So there’s this post on Feministe about “shorter, cuter, more honest people”. I have a lot of issues with this post. A lot. Starting with the fact that the author wants to make this a childfree vs. parent issue. Then there’s a little jab at American cultural values, and we round it out with this idea that it’s a good thing to have your toddler in a bar all night. So, where to start? Heck, I’ll just cover the spread. First up, let me just speak up as someone who was that kid in the bar in the middle of the night. The child isn’t having fun. No, not even if they get up and start spinning in circles. They’re not spinning in circles, whining, breaking things, or screaming because they enjoy being dragged from pillar to post while you ignore even the most basic concept of respecting their needs. They’re (at best) overstimulated. More likely they’re tired, cranky, scared (especially by the drunk people), and really in need of someone to step in and put their needs first. That person should be their parent. Be considerate of your child. They are indeed a person and as the one responsible for their well being you should treat them as one.
Now, in the interests of full disclosure let me just say that I am a parent. I have been a single mom in the past. I am a married mother of two now. I know all about the sacrifices of parenting. And yes, I think little kids are awesome. They’re sweet funny people that make me want to kiss their cheeks all the time. They’re at their cutest when they are well fed, well rested, and engaging in age appropriate activities. This is not a “Kids should be seen and not heard” post. I think it’s great to take kids on trips abroad, to museums, to the park, to nice restaurants, to festivals, and even concerts that don’t involve a single Disney character. I think that all of those trips should be made when they can be comfortable and enjoy the experience. Kids that are enjoying an experience generally aren’t crying, yelling, or pouting. They’re happy to be there, they may well want to dress in special clothes, and they are at their best when they have time to process what is going on around them and feel safe doing it. Protip: They don’t tend to feel safe when every adult around them is out of control. *hint hint* Drunk people are not in control. They often say things that small people do not need to hear, and frequently do things that small people do not need to see.
Parenting is work. Like any job it can swing the gamut from rewarding to frustrating, but it is a job in which you need to put forth your very best effort. It’s the hard parts of parenting that often matter the most precisely because you’re the ultimate authority in that child’s life. This argument that adult specific places are about isolating women or not treating kids as human might work better if we didn’t go out of our way to make kids comfortable in most situations. Granted, not all. But enough that I can’t buy any claims that they are being oppressed by not being welcome in a bar at 4 am. Children have very different biological and social needs than adults. They need more sleep, and aren’t as capable of processing input in social situations without a competent guide. Yes, that means giving up some experiences once you have a child. Does that mean you can’t still have a social life? No. It’s fine for you to go out. Have a blast. I’ll even buy you a drink. But, only if you get a sitter so your kid can have a good night too. Can’t get a sitter? Might be time for a night in. This isn’t about American values vs. the world. This is about basic child development and loving this sweet funny person enough to do right by them even if it means you miss out on watching the sunrise with an alcoholic beverage in hand. Sometimes sacrificing your fun is the biggest part of being a good parent.
As for the idea that other people can’t say something is bad parenting? Yes, yes we can. You know why? Because kids are vulnerable people. They need someone to step up for them at all times, but especially when their parent is failing to do right by them. This is not about a harmless parenting choice. This is about neglect, possibly abuse, and acting in the best interests of the child. That’s the criteria that counts here. Do I love it when a kid flips out in the grocery store? No. But I get that sometimes such things happen. However, there’s a huge difference between a grocery store where you need to be in order to get food and a bar where you want to hang out and get inebriated. Social services agencies geared toward protecting the welfare of children exist for a reason. That reason isn’t that becoming automatically makes you a good decision maker. If it did? Legions of folks wouldn’t be bearing the internal and external scars of no one putting their needs first.
On Being A Considerate Parent -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman
I was under the impression that in this country parents had the right to determine how to raise their children. You, however, seem to imply that bar owners are a lot better qualified than actual parents to decide what are a particular child’s biological and social needs. Women who decide to have children are patronized enough. Maybe let’s leave them in peace to figure out whether their own children, the children they know a lot better than strangers possibly can are suffering in a particular situation or not?
Once you start deciding for other people how they raise their children and when they put them to bed, you will next want to decide when and if they have children at all. What’s with all the control issues?
Here’s one possibility for why your friend doesn’t want to be around your kid:
You know that friend of yours that I can’t stand to be around? The one I ask if they’ll be with you and I decline your invite if they are? Yeah. I feel that way about your kid. Maybe I’m discriminating against your children, but then I guess I’m also discriminating against your friend. Somehow I don’t feel bad about that.
Why? Because I want to hang with you, I don’t want to hang with you and your child. Is that really that difficult to understand?
I have no problem hanging with you & your child I just don’t want to do it all the time. I really don’t want to get drunk while I’m hanging with your child. I feel that I somehow won’t be at my most responsible while buzzed.
If you and your kid are inseparable, we’ll probably be spending notably less time together. Our interests have diverged. This sometimes happens with friendships.
I have little sympathy for the attitude represented by that post.
Last I checked parents don’t have the right to endanger their kids, neglect them, or otherwise endanger their health. It’s not about control issues, it’s about common sense. Kids are indeed people. That means putting them in bad situations when they are too young to consent is not okay. This idea that parents can do anything they like to their kids and no one else should say a word is why so many kids wind up abused. Making a kid does not grant anyone omnipotence. Parents are human and make mistakes. Difference is they’re not the only suffering the consequences.
(I apologize if this posts twice, I’m having some internet issues)
The OP over there is not considering the complexity of the issue at all. There is no distinction made between a casual restaurant with a bar attached and a late-night singles bar, or a party where many families with children of similar ages are invited and children can entertain each other and a cocktail party where one person or couple has brought their one, bored, tired child. It’s like… she doesn’t want to party, or drink all night, or go to formal restaurants, or R-rated movies, or I don’t know, sex toy stores, she doesn’t want to have any social interactions that don’t involve her child, and so she can’t imagine that anyone else would feel otherwise.
The discussions of race in those comments were so frustrating! Not just because of the privilege and race-fail going on all over them, but because the post itself was so simplistic and privileged that the more interesting and serious discussions of race going on in the comments were barely tangentially related to the post. Even giving the OP the benefit of the doubt and interpreting her post as something I could get behind — as a plea for a more child-inclusive, child-friendly society, in which it’s okay and normal to smile and children or where, for example, a child who can behave themselves will not be disallowed from a restaurant just because some children are loud and obnoxious — then of course race gets into that too, even just whether a child is perceived as quiet or loud or otherwise behaving appropriately. But even this level of thought and complexity was not in that post. If anything, she sounds like a privileged person who can’t imagine that there are parents who aren’t as awesome as she is and don’t have kids who enjoy being at bars and hanging out calmly and quietly with adults like hers does.
