Jump to content

Hero Diner Owner Shouts at Noisy Toddler, Selfish Parents and Weaklings Cry Foul

Pong Messiah

Recommended Posts

I'm going to politely request that you take my words at face value and not contort them to continue this "parents vs non-parents" fight you've invented. But I'm going to go ahead and clarify.


Cerina, on 24 Jul 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Why is that though?

Why does a crying child anger and annoy people rather than cause them to want to care for and soothe the child like we're biologically predisposed to do? Even our cats respond to a crying baby with concern, so why not other humans? Have we really become so callous as a society?

Why is our society so anti-child? How did we go from "it takes a village" to "get this brat away from me"?

....Implication being people around a crying child must simply put up with it, and if one doesn't automatically rush over and "soothe" the child, there must be something wrong with that person.


No implication. Questions. Six of them actually. I'm genuinely curious why some people immediately respond with contempt and vile rather than compassion and sympathy or empathy. The same compassion Destiny posted that I've already said I agree wholeheartedly with. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't think it's reasonable to expect strangers to rush over and soothe a child, but I also don't think it's reasonable to get angry the moment one makes any sort of noise. Compassion. Especially for the child, who obviously needs something and isn't getting it, and possibly even compassion for the parents since you really don't know what they're dealing with.



Cerina, on 08 Aug 2015 - 9:44 PM, said:

People are stupid. People who complain about babies are right there at the top of the list.

So, when I am trying to have a good time in public and enjoy the company of my girlfriend, and some family plops down nearby, and their kid cries for 40 minutes, I'M stupid for complaining about it? Really? I work a salary job, meaning that if my boss wants me to work 50 or 60 hours a week without extra pay, and sometimes irregular hours, I have to do it. And to be sure, despite those hours, I am NOT well off. I make enough to pay my bills, and pay for class, but I am NOT by any means, well off. Also, I am taking a class and an internship (which literally is like working a second job), plus I have to fit in time to spend with my girlfriend, and also take care of things and check on my Dad daily. I feel that I am as busy, if not busier than any parent of at least 2 kids without special needs, time schedule wise. So, when I do go out to a restaurant or movie or whatever to unwind, the last thing I want to do is have to put up with someone else's crying children, especially, when the parents are not teaching their kid to act properly in public. That is where I am coming from.


I don't know if you're deliberately being obtuse or you really don't understand human development. A baby cannot be taught how to act properly in public. It's a baby. The story I was responding to was one about two older ladies complaining about a one year old baby. Not an older kid or toddler. A BABY. If you would like to join those women in their complaint, then your focus should be on Destiny and Mr. Destiny, the parents who "did nothing" (which I don't agree with at all in that story, but if that's the side you want to take, go for it). The baby literally has zero control over its actions and reactions.


But hey, yeah, I did start that post by calling all people stupid, so I guess that includes you as well. Sorry.


Cerina, on 09 Aug 2015 - 7:19 PM, said:


Said in jest or not, you don't think that could be offensive to some?


Of course I think that's offensive. That's why I posted it. It's crazily offensive! The idea that someone's life literally does not matter simply because they don't have children is ludicrous. And wrong. Also, likening the "persecution" childless couples feel for being seated next to children in a restaurant with a social movement meant to force people's eyes open to real issues of systematic racism that's literally costing lives is also ludicrous! Why anybody is taking it seriously at all is blowing my mind. But, of course, why wouldn't it be taken seriously when compared the all of the other well thought serious posts I've made in this topic? This one-liner more closely fits your agenda of fabricating an argument that I've explicitly stated, repeatedly, that I'm not making!




Cerina said:


As for the use of derogatory language to refer to children, there are examples all over this thread, yet, I'm the only person to call it out as wrong. Derogatory terms for other demographics of people are in our censors and against the rules of this board. In fact, if someone here were to start using any number of them to refer to whichever group they refer to, they'd be immediately called out publicly, and Pong and I would have been notified to do something about it. But not derogatory terms for children. Because they're children. Using derogatory terms for this is still amusing to some and just simply eyerolling to others, but not considered offensive enough to do anything about. Why the double standard? Because our society is generally accepting of being less respectful to children. It never even occurs to many people to think otherwise.

If I used terms to refer to kids that offended you or others here, I apologize. I am not religious, but I try to live by the Golden Rule, because I think it is a good one. Sometimes I fall short of that, so if I have in this case, I apologize. But, by the same token, you can't have it both ways, and claim people are using derogatory terms for children, and then use terms like DINK. I know it is an acronym that stands for "double income no kids," but it is no accident that it also happens to be a derogatory term that means "jerk or nerd." So, you need to consider that is offensive to some people. You might personally believe that people who choose not to have kids have something wrong with them, or maybe not, but there are people who do think that. I, however, think that there is at the very least, something very responsible, if not admirable about someone who makes such a choice when they KNOW they are not cut out to be a parent.


