, I am not getting
> several thousands of dollars of tuition reimbursement. Should I be
> entitled to a generic reimbursement that I can choose to spend on
> education, but also choose to spend on the hobbies I partake in instead
> of getting a Master's Degree?
>
> I believe not.
>
To be fair, I think that employers give tuition reimbursement with the idea that
the employee will use it to do a better job. It's rare that an employer will let
you get just *any* degree. The main risk for them is that you'll up and leave
right when you're done, but I guess it's worth it in some places.
I think sick leave is a better example. Not everyone needs it, but a lot of people
do. Do healthy people think it's unfair? In some ways it might be, because maybe
they take care of themselves better. However, it would be very hard to find
healthy people who think we should do away with sick days, or resenting someone who
takes twice as many. And I would seriously doubt that companies who offer more
sick days than others do worse than companies who don't. Possibly, they even do
better! Because then they don't have people coming in sick and making themselves
even more sick in the process (not to mention everyone else).
Maybe sick leave isn't a perfect analogy. Maybe vacation time would be a better
one. You don't *have* to use vacation time, but you don't always get reimbursed
for it, either. Is that "unfair"? Does it hurt/help the bottom line? I doubt it
hurts the bottom line. It definitely helps society in general that people can have
time away from their jobs...
--Barbara Preuninger
Steve
> only been hospitable for a few decades. Supposedly, 25% of women
> currently of childbearing age do not intend to have any children. I
> think that's a huge number after centuries of no choice.
I would be more impressed if that 25% was from women *past* childbearing
age who made a choice not be parents.
Steve
Omixochitl
<Pine.SUN.3.96.10005...@grendel.csc.smith.edu>:
>Well, out of curiosity I went and looked up CF on the web. Some had good
>points. One woman's site described children as "STDs". I wrote a message
>to her on her board, and she said she only meant the children of
>"breeders" as STDs.
>
>You'll please forgive me if I have trouble taking this movement very
>seriously. People are not STDs.
Which movement? As you have noted, some CFers have good points and some
have bad points.
Omixochitl
--
Steve
>
> Well, out of curiosity I went and looked up CF on the web. Some had good
> points. One woman's site described children as "STDs". I wrote a message
> to her on her board, and she said she only meant the children of
> "breeders" as STDs.
Well,......how could you have children from "non-breeders"? If you give
birth aren't you a breeder?
>
> You'll please forgive me if I have trouble taking this movement very
> seriously. People are not STDs.
I am CFC. I love kids, I just don't want to be a parent. I do agree
with you in that the cfc people I've come across on the internet come
across as child hating, misanthropic, and selfish. Then again, despite
knowing a lot of nice feminists many people think of feminists as
preachy, obnoxious, Gertrude Steing clone idealouges.
Damm that obnoxious vocal minority.......
Steve
--
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>I (a straight adamantly CF woman) consider becoming a parent (male or
>female) as a private, expensive hobby, and completely *a choice*, and
>therefore find it odd that parents expect all sorts of subsidies and
>assistance, when no one asked them to reproduce.
CF get extremely angry when they're lifestyle choices are denigrated as
just a phase.
How do you think you'll win any allies to your cause by denigrating a
parenting lifestyle as just a hobby?
Respect is a two way street, and unless the CF are willing to treat
parents' choices with the same respect that they want for their choices
("very nice, but it's not for me") then CF will continue to be treated as
an unpleasant fringe group that only wants to rant.
In my other post, I talk about envy vs. emulation (when someone else has
something you don't have, do you want them to lose it (envy) or for you
to gain (emulation) and the need for CF to have a positive emulative
message in order to succeed.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about.
The Sunday Boston Globe had an article about CF.
"Burkett says nothing in her book has aroused as much ire as the notion
of child-free sections of restaurants and child-free hours at
supermarkets or health clubs."
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/142/focus/No_kidding+.shtml
Naturally, parents are upset. You're trying to take away something they
already have - the ability to dine out at their convenience, which isn't
as easy to budget or schedule once you take kids into account.
On the OTHER hand, look at this policy:
http://www.examiner.com/990725/0725baby.html
Movie theaters are setting up special showings earmarked for parents to
bring their infants, the parents get to actually see a movie in an
understanding environment and without the expense of sitters.
While this looks like a perk for parents, it actually benefits all movie
goers by getting the crying infants out of the regular shows.
Apply these principles to the restaurants and supermarkets and health-clubs.
Instead of merely demanding child-free sections and child-free blocks of time,
encourage kids to go to these places at other convenient times.
Instead of taking away from one group and giving to another, both groups
gain. By offering special "childrens hours":
the parents are happier, because they've got a supportive environment,
those who'd rather not deal with children are happier, because there will
be fewer children outside those hours,
and nobody loses, because anybody can go at any time, regardless of their
schedule.
What's more, if you encouraged the facilities to schedule both
child-supportive and child-discouraging hours, I'll bet you'd find
parenting groups working right alongside you to implement this common goal.
However, all I seem to hear from the CF is negatives: rants and envy.
What other positive, emulative, uniting policies are y'all proposing?
--
---------------> 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"
--
Eli
>
> Why not? You've earned that pay, no matter what you choose to spend it on.
No, it is not a "pay" that we have earned. Most benefits are "entitlements" which
we can use if qualified. Companies offer many of these benefits with the (correct)
assumption that in any given year only a minority of the employees will use them.
If they offer generous sick leave, for instance, it is because very few
employees will take advantage of extended paid absence, otherwise they couldn't
afford to offer it. Same is for tuition reimbursement and many other benefits.
What you suggest is like saying that since we pay for our health
insurance as a price for possible expensive treatments if we get sick, we should
be given the value of those treatments if we don't get sick. In other words, we
"earn" that value by paying the premiums.
Eli
Elisabeth Anne Riba
:>Well, out of curiosity I went and looked up CF on the web. Some had good
:>points. One woman's site described children as "STDs". I wrote a message
:>to her on her board, and she said she only meant the children of
:>"breeders" as STDs.
:>seriously. People are not STDs.
Omixochitl <omixo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Which movement? As you have noted, some CFers have good points and some
: have bad points.
So, where do we find the sites talking about the good points?
When I want to find out about a group, if they have a newsgroup, I start
there. So I looked at alt.support.childfree and a.s.cf.moderated. I was
appalled. Just child- and parent- bashing. The FAQ says "the idea behind
a support group is venting. Why does AA always talk about drinking? To
someone just stepping in, it would indeed seem that all we do is complain."
I've belonged to support groups before, most notably, a.s.attn-deficit.
While some venting does occur, (a) that's not the main idea behind these
groups, (b) vents are often self-directed or directed at someone the
author personally knows ('I'm so ADDled' or 'my child's teacher won't
adhere to the EAP', not 'Some woman in traffic court brought her kids),
and (c) responses to the vent are usually helpful advice, rather than
further piling on. And the vents are still a minor part of the newsgroup,
most of which is filled with helpful advice on coping strategies and
medicines and friendly banter. But maybe a medical support group isn't
the right analogy to the childfree situation.
I suppose a.s.childfree is probably closest in nature to
soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated. Here, the general topic is "Society
wants us to be (thin/a parent), but we're proud of the way we are!" But
when I look at ssfam, I still see more positive posts than rants: looking
for rolemodels for one's children, relevant news stories, where to buy
clothing... There are some rants: dissing on diets, or folks who call
normal-weighted tv characters (Tara on Buffy:TVS) fat, but still, most of
the message is positive. And, I guess this focus is having some affect,
because San Francisco just banned weight-related discrimination.
But I can't find any of that activism in the two childfree newsgroups.
Just rant after rant after rant. I really didn't see any threads that
weren't complaints. I checked the web, including many sites on the
Childfree webring. Again, a lot of vents, a lot of social organizations
where CF can hang out together away from children, but I'm still not
seeing anything supporting the notion that childfree individuals need
different benefits than otherwise offered at the workplace.
Plus, the more I read the childfree newsgroups, the more concerned I get
about the overwhelming use of dehumanizing terms to refer to children and
parents (crotchdroppings, criblizards, frankenspawn, nipplecrunchers,
pussfruit -- see http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Quarter/7404/ for
a lengthy list). I don't want to bring up Godwin here, but dehumanizing
language does affect peoples' attitudes towards the subjects. I'm not
afraid of any actions the CF might take, but there's a certain
callousness there that's extremely disturbing.
Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this into a vent against the childfree.
Where should we go to see a better portrayal of the childfree movement?
--
---------------> 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"
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Daniel B. Holzman
>Well,......how could you have children from "non-breeders"? If you give
>birth aren't you a breeder?
"Breeder" is a term from "gay culture" used to refer to heterosexuals in
a derogatory fashion.
--
Banty
>
> Daniel B. Holzman <hol...@ripco.com> wrote in
> <8g4c0s$mth$1...@gail.ripco.com>:
>
> >In article <8g1aad$j48$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> >Judith Huszar <mol...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If anyone's suggest paying parents more or giving them more benefits, I
> >>> missed it. Just because someone chooses not to take an advantage of a
> >>> benefit does not mean that the benefit has not been offered. Arguing
> >>> that the childless and child free are disadvantaged here is rather like
> >>> arguing that men are disadvantaged because some employers offer women
> >>> leave during pregnancy.
> >
> >
> >Like many employers, my employer offers tuition reimbursement. Since I
> >am not choosing to further my academic education, I am not getting
> >several thousands of dollars of tuition reimbursement. Should I be
> >entitled to a generic reimbursement that I can choose to spend on
> >education, but also choose to spend on the hobbies I partake in instead
> >of getting a Master's Degree?
>
> benefits (more likely to be used by nonparents and by parents of adults
> than by parents of children).
>
> >I believe not.
>
> Why not? You've earned that pay, no matter what you choose to spend it on.
>
How is it an individual earned that pay?? If the guy next to me got a
nice new office carpet (because he spilled something - happened), does
that immediately mean I should get a nice new carpet, or $$ in leiu of
that, because, if someone else got it, it's a benefit, and I must have
earned it for myself? Hardly. You're given your pay/salary, and
*offered* an array of benefits. They may or may not help you now or
later in your life. Many such benefits couldn't be offered if
employment was truly individually arranged (that is, your firm obtained
a *separate* health insurance for you and individually went through the
trouble of arranging classes just for you), so can't be considered part
of an individual compensation. It's offered to a group on a group plan.