@emmennelloppe
She also can’t understand that *other parents*, who have gone through the time and expense of getting a sitter to have an evening without kids, don’t want to be around HER kid any more than their own. That’s why they went to a place that is not supposed to have any kids in it.
Her kid is “a little person” until the parent wants to do something ostensibly adult. Then the kid isn’t its own person at all- it’s an extension of her, and as she wants to go to the bar, well CLEARLY the kid does also.
I think the problem is that some parents do not see their kids as human, they see them as an appendage to them for all they protest and complain that other people don’t see their kids as human beings in their own right.
So when you say that kids shouldn’t be in certain places or that you don’t want to spend time with their kids? They think that means that you’re saying they shouldn’t be allowed in those places and you don’t want to spend time with them.
I think an essential part of treating kids as human is respecting that they are individuals, not an appendage of the parent. They need to be treated age-appropriately, this means not being taken to places that they are not equipped to deal with because such places can be unsafe and inappropriate for them.
The other problem seems to be that some parents seem to translate “these spaces are not safe for children and children should not be taken into them for their own safety” as “children are not welcome anywhere” (and of course by proxy that they the parent are not welcome anywhere).
It’s a shame because there are plenty of good places for children to go to and a happy child who is enjoying themselves usually is enjoyable to be around.
i’m really disappointed with how quickly people assume others are bad parents because they can’t afford a sitter, or because a parent has the temerity to treat their child like a person. my best memories as a child were ones in which my mom let me hang out with the adults instead of making me go do kid things. granted, she and her friends watched what they said around me, but i loved being included. that meant going into bars (ones which served dinner). nothing hurt me more than hearing the phrase “this is adult time. you can’t be with us.”
you know…there seems to be a huge rift between childless feminists, and feminists with children. AND IT’S NOT FUCKING HELPING ANYONE TO ARGUE THIS WAY.
it doesn’t help the woman who’s called selfish for choosing to not have children anymore than it is not helping the woman who gets glared at for bringing her kid with her to public spaces. at some point we need to realize that this pointless cyclical arguing doesn’t accomplish ANYTHING.
You don’t have to afford a sitter in order to have a night out. There are babysitting co-ops with other parents, there is (circumstances permitting) the child’s other parent. And really, it doesn’t hurt a 3 year old to not stay up all night surrounded by drunk people. Trust me I’ve been there and despite the hype I would have much preferred a warm bed and a sense of security.
Ugh, I feel like there’s so much judgment stemming from that quick little anecdote. Let me tell you all a couple of mine.
1) One of my good friends has a 1.5 year old. For the first year or so of the kids life, she would just take the baby with her to places, including bars. The baby didn’t seem to mind the noise, and these were relatively safe, relatively quiet neighborhood pubs. Safe enough and quiet enough that the bartender didn’t balk at a baby sitting with us.
2) When I was little, my parents didn’t take me to bars, but they’d frequently stay out late with me. It didn’t matter for me too much because I was a very sound sleeper, would crash pretty much anywhere when I was tired, and would stay asleep until morning. Sure, sleeping in my bed was preferable, but it wasn’t too much of a hardship to fall asleep somewhere else, and I frequently did.
My point: We don’t know what the blogger’s situation is. We don’t know what ANY parent’s situation is. Mai’a never asked people to stop doing bar things in bars. She was just making the point that, when you exclude children, you exclude mothers. She was saying that giving a child and parent the hairy eyeball doesn’t help anyone. You don’t have to help a parent struggling to reign in an unruly child, but it’s a nice thing if you do.
I don’t know, those points just don’t seem so unreasonable to me.
not everyone has access to co-op babysitting, and sometimes there isn’t another parent in the picture. even so, we’re still not respecting the choices of other parents.
and for reference: i spent a lot of time “surrounded by drunk people” in my dad’s own home. that’s what happens when your parent is an alcoholic. but just because one of my parents was clueless, and perhaps yours was too, it’s no reason to condemn other parents for what they might be doing, and it’s no reason to assume that parents don’t have a right to autonomy.
i’m not going to get into the inevitable next step in this conversation, which is the issue of child abuse (it tends to follow in a particular order) but since that’s not what this is about, i’ll keep it brief: unless that parent is harming that child (either physically or verbally) it’s not my place to judge. just because i personally would not bring my child in a specific place does not mean i have a right to tell other parents what i think they should be doing.
@FilthyGrandeur
I mean, it sucks that it hurt your feelings when you couldn’t hang out with your mom and her friends. But the thing is, is, as an adult, it would hurt my feelings to have to constantly sublimate my needs to interact with other adult as an adult to the fact that one of my friends has a kid that likes to hang out with adults. And while it sucks that it happend in such a way where you sometimes felt bad, I think it is perfectly reasonable to teach kids that sometimes adults want time with adults, just like sometimes kids want time with other kids.
The simple fact is, kids are not adults. We can’t treat them like adults, and having kids around endows every nearby adult with some level of responsibility for that child and the kind of environment they are in. (Assuming the adults they are around are responsible adults who care about kid) It that means these adults have to constantly behave in a G rated fashion for this kid that one parent decided to bring along.
It’s not that there is something wrong with the kids, kids are fine. There is something wrong with expecting adults around you to make every space a child friendly because you can’t bear to be away from your precious angel.
Also what Jake Squid said.
Keeping a child out all night in an unsafe environment is harmful to them. Abuse and neglect start well before the point that makes the news. We don’t have to wait for things to go really wrong before we step up. Everyone keeps talking about the rights of mothers, well what about the rights of the child? When the 3 year old takes a shot of Jack (or three) and ends up in the hospital I’m sure someone will swear up and down it was an accident. We legislate children’s safety all the time, so start thinking of this as a car seat issue if it makes you feel better, but make no mistake you’re not doing that little girl any good by being complicit in her mother’s bad decisions for her.
