more on kids and other stuff

[quietann]

WRT the last post... glad to be of service :) Apparently, I've gotten a few people (at least) thinking about the role of kids in the community. And with minimal snarkage... if people hate me, they certainly aren't letting on :)



I mentioned somewhere in a follow-up comment that the kids issue arises largely because of demographic shifts within the community. I've been involved with suspects stuff for 9 years now, and back then, there were only a few kids. (And, apparently, way back when, the S-L kids were told by their parents that they, as some of the first children, were to think of themselves as "child ambassadors" to a not necessarily kid-friendly world, so they needed to be on their best behavior. And of course, being who they are, they took that pretty seriously. They set a VERY high standard for the next kids to live up to. As kids have become more the norm, the "child ambassador" role fell away, and the kids started acting more like... kids.)

There's also a slight generational disconnect bewteen those of us who are 40-ish or older, and those who are slightly younger (who tend to be the ones having kids, or wanting to). The 40-ish crowd were the tail end of the Baby Boom, and the women especially were often raised to think of careers before children (or, in some cases, careers instead of children). As children, we also experienced the last gasps of the seemingly old-fashioned concept that there were many places where children did NOT belong, including most restaurants, parties that involved alcohol consumption, evening parties, formal weddings, etc. Our parents had the demographic advantage of a large number of Boomer teens to be hired as child-minders; by the early 1980s, there was a drought of teens, and sitters. We also caught the tail end of a more disciplined child-rearing style; Dr. Spock was the main guru, and while he was quite radical in some ways (especially WRT discipline), he certainly did not advocate children being the very center of their parents' lives ALL of the time. And he didn't advocate taking children into environments where they didn't necessarily belong, and expecting other adults in those environments to be OK with it. We were also largely raised before the media started doing lots of scare stories about child-kidnappings, sexual abuse in daycare centers, etc. It was a more innocent and more ordered time.

Those slightly younger.... probably experienced more divorcing parents and more chaos. And they -- especially the younger ones -- tend to be more conservative, and more backlashy against feminism in particular. For parenting, their guru seems to be Dr. Sears, who does in fact advocate an extremely child-centered family style, and seems to be able, with his "attachment parenting" ideas, to induce more guilt in young parents than those of us a bit older ever would have tolerated. From his point of view, breastfeeding, "baby-wearing," and considering the child before the parents are NOT optional. Daycare is eeevil. (There are older "attachment parents" but I have the sense that it was more of a *choice* for them rather than a requirement -- because they were raised to believe in choices.) Perhaps he appeals to something in them that senses that their own "attachments" to their parents were not especially well-formed, so being sure that their own children are "securely attached" takes top priority. Among my friends, the ones who seem most concerned about this are the ones whose mothers were "career women." For reasons I can't quite explain, that really, really bothers me.

Like a lot of people, I tend to gravitate towards those most like me -- the childless, the career-oriented, the people my own age or a little older with whom I share some common background. And as the Suspects demographics have shifted, we've gone from a majority to a distinct minority. And we rarely feel comfortable speaking our piece, because, well, "attacking" children is Just Not Done. I hope that people will feel more free now to be very specific about their expectations for children when sending out party invites. (Ben and I were very specific about this for our wedding, and at least one person -- luckily not a close friend -- took offense at the idea that we expected children to behave themselves, and parents to mind their children. I'm actually happy she didn't come to the wedding, because at the time, her son was a violent, angry little boy and she made no effort to control his behavior.) And... well, I would completely not mind more child-free events, or events where children of the ages most likely to be problematic are disinvited. (e.g. babes in arms and even toddlers are rarely a problem; nor are teens. It's mostly the pre-school and elementary age kids who are at issue.)

And I know that no matter what happens, some peoples' toes will be stepped on.

On a more personal note... I tried to make it clear that I do not dislike children. In fact, I'm really quite fond of them -- in small doses, in the appropriate environments. I don't deal with chaos very well, regardless of the age of the people it comes from (hence my tendency to arrive late at parties where lots of kids are expected; I want to be there *after* the big rush and the chaos.) Large numbers of children tend to be pretty darn chaotic, and even my favorite Susboid children will join the screaming, teeming horde when a critical mass of kids is reached. I don't expect them not to, but I do wish that some parents would be a bit more strict when their kids are getting wild, or that it would be OK for the rest of us to apply that strictness to other peoples' kids. I wish I felt comfortable enough to tell a kid who is shoving or screaming or otherwise acting badly that s/he needs to stop, and that s/he would listen.