Now, as an individual, it's rational to consider it in a way as an
individual salary differential for comparing one job offer to another,
but that's due to what the *effect* would be to you of taking a certain
tuition reimbursement plan or health plan vs. a higher salary
elsewhere. But, it's not arranged for you as an individual.
Occasionally at my firm, it's the *key* employees who *can't* take
advantage of an education plan, due to needs of the business (of course,
they can't do this often). While in general they are compensated more.
Exactly because it's not really part of individual compensation.
Banty
hepron
>
> I would be more impressed if that 25% was from women *past* childbearing
> age who made a choice not be parents.
>
> Steve
<delurk>
So then I am to assume you are one of those people who tell me " Oh you say
that now, but one day you will change your mind and want kids"? I am a 29
year old female, the youngest of 9 and childfree. I am not the only
childfree person in my family, 4 of my 8 siblings are childfree. My sister
who is childfree is now past the childbearing age, I guess her decision
counts but not mine. In fact looking back on my family there are many women
in my family who made the decision to be childfree. They may not have called
it childfree back then but they made a choice. These women had full lives
and enjoyed every minute of it, without children. Oh and if you are
wondering they were all feminist. In fact my older great-aunts were very
involved in the right to vote for women and were organizing marches,
conventions, petitions etc. Oh and in case any one asks, no they were not
lesbians. All married, and happily at that. I respected them and their
choices. The figures do speak for themselves. More women are opting not to
have kids. In fact as I sit here and type this I think about all my friends,
professional women in their late 20's early, 30's and 40's and not a one of
them has children. They have made a decision to remain childfree. These are
not women I have met since I decided not to have kids, but women I have
known my whole life. Women I went to school with, women I associate with at
work, friends of my siblings, and mother. It is not every woman's destiny
to have a child. Now with the availability of birth control, legal
abortions, sex education, etc, women realize they do not have to be mommy.
So I guess that my opinion and wants do not count, I can be the silly empty
headed woman and change my mind. As I see it, unless I am past the stage of
no turning back my desire does not count. What I say does not carry any
weight. This kind of reminds me of the often used argument by men on trial
for rape, she said no but she didn't mean it. She didn't fight back so she
must have wanted it. Maybe that is a poor analogy but it is one that I
believe fits.
<relurk>
Daniel B. Holzman
Omixochitl <omixo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I believe not.
>
>Why not? You've earned that pay, no matter what you choose to spend it on.
I get the pay -- the pay is my salary and the opportinuty to have some of
expenses reimbursed should I chose to incur them. I choose to take
advantage of the opportunity or not.
--
Banty
Supposedly, 25% of women
> currently of childbearing age do not intend to have any children. I
> think that's a huge number after centuries of no choice.
>
Exactly which numbers are we talking about and what's the source?
Banty
Karen Wheless
> parents' choices with the same respect that they want for their choices
> ("very nice, but it's not for me") then CF will continue to be treated as
> an unpleasant fringe group that only wants to rant.
>"Burkett says nothing in her book has aroused as much ire as the notion
> of child-free sections of restaurants and child-free hours at
> supermarkets or health clubs."
On one hand, you're saying that CF people should treat parents with
EQUAL respect, but on the other hand, you're saying that the wants of
the parents should come ahead of the wants and needs of the childfree.
When it comes to things like jobs and benefits like childcare, I'm very
sympathetic to parents. People need to work, they need to have their
children taken care of, and since having children is an important part
of society, I have no problem with accomodations to help parents.
But why is the "right" of a parent to bring their child to a restaurant
any time they want more important than the "right" of a person to enjoy
a dinner without babies crying and children running up and down? I've
heard parents say such things many times, and it makes me sympathize
with the worst attitudes of the CF. There is the attitude out there
that children should be welcome everywhere, anytime, and anyone who
objects to their behavior (even screaming or throwing things) should
just be quiet and stay home. Anyone who disagrees is immediately
branded as "ranting".
To give an example, I recently saved up to have dinner with some friends
at a nice restaurant. Unfortunately, our quiet dinner was interrupted.
The family at the next table had brought along their children (this
wasn't a "family" restaurant) and within ten minutes, the four year old
was running up and down and yelling at the top of her lungs, the two
year old was screaming and throwing food at other people, and the baby
was crying. It was so bad that we couldn't even talk to each other
unless we shouted. This went on for 45 minutes while various people in
the restaurant, from the waitress to the manager to other patrons,
begged the parents to quiet their children or take them out. They
refused, and basically said "we're here, and unless you call the police
and have us thrown out, you're stuck". Since no restuarant wants to be
seen dragging out cute kids on the evening news (although I think the
other people in the restaurant might have cheered) they did nothing,
except watch as most of the other patrons left one by one. Somehow, the
"right" of these parents to eat in this restaurant came first, the wants
of everyone else be damned.
Now, maybe it's unfair to brand all parents with kids the same, there
are many well behaved children. But since, in my experience, a large
percentage of young children are unable to be quiet in restaurants,
concert halls, movie theatres, and so forth, why is it unfair to put the
needs and wants of the non-parents first, in certain situations? Just
because, as you said, parents are impaired in their "ability to dine out
at their convenience, which isn't as easy to budget or schedule once you
take kids into account." Because parents have tight schedules, they get
preference over everyone else, in every single situation? What you're
saying is that parents shouldn't be equal, they should come ahead of
everyone else. If it was a matter of life or death, I might agree, but
going to a restaurant or health club or theatre isn't a matter of life
or death.
Karen
Tara D
wrote:
>But I can't find any of that activism in the two childfree newsgroups.
>Just rant after rant after rant. I really didn't see any threads that
>weren't complaints. I checked the web, including many sites on the
>Childfree webring. Again, a lot of vents, a lot of social organizations
>where CF can hang out together away from children, but I'm still not
>seeing anything supporting the notion that childfree individuals need
>different benefits than otherwise offered at the workplace.
Sorry, but what did you really expect from a group of people who each
have their own opinions, beliefs, agendas, and the only common thread
is that they don't want children? Some like kids, some don't. Some
tire of the current baby-centric society, some don't.
I don't need different company benefits than my childed coworkers,
ASSUMING that I have the same access to certain benefits such a
flex-time, working from home, sick leave, vacation scheduling
requests. But the current 26 week maternity leave, soon to be
replaced with 26 weeks for each spouse; paid for by unemployment
insurance (which you can't collect if you quit, or are fired with just
cause; and have to fight tooth and nail to collect if you are fired
without just cause) does irk me just a little. As does the tax
deductions for childcare, etc. But I guess some parents may be a
little miffed at the RRSP tax deduction I generate every year.
Tara
--
IleneB
to 25% of U.S. women currently of childbearing age (that age ending at
39).
Ilene B
In article <392DAEA7...@banet.net>, Banty <ba...@banet.net> wrote:
> Exactly which numbers are we talking about and what's the source?
>
> Banty
--
Nicole Delessert Shields
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendel.csc.smith.edu
Organization: Smith College, Northampton Mass, USA
On 25 May 2000, hepron wrote:
> "Steve" <wit...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I would be more impressed if that 25% was from women *past* childbearing
> > age who made a choice not be parents.
> >
> > Steve
>
> <delurk>
>
> So then I am to assume you are one of those people who tell me " Oh you say
> that now, but one day you will change your mind and want kids"?
<Rant snipped>
The fact of the matter is, lots of young people DO say they never want to
have kids, and then they end up having them later on. Looking at
statistics comparing how many people changed their minds is certainly
interesting and valid. No need to get all offended at it! He wasn't saying
that everyone changes their mind, just that some people do, and it would
be interesting to see how many do.
It would be interesting. Does anyone know where to get the stats?
-Nicole
Elisabeth Anne Riba
is reasonable, while my idea:
- have certain hours/spaces where children are encouraged, which will
decrease the need for children to be present in other hours/spaces,
- while other hours/spaces, children are discouraged,
- however nothing will actually stop folks from coming in any time,
somehow puts parents "ahead of everyone else"
I see.
--
---------------> 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"
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: On 25 May 2000 14:01:55 GMT, Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com>
: wrote:
:>But I can't find any of that activism in the two childfree newsgroups.
:>Just rant after rant after rant. I really didn't see any threads that
:>weren't complaints.
: Sorry, but what did you really expect from a group of people who each
: have their own opinions, beliefs, agendas, and the only common thread
: is that they don't want children? Some like kids, some don't. Some
: tire of the current baby-centric society, some don't.
I've been on Usenet for over 10 years. EVERY newsgroup consists of a
group of people who have their own opinions, beliefs, agendas, and the
only common thread is the subject of the newsgroup.
My point is that the newsgroup FAQ claims that "the idea behind a support
group is venting" yet, I don't find that true of any other support
newsgroups I've checked. There have been some interesting proposals
posted in this newsgroup the last several weeks in these threads. I was
hoping to find a forum where these were being discussed, so I can continue
to learn about these outside soc.feminism. I saw mention of one activist
egroup, but that was adamantly CF-only, so I stayed out.
In the fights for black rights, women's rights, gay rights and so on,
the movement has always been helped by supportive whites, men, and
straights. There are ways for CFs and parents to work together, too,
but I haven't yet seen any CF spaces interested in trying that yet.
That's what I've been looking for, and if you know of any, let me know.
: I don't need different company benefits than my childed coworkers,
: ASSUMING that I have the same access to certain benefits such a
: flex-time, working from home, sick leave, vacation scheduling
: requests. But the current 26 week maternity leave, soon to be
: replaced with 26 weeks for each spouse; paid for by unemployment
: insurance (which you can't collect if you quit, or are fired with just
: cause; and have to fight tooth and nail to collect if you are fired
: without just cause) does irk me just a little. As does the tax
: deductions for childcare, etc. But I guess some parents may be a
: little miffed at the RRSP tax deduction I generate every year.
--
---------------> 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"
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Banty
>
> I saw it in an article the other day on CNN online, I believe. Referred
> to 25% of U.S. women currently of childbearing age (that age ending at
> 39).
>
> Ilene B
>
> In article <392DAEA7...@banet.net>, Banty <ba...@banet.net> wrote:
>
> > Exactly which numbers are we talking about and what's the source?
> >
> > Banty
>
My searches of the CNN.com website on "childbearing", "childfree" and
"childless" have not turned up anything close to a story on this
figure. It is important for the purposes of this discussion exactly
what statistics are being quoted here. Is it the percentage of women
childless at a certain age? Percentage of women who profess lifelong
childfree status? Details such as how a question is asked matter quite
a lot in determining position and intentions.