Oh, and as for access to baby sitting co-ops? It is spectacularly easy in this digital age to start one if none exists in your area. Craigslist and Freecycle are always open.
you’re assuming that everyone also has access to internet. which not everyone does.
and no, kids aren’t adults, and given their development they shouldn’t be treated exactly as adults, obviously. but kids are adults in training, and people gripe about how kids can’t behave in public spaces etc, but banning them from public spaces doesn’t help their socialization. my time spent watching adults interact was invaluable.
Oh, that’s right. I was wondering why I’d quit reading Feministe. A post by a clueless avowed non-feminist whining that her friends didn’t want to go to the bar with her three-year-old? Great content! Would read again A++++!!
And on cue, the thread here has started to degenerate into a spat between people who sneer about ‘precious little angels’, and people who think anyone who says ‘I was kind of just hoping to see you’ are child-haters.
I think it’s possible to have a discussion about the extent to which public spaces are, or should be, welcoming of both adults and children vs. adult-only. The dumbass post over on Feministe is not that discussion.
I feel like people are acting like this is a black and white issue. Either kids are allowed everywhere all the time, or they are only allowed at the park and home and school and should be seen and not heard.
I’m not saying that parents shouldn’t hang out with their kids or take them to restaurants sometimes. And I’m not saying that the child free should expect to always avoid any interaction with children.
All I’m saying is that sometimes it is nice to not have kids around, and that parents should be respectful of the desires of the non childed and the parents who HAVE left their kids home and sometimes not have their kids around.
Kids should still be around adults, and adults should still be around kids. But there needs to be a balance for everyone’s sake.
I think the Feministe post is a bit naive but it tries (again… what is with this lately) to express that you don’t have a right to child-free spaces. That’s all. And you don’t, just as you don’t have a right to old-people free spaces, or people free spaces, or straight-people free spaces, or anything else. Excepting your own home, where you can do as you like I suppose.
That said, the point was made here that not all of your friends will get along. I very specifically avoid having certain subsets of my friends hang out because they would not get along. If you cannot, due to single motherhood, be separated from your child, you are going to have to face facts that your child and certain people will not get along. There are just people I would not hang out with anymore if I had a kid, and people I would not hang out with if they had a kid I didn’t like.
And some people don’t like any kids, and when you discover their bigotry, you can dump them.
Shinobi, you are acting like this is a black and white issue. “There is something wrong with expecting adults around you to make every space a child friendly because you can’t bear to be away from your precious angel” is both inflammatory and characterizing people who disagree with you in absolutist terms – you know, making it a black-and-white issue.
The Feministe poster was not presenting an interesting discussion about to what extent public spaces should include children, and how different cultures approach that issue. She was griping because her friends didn’t want her to take her three-year-old bar hopping despite the fact that her three-year-old is the coolest human being on the planet.
The OP of the post in question clearly does have access to the web. And handwritten fliers on the boards at the local libraries/schools/coffeehouses aren’t verboten either. No one is saying kids should be banned from all public spaces. Just that there are some that are age appropriate and some that are not. Kids will learn to socialize just fine without ever once setting foot into a bar before they are of an age to drink. That’s why they have places like restaurants, parks, theaters, museums, libraries, and private homes. This idea that the only way a child can be included in an adult’s life is to take them into adult only spaces is ludicrous. And yes, kids are nota protected class guaranteed entry into every locale. they don’t have a right to be in bars, strip clubs, sex shops, or any place where they could be in danger. It’s not age discrimination to keep them out of places where they have no business. That’s just plain old common sense.
I have 2 kids aged 1 and 3, and I haven taken them to fancypants restaurants at times… at 5 or 5:30, when they are not too hungry or tired and we are unlikely to disrupt others’ nice dinners with a tantrum or just loud talking. Teaching your children how to behave in public often involves correcting inappropriate behavior, which is pretty annoying to other people in the public space when they are getting the hang of it.
There is nothing that annoys me more than out of control children in a public space who aren’t being attended to, children having tantrums who aren’t removed (when not on public transit–on the train/bus/plane, I just mentally wish the parents luck) to regain control, children who are allowed to roam around freely and/or play with my stuff, and children who are behaving inappropriately for the environment (even if the behavior is developmentally appropriate) and not corrected. I get annoyed at the parents, not the child. I get few breaks as it is between work and childcare, and I really, really hate it when my precious alone time at a cafe or bar or the adult section of the library is disrupted by a screamer or a tantrum or a runner or a loud ignored kid.
If you can exert a reasonable amount of control over your kids at 4 am in a bar, will be attentive to their needs in the company of your friends, and are prepared to leave if they becomes disruptive, then go ahead and bring them along. I’d say 99% of the parents I see out with kids late at night fail at one or more of those criteria. It is really easy to lie to yourself about how disruptive your kids are to others in an enclosed space.
Right now, we only go out to eat if we can sit outside and reasonably far away from others. LittleJane#2 is in a screaming phase, and we can’t predict when he will be loud and annoying. Rather than subject others to endless rounds of “Shhhhhhhhh. Use your indoor voice!”, we order in, get a sitter, or go out to lunch when the kids are in daycare.
@FilthyGrandeur
I am really glad you had so much fun with adults. I hope my kids do too. But sometimes, I need a break from my kids and/or my friends DON’T want to watch what they say. While I want my kids to learn how to behave with adults and in public, I also want them to know that neither the world nor the family revolve around them, and that sometimes adults want to be with other adults to do or discuss adult things.
Karnythia, I really enjoyed this informed and measured post.
As a woman with children, my view has always been that, if you want to spend time with friends having dinner and drinks, you take them to a restaurant for the early sitting, providing you can guarantee that they won’t kick off when they can’t get their own way.
Or, better still, because you can’t get a sitter, you have those friends over to your place. The kids get to stay up for a while and then they retire to bed when they’ve had enough.
Occasionally, for a family wedding or some such event, your child will be given the opportunity to stay up really late surrounded by semi-pissed relatives. It’s a rite of passage but it’s not something that should be happening on a regular basis.
As an adult, I do have the right to expect child-free places when I’m paying to have a romantic dinner away from my own kids. It’s not about discrimination, it’s about the privilege of being a grown up. A lot of the parents of my generation complain that they spent their childhood doing what their parents wanted and their adulthood doing what their kids wanted.
I can remember many a morning where I spent what seemed like forever locked in the car with a pineapple juice and a packet of crisps whilst my parents were in the pub drinking a beer and a coffee. As a grown up, I can recall many a morning spent nursing a coffee whilst my offspring jumped around having fun on the playstuff.