Comments

"people's toes will be stepped on"

[iamlisabee.livejournal.com]

only because everyone in a certain community (yeah, I'll paint with even broader strokes than you have) seems to be damned well intent on getting their toes stepped on.

For god's sakes. People need to throw the kinds of parties/events they want to throw. They need to invite the people they want to invite. Everyone needs to accept the invites they want to accept and graciously decline the invites they cannot or do not want to attend.

If the parties you (a broad, general "you") want to attend aren't being held, throw them.

Re: "people's toes will be stepped on"

[thespian.livejournal.com]

ann already addressed why she can't throw parties like that right now, through, and why it's becoming a problem to the childless to even suggest that the party will be child-free, with the result being more parties that are not general invite like they used to be, simply because it's easier not to stir that hornet nest.

Even now, the invites go out and they say 'Here are a dozen reasons why the house isn't childproof.' but even when people really don't *want* to say that they don't want children, they don't, to avoid the snit fits.

Re: "people's toes will be stepped on"

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Even now, the invites go out and they say 'Here are a dozen reasons why the house isn't childproof.' but even when people really don't *want* to say that they don't want children, they don't, to avoid the snit fits.

I think everyone really needs to grow a thicker skin. If you want to host a child-free party, do it. It's your house and you get to decide. If some people get snitty, well, tough. "You can't dance at every simcha," as I've heard mangosteen say. There'll be another party where children are explicitly welcomed, and those parents can go to that. In the meantime, you'll have said what you meant and you won't spend your party seething about people not having read your mind that "not childproof" actually meant "don't bring your spawn."

If Ann can't throw parties like that right now, that's unfortunate. But she does have ways of coping, as she herself has mentioned. Maybe eventually she and Ben will be better equipped to do so in the future.

Re: "people's toes will be stepped on"

[iamlisabee.livejournal.com]

They either need to state their needs or deal with the fact that they're not going to get their needs met BECAUSE they haven't stated them.

There are also various ways to socialize with people besides throwing parties. Off the top of my head you could:

1. Find someone with an appropriate house to co-host an adults only party.
2. Invite folks to a public place for an adults only gathering

Ultimately, EVERYONE needs to honestly state what they expect in an invitation, and EVERYONE needs to just deal with those limitations in an invitation.

[delennara.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Reading all over this, I don't yet know what I think. But what are "the suspects"? I think there is something I am not getting...

[quietann.livejournal.com]

I tend to use "Suspects" as a shorthand for "the people I hang out with and see at parties, cons, etc." My apologies for not being more clear about this.

So... it's is a social group of sorts, a more-or-less connected group of computer geeks, artists, and other generally intelligent people. The center is (more-or-less) in the Boston area. There's a lot of overlap with SF fandom (especially Arisia), filkdom, the polyamory/kink communities, etc. Origins trace back to probably the late 1970s and early 1980s, when there were nexuses at MIT, RPI, Johns Hopkins, UMass, and other East Coast colleges.

My husband (deguspice) is one of the people who has been around the longest (there are people in the group he's known for 25 years or more, from when he was part of MIT's High School Studies program.) I got involved about 9 years ago, when I moved to Boston. deguspice also is one of the listowners of a discussion email list ("Elbows"), which in some sense is like an online community center for the group. Suspects is an announcements-only email list which is an offshoot of the original list, so people who don't want to wade through all the discussion can know what's going on.

Like any community, it's experiencing some growing pains right now. This started with just a sheer increase in the number of people (the suspects mailing list has something like 700 people on it), and now, because of demographics, a sheer increase in the number of babies and children.

[gingicat]

Mom bought me the newest edition of the book she raised me with, by Penelop Leach, and it's so much more... common-sense than Sears. And my therapist keeps reminding me that it's okay to be without the baby, and I had a much better time at the massage party than I would have otherwise. But then, though I'm in the under-40 crowd, I was raised to always examine my choices and make informed decisions.

[gingicat]

Also, Mom taught me how to deal with other people's kids; treat them as you would misbehaving adults. "Excuse me" in an annoyed tone will generally attract the attention of a nearby parent even if it doesn't affect the child. A certain young lady old enough to know better heckled a party performer recently, and he treated her as he would a persistent adult heckler, which worked reasonably well, and I put a word in her mother's ear (she was not being irresponsible, as said girl is truly old enough to know better) and the mother apologized too.

[gosling.livejournal.com]

Penelope Leach rocks. :-) (The first book of hers I actually read was on public policy, but I also have her parenting book.)

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

In his book Freakonomics, Stephen Levitt examines whether parenting matters, and which particular forms of obsessive parenting are actually good for the child.