Also, you might believe that there is some growing trend of anti-kid attitudes, committed by parents and non parents alike. But I can tell you that as someone who has CHOSEN not to have kids that if there is a bias out there, or there are people out there that are victims of being treated "less than," it really is that society looks down and treats people without children differently, and in many cases, unfairly. Everywhere you go, businesses cater to people bringing their kids in for "family time," offering discounts or what have you to parents. The government, federal and local, offers all kinds of special programs and funding on a multitude of levels for children and parents alike. Special acts like FMLA have been passed to allow for leave for parents (I had several male coworkers both have over 2 months off because their wives had kids).


As a single man, I am constantly having to pick up the slack at work for others who have to leave work early, or not come in at all, because of their kids, and though I can't prove it, I feel that sometimes the kid card is played a little too much. Supervisors in general end up heaping extra job duties on people like me for no extra pay because I have "extra time" to do said additional job duties. And then there are the cliques at work. The first words out of some people's mouths who happen to have kids when they first meet you is "so, do you have kids," and when the answer is "no," well, you are treated differently from then on.


But what happens when someone like me has (had) parents that are very ill and have to do what I can to help them in every way my schedule allows (including for some years where I had to move back in for a while, to help them both out), and are trying to get through college or working 2 jobs, like I have done in the past, and still try to help out my Dad as much as I can? There are no programs out there for someone like me to help me care for my Dad, until he is destitute and owns nothing.


OK I know I got off track there, but my point is that I have reasons for why this is sort of a hot button issue for me. So, if I did say something that might have annoyed you or others here who also have kids, I apologize, but these are the reasons why I feel the way I do about this topic. I personally feel that there is not only a societal bias against people without kids, but people with kids lack the perspective to understand how disruptive and how much they infringe on other people's lives. It's not something they mean to do to be sure (when they are good parents), and that is something I personally can over look. But when there is bad parenting involved, it really is a pet peeve of mine. I hope this all better explains why I think the way I do, and I hope I have not offended anyone here, because that was not my intent.


Ok, I'm really sorry about your dad. I know that's rough. FMLA actually does legally cover you if you need to take time off of work to care for your father. The elderly are just as, actually probably moreso, marginalized than children. We seem to recognize that some people are not capable of caring for their children, but completely ignore the fact that some people are not capable for caring for family members as they age. While some laws, like the FMLA, have been enacted to try to protect families, there is also an anti-family attitude in society as well, but I think people, millenials espectially, are fighting it. Families consisting of several generations used to stay close together, support each other, and interact daily for their entire lives. Now, people use the first chance they get to send children off to school and the elderly off to retirement/nursing homes. I read a really good article a few months back about this. Maybe I'll try to find it again. It was all about the breakdown of society and the importance that family plays in a healthy society.


That said though. Many companies are not family-friendly. Some may be, but there are many that are not. Many of those are actually smaller companies, not the larger corporations that you might think. When I worked for Sam's Club, I had to take my son to the orthopedic surgeon once a week to have this casts replaced. Then he had 3 surgeries in a 4 month period. Not once did I ever receive any push back from my employer for taking that time to help my son. But when I worked in real estate, my bosses HATED it if I tried to take a day off to care for my sick child. Many times I would call in only to get the 3rd degree and questions like "well, where are your grandparents, can't they watch him?" or "can you come in after you take him to the doctor?"


Furthermore, these laws have been enacted for a reason. Before things like FMLA and FLSA, women could straight up be fired for getting pregnant. In fact, as illegal as it is, I've still had my fair share of interviews where I've been asked things like "are you currently pregnant or do you see yourself getting pregnant in the near future", "do you have kids", "do you have someone who can care for your children if they get sick", and the best yet "do you think you'll want to be a stay-at-home mom after you've been working for a few months".


I'm sure I could go on and on. And I'm sure everyone else here could pipe in with their own anti-family or anti-childless experience. But it's probably all a "grass is always greener" thing anyway. So why don't we agree to stop there? We're all just damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chalupacabra, seriously, look into FMLA for your dad. I've used it in the past to care for my mom. But employers are really good at making you feel like it's going to hurt you for taking time for your family, kids or not. That bothers me on so many levels. I work on a very family-unfriendly team and it sucks. Kids or not, you are rewarded for putting in tons of overtime to get a project done on an unreasonable schedule or because you screw around and can't get it done in 40 hours. But if you get your work done and do it in 40 hours, you aren't as dedicated. I'm in a supervisor role and I have 2 guys on my team who refuse to work for the other supervisors because they have zero concept of work-life balance. They think wives are there to take care of the kids so they can concentrate on work. But somehow my team gets their work done on time and on budget. Drives me crazy. The guys on my team want to do good work AND see their families in the evenings, so they don't screw around.


Chalupacabra, does your dad qualify for medicaid? I'm in the process of getting my mom qualified. It's a sucky process, but it might get him some help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.