Banty
Judith Huszar
children at fine dining establishments, health clubs, or theatres at all hours?
Why should adult oriented places become family friendly? (I don't mean Chuckie
Cheez, McD's, Disney shows, G films, etc.)
What I would like is common sense. Don't bring a baby or small children into a
bar, casino, fancy restaurant (until s/he truly has learned table manners), etc.
Get a baby sitter or sit this one out.
No need for anyone to reply with "I don't take my children where it's not
appropriate", because there are plenty of parents out there doing it.
Judy
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
> Okay, so you're saying that demanding completely child-free spaces/hours
> is reasonable, while my idea:
> - have certain hours/spaces where children are encouraged, which will
> decrease the need for children to be present in other hours/spaces,
> - while other hours/spaces, children are discouraged,
> - however nothing will actually stop folks from coming in any time,
> somehow puts parents "ahead of everyone else"
>
> I see.
--
IleneB
few states (Massachusetts being one of them) to consider using
unemployment funds to pay for maternity leave. As far as I know, it's
not a decision made yet in any state.
It's also a lousy idea. I remember not so many years ago when the
unemployment funds ran out of money in Mass. because of massive
layoffs. The funds are flush due to the current economy, which will
change at some point, and change again. If the feds or the states want
to start a huge new entitlement program, it should be a matter of
public discussion, and voting. And the unemployment funds are a
dreadful source of funding for a new, expensive entitlement.
Ilene B
In article <10uqis4ebp286rvl0...@4ax.com>, Tara D
<mand...@echo-on.net> wrote:
> But the current 26 week maternity leave, soon to be
> replaced with 26 weeks for each spouse; paid for by unemployment
> insurance (which you can't collect if you quit, or are fired with just
> cause; and have to fight tooth and nail to collect if you are fired
> without just cause) does irk me just a little.
--
Matthew aka Tiama'at
>have their own opinions, beliefs, agendas, and the only common thread
>is that they don't want children? Some like kids, some don't. Some
>tire of the current baby-centric society, some don't.
I'm still looking for this babycentric society people are talking about.
There is a certain ammount of space given to teens, some to the upper
middle-class "SUV/soccer moms" and there is still some overly romantic
notion about the glow of expectant motherhood, but our society only
looks at those specific snapshots. There is, from what I've seen, only
grudging respect for the working mother, total rabid hostility to the
poor mother, and some sort of cognitive dissonance about GLBT parents
(still labouring under that "gays don't have kids" myth).
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ "in a moment we lost our minds here
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ and lay our spirit down
WS/Soc (H) IV - Carleton U (Can)][ today we lived a thousand years
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ all we have is now" - Live
Nicole Delessert Shields
> >"Burkett says nothing in her book has aroused as much ire as the notion
> > of child-free sections of restaurants and child-free hours at
> > supermarkets or health clubs."
That seems silly to me. I think that there are definitly some places where
you don't want kids. Nightclubs come to mind... not every place is
appropriate for kids, there is a different ambiance when adults are with
adults than when they are with kids.
I think there's room for both.
-N
Banty
>
> @shore.net> <3929814E...@nospam.com> <f8FW4.14371$45.3...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> NNTP-Posting-Host: grendel.csc.smith.edu
> Organization: Smith College, Northampton Mass, USA
> Lines: 26
>
> On 25 May 2000, hepron wrote:
>
> > "Steve" <wit...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I would be more impressed if that 25% was from women *past* childbearing
> > > age who made a choice not be parents.
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > <delurk>
> >
> > So then I am to assume you are one of those people who tell me " Oh you say
> > that now, but one day you will change your mind and want kids"?
>
> <Rant snipped>
> The fact of the matter is, lots of young people DO say they never want to
> have kids, and then they end up having them later on. Looking at
> statistics comparing how many people changed their minds is certainly
> interesting and valid. No need to get all offended at it! He wasn't saying
> that everyone changes their mind, just that some people do, and it would
> be interesting to see how many do.
>
> It would be interesting. Does anyone know where to get the stats?
>
> -Nicole
>
Right - if asked at 21 about if one ever intends to be married, taking
an example of another important life decision/transion, would not (for a
population) reflect the case if polled at 55, and this does not reflect
on the nature of any individual decision at 21 never to marry.
Banty
Omixochitl
<1eb7dk6.10jad3w18qrvl8N%kwhe...@rockland.net>:
>> Respect is a two way street, and unless the CF are willing to treat
>> parents' choices with the same respect that they want for their
>> choices ("very nice, but it's not for me") then CF will continue to be
>> treated as an unpleasant fringe group that only wants to rant.
>
>>"Burkett says nothing in her book has aroused as much ire as the notion
>> of child-free sections of restaurants and child-free hours at
>> supermarkets or health clubs."
>
>On one hand, you're saying that CF people should treat parents with
>EQUAL respect, but on the other hand, you're saying that the wants of
>the parents should come ahead of the wants and needs of the childfree.
>
>When it comes to things like jobs and benefits like childcare, I'm very
>sympathetic to parents. People need to work, they need to have their
>children taken care of, and since having children is an important part
>of society, I have no problem with accomodations to help parents.
>
>But why is the "right" of a parent to bring their child to a restaurant
>any time they want more important than the "right" of a person to enjoy
>a dinner without babies crying and children running up and down? I've
And if you think it's bad for CFers, remember that it's also bad for other
parents and children. Imagine being a parent who took the time to hire a
babysitter for your infant and teach your older kid table manners, or a kid
who had to learn table manners before dining out, and then your evening out
is ruined by the noise from another parent and/or kid who did not take
that time and learn those manners that you did. Likewise for any
nonparental or nonchild public misbehaviors.
Better yet, put the needs and wants of the well-behaved (whether parent
or non) first. Allow people of all ages in, and promptly escort the
rudely behaving ones of all ages out.
>because, as you said, parents are impaired in their "ability to dine out
>at their convenience, which isn't as easy to budget or schedule once you
>take kids into account." Because parents have tight schedules, they get
>preference over everyone else, in every single situation? What you're
>saying is that parents shouldn't be equal, they should come ahead of
>everyone else. If it was a matter of life or death, I might agree, but
>going to a restaurant or health club or theatre isn't a matter of life
>or death.
Omixochitl
Omixochitl
>Omixochitl wrote:
>
>>
>> Why not? You've earned that pay, no matter what you choose to spend
>> it on.
>
>No, it is not a "pay" that we have earned. Most benefits are
>"entitlements" which we can use if qualified. Companies offer many of
>these benefits with the (correct) assumption that in any given year only
>a minority of the employees will use them. If they offer generous sick
>leave, for instance, it is because very few employees will take
>advantage of extended paid absence, otherwise they couldn't afford to
>offer it. Same is for tuition reimbursement and many other benefits.
Of course it's pay; goods/services/currency (such as wages/salary and
benefits) exchanged for goods/services/currency (such as labor). In some
cases it's completely a currency exchange (nothing but money for labor)
in some cases it was completely a barter exchange (nothing but non-monetary
benefits for labor) and in many if not most cases today it's a combination
of both barter and currency exchange.
Calling a benefit a "free extra" is advertising hype. Remember those
cereal boxes that came with "free" toys inside? Those toys weren't free.
Someone buying a box was exchanging currency for both the cereal and the
toy, and someone not buying a box didn't get the toy. Likewise for
benefits. Many people on the job are exchanging service for both the money
and the benefits, and someone not on the job doesn't get the benefits.
>What you suggest is like saying that since we pay for our health
>insurance as a price for possible expensive treatments if we get sick,
>we should be given the value of those treatments if we don't get sick.
>In other words, we "earn" that value by paying the premiums.
By paying for health insurance one buys a service instead of buying
"possible expensive treatments". Someone else is spending time getting
ready to pay the bills for the possible expensive treatments if the
insured does get sick. Getting ready to pay the bills is a service
performed for the buyer of health insurance whether s/he is sick or not
(not unlike the way active-duty soldiers get paid for their military
service during both peacetime and wartime).
K.J. Haught
>
> Tara D <mand...@echo-on.net> wrote:
> : On 25 May 2000 14:01:55 GMT, Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com>
> : wrote:
>
> :>But I can't find any of that activism in the two childfree newsgroups.
> :>Just rant after rant after rant. I really didn't see any threads that
> :>weren't complaints.
>
> : have their own opinions, beliefs, agendas, and the only common thread
> : is that they don't want children? Some like kids, some don't. Some
> : tire of the current baby-centric society, some don't.
>
> group of people who have their own opinions, beliefs, agendas, and the
> only common thread is the subject of the newsgroup.
>
> My point is that the newsgroup FAQ claims that "the idea behind a support
> group is venting" yet, I don't find that true of any other support
> newsgroups I've checked. There have been some interesting proposals
> posted in this newsgroup the last several weeks in these threads. I was
> hoping to find a forum where these were being discussed, so I can continue
> to learn about these outside soc.feminism. I saw mention of one activist
> egroup, but that was adamantly CF-only, so I stayed out.
>
> In the fights for black rights, women's rights, gay rights and so on,
> the movement has always been helped by supportive whites, men, and
> straights. There are ways for CFs and parents to work together, too,
> but I haven't yet seen any CF spaces interested in trying that yet.
> That's what I've been looking for, and if you know of any, let me know.
> --
> ---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com
You bring up a good point here - how would you as a parent (presumbly,
current or future) suggest supporting the non-parents?
Perhaps if we can find common ground, we can minimize the arguing and
come up with some real solutions.
kjh
Steve
> Of course, alt.support.childfree is unmoderated and therefore will look
> worse to new lurkers than to regular posters. I already know who to read
> and who to killfile. So do other regulars even if our killfiles don't
> completely match (no doubt some have plonked me).
I'm not sure I agree. Im cbc and got turned off by that group. My
experience with that group was several months long several years ago so
I don't know if it counts.
The regulars, no trolls seemed, like to me, a majority of misanthropes.
I thought at the time the newsgroup could have been more aptly name
alt.support.children-bashing.
I felt like if I kill-filed every misanthrope ( not including the trolls
) I might get one post once a week so I quit the group.
Then again we don't know how much crap Cindy cuts for us. It could very
well be that if this group was unmoderated the volume of posts might be
several times larger.