What he found was that being a bad parent mattered (abuse, neglect, etc.), and that being a good parent mattered, but that the forms of obsessive parenting were statistically insignificant. Just be good, and accept that a lot of the details are literally out of your control.

Unfortunately, this means that many of the parents who make their infants and toddlers the center of their lives probably won't do damage to them that we can point to and say, "There, see? Stop that!". They're only damaging the people around them.

(I confess that my own children have gone out of their way to make themselves the center of attention at times when it was wholly inappropriate. I can think of one incident in particular where I didn't find out until damage had been done. For that, I apologize.)

[bethr.livejournal.com]

Ann, I do not go to social events very often because I usually can't get child care and I don't want you and those like you to get a bad impression of the kids, or me, or my parenting, or children in general.

Yes, Sonia was a wonderful "child ambassador", and continues to be. We took her everywhere we could, which was most places, and she was usually charming and agreeable. But we can't take the boys to social events---they are too loud, too rambunctious, too distracting to me, etc.

If I thought they'd be welcomed the way Sonia was, I'd be seen around more places. But they won't be, and so to preserve the respect of people like you, better not to see me than to see me with them.

[tamidon.livejournal.com]

As one of the parents I have no problem with events being designated childfree, I prefer people being up front, and often I do my best to find childcare(our babysitter's soccer team made regional finals and that's seriously screwing us up). Alot of what you talk about I agree with. Coming from a less than stellar childhood I've always had a problem with the AP parents implication that if you don't make your kids the center of your lives you are defacto a neglectful if not abusive parent. Trust me, I know the difference. I liked alot of the surface ideas(longterm nursing,childwearing,family bed) but really objected to teaching children they are the center of our lives. They're supposed to be learning how to grow up so they can grow up and leave I want them to expect to me someday, so if I make them the center of my world, do they learn to think of me as the center of theirs? It's a serious philosophocal difference I have.
Aside from that, people who let their children misbehave in restaurants should be shunned. Half the time it's not the kids fault, out too late in an atmospherically innapropriate place. I recently got yelled at a movie(Constantine)because I asked her to control her 4 year old child who was acting up. She hissed to give him a break 'cause he was only 4. WTF, it was an adult movie, he's only there because she couldn't be bothered to get childcare
Rant over:-)

[klingonlandlady.livejournal.com]

Well put.
Not that i have any experience, but from taking psych classes, I always thought it was appropriate for babes-in-arms to be the center of mom's attention, but after they can walk and talk, it sounds like many cultures let them go around with other children or be loosely supervised by aunts, siblings, etc... having them be the center of your attention when they should be learning to grow up, could get a little weird. (and apparently does, for some in this society now... urgh! sooo glad i don't have to deal with people's current expectations.)

[gosling.livejournal.com]

What's interesting to me is that the book on which a lot of the ideas of attachment parenting are based, The Continuum Concept, actually says that very strongly. The author also has a great deal of criticism for what she sees as excessively permissive parenting.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone brought their one-year-old to Jurasic Park. Of course he started screaming once the dinosaurs showed up. And of course his mother just let him scream. (Isn't that child neglect?) I had to get a theater droid to throw them out. I could have said something, I guess, but didn't feel like being yelled at by an ignorant git who didn't have the sense to get a babysitter, or wait until the movie came out on video.

I am amazed at the parents out there who think that "no one under 17 allowed without a parent" means that it's okay to take their small children to R-rated movies.

Idiots.

Rant over for me too....

[bedfull-o-books.livejournal.com]

That was me, btw. Forgot I wasn't logged in anymore....

[dianec42.livejournal.com]

Well put! Then again, you've always been one of the most clueful parents I've known.

You and feste_sylvain also seem to have a very finely tuned idea of whether the kids will actually enjoy coming along on any given outing. Some people seem determined to drag their kids through their own (the parents') lives with absolutely no regard for what the kids themselves want or need.

What ever happened to giving kids time to be kids? How's that supposed to happen when the parents are watching over them every second? (I know, it's a "different world" today, but it still makes me sad.) Besides, the kid's got to be the center of his or her own world, which is hard to do when someone else is putting you on a pedestal all the time.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I adore my son. I just don't expect that everybody will.
He's been pretty well-behaved as a rule, but I don't know that he will always be so well-behaved. Nor do I expect others to, ahem, 'suck it up and deal' if he shoulld misbehave. That is our problem, not theirs. We might ask for some patience and understanding for some of those circumstances, but that's a different story.

In short, I don't find your take out of line at all.