There seems to be so little time left for quality together time as adult parents so if we decide to go out for a romantic dinner, the last thing we want is to have to worry about someone else’s kids who have been left to wander around the restaurant whilst their parents finish their meal in peace. And it’s easy to say that you should just ignore them but the maternal switch just doesn’t work in that way if you see a small child unsupervised.
I’m not saying that the writer of the original piece would have left her child unsupervised but, if it becomes accepted practice, it is open to abuse and you could be left with an inebriated parent who forgets about the child that is wandering around under tables investigating the contents of other people’s handbags or just swigging out of half-empty glasses.
Too many of today’s parents want to be ‘friends’ with their kids and think that involves avoiding the responsibilities and structures that come with having a child, especially if it becomes inconvenient or a bit hard.
Perhaps it’s just down to the writer’s perception of a ‘safe place’. If she has only had positive experiences in drinking establishments, that might explain her attitude. It would be interesting to know how many single fathers would think it acceptable to take their kids out to a bar until all hours…
I disagree with the OP when she said her job was mother wasn’t to police her child’s actions. That is totally part of her job if she takes her kids out. Who else is going to teach them that behavior which is okay at the park isn’t okay at a restaurant? It’s great that you model good manners but if they don’t follow that model what are you expectations? Not teaching children behavioral norms leaves them at a disadvantage. We’re social creatures and the rules are in many cases arbitrary and ill defined. Knowing what the rules are in a given situation is a valuable piece of social capital. The flip side is that if I get a Big Mac for lunch and go eat it in the play area at McDonalds I’m not supposed to be a big jerk about kids running around and being loud.
My thinking is this falls under the broad category of “social contract”.
We have one when it comes to kids. I modify my behavior in family friendly places or where kids are around and you don’t bring your kids to ‘adult’ spaces.
Kids are their own separate category, they aren’t “little people”. They are not as accountable for their actions and allowances are made if they behave rudely. A place that is geared towards children is expected to be safe for children. A place that is safe for adults is not necessarily safe for kids.
If kids are around I’m expected not to use course language. I’m supposed to respect your rights as a parent to explain sex and death and right and wrong to the child. Because you know what your kid is ready for and I don’t. I’m expected not to display rage, or sexual passion. Many would argue that getting screaming mad or eating face in public are never acceptable. But in the US the standard (in my experience) is higher if kids are present.
Like most things there is a continuum and with very few exceptions the parents get to be the final arbitrator for if a child is allowed in a specific public space.
Whoa, not liking kids is bigotry now?
I’d like to point out that while there may be a rift between feminists with and without children, it’s not actually occurring in a tidy split over this post. Karnythia and mythago are both mothers who disagree with the original post.
I’d like to point to what Joe said here:
“If kids are around I’m expected not to use course language. I’m supposed to respect your rights as a parent to explain sex and death and right and wrong to the child. ”
See, this is one of the cruxes of the issue to me. I rarely see the fabled screaming, out of control children who lob missiles of stain-producing fluids onto unsuspecting bystanders. If this is indeed a major problem, and not a result of selective attention, then Ive been running quite a lucky streak (which I wouldn’t mind continuing).
I frequently, however, hear people complain about the potential for exposing their kids to ideas.
If making places child friendly means being friendly to kids who show up in them, I’m willing to do that. If making spaces child friendly means not saying “fuck” in a bar where there’s a toddler, I’m frankly not.
I actually really like the idea of integrating children fully into adult’s lives, but part of the deal with that is that parents have to agree that bringing the kid into adult spaces means the kid is going to be exposed to words and ideas that are floated in adult spaces. I don’t happen to think kids are ideological porcelain that will shatter if exposed to curse words, gay people kissing, or whatever. I think this could happen and kids would generally police themselves by getting bored or leaving, especially if their parents were willing to leave if they found the circumstances unpleasant.
But if all spaces are going to be child friendly, then what ‘child friendly’ means is going to have to change. If it means ‘G-rated’ and ‘a location where parents decide what is appropriate for all other adults to be doing’ then that would be a nightmare; parents disagree vastly on what’s appropriate, and there’s no way a consensus could be reached that wouldn’t suck for almost everyone, but particularly anyone out of the mainstream.
I really like what Mandolin says at 24.
Oh, and as an aside, the feministe poster conveniently forgets that in many “porous” cultures, what kids in adult spaces learn is that they need to sit down, shut up and not bother the adults in any way. I don’t think somebody who believes it is not her job to ‘police’ her three-year-old would be terribly happy with that.
@Jane Doh–
there were certainly time when my mother needed a break from us, but i feel that the times that my mother included us kids really cemented our relationships. my mothers friends would often catch themselves when they swore, and my mother always told them not to worry about it since we heard it a lot from her anyway. i’ve always been close to my mother, and it’s even better now that i’m an adult.
Everyone keeps talking about the rights of mothers, well what about the rights of the child? When the 3 year old takes a shot of Jack (or three) and ends up in the hospital I’m sure someone will swear up and down it was an accident.
i’m sorry–what? is this a common thing i haven’t heard about? why are all these examples treated like it’s a prevalent thing, and not a rarity? and while i’m at it, why does an anecdote about this one bad kid one time stand as proof that children are OMG EVIL DEMONS that need to constantly be punished by their parents. like no child ever anywhere behaves.
but maybe i was just drunk on Jack as a kid, so what the hell do i know?
Pick up a newspaper. Better yet, volunteer with CASA and then talk to me about isolated incidents.
Regarding whether children are an oppressed class / are victims of bigotry / etc., I really liked this short article that I found via FWD Forward (trigger warning for mentions of child soldiers and malnourishment, and mentions of some problematic ‘feminist’ ableist rhetoric – ie, the post itself is not ableist, but it involves discussion of ableim). I haven’t read all the comments it, but the ones I did were quite good I thought (trigger warning for mention of domestic abuse and its former acceptability, and for discussion of corporal punishment). Anyway, here is is: http://genderacrossborders.com/2010/02/25/children-oppressed-class/
What? Where did you find that one? It certainly wasn’t here, but okay. If you want to try to make your opponents look like they hate children and their parents by lying it isn’t going to help your credibility.
There’s also an alternative to paid sitters and co-ops: ask your friends. Not all of the people in your social circle are going to like the same things; maybe someone who doesn’t want to go bar-hopping would be delighted to watch the kid for the night.