Steve
--
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: You bring up a good point here - how would you as a parent (presumbly,
: current or future) suggest supporting the non-parents?
I'm childless, but planning on children someday.
And I don't know what to suggest. I don't feel qualified to make
realistic suggestions yet, because I don't think I fully understand what
the issues and areas of contention are. I've heard a few gripes, ranging
from unequal treatment in the workplace to complaints about children's
behavior in restaurants and other public accomodations. But I don't know
how those issues rate in terms of importance. Some might think the most
vital issues would be those affecting one's livelihood (ie job-related),
going by the level of vitriol in posts, encounters with ill-behaved
children seem to top the bill.
: Perhaps if we can find common ground, we can minimize the arguing and
: come up with some real solutions.
That's why I say that the first step is having a dialog, so folks from
both/all sides can grok the other sides' points of view. Only then can
we work towards solutions together. But we can't do that until we can
agree on what the problems are, and which are the most pressing.
I'd love to try to find common ground, but I haven't yet found a CF forum
that wants to hear from non-CF. There can't be a dialog until they're
willing to hear from both sides.
--
---------------> 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"
--
Banty
>
> Omixochitl wrote:
>
> > Of course, alt.support.childfree is unmoderated and therefore will look
> > worse to new lurkers than to regular posters. I already know who to read
> > and who to killfile. So do other regulars even if our killfiles don't
> > completely match (no doubt some have plonked me).
>
> I'm not sure I agree. Im cbc and got turned off by that group. My
> experience with that group was several months long several years ago so
> I don't know if it counts.
>
> The regulars, no trolls seemed, like to me, a majority of misanthropes.
> I thought at the time the newsgroup could have been more aptly name
> alt.support.children-bashing.
>
> I felt like if I kill-filed every misanthrope ( not including the trolls
> ) I might get one post once a week so I quit the group.
>
> Then again we don't know how much crap Cindy cuts for us. It could very
> well be that if this group was unmoderated the volume of posts might be
> several times larger.
>
> Steve
I think these groups are largely self-selecting. Childfree people I
know in real life don't by and large (a couple of exceptions - one a
mid-level manager whose domain I maneuvered out of) harbor the
anti-child stance or activism expressed in the NGs or here recently.
I'm not surprised that you self-selected out - most CF's I know
personally would have, also.
Banty
Banty
>
> Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
::snip::
> > In the fights for black rights, women's rights, gay rights and so on,
> > the movement has always been helped by supportive whites, men, and
> > straights. There are ways for CFs and parents to work together, too,
> > but I haven't yet seen any CF spaces interested in trying that yet.
> > That's what I've been looking for, and if you know of any, let me know.
>
> > --
> > ---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com
>
> You bring up a good point here - how would you as a parent (presumbly,
> current or future) suggest supporting the non-parents?
> Perhaps if we can find common ground, we can minimize the arguing and
> come up with some real solutions.
>
> kjh
I could support non-parents, CFers who have made a decision not to be
parents, by resisting some of overall society's expectations that people
follow a scripted life, and resisting the idea that people without kids
are somehow incomplete. I can relate, as a never married person - even
as a 45 year old person, mother, homeowner, holder of three college
degrees, and 23 years with the same firm, my family and certain
neighbors *still* sometimes deal with me as if I haven't quite grown up
yet because of not having that hubby-person around to fit into the
script.
That does not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that CFers are
somehow some kind of disadvantaged group, no more than it has lead me
to the conclusions that never-marrieds are some kind of repressed group.
Banty
--
Judith Huszar
incomes up to 200K) are disadvantaged, either. Why the child tax credits?
education credits and the like?
As a CFer, I'm very willing to support families who truly *need* assistance to lift
themselves up and out of poverty. Say, the families who fall below the median
income. I am disgusted that families who have similar adjusted gross incomes to me
get governmental support and tax breaks. Why? Because we are no longer talking
*need*, just simple greed.
Banty wrote:
Banty
>
> I don't believe that middle to upper middle class families (with adjusted gross
> incomes up to 200K) are disadvantaged, either. Why the child tax credits?
> education credits and the like?
>
> As a CFer, I'm very willing to support families who truly *need* assistance to lift
> themselves up and out of poverty. Say, the families who fall below the median
> income. I am disgusted that families who have similar adjusted gross incomes to me
> get governmental support and tax breaks. Why? Because we are no longer talking
> *need*, just simple greed.
>
Sure, I agree that middle to upper income families with children aren't
disadvantaged, and don't need child tax credits. Perhaps you missed my
post where I stated that I did not favor child care subsidies in
general. They don't go far anyway, and only work to subsidize the
market such that I pay more for child care (then get before-tax pay
returned to me), and to support beaurocratic establishments that
administer these plans. But then I don't favor the home mortgage
interest tax deduction either.
Banty
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Goddess
news:100520001145131093%ile...@shore.net...
> Uhh.. I think if you ask any gay women about the "gayby boom," you'd
> get a whole 'nother view of "parenting as compulsory heterosexuality."
>
> I (a straight adamantly CF woman) consider becoming a parent (male or
> female) as a private, expensive hobby, and completely *a choice*, and
> therefore find it odd that parents expect all sorts of subsidies and
> assistance, when no one asked them to reproduce.
And yet without that "expensive hobby" there would be NO
future society, no? Do you also advocate that those who have
no children (currently), or whose children are grown or who
never had children should be able to opt out of the expense
of maintaining public schools?
> Ilene B
Marg
--
IleneB
supported by the group, such as public schools, roads, police,
military. No line-item vetoes! My tax money (and yours) goes for many
things that we don't personally use, or, for that matter, approve of
(tobacco subsidies, etc.)
However, I fully support the idea that having children is a personal
choice, made by individuals for their own personal desires, and that I
support any measures that create fewer people, and much more
consciously chosen people. As I've said before, no one had children to
help the "future society"-- they do it for their own (to me,
inscrutable) reasons and choices. That makes it a private, expensive
hobby to be, like many other things we publically support and don't all
use.
Ilene B
In article <3wv35.16450$Ey2.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, Goddess
<hl-go...@home.com> wrote:
> And yet without that "expensive hobby" there would be NO
> future society, no? Do you also advocate that those who have
> no children (currently), or whose children are grown or who
> never had children should be able to opt out of the expense
> of maintaining public schools?
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Goddess
> Not at all. "As a society" we've agreed that many things are to be
> supported by the group, such as public schools, roads, police,
> military. No line-item vetoes! My tax money (and yours) goes for many
> things that we don't personally use, or, for that matter, approve of
> (tobacco subsidies, etc.)
Good, I'm glad for that. Seriously. For there are those who
because they feel that children aren't in their future, (or in
their personal present) that they should be exempt from
paying for any programs that don't directly benefit them.
I've heard such arguments even from some older people.
Usually I remind them that they receive SS benefits and
that if there are no *new* people being born, their benefits
could be cut. They usually shut up about then.
> However, I fully support the idea that having children is a personal
> choice, made by individuals for their own personal desires, and that I
> support any measures that create fewer people, and much more
> consciously chosen people.
On a personal level, I would agree that it would be preferable,
to me, if children were chosen more consciously. I don't believe
that any way anyone has come up with to force that, is reasonable.
As I've said before, no one had children to
> help the "future society"-- they do it for their own (to me,
> inscrutable) reasons and choices. That makes it a private, expensive
> hobby to be, like many other things we publically support and don't all
> use.
> Ilene B
>
Marg
--
IleneB
to create a little more space in the world for people (esp. women) to
see having a child as a genuine choice, and one that you must choose,
not just "let it happen" or "always figured that's what I'd do." I do
think a lot of the hostility from parents towards CF-ers stems from
their own belated realization that they didn't *have* to have kids, and
I think some people resent that. Rather, I personally know some who do
I don't feel the situation will be balanced until someone saying "I
want to have kids" is asked "Oh, really, why?" as often as someone is
asked who doesn't want them.
Ilene b
In article <vPX35.19120$Ey2.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, Goddess
<hl-go...@home.com> wrote:
> I don't believe
> that any way anyone has come up with to force that, is reasonable.
--
Anne Victoria MacMichael
> little miffed at the RRSP tax deduction I generate every year.
>
> Tara
Sorry, but what is RRSP?
Eli
>
> However, I fully support the idea that having children is a personal
> choice, made by individuals for their own personal desires,
True.
> and that I
> support any measures that create fewer people, and much more
> consciously chosen people.
Sounds good. Now the real question: what "measures" do you suggest
should be taken? Do you believe that if you try to make it harder for people
to have children (which, in a free society, can only be done financially )
you will achieve what you desire? Do you think making parents
poorer or more stressed will stop them from having children? Look
around you. Last time I checked most of the well off people who can
afford all sorts of conveniences have less kids.
> As I've said before, no one had children to
> help the "future society"-- they do it for their own (to me,
> inscrutable) reasons and choices.
No matter how much you want to believe this, the fact is that this
particular selfish and personal choice happens to affect society
more than most other selfish personal choices that people make.
And when someone selfishly decides to bring a baby in the world,
no matter how much we try to distance ourselves from the problems
that they and their child may have, they become our problems as
well. That is why every society, primitive or advance, in some way
gets involved in raising of its young, because regardless of the parents'
motives, their children ARE the "future society".
Eli
Anne Victoria MacMichael
>
> I don't feel the situation will be balanced until someone saying "I
> want to have kids" is asked "Oh, really, why?" as often as someone is
> asked who doesn't want them.
>
> Ilene b
Hmmm,
I know that 15 years ago when , as a lesbian in a "long term" relationship I
said I wanted to have a child, I got asked "oh really why would you want to do
that?" many many times, and many people tried to talk me out of it, told me I
was "buying into the patriarchy, " wasting my intellect etc.. Birthing a child
was by far the less expensive way to go. My children are, due to my partner's
insistance we had no right to bring more children into this troubled world,
adopted. Yes, I had to convince many people I really wanted to parent, my children
were very wanted. Does that make me a better parent than someone who never had to
think about it? I don't think so. Though I suppose I made more plans for their
support and education before they existed than someone else might.
Yes, I had many selfish reasons for wanting to parent. I thought I could do
it well, and bring up well adjusted, well mannered children. I am far poorer
than I ever expected to be, and the needs of my daughters are a major reason why.
Somehow, I've never managed to be employed by the family , financially friendly
employer at the right time.
