Warning: I am now going to rant. If you do not wish to be subjected to the discomfort and inconvenience of my ranting, please cease reading immediately. Be aware that by continuing to read beyond this sentence implies the termination of your rights to downvote or soft-link scurrilously.1
I apologize if I'm missing something here, but I don't believe that the ability to procreate should confer any sense of entitlement or privilege or superiority to the procreators or their progeny.
Perhaps
I'm missing something here, but I have never really understood this
line of reasoning. The
childless (by choice or not) have used this argument repeatedly to
decry the horrible parenting skills of any person who deigns to raise a child between the ages of 0 and 16 (my mother believes that all children between 5 and 18 are no longer human, and should be raised in some sort of
isolated island convalescent institution, but that's beside the point), and yet I cannot understand. I'll say this slowly:
Since when did this become about the rights of the parent?
Since when did children cease having rights and being members of our society?
I apparently am under the mistaken impression that children are members of our society who should be allowed and encourage to participate in its undertakings. I apparently am under the mistaken impression that children are not shameful little secrets appropriate for exposure to the public only in certain prescribed forums (school, daycare, Chuck E. Cheese). I apparently am under the mistaken impression that those intolerant of children and their normal behaviour are the ones with the problem.
I hereby apologize and promise, publicly, to never let my child out of the house. Despite the fact that he loves being around adults and adores exploring new places where he can learn about society, I'll make sure only to expose him to those people we pay directly or indirectly to take care of him. I furthermore promise to endeavour not to have any more children (hmmm, time for the snip?) so as not to inflict any discomfort or inconvenience on the non-breeding minority who apparently believe that while "all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others".
1 This was meant as a joke, folks. Seems that some people took this seriously, and I really just meant it to be a funny little piece of this w/u. So, consider that it has an appended ;)
The Lady: Whoa, I obviously got your goat with this one. Ok, here are some more reasonsed (I hope) responses:
- The rights of the parents: OK, maybe I took some liberties here, but when WolfDaddy wrote the line that I quoted, he used the words entitlement, privilege and superiority. I condensed those into the "rights" of the parents. By this I did not mean legal rights, but social rights. I don't think this was stretching on my part. I don't think the attitude expressed in WolfDaddy's w/u is meant to translate into legal actions, and neither is mine.
- Children are fully fledged members of society: Where did I say or imply this? I said members, period. Again, we're into legal arguments which was not my intention. I am fully aware that children are not extended the same legal rights and privileges as adults, but does that make them lesser members of a society? I was trying to convey the idea that it is critical for a society to integrate children from birth right to the age of majority in all its social endeavours.
- Any behaviour exhibited by a child in public is "normal": Again, where did I say or imply this? I said:
I apparently am under the mistaken impression that those intolerant of children and their normal behaviour are the ones with the problem.
From this you infer that I believe than any behaviour is normal. This is not the case. I don't think destructive little monsters should be set loose on the general public. However, it is unrealistic to expect that a two year old will never throw a fit in a mall. They do that; even the well behaved ones. That is normal. Punching old ladies is not normal. I think that we need to understand that children are not miniature adults and will behave badly, from time to time. Parents need to be accorded the appropriate respect for trying to control them, and the appropriate disdain if they refuse to do so.
- Children are just inquisitive and curious, they mean no harm: Of course they are. However, did I imply this? Did I suggest that all children are perfect angels upon birth, and we should cherish every little action no matter how unspeakable? I do not think that Rousseau got this one right. However, if we don't allow/encourage parents to bring children into public spaces in order to show them how humans should behave, what good are we doing? Again, you need to expose children to adult situations in order to provide good models upon which they can learn to behave, and this will necessarily entail bad behaviour on the part of the child, from time to time, which will need to be corrected.
- People who complain about children being undisciplined are all sour, crabby, sterile monsters with no understanding of the joys of parenthood: Where did I imply this? I don't think that people who don't wish to have children are aberrant or dysfunctional. I do, however, believe that they should not expect the world to eliminate the presence of children because they find them distasteful.
Finally,
To conclude, pimephalis managed, in a few short paragraphs, to fully demonstrate the assertion made in WolfDaddy's writeup, that people who have children arrogantly expect society to be entirely geared towards making the upbringing of those children an easier matter.
Arrogantly? What? So, then, I suppose all us breeders should meekly go about kow-towing to the whims of the childless for their convenience. Damn right I expect society to adapt to the rearing of children. When people say that children are the future, it may be a cliche but it certainly isn't hollow. The fact of the matter is that if we treat children as little misfits and don't work to integrate them into adult society, we're going to have a bunch of thoroughly unpleasant adults running around in a generation.
I wrote what I clearly indicated was a rant. You then accused me of setting up straw men in my argument. I don't feel I did, but I sure as hell know you did. Every one of the "key assumptions" that you maintain I made are straw men. I didn't hint at any of them.