I don’t have children and don’t want them, but I often volunteered to watch the children of friends of mine, because my idea of a fun evening is playing computer games and hanging out on AIM. My friends would put the kids to bed around the time I came over, and I’d sit downstairs with the baby monitors and my laptop and borrow their internet connection. Everybody wins.
Mandolin:
See, this is a large part of my issue. I don’t have problem one with kids. I love kids and I don’t mind them up in my space being kids. I’m not bothered by crying babies on the airplane or whatever. My worry is the parents.
As a trans woman, I am considered by much of society to be inherently inappropriate for children. I am inherently sexual, “adult,” corrupting, and dangerous. My presence around kids is considered suspicious. I am one of those things we’re supposed to respect a parents’ right to decide whether or not their children are exposed to, one of those things parents panic about explaining to children.
Read any news story about a teacher transitioning, or any right-wing scare piece about what creatures like me will do it allowed into women’s bathrooms. So while I don’t have a problem with kids, I get very tense when there are strangers’ kids around–not because the kids might be a problem, but because their parents might decide that once their kids are present, the space cannot be safe until I leave. Parents I know and love and have an understanding with are one thing. It’s not a universal. But I have no idea, when I walk into a space with kids in it, whether it will be a: fine or b: some terrified bigot flipping out about how my presence harms their kids or worse.
For me, the conversation about kids in “adult” spaces isn’t just about whether or not I get to feel comfortable drinking or cussing or getting rowdy or talking about sex, though I value having space where I get to do those things without worrying that someone will get upset because of their cultural values around innocence. I don’t have to do anything to be considered “adult” and kid-inappropriate. I just have to be there.
Again–it’s not about kids being the problem for me. It’s about adults who think that when kids are in a public space, I shouldn’t be, and when consequences come, they come for me, not them. And that’s a nuance I’d like to see in the conversation–how do we create spaces that are not only safe for kids and parents, but also for people who are often forbidden being around the next generation for stupid, bigoted reasons.
I’m sorry (though not surprised) to hear that you have to deal with this. I’m glad that I live somewhere that it’s not considered odd at all for transpeople to be around children. In my experience kids tend to accept calm adult explanations of “weird” things – Mommy and Daddy are married, but sometimes two Daddies or two Mommies get married too; sometimes a person who is really a boy inside is born as a girl, or the other way around – and they get over their initial WTFery (if any) very quickly.
Mythago:
This is my experience with kids, too: they’re super chill unless they’re taught not to be. It’s the adults I have to worry about. I really, really value being in community with parents who are decent about this stuff and with their kids, but until I know a parent and know what their beliefs are about me, I just don’t feel safe around kids–not, again, because of the kids, but because of the assumptions of nearby adults. I remember being at a get-together once with a bunch of children underfoot, barbecueing, and it was such a beautiful, liberating experience for me to know that I was welcome and didn’t have to worry because the mamis present were all loved ones. I hadn’t had that…pretty much ever, and it was really nice to just flip burgers and play Auntie.
Little light:
Another commiseration, without surprise.
I used to run a podcast and one of the things we were asked to do was rate each episode of the podcast G to X. We got repeated requests to rate homosexual content differently than heterosexual content–for instance, someone really wanted us to rate an episode with two men hugging (and vague implication they were gay) R. I refused, saying that we needed to either rate every hug R, or rate all hugs lower.
It was clear, though, that this was just the tip of the iceberg. I know we would have been asked to put higher ratings on content including trans characters if I hadn’t made it clear early on that I wouldn’t listen to the arguments. We may have lost listeners over it; I don’t know. But I had to have the argument, over and over, that I couldn’t just rate things for people so that they knew whether or not they could let their kids listen to it, because parents have vastly different standards about that. (And a lot of those standards suck, as you say, because they’re based in bigotry.)
I’m sorry that debate gets had over your body. :(
First, thank you for helping to clairify what I was struggling to say.
Second, the failure mode you describe would be sort of worst case. I’ve seen many much more mild versions. Usually when i take my kids out to dinner. They jump around in the booth constantly and frequently interupt other people’s tables. I spend a lot of time and energy trying to explain to them what they are and are not supposed to do. I don’t take them to “la fancy” and people are usually cool about it. But having been on the other side I know that it can be annoying. To one extent or another.
I spent a lot of my childhood in bars. Not because my parents were irresponsible, but because 1) they owned a bar for a while and 2) there was another bar owned by friends that was the closest thing to our house, including other houses (I grew up in the country). I stayed there a lot (sometimes with my parents and sometimes in lieu of babysitting), and it was where I went for help if my parents weren’t at home. The bartender there, Edith, taught me my first word, which was “nein” (German for “no”; Edith spoke Texas German). They started stocking Capri Sun pouches because I loved them so much. I also learned how to kick ass at pool once I got tall enough, and everyone watched out for me and I was never put in an unsafe situation, and if I got tired or upset, I could sleep in the back or one of the people who worked there would drive me to my Granny’s house until my parents could pick me up. So I don’t think that bars are automatically and always inappropriate for kids.
And I do think that there is a tendency for mothers and young children to become socially marginalized (in a way that most fathers are not), so that the issue of child free space and who is welcome in public space is an important aspect of feminism and social justice for children. Especially in the way this is magnified by class issues, so that poorer families have access to fewer resources for childcare, and much of the time they do spend away from children must be spent working, not socializing, so they can become even more isolated. And of course there are all kinds of other issues determining who is welcome where (race springs immediately to mind, as does queer parenting).
That being said, there are definitely places I wouldn’t be comfortable taking a child. And there are many places that, if I did bring a kid, I would be on the lookout to make sure they stayed safe and emotionally okay, and if they wanted to leave/looked like they were not okay/were being put into inappropriate situations with inappropriate people, I would, well, leave. That’s just basic human decency, and it’s even more important when you’re responsible for the well-being of a child.
I also totally think that other people involved have a right to decide whether or not they want to participate in that kind of situation; the OP’s reaction to her friend asking whether or not her kid would be with her is pretty absurd. If I were hanging out with a bunch of drunks or people hooking up or whatever (or if I were the drunk who was hooking up), I would not be comfortable doing so around a child, and that’s my decision, even if the parent and even the kid (which I highly doubt) is comfortable with it. I can’t stop someone from bringing their kid to a club, but that doesn’t mean I’m suddenly absolved of responsibility or the power to make my own decisions about whom I socialize with.
Also, the OP at Feministe’s attempts to frame this as an American idiosyncrasy is kind of oogy.