Anne ....
--
Doug vanderHoof
to have children (which, in a free society, can only be done
financially )"
This does sound cruel, the very people who need society's help the
most, children, being the target of some kind of economic sanctions.
But here's the good news: There are many other techniques of
influence, some that might work better than money, and less cruelly.
Think of other strong natural urges that people resist. Lots of them
are resisted because of social pressure to not indulge them. For
instance, I don't think people resist peeing in public because they'll
be fined for it. Their parents taught them not to and taught them to
be embarassed if they did. This works fine.
But an even stronger mechanism is praise for resisting, for doing
something other than indulging.
Plus these are things we can all do, starting today, with no budget,
no referendum, no physical or economic coercion.
So don't congratulate people when they say they've decided to start a
family AND do praise them when they do something else.
In short, make people happy not to have children.
Doug vanderHoof / Modern Media
(206)325-3684
IleneB
non-relatives are involved with others' children simply by paying for
them, whether via taxes or school costs, etc. However, we have *no* say
in anything else that affects "the future society" or us in the present
society, such as how many kids any parent produces, how they're raised
in ANY way, how they behave, what they're taught. More a model of
extortion than Hilary's overrated "village."
Ilene B
In article <3954F20C...@hotmail.com>, Eli <el...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> That is why every society, primitive or advance, in some way
> gets involved in raising of its young, because regardless of the parents'
> motives, their children ARE the "future society".
--
Banty
>
> Not at all. "As a society" we've agreed that many things are to be
> supported by the group, such as public schools, roads, police,
> military. No line-item vetoes! My tax money (and yours) goes for many
> things that we don't personally use, or, for that matter, approve of
> (tobacco subsidies, etc.)
Yup. Goes for all of us.
>
> However, I fully support the idea that having children is a personal
> choice, made by individuals for their own personal desires, and that I
> support any measures that create fewer people, and much more
> consciously chosen people. As I've said before, no one had children to
> help the "future society"-- they do it for their own (to me,
> inscrutable) reasons and choices. That makes it a private, expensive
> hobby to be, like many other things we publically support and don't all
> use.
>
> Ilene B
I also support choices to have or not have children. But I find in your
post conflated two ideas - one that children are their parent's private
hobby, the other that you have as an agenda that fewer children be
born. So I'll deconflate the ideas and deal with them both.
First of all, children will never be their parent's private hobby. What
seems difficult to get across sometimes to certain childfrees is that
children are persons in their own right - not some kind of proto-persons
or pre-humans to be kept aside until adult perfection is reached. One
outcome of this fact is that they are not someone *else's* hobby any
more than a wife is but her husband's dalliance.
One can choose not to have kids, just as one can choose never to marry.
One can even choose whether or not to continue living. But which of
these choices would be supported by society (while not leaving those who
opt out without a fair part) depends on the culture and the human animal
itself. Marriage, for example, is supported and reinforced in our
laws and customs. This largely reflects the natural human tendency to
pair bond (albeit imperfectly) and supports the large majority of people
for whom such a relationship is sought and is beneficial. Most people
want to be married, and are happiest married. But it's a choice -
right? With all the talk about fairness in this forum, I've never seen
medical benefits to spouses, for example, questioned (even though I did
bring it up). Even as a happily never-married person (who sometimes
wonders why on earth all those other people bother!), I dont' find it
all so hard to understand.
As difficult as you, personally may find this to understand - likewise,
for most people, having children is part and parcel of what they want in
a full and satisfying life. It's likely inborn in the human animal (as
pair-bonding is) and is present in every society. Most people are at
least somewhat gregarious and envision for themselves the lifetime
companionship and experiences of both marriage and childrearing.
Society affirms this, not just for the sake of society's own future, but
because society is largely *made up of* people who want to raise
children.
When you say you'd like to see fewer children, in some part I agree, but
I think what's forgotten in all this emphasis on who has kids and how
many, that it's *consumed resources* that really needs to be contained.
Personally, at just about 2.0 children per woman per lifetime in
America, you'll find it hard at least for the U.S. to decrease that
fecundity much further. Asking most people not to have kids is akin to
asking most people not to ever have an S.O. It really runs that deep.
(In my own case, deeper.) To get at the real concern for the
environment - consumed resources - much more headway is to be made in
our culture in decreasing the resources consumed per person. There has
been much discussion here about adjusting taxes this way and that to
further this or that cause or lifestyle - how about taxing, instead of
income - *consumption*. For starters.
Banty
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: In modern, industrialized, electronic culture, most of us who are
: non-relatives are involved with others' children simply by paying for
: them, whether via taxes or school costs, etc.
: However, we have *no* say
: in anything else that affects "the future society" or us in the present
: society, such as how many kids any parent produces, how they're raised
: in ANY way, how they behave, what they're taught.
You're confusing the rights and responsibilities of caring for children
collectively as a society with "having a say" in the upbringing of
individual children.
Telling an individual how many children to have or providing unsolicited
comments on their child-rearing methods is just plain rude.
However, if you want a say on how society is teaching children, run for
the local school board (or just attend in public meetings) and make
yourself heard. Same applies for parks departments or other local offices
that have a say in how your tax money goes to support children. If you
don't want to do that, you can still contact and talk with your elected
officials, join/contribute to lobbying groups that will press your side,
or at a minimum make sure you vote for candidates which agree with your
point of view.
: More a model of
: extortion than Hilary's overrated "village."
No. You can have a say in the political process. I've provided several
options above. If you elect not to do so, that's your choice.
--
---------------> 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"
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Shannon and Mike
> I don't believe that's what Karen meant at all...what is so tragic about not having
> children at fine dining establishments, health clubs, or theatres at all hours?
> Why should adult oriented places become family friendly? (I don't mean Chuckie
> Cheez, McD's, Disney shows, G films, etc.)
Aren't there a fair number of adult-only health clubs in most major cities? I happen
to belong to the Y. I consider the Y to be a family-type place, and I think declaring
"adult-only" hours there would be silly. If I didn't want kids around, I'd join a
non-family health club. I used to belong to a women-only health club, and I never saw
kids anywhere but in the childcare area they provided.
And there's a huge gulf between "fine dining" as I define it, and McD's and Chuck E.
Cheese. I take my kids to lots of places to eat (we like food :-) ). Some of them
might qualify as adult-oriented; they certainly aren't all kid-oriented. There are
places I wouldn't take them. But it wouldn't be much fun for me or for them to be
limited to kid-oriented places like McD's. I choose places that aren't very formal,
generally places that have a fairly high noise level anyway, and places where my kids
will (hopefully) like the food, because if they're happily eating they're quite
unlikely to cause a disturbance.
> What I would like is common sense. Don't bring a baby or small children into a
> bar, casino, fancy restaurant (until s/he truly has learned table manners), etc.
> Get a baby sitter or sit this one out.
>
Um, doesn't the law already forbid kids in bars and casinos?
--
Shannon
sha...@home.com
remove "nospam" when replying
--
Banty
>
> In modern, industrialized, electronic culture, most of us who are
> non-relatives are involved with others' children simply by paying for
> them, whether via taxes or school costs, etc. However, we have *no* say
> in anything else that affects "the future society" or us in the present
> society, such as how many kids any parent produces, how they're raised
> extortion than Hilary's overrated "village."
>
>
This is a participative, representative democracy with personal freedom,
Ilene. You have the right to run for school boards, local offices,
state offices, national offices. You have the right to vote for all of
these, and vote on other questions like local referendums including
school district budgets. You have the right to free speech in this
forum and others, as I'm sure you know. I'm entirely puzzled why you
would seriously say that you have "*no*" say in anything that affects
present or future society. On the personal side of your life, you have
the right to live your life pretty much as you see fit.
*Others*, too, have these rights. Public and personal. The inadequacy
that you perceive in your scope of control over others' lives is the
necessary cost of your own public and personal freedoms.
Banty
Banty
>
> IleneB wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't feel the situation will be balanced until someone saying "I
> > want to have kids" is asked "Oh, really, why?" as often as someone is
> > asked who doesn't want them.
> >
> > Ilene b
>
> Hmmm,
> I know that 15 years ago when , as a lesbian in a "long term" relationship I
> said I wanted to have a child, I got asked "oh really why would you want to do
> that?" many many times, and many people tried to talk me out of it, told me I
> was "buying into the patriarchy, " wasting my intellect etc.. Birthing a child
> was by far the less expensive way to go. My children are, due to my partner's
> insistance we had no right to bring more children into this troubled world,
> adopted. Yes, I had to convince many people I really wanted to parent, my children
> were very wanted. Does that make me a better parent than someone who never had to
> think about it? I don't think so. Though I suppose I made more plans for their
> support and education before they existed than someone else might.
> Yes, I had many selfish reasons for wanting to parent. I thought I could do
> it well, and bring up well adjusted, well mannered children. I am far poorer
> than I ever expected to be, and the needs of my daughters are a major reason why.
> Somehow, I've never managed to be employed by the family , financially friendly
> employer at the right time.
> Anne ....
>
Yes, the social pressures are there not to have children if you haven't
followed "the script" for life (gay, unmarried, etc.) Even if one is
married and heterosexual, the social pressures are there concerning how
long after marriage, how many, what the birth spacing is, to buy a house
and where to locate the house. Most segments of society look askance on
the father staying home, different segments apply different pressures
concerning whether or not the mother should stay home. Unmarried, CF,
and gay all face the "Oh, really, why?" questions, and it's this narrow
(and contradictory) set of social sanctions which is the common enemy.
I don't think it helps or is even feasible to expect that one group get
the "why would you ever..." questions as often another group as some
sort of measure of "fairness". Imagine if mixed race couples, for
instance, would desire that single-race couples get the "why would you
want to make your life harder...., couldn't you find someone...."
questions equally as often. It doesn't make sense. Unless one is
interested in, as much as acceptance and equality, the marginalization
of the other currently most travelled path. Which is a divisive and
counterproductive approach to take when dealing with common problems.
Eli
> In modern, industrialized, electronic culture, most of us who are
> non-relatives are involved with others' children simply by paying for
> them, whether via taxes or school costs, etc. However, we have *no* say
> in anything else that affects "the future society" or us in the present
> society, such as how many kids any parent produces, how they're raised
> in ANY way, how they behave, what they're taught. More a model of
> extortion than Hilary's overrated "village."
True. But you didn't answer my question as to WHAT do you suggest
should be done to achieve what you want? You have only
said that you don't like family-friendly policies that may favor
parents over non-parents, but haven't suggested any solutions (at
least I haven't seen any). Do you truly believe that if we set up
our society to be much less accommodating to parents, people will
have less children and raise them better? What exactly should we
do to make people have less children and raise them to your
standards? I am also in favor of a society where only those who
can raise good, productive people will have children, but I know that
we are talking about humans, and this dream of mine can (and should)
only exist as a dream.
In the mean time, and in real human societies, we might as well
do what we can to help parents raise their kids the best they can.
It beats the alternative, don't you think?
Eli
Eli
> In modern, industrialized, electronic culture, most of us who are
> non-relatives are involved with others' children simply by paying for
> them, whether via taxes or school costs, etc. However, we have *no* say
> in anything else that affects "the future society" or us in the present
> society, such as how many kids any parent produces, how they're raised
> in ANY way, how they behave, what they're taught. More a model of
> extortion than Hilary's overrated "village."
True. But you didn't answer my question as to WHAT do you suggest
should be done to achieve what you want? You have only
said that you don't like family-friendly policies that may favor
parents over non-parents, but haven't suggested any solutions (at
least I haven't seen any). Do you truly believe that if we set up
our society to be much less accommodating to parents, people will
have less children and raise them better? What exactly should we
do to make people have less children and raise them to your
standards? I am also in favor of a society where only those who
can raise good, productive people will have children, but I know that
we are talking about humans, and this dream of mine can (and should)
only exist as a dream.
In the mean time, and in real human societies, we might as well
do what we can to help parents raise their kids the best they can.
It beats the alternative, don't you think?
Eli
Shannon and Mike
> Karen Wheless <kwhe...@rockland.net> wrote in
> <1eb7dk6.10jad3w18qrvl8N%kwhe...@rockland.net>
>
> >But why is the "right" of a parent to bring their child to a restaurant
> >any time they want more important than the "right" of a person to enjoy
> >a dinner without babies crying and children running up and down? I've
>
> And if you think it's bad for CFers, remember that it's also bad for other
> parents and children. Imagine being a parent who took the time to hire a
> babysitter for your infant and teach your older kid table manners, or a kid
> who had to learn table manners before dining out, and then your evening out
> is ruined by the noise from another parent and/or kid who did not take
> that time and learn those manners that you did. Likewise for any
> nonparental or nonchild public misbehaviors.
>
Excellent point. Kids who misbehave in public make it much harder to get MY kid
to behave. Last time we went to one of our local Mexican places, which the kids
love, I had to spend half the meal admonishing DS to stay in his chair because this
group of kids was just roaming around. They found the drawer where the kids' menus
and crayons were stored and were just playing with them at a table. Of course he
wanted to join them. He did stay in his chair, and he never fussed or screamed
about it, so he didn't disturb anyone else. But normally when we eat at this
place, the kids will happily munch on chips until the dinner comes, and they enjoy
looking at the colorful decorations, so we can relax. We had to spend all our time
keeping them still, so it wasn't a pleasant meal for us. The roaming kids weren't
at all loud, so they probably didn't bother most non-parents at all.
Of course, this is true at kid-oriented places too. Every time we're at the McD's
playland, one kid is sure to start doing something that's against the rules, like
climbing up the netting that surrounds the play equipment. "I don't care if he's
doing it. I'm your mom and I said YOU can't."
--
Shannon
sha...@home.com
remove "nospam" when replying
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
K.J. Haught
> True. But you didn't answer my question as to WHAT do you suggest
> should be done to achieve what you want? You have only
> said that you don't like family-friendly policies that may favor
> parents over non-parents, but haven't suggested any solutions (at
> least I haven't seen any). Do you truly believe that if we set up
> our society to be much less accommodating to parents, people will
> have less children and raise them better? What exactly should we
> do to make people have less children and raise them to your
> standards? I am also in favor of a society where only those who
> can raise good, productive people will have children, but I know that
> we are talking about humans, and this dream of mine can (and should)
> only exist as a dream.
>
> In the mean time, and in real human societies, we might as well
> do what we can to help parents raise their kids the best they can.
> It beats the alternative, don't you think?
>
> Eli
>
>
One suggestion is "cafeteria type" benefits. EG, don't take away
someone's parental leave, but give an option of extra vacation/personal
time or the equivalent cash.
kjh
Nicole Delessert Shields
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendel.csc.smith.edu
Organization: Smith College, Northampton Mass, USA
Lines: 30
> Omixochitl wrote:
> > Karen Wheless <kwhe...@rockland.net> wrote in
> > >But why is the "right" of a parent to bring their child to a restaurant
> > >any time they want more important than the "right" of a person to enjoy
> > >a dinner without babies crying and children running up and down? I've
What about the "right" of the KID to go out to a restaurant and have a
nice meal? Seems like we are only talking about the rights of older
people, not the rights of younger people. The kids are individual human
beings too, and if they want to go someplace and have a meal, I don't see
why they shouldn't.
Or, the right of the restaurant owner to decide who they do or do not want
in their restaurant.
> > And if you think it's bad for CFers, remember that it's also bad for other
> > parents and children. Imagine being a parent who took the time to hire a
> > babysitter for your infant and teach your older kid table manners, or a kid
> > who had to learn table manners before dining out, and then your evening out
> > is ruined by the noise from another parent and/or kid who did not take
> > that time and learn those manners that you did. Likewise for any
> > nonparental or nonchild public misbehaviors.
I'm not sure why obnoxious kids are any harder to deal with than obnoxious
adults. I say, if anyone is obnoxious, old or young, toss 'em out. If they
aren't being obnoxious, what's the problem?
-Nicole
--
Donna C
I had mine because they bring pure joy into my world. Yes it can be seen as
a selfish thing, because I WANT them. But the truth is I need them. This
world offers little by way of joy and children are naturals at it. If people
took a different view of things - Children are a joy, precious, valuable not
a burden, and all the other strains on humanity you speak of - then children
would feel valuable and act in this world as if they matter. Kids all want
to be good and please, that's why they learn so well, so let's change the
world and honor our kids. They will honor us.
Omixochitl
<395ED575...@home.com>:
>Omixochitl wrote:
>
>> Karen Wheless <kwhe...@rockland.net> wrote in
>> <1eb7dk6.10jad3w18qrvl8N%kwhe...@rockland.net>
>
>>
>> >But why is the "right" of a parent to bring their child to a
>> >restaurant any time they want more important than the "right" of a
>> >person to enjoy a dinner without babies crying and children running
>> >up and down? I've
>>
>> And if you think it's bad for CFers, remember that it's also bad for
>> other parents and children. Imagine being a parent who took the time
>> to hire a babysitter for your infant and teach your older kid table
>> manners, or a kid who had to learn table manners before dining out,
>> and then your evening out is ruined by the noise from another parent
>> and/or kid who did not take that time and learn those manners that you
>> did. Likewise for any nonparental or nonchild public misbehaviors.
>>
>
>Excellent point. Kids who misbehave in public make it much harder to
>get MY kid to behave. Last time we went to one of our local Mexican
>places, which the kids love, I had to spend half the meal admonishing DS
>to stay in his chair because this group of kids was just roaming around.
> They found the drawer where the kids' menus and crayons were stored and
>were just playing with them at a table. Of course he wanted to join
Another great point. I was thinking about well-behaved kids who find other
kids' misbehavior disturbing. Thanks for the reminder that there are also
well-behaved kids who find other kids' misbehavior tempting.
>them. He did stay in his chair, and he never fussed or screamed about
>it, so he didn't disturb anyone else. But normally when we eat at this
>place, the kids will happily munch on chips until the dinner comes, and
>they enjoy looking at the colorful decorations, so we can relax. We had
>to spend all our time keeping them still, so it wasn't a pleasant meal
>for us. The roaming kids weren't at all loud, so they probably didn't
>bother most non-parents at all.
That might depend on which non-parents. Someone eating dinner might not
have even noticed a silent little roamer. Someone serving dinner might
have tripped over a silent little roamer and gotten hurt. And of course,
the same goes for parents eating or serving dinner without small children
(Junior's at home with a babysitter or Junior's 34 years old or whatever).
Omixochitl
Omixochitl
>IleneB wrote:
>
>> In modern, industrialized, electronic culture, most of us who are
>> non-relatives are involved with others' children simply by paying for
>> them, whether via taxes or school costs, etc. However, we have *no* say
>> in anything else that affects "the future society" or us in the present
>> society, such as how many kids any parent produces, how they're raised
>> in ANY way, how they behave, what they're taught. More a model of
>> extortion than Hilary's overrated "village."
>
>True. But you didn't answer my question as to WHAT do you suggest
>should be done to achieve what you want? You have only
>said that you don't like family-friendly policies that may favor
>parents over non-parents, but haven't suggested any solutions (at
>least I haven't seen any). Do you truly believe that if we set up
>our society to be much less accommodating to parents, people will
>have less children and raise them better? What exactly should we
At least they won't have as much incentive to have more kids and raise them
worse.
>do to make people have less children and raise them to your
>standards? I am also in favor of a society where only those who
>can raise good, productive people will have children, but I know that
>we are talking about humans, and this dream of mine can (and should)
>only exist as a dream.
>
>In the mean time, and in real human societies, we might as well
>do what we can to help parents raise their kids the best they can.
>It beats the alternative, don't you think?
It doesn't, because the alternative is helping the kids themselves.
"The kids were born to incapable parents so please help the kids" makes a
great deal of sense, like "the sweatshop employees are underpaid so please
help sweatshop employees" does. But, where and when childbearing is
optional, "the kids were born to incapable parents so please help their
parents" is closer to "the sweatshop employees are underpaid so please help
their employers".
For example, state-funded schooling is cool. It provides a social safety
net for kids raised by parents who can't or don't bother to educate
themselves (by paying tuition themselves and/or homeschooling), teaching
the kids some of the skills and knowledge they'll need for adulthood and
helping prevent them from being doomed to follow in their parents'
footsteps (making the society less like a caste system).
Some things help make state-funded schooling even cooler. Hiring better
teachers, buying up-to-date textbooks, planning buildings to proper
capacity, supervising private schools that get state-funded vouchers,
running good public libraries, etc.. work, because adding and improving
such resources increases the quantity and quality of educational resources
per student. Paying people (by subsidies, tax breaks, etc.) to produce
more kids they can't or don't bother to educate themselves doesn't work,
because adding students decreases the quantity and quality of educational
resources per student.