Thank you, Karnythia. (And little light, seconded the apology on behalf of my — and your — entire species that you get treated like a foul object just for existing around kids.)
Here’s the thing. Let’s say I go along with the idea that children are an oppressed class like POC, PWD, LGBTQIA, etc., and that children should be allowed everywhere adults are — no exceptions ever, no questions asked.
Okay, then. Isn’t one of the basic tenets of civil rights that people should not be forced to go where they don’t want to go, stay where they don’t want to stay, and have to have their safety put at great risk?
Following that out to its most logical conclusion, then, shouldn’t it be up to the child to decide whether xe wants to be there, is ready to be there, feels safe being there? I’m not talking about emergency situations where a parent absolutely must take a child along because there’s no alternative, and I’m also not suggesting that children never be moved out of their comfort zones (they certainly should, gradually).
But does your child really want to be at the midnight screening of Texas Chainsaw Massacre MCMXLII? Does xe want to be at an adult party where xe can be burned by lighted cigarettes? Does xe want to be at some BDSM club where people are getting whipped and screaming while spanking it to hentai? Does xe want to sit there and doodle on xyr napkin for an hour while you and your friends linger over coffee? Does xe want to be up with you all night in a bar while you get your drink on, and have to watch fistfights break out?
Who knows, maybe for some kids, in some of those situations, the answer is, “Oh, absolutely, xe LOVES it,” or, “Xe doesn’t mind at all.” But chances are, if xe is screaming xyr head off for five minutes straight and is not physically injured, xe does not love it, and neither do the people who have to listen to xyr. My discomfort in such situations is commeasurate with their discomfort. And there are situations where they just shouldn’t be because it’s unsafe.
When I am the one issuing the invitation, I most certainly do. Just as I have the right to invite a friend out just the two of us and not include hir partner(s) or roommates or even hir dog. The way I was raised, one did not automatically bring another person along when one received an invite – one inquired “my cousin is staying with us this week; may I bring her to the party as well?” or one expressed one’s sincere regrets. (I had a Midwestern middle-class upbringing. There were etiquette books involved. Probably also Goofus and Gallant cartoons.) If I call you up and say “come down to the bar!” and you show up with three people in tow, I’m going to be a bit taken aback if you didn’t bring it up while we were on the phone. I’m going to be really taken aback if those three people are your minor children.
The OP sets up a false dichotomy: include kids, or exclude mothers. The fact that she proclaims her not-feminist identity makes it less surprising that she misses the alternative: expect more from fathers. Stop labeling men as “helping” with their own children when they take on some piece of child care, and pathologizing men who become primary caregivers. And, where individual fathers fail to be available to their children, change the culture so there are more supports for single mothers, rather than saying to their friends “well you just have to expect that her child is attached to her at the hip and if you don’t like that you are a BAD WOMAN.”
The OP also absolves herself of responsibility multiple times in the course of her post. She explicitly says it isn’t her responsibility to “control” her child (really? All the research on parenting suggests that clear, age-appropriate boundaries and expectations with a nurturing yet structured hierarchy of parents/children succeeds far better than either rigid authoritarianism or free-form, permissive parenting.) The OP makes it her friend’s problem to decide whether the friend wants to include the child in the outing (and endure the OP’s withering contempt if she decides “no”) rather than making it her own problem to decide whether she’s available to accept the invitation on the terms offered, or willing to negotiate other terms (“I probably shouldn’t, but would you and your friends like to come over to my place? I have a bottle of wine we could share after the kiddo goes down for bed, which should be in about an hour. No? Then let’s make a plan for next week because I’d love to see you.”) And the OP absolves herself of the responsibility for trying to see things from her friend’s perspective, while demanding the friend see things from hers (the perspective in which her child is pretty much the greatest kid ever.)
In a previous city where I lived, there was a single father in our circle of friends whose daughter was, basically, the greatest kid ever. Hyper-intelligent, extremely sociable, able to amuse herself when needed, or play with other kids, or carry on a fairly diverting interaction with adults from a pretty small age. Cute as the dickens, too. Her dad brought her around to a number of mostly-adult gatherings like dinner parties and the like, though he *always* asked if she’d be welcome, instead of just assuming.
But he always made her behavior, and her well-being, his #1 priority. Occasionally he’d show up without her and report “she was having a pretty difficult day today, and I told her if she couldn’t pull herself together, I’d get a sitter for tonight.” Sometimes he’d phone in his regrets if she was too out of sorts for a sitter. Sometimes he’d come for the first hour of an event and let us all know that it was likely he’d need to leave after a short while because “she’s in a pretty self-centered mood these days” or “it was a rough transition from her mom’s last night.” If a melt-down occurred, he started packing up the toy bag.
He set clear expectations for her, and had no problem telling her “you can sit at the table with the adults, but you have to stay in your chair. Otherwise, I’ll take your dinner into the den” or giving her a short time-out to compose herself if she acted inappropriately. If the conversation turned to topics that weren’t suitable for children, he’d excuse them both and set her up with activities in another room. Kiddo came with us all sorts of oddball places, including a discussion panel on “goth culture” one of our friends organized every semester for his college class (she was a hit), and to the annual goth music and art festival we held at local clubs and bars… but only for short visits during the daytime portion of the events.
Because he made such thoughtful decisions about how to include her, and was excellent about follow-through with consequences rather than making empty threats or abdicating responsibility for her, she was a terrific part of many of our gatherings, and was well-beloved by most people who knew her, even the childfree types. If I ever do become a mother, I’ll be trying to model myself on him.
That OP, though, needs a serious attitude adjustment or she won’t have any friends.
Elusis, I’ve been waiting for someone to make a comment like your. My parents took us to “adult” spaces (e.g., nice restaurants, concerts, etc., not bars) all the time. If we weren’t up for it, we left or didn’t go. I’m sure it sucked for my parents sometimes, but mostly it worked out really well.
I’m all for pretty much all places being open to children (exceptions for bars, sex clubs, and places where it’s physically unsafe for a child), assuming the parents leave when it becomes clear that being there is no longer in the best interest of the child and/or the other patrons.
Nobody has suggested such a thing, not even the doofus OP.
Elusis @39, “include fathers” is important, but the kernel of truth in the OP’s rant is that right now, we live in a culture where women have the primary responsibility for childrearing. Of course this doesn’t mean that every space ought to welcome children of all ages. It does mean that the two are linked, though.