K.J. Haught
>
> This is a participative, representative democracy with personal freedom,
> Ilene. You have the right to run for school boards, local offices,
> state offices, national offices. You have the right to vote for all of
> these, and vote on other questions like local referendums including
> school district budgets. You have the right to free speech in this
> forum and others, as I'm sure you know. I'm entirely puzzled why you
> would seriously say that you have "*no*" say in anything that affects
> present or future society. On the personal side of your life, you have
> the right to live your life pretty much as you see fit.
>
> *Others*, too, have these rights. Public and personal. The inadequacy
> that you perceive in your scope of control over others' lives is the
> necessary cost of your own public and personal freedoms.
>
> Banty
>
>
The problem is that the minority has to pay for the majority's wishes,
both directly through the tax system, and indirectly, whether they wish
to or not.
kjh
Banty
>
> Judith Huszar wrote:
>
> > I don't believe that's what Karen meant at all...what is so tragic about not having
> > children at fine dining establishments, health clubs, or theatres at all hours?
> > Why should adult oriented places become family friendly? (I don't mean Chuckie
> > Cheez, McD's, Disney shows, G films, etc.)
>
> Aren't there a fair number of adult-only health clubs in most major cities? I happen
> to belong to the Y. I consider the Y to be a family-type place, and I think declaring
> "adult-only" hours there would be silly. If I didn't want kids around, I'd join a
> non-family health club. I used to belong to a women-only health club, and I never saw
> kids anywhere but in the childcare area they provided.
>
> And there's a huge gulf between "fine dining" as I define it, and McD's and Chuck E.
> Cheese. I take my kids to lots of places to eat (we like food :-) ). Some of them
> might qualify as adult-oriented; they certainly aren't all kid-oriented. There are
> places I wouldn't take them. But it wouldn't be much fun for me or for them to be
> limited to kid-oriented places like McD's. I choose places that aren't very formal,
> generally places that have a fairly high noise level anyway, and places where my kids
> will (hopefully) like the food, because if they're happily eating they're quite
> unlikely to cause a disturbance.
>
> > What I would like is common sense. Don't bring a baby or small children into a
> > bar, casino, fancy restaurant (until s/he truly has learned table manners), etc.
> > Get a baby sitter or sit this one out.
> >
>
> Um, doesn't the law already forbid kids in bars and casinos?
>
Another option for parents is to go, but have a backup plan. When
visiting relatives 1000 miles away with my 2 year old, I discovered the
evening plans were for a fancy restaurant. He was usually, but not
always, pretty good at that age. So we went. He was good, all
entranced by the glitter and new surroundings. But the backup plan was
for me and he to retreat to my vehicle in the parking lot, which had
already been set up with toys and other acommodations for the long road
trip, and folks to visit us in shifts and someone would bring the meal
out.
I know some nursing moms with tiny infants (when they pretty much eat
and sleep and not much else) would go to a movie, and take a seat on the
aisle near the entrance. Usually, she'd get to see a matinee with a
sleeping infant in her lap. But, if baby were neither to sleep or be
quieted by nursing, or got smelly, plan B was to quickly slip out the
door and forego the ticket price.
I know not all parents are good about this sort of thing. But I think
the fraction of places which really are disrupted by children is small.
Banty
Samantha Byrne & Kelly Pilgrim
other people's children behaving. I have the attitude that if another human being is
behaving in an antisocial manner, I should (and do) be able to ask them not to do it
(the behaviour). I don't hesitate telling children off for bad behaviour in public
places if their parents are not willing to do the same. As a member of society, those
children are my responsibility also. I've never had a parent come up to me in an angry
state for chastising their child.
Shannon and Mike wrote:
> Omixochitl wrote:
>
> > Karen Wheless <kwhe...@rockland.net> wrote in
> > <1eb7dk6.10jad3w18qrvl8N%kwhe...@rockland.net>
>
> >
> > >But why is the "right" of a parent to bring their child to a restaurant
> > >any time they want more important than the "right" of a person to enjoy
> > >a dinner without babies crying and children running up and down? I've
> >
> > And if you think it's bad for CFers, remember that it's also bad for other
> > parents and children. Imagine being a parent who took the time to hire a
> > babysitter for your infant and teach your older kid table manners, or a kid
> > who had to learn table manners before dining out, and then your evening out
> > is ruined by the noise from another parent and/or kid who did not take
> > that time and learn those manners that you did. Likewise for any
> > nonparental or nonchild public misbehaviors.
> >
>
> Excellent point. Kids who misbehave in public make it much harder to get MY kid
> to behave. Last time we went to one of our local Mexican places, which the kids
> love, I had to spend half the meal admonishing DS to stay in his chair because this
> group of kids was just roaming around. They found the drawer where the kids' menus
> and crayons were stored and were just playing with them at a table. Of course he
> wanted to join them. He did stay in his chair, and he never fussed or screamed
> about it, so he didn't disturb anyone else. But normally when we eat at this
> place, the kids will happily munch on chips until the dinner comes, and they enjoy
> looking at the colorful decorations, so we can relax. We had to spend all our time
> keeping them still, so it wasn't a pleasant meal for us. The roaming kids weren't
> at all loud, so they probably didn't bother most non-parents at all.
>
> Of course, this is true at kid-oriented places too. Every time we're at the McD's
> playland, one kid is sure to start doing something that's against the rules, like
> climbing up the netting that surrounds the play equipment. "I don't care if he's
> doing it. I'm your mom and I said YOU can't."
Laurel
>I know not all parents are good about this sort of thing. But I think
>the fraction of places which really are disrupted by children is small.
That's not been my experience, but then again I guess it depends on what
you consider a disruption. I think that most parents have developed a
higher tolerance for what I would consider disruptive behavior. That's the
only explanation I have for their ability to ignore a child saying "mommy"
15,000 times while going about their business (and, yes, I *do* consider
that disruptive).
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
Laurel
<dear...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Have you people np children?
No, and I have no interest in having them.
>I had mine because they bring pure joy into my world. Yes it can be seen as
>a selfish thing, because I WANT them. But the truth is I need them. This
>world offers little by way of joy and children are naturals at it. If people
>took a different view of things - Children are a joy, precious, valuable not
>a burden, and all the other strains on humanity you speak of - then children
>would feel valuable and act in this world as if they matter. Kids all want
>to be good and please, that's why they learn so well, so let's change the
>world and honor our kids. They will honor us.
While I *wish* this were true, I don't believe that it is and you can't
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. Telling people to "value children" is
not going to change that. Being a parent is a hard job (one of many
reasons that I don't want to do it) and too many people seem to go into it
with the view that children are a joy and it will all be wonderful and
perfect and then can't handle it when it isn't. I think it's more
responsible to work toward making sure people (women especially)
understand what they are really getting into before they decide to be
parents and that they have other options. That means changing how we talk
to girls about life choices, not assuming that every girl will get married
and have babies some day, and being *honest* about the responsibilities
and sacrifices of parenting.
Nancy Rudins
|>
|> The problem is that the minority has to pay for the majority's wishes,
|> both directly through the tax system, and indirectly, whether they wish
|> to or not.
|>
|> kjh
|>
You appear to state (and correct me if I've misread your post) that
everyone who doesn't have children is being cheated from taxes
going to public schools, benefits at the workplace offered to
employees with children, etc.
Should people who have private security guards be exempted from
paying the part of their taxes that support the police force? Or
at the least get rebate vouchers to use to pay the private
security company? If you don't drive, you shouldn't have to
pay taxes for street maintenance; if you don't go out at night,
you shouldn't pay taxes for streetlights; if you drive everywhere--no
matter how short the distance--you should get rebates for the part
of your taxes that pay for sidewalks. If at the end of the year
you have not been murdered, then you have been cheated out of
the part of your taxes that pay the salaries of homicide
detectives. If you prefer to be defended by the Canadian
armed forces, then you should have a choice in where your
military tax dollars are spent.
If this post takes on a note of sarcasm, it was not intentional.
There are many areas where public money (taxes) are paid by a
minority for the benefit of the majority. Where can we cut
public funding and still be fair?
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. (Horace, _Ars Poetica_)
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Banty
>
> In article <395F68E5...@banet.net>, ba...@banet.net wrote:
>
> >I know not all parents are good about this sort of thing. But I think
> >the fraction of places which really are disrupted by children is small.
>
> That's not been my experience, but then again I guess it depends on what
> you consider a disruption. I think that most parents have developed a
> higher tolerance for what I would consider disruptive behavior. That's the
> only explanation I have for their ability to ignore a child saying "mommy"
> 15,000 times while going about their business (and, yes, I *do* consider
> that disruptive).
>
> --
> Laurel
It depends on where that happens, and I note that you have made no such
distinction. "Mommy, mommy" in the park or beach should not disturb
you. (On an AOL board I had a militant childree tell me I should not
have taken my 3 year old son to an airshow lest he cry - I suppose the
crowd couldn't have then heard the F-16.)
"Mommy mommy" at most weddings *is* disruptive. So the question is,
when is it truly disruptive and when is it simply a matter of simply
wanting to exclude children from as many venues of life as possible.
As for "mommy mommy", the parent ignoring "mommy mommy" while going
about her business is indeed teaching the child not to say "mommy mommy"
- she giving the child no reward. Your outside observation of the
situation doesn't inform you about how irritated she might feel at the
moment at the "mommy mommy".
The level of tolerable disruption should also be informed by the
tolerance given *adult* behavior. Surely there is some tolerance for a
loudly-voiced adult, for adults with a certain obliviousness as to where
they should place themselves or their vehicles in public places, for
instance. Frankly, this can be a greater problem.
Banty
Nicole Delessert Shields
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendel.csc.smith.edu
Organization: Smith College, Northampton Mass, USA
On 9 Jul 2000, K.J. Haught wrote:
> The problem is that the minority has to pay for the majority's wishes,
> both directly through the tax system, and indirectly, whether they wish
> to or not.
Or we could make a turnaround back to a dictatorship, and then the
majority could pay for the minority's wishes. That would be a HUGE
improvement.
-Nicole
eli
>
> >Do you truly believe that if we set up
> >our society to be much less accommodating to parents, people will
> >have less children and raise them better? What exactly should we
>
> At least they won't have as much incentive to have more kids and raise them
> worse.
So you believe that if parents have easier lives it gives them incentive to
have more children (and raise them worse), right? There are many myths
that some of us like to believe about parenting and desire to have children.
This one, however, is very clearly untrue, as you can see that some of the
European countries that have some of the most parent friendly policies also
have some of the lowest birth rates, and the opposite is also true for countries
that provide close to nothing in public support for parents.
> It doesn't, because the alternative is helping the kids themselves.
How do you propose we do that (except in extreme cases that
parents are unfit and children have to be removed from their care)?
Put them in orphanages, perhaps?
> "The kids were born to incapable parents so please help the kids" makes a
> great deal of sense, like "the sweatshop employees are underpaid so please
> help sweatshop employees" does. But, where and when childbearing is
> optional, "the kids were born to incapable parents so please help their
> parents" is closer to "the sweatshop employees are underpaid so please help
> their employers".
This thread was about company benefits or social policies that may help
parents balance their financial needs and care of children. No one was talking
about "incapable parents", just normal hard-working ones (with all their
faults, like all other humans), who try their best to raise their children,
and society is well advised to help them anyway it can for the benefit of all of
us.
Whom do you consider "incapable" anyway? A parent who may need a little
tax break to make ends meet? One who needs some extra time off from work
to tend to a sick child, or perhaps the one who needs a good affordable day-care
so they can provide for their children?
Unless you are talking about extreme cases of abusive parents (who shouldn't be
allowed to raise their kids anyway), I find your equating of normal parents
who may need some support to sweatshop employers quite offensive.
Eli
--
Kirk Job Sluder
> "Mommy mommy" at most weddings *is* disruptive. So the question is,
> when is it truly disruptive and when is it simply a matter of simply
> wanting to exclude children from as many venues of life as possible.
I consider it behavior related rather than age related. There are some
social spaces in our culture at which being overheard is usually
considered to be an intrusion on the ability of others to enjoy that
space. For example, I prefer
to enjoy good food, adult movies, theatre, and the opera without
distracting noises. On the other hand, I also strongly support
kid-friendly spaces as well, including children's movies, concerts,
theatre, and opera. In fact, children's natural reaction and
participation at these events is a good thing.
But a part of me wonders what are young kids doing attending cultural
events that are primarily intended to be entertaining to adults? I've
seen young children taken to all kinds of movies that quite honestly I
feel would be at best booring to the kid, and at worst extremely
inappropriate. I don't quite know how young children benefit from being
forced to sit through uncut Shakespeare tragedies or adult horror films
such as Deep Blue Sea.
I don't feel that it is particularly "anti-child" to suggest that
parents choose cultural opportunities that are developmentally
appropriate to their children's interests and attention span.
> Banty
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csl...@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
Beth Gallagher
> That's not been my experience, but then again I guess it
> depends on what you consider a disruption. I think that
> most parents have developed a higher tolerance for what I
> would consider disruptive behavior. That's the only
> explanation I have for their ability to ignore a child
> saying "mommy" 15,000 times while going about their
> business (and, yes, I *do* consider that disruptive).
>
The fact that someone else's behavior/actions is disruptive
to you or annoying to you isn't really relevant to anyone
but you. There's a difference between behavior that any one
of us may find annoying and that which is "wrong". E.g.,
if my neighbor's dog barks for 5 minutes straight at 3 in
the afternoon, during my daughter's nap, it sets me on edge,
wondering if it's going to wake her up. And it annoys me. And
it might be disruptive to a business call. But none of that is
my neighbor's problem, is it? However, if my neighbor's dog
is barking for a long time at 3 a.m., that is both
annoying/disruptive and wrong. Similarly, it can be very
annoying when a driver blocks up all traffic at rush hour
to make a left turn from a one-lane road. But I would not
be one of the assholes that honks about it. Just because
we find someone else's behavior annoying or disruptive is
not enough cause to argue that it's in any way wrong.
Susan
> Another option for parents is to go, but have a backup plan. When
> visiting relatives 1000 miles away with my 2 year old, I discovered the
> evening plans were for a fancy restaurant. He was usually, but not
> always, pretty good at that age. So we went. He was good, all
> entranced by the glitter and new surroundings. But the backup plan was
> for me and he to retreat to my vehicle in the parking lot, which had
> already been set up with toys and other acommodations for the long road
> trip, and folks to visit us in shifts and someone would bring the meal
> out.
>
> I know some nursing moms with tiny infants (when they pretty much eat
> and sleep and not much else) would go to a movie, and take a seat on the
> aisle near the entrance. Usually, she'd get to see a matinee with a
> sleeping infant in her lap. But, if baby were neither to sleep or be
> quieted by nursing, or got smelly, plan B was to quickly slip out the
> door and forego the ticket price.
>
> I know not all parents are good about this sort of thing. But I think
> the fraction of places which really are disrupted by children is small.
>
> Banty
>
All good ideas! What I wonder is about your last point. Does anyone actually know? I have
done a fair bit of dining out in my lifetime, in a wide range of places, and I can honestly
say that I have never had my meal fatally disrupted by the behavior of children (which I
can't say about movies, airplane trips, or the occasional department store). Yet people
have often come up to me specifically to tell me and my husband how well behaved our
children are in restaraunts (and before anyone wonders, we don't take them to really fancy
places that are not appropriate for kids), as though this is a big problem. And this
discussion also indicates the same problem. So is this a widespread experience for people
and I've just been lucky? Inquiring minds want to know!
Susan
K.J. Haught
> You appear to state (and correct me if I've misread your post) that
> everyone who doesn't have children is being cheated from taxes
> going to public schools, benefits at the workplace offered to
> employees with children, etc.
I don't think cheated is the right word (especially in relation to the
workplace where participation is voluntary). I would say that in
reference to taxes that the childfree pay a higher rate of $/gvt service
received and that in the workplace if there are a lot of parental
benefits w/o alternatives offered that a childfree employee that the
childfree employee receives less compensation per productivity unit
(assuming uniform productivity throughout the representative work
force).
>
> Should people who have private security guards be exempted from
> paying the part of their taxes that support the police force? Or
> at the least get rebate vouchers to use to pay the private
> security company? If you don't drive, you shouldn't have to
> pay taxes for street maintenance; if you don't go out at night,
> you shouldn't pay taxes for streetlights; if you drive everywhere--no
> matter how short the distance--you should get rebates for the part
> of your taxes that pay for sidewalks. If at the end of the year
> you have not been murdered, then you have been cheated out of
> the part of your taxes that pay the salaries of homicide
> detectives. If you prefer to be defended by the Canadian
> armed forces, then you should have a choice in where your
> military tax dollars are spent.
>
> If this post takes on a note of sarcasm, it was not intentional.
> There are many areas where public money (taxes) are paid by a
> minority for the benefit of the majority. Where can we cut
> public funding and still be fair?
>
> Kind regards,
> Nancy
>
No sarcasm taken - in reference to your security guard example, since
the security guard does not replace, but supplement police, hiring one
should have no impact on the taxes you pay or the services you receive
(the police force is not meant to monitor all property for every minute
that the owner is away). In reference to the streets and sidewalks, I
believe street and road maintenance should be paid for by vehicle and
gas tax (so if you don't own a car you don't pay except for what you pay
indirectly through bus/taxi/public transportation - if you use it). I
think sidewalks should be paid for by the immediate residents - if you
live in a subdivision, the owners should choose to install sidewalks
then everyone kicks in and pays - not city taxes. In a business area,
the businesses who operate there pay and their customers ultimately pay
in the price of of the goods and services.
The cost of security forces (military and police) is a little tougher
and to be honest I haven't philosophically worked out the kinks. These
are actually the primary reason for forming a society (my opinion - I'm
not an anthropologist) - so if someone doesn't want to pay for the
military or police there should be a way to opt out of society - if
someone doesn't want these primary services why do they want to be in
the society? If someone has more faith in Canadian Armed Forces they
should move to Canada (they _do_ have that right).
Bottom line is that I support paying taxes in proportion to what you use
and getting compensation in proportion to what you produce. And, yes,
there are cases where it's better to pay a flat fee, it's logistically
impossible to calculate exact use (and you would spend more effort
therefore money figuring it out than it's worth). When it comes down to
it, most people believe this, it's just a question of where you draw the
line - I draw it earlier than the average person and since I put a
higher worth on the individual than on a group, I put a higher burden of
proof on gvt/society to show that taxing for X is beneficial to society.
kjh
--
Laurel
<sjo7...@postoffice.uri.edu> wrote:
>Yet people have often come up to me specifically to tell me and my
husband how >well behaved our children are in restaraunts (and before
anyone wonders, we >don't take them to really fancy places that are not
appropriate for kids), as >though this is a big problem. And this
discussion also indicates the same >problem. So is this a widespread
experience for people and I've just been >lucky? Inquiring minds want to
know!
Let me ask you a question--what is your reaction when people compliment
you on how well behaved your children are? I've been tempted to do this on
occasion (because it *is* unusual in my experience and I hate to be the
kind of person who only complains), but I don't want to offend the
parents. I feel a kind of tension between wanting to let them know I think
they're doing a good job and thinking that it's arrogant of me to think
they care about my approval.
--
Laurel
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
--
Laurel
>The fact that someone else's behavior/actions is disruptive
>to you or annoying to you isn't really relevant to anyone
>but you. There's a difference between behavior that any one
>of us may find annoying and that which is "wrong". E.g.,
>if my neighbor's dog barks for 5 minutes straight at 3 in
>the afternoon, during my daughter's nap, it sets me on edge,
>wondering if it's going to wake her up. And it annoys me. And
>it might be disruptive to a business call. But none of that is
>my neighbor's problem, is it? However, if my neighbor's dog
>is barking for a long time at 3 a.m., that is both
>annoying/disruptive and wrong. Similarly, it can be very
>annoying when a driver blocks up all traffic at rush hour
>to make a left turn from a one-lane road. But I would not
>be one of the assholes that honks about it. Just because
>we find someone else's behavior annoying or disruptive is
>not enough cause to argue that it's in any way wrong.
Who was arguing about whether the behavior was wrong? I was talking about
behavior that is disruptive and responding to a comment that children
being disruptive is not all that common. In my opinion it *is* common, and
in many cases it's also wrong. Of course that's just my opinion and
relevant to no one but me, just as yours is relevant to no one but you.