I had a swarm of nieces and nephews at my wedding, and there was lots of drinking and dancing into the wee hours of the night. The kids fell asleep on a pile of coats in the corner. By all accounts, a wonderful time was had by all, but I’m the groom so that may have been simple politeness.
Singles exchanged phone numbers, bizarre modern-retro-disco music was played, and the cake was actually tasty instead of pretty. I’m quite proud of the event, personally.
And for the record, if you’ve 2 kids and one is a baby, “the other parent” is going to be pretty damned close to overwhelmed dealing with both at the same time at the end of a long day. I know the only way I’m going to get out of the house without it killing my wife is to take Kid 1 with me.
As far as I’m concerned, the only places inappropriate for children are shows (where silence is expected of the viewers) sex-themed locations (like porn/toy stores) singles dance-clubs.
I first heard about the linked OP on Womanist Musings. THANK YOU FOR THIS POST!
Quoted for emphasis.
Pingback: Erasing Children in the Public Sphere « Kittywampus
THANK YOU for this. I got sick of reading that post and watching people on that thread claim that this was the “radical woman of color” way of looking at things and that feminism was teh ev0l for not sharing this perspective. I’m a woman of color who does not define myself around maternity and then expect this to imbue me with saintliness that obligates others to put up with my child’s bad behavior.
I don’t think there’s anything radical, or common to women of color, about being inconsiderate parents (or about defining oneself by maternity, for that matter). I think inconsiderate behavior is inconsiderate behavior, and defining yourself around maternity is a silly idea, no matter how oppressed or radical you are. I think even if you have problems with the racism of some feminists, bashing “feminism” means bashing feminists of color and their allies. It’s a foolish and unfair thing to do no matter how oppressed or “radical” you are.
I completely agree that the having adult only spaces excludes women more than men. Abbout the only redeaming feature is that the same conventions that exclude women with kids from adult only spaces dictate that I accept their authority to censor my behavoir around there children. Better solution would be a better balance between fathering and mothering.
joe, I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about. Being expected not to wander around the Happy Kinder Playground on your cell loudly having phone sex with your girlfriend has nothing to do with the fact that keeping kids out of a public space also, to a degree, keeps out women.
I’ve not much to add except QFT. I distance myself from kids because I’m afraid of their parents.
Also, there’s a subtle transphobic misogyny to the @OP’s writing, where she seems to put so much stock in motherhood (or at least being *capable* of bearing a child) as a defining feature of being a woman. It’s language that allows her to totally exclude trans women from womanhood, without her having to put her transphobia out in the open where it can be immediately confronted.
I mean, for the record, in my dealings with Mai’a I have always found her to be trans-positive and supportive of trans women. While I don’t always agree with everything she says or does–I do, I will say, agree with the greater portion of what she says, most of the time–I have never found complaint with her conduct and consideration toward me as a trans woman. We have worked together before and while we have both agreed and disagreed at times, she never devalued or questioned my womanhood.
While Mai’a may have missed some angles on this issue due to cis privilege–and I have no doubt that that’s the case–I don’t think her ultimate thesis is that women who can’t bear children aren’t women. I read her as more saying, take it or leave it, that adults who aren’t involved in the lives and nurturing of children–their own or someone else’s–aren’t participating fully in a healthy society or revolutionary movement.
I guess my point is–to everyone, generally–I agree with some of Mai’a’s post, and take issue with other parts, and the ensuing conversation in comments, for a constellation of reasons, is a total mess and I don’t want to go anywhere near it. I also think that way too much of the criticism of her and her piece has devolved into cheap mockery, name-calling, and shaming that, yes, has taken racialized and classist forms. I have my criticisms, but I don’t feel the need to denigrate Mai’a in order to take issue with some of her ideas or words, or tell her how best to parent her own child.
Well then, maybe I need to step back and reconsider that my discomfort with some of her writing (and I do mean *some*) is for me to look into myself about.
The comment thread is ridiculous. Commenters saying that they can’t take Mai’a seriously because she doesn’t capitalize letters: I’ve seen that before. I’ve seen Black Amazon attacked in the same manner. Almost every time a writer is attacked for their spelling and grammar, I sense that the commenter is using that as a coded racist (and sometimes classist / ableist*) jab. My perception is that most of these “critiques” over grammar are directed at people of color.
* I’ve been told that BA has dyslexia.
Seconding little light–Mai’a has stated specifically that she wants the word mama to encompass people who can’t bear children, including trans women, men, women who choose not to bear children, and good ol’ infertile women like yours truly.
I think that could have been clearer up front, and I personally felt the fact that it was somewhat buried signified a mindset (maybe a privilege) that wasn’t taking some women’s and some men’s and some third gendered people’s experiences into account. But maybe she just felt like everyone who was reading already knew what she meant; she’s specified in the thread that she hadn’t realized how many people wouldn’t know the foundations of the argument she was advancing.
(On the very lightest level, I had no idea that anyone found the word “mama” offensive, infantalizing, or in need of reclamation.)
.
Mythago, I didn’t have a clear idea of what I was trying to say. So it’s not surprising it wasn’t clear to you either. ;)
Upon further thought I think it would boil down to
“Mothers are empowered to be respected as mothers by the same set of conventions keeps kids out of adult only spaces.” This seems like a pretty obvious idea. Society supports you when you behave the way society expects you to behave.
Pingback: Mommy wars and children’s rights « Knitting Clio
Mai’a has stated specifically that she wants the word mama to encompass people who can’t bear children, including trans women, men, women who choose not to bear children, and good ol’ infertile women like yours truly.
That’s all well and good, but I don’t want to be identified by the word mama. To me, that implies a woman who has children or primary responsibility for raising children.
I don’t. I don’t want to. Frankly, I don’t particularly like children–which I realize, according to some people in that thread, makes me “sick”, but there it is. I find equating being a woman with interest in or responsibility for childcare to be the worst kind of gender essentialism.
Yes, this exactly. I don’t want to be referred to as a “mama” even though my roles as therapist, teacher, and supervisor arguably involve nurturance and other “mother-like” tasks. But the gender binary that says “nurturance = mothering” and “something else = fathering” is harmful to both women and men. And painting me with a “mama” brush because of my gender is slapping a label on me that I don’t claim for myself.
I probably said something poorly. I don’t think she was wanting to force the label on anyone. I think she was saying that she sees it as a positive label that has a definition in social justice, and that in her world, that social-justice-oriented meaning was available to a wider range of people than the traditional definition.
At least, that’s what I came away with after reading many comments and explanations. But maybe I’m still wrong.
But Mandolin, it’s still gender essentialism because she’s using a highly gendered term — and in fact one which has long been used as the definition of womanhood — to define specific behaviors. She says that when fathers behave in this way, they are mamas. Thus these particular behaviors are so completely female-identified that taking them on makes one female-identified.
It’s not very different from saying that a brave woman has balls or intelligent, aggressive woman thinks like a man.
And is it okay to say that papas are inherently less committed to their children (and maybe social justice) than mamas?
I really don’t think that her saying that her definition of mama is inclusive is sufficient to keep people from feeling excluded. If she said something similar but using Christian, would you expect non-Christians like Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics to feel welcome and accepted just because she says her definition of Christian includes them?
I’d prefer it if you didn’t address me as though I agree with or am making her argument. I only wanted to be clear about what it is that she *is* arguing, since it seems unfair for people to be setting up and knocking down strawman versions of her.
I’m sorry. I was only using your name to identify what comment I addressing. And when I said “you” I should have used “one” or “we” because I meant it to be a general “you”. Again, sorry for my careless phrasing.
Pingback: Interesting posts, weekend of 8/1/10 « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction
I don’t want to be identified with the word ‘mama’ because not having to raise children any more is an important part of my survival.
But I don’t think that that means that motherhood/’mama’ doesn’t require reclaiming & radical work. Earlier this year, I was part of an odd moment in a support group in which several women who’d survived domestic abuse agreed that they’d much rather identify with fatherhood than motherhood, and in terms of caring experiences would much prefer to be placed in a father role than a mother role, because they’d come to see motherhood/female caregiving as a helpless, powerless position.
That is not the way it has to be, but it is the way it was. So I believe that it does require reclaiming, but there is no way in hell I want to be a part of that and I do not want to be called a ‘mama’.
“Mama” is already in use by millions of Spanish speakers for whom it means “mum” or “mom”. It’s ridiculously arrogant to try to appropriate it and use it to mean “warm, caring person who holds feminist views but doesn’t like the label feminist”.
In my opinion, you can’t start a discussion about children’s rights and about children’s appropriateness in certain venues without also discussing how children are used in this society (the US) and many others to promote prudery; censorship and bowdlerization of whatever is considered inappropriate at the moment on TV or in the public sphere at all (homosexuality, transsexuality, nudity, sex, certain kinds of violence in video games, abortion, etc.); conservative interpretations of religion; the simplification of discussing race, sex, and class; and the limiting of the creation of any sort of family outside of the one-man-parent, one-woman-parent nuclear family model. You can’t ignore how children’s assumed innocence is used to keep American society backwards. You also can’t dismiss people’s issues with being asked to provide “warm energy” towards a child (whatever that means), and when, left to their own devices because the writer’s article is so threadbare and poorly argued, automatically assume that she must mean that they must help her raise her child or raise the child for her. And the “bar” thing: the writer pretty much didn’t stand a chance of keeping people interested after mentioning it. She certainly doesn’t have my sympathy with that.
My issue with the article is that I think it’s poorly written (and I’m not paying attention to her grammar (that’s obviously a writing style, however obnoxious it admittedly looks), but to the construction of her argument — it has holes where she should be explaining herself); whatever point she was making (and I don’t even agree with the premise to begin with, so there’s my bias) is badly made with her disdain for her own audience (feminists), no matter how racist she thinks they (and I, incidentally black) all secretly are; her assumption that everyone was going to understand where she was coming and what kind of “bar” she was bringing her daughter to; and her own blatant worship and overrating of motherhood, at the expense of any alternative iterations of womanhood.
I’m pretty sure that most of the flamers on Jezebel weren’t “child-hating” types. They are, like me, Generation Y people who’ve had to grow up seeing having alcohol sales on Sunday and sex toys at all banned in Georgia, certain anime with lesbians, nudity, and *gasp* death in it being bowdlerized to Kingdom come (i.e. Sailor Moon), and see gay anything being banned on children’s television or shown late at night, or rated R in an obviously otherwise PG or PG-13 movie. We saw Janet Jackson’s left breast in the Super Bowl Halftime Show leading to CBS being fined $250,000 because Michael Powell of the FCC had a fit, and so did Parents Television Council denizens and their sympathizers. We see constant attempts by state and national legislatures to make it harder for people to buy mature-rated video games. We’ve all had to deal with conservative Christian censorship in our daily lives, and parenthood elevated to be this sancrosanct institution perpetuated by vain parents overrating their children’s specialness and their own parenting abilities, suffocating and limiting any child’s opportunity to be independent or to think critically in any way, and to censor anything that could be construed as offensive by a increasingly narrowly conservative definition. No matter that these parents are always white and middle-class, probably 55/45 Republican/Democrat, and privileged as all get-out, but you can’t make the “there are no child-free spaces argument” from anywhere in the world at Americans, and ignore this American context. These people are reacting not to the right to be seen with your child or to be allowed out at all, but at the possible bowdlerizing of their uncensored space. Anyone seriously discussing children’s and parents’ rights can’t ignore this, and pretend that those imposing parents with their bratty, horrible children don’t exist. If parents don’t want childfree or prospective parents to dismiss the parents’ concerns, then the former shouldn’t dismiss the latter’s. Fair is fair, after all, if one really wants a discussion, or not just to demonize the opposition but to understand it.
Otherwise, I’m a black feminist, and I didn’t think the “fuck feminists” comment was even remotely constructive, context or no. Don’t I believe there’s racism in feminism? Sure, like there’s racism in everything. There’s racism in the Democratic Party, but I’m not voting Republican, anytime soon — I don’t care what anyone says. I think rejecting feminism is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and that it helps patriarchy more than it helps, but I’ll stop there for now.
Is it appropriative/arrogant if the movement includes/is started by Spanish-speaking women?
I’m going to ask people stop this line of argument now. I know I participated, too, but I probably shouldn’t have. It’s not the subject of the post, and I’m uncomfortable with the way it’s evolving to defer arguments against the OP on other subjects in a forum she’s not participating in.
Then why are you conflating points about how “think of the children” is a meme used by social conservatives (who may not even be parents themselves) with a standard-issue childfree rant about Those Goddamn Yuppie Parents And Their Spoiled Brats?