# Children in the workplace



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I may be showing my age, but when did it become appropriate to bring children into the professional workplace?

I find it astonishing that people bring young children and babies into professional offices. 

While I have private offices in my various locations, and am insulated to some degree, I nevertheless cannot understand why people cannot separate their professional lives from their personal lives. 

In bringing children into work, there is an unconscious assumption that I actually give a damn about their progeny. While that may be the case with friends, it is certainly not the case across the board. It seems to me to be deeply unprofessional.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)




----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I used to do this sometimes, in the days when I shared an office. I had to put up with other people's private lives, one way or another.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> I used to do this sometimes, in the days when I shared an office. I had to put up with other people's private lives, one way or another.


My condolences.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The propriety of bringing one's children into the workplace depends in some reasonably substantial nature on the type of work being performed. Such certainly did not seem appropriate in either of my two primary careers (military service and law enforcement) as an adult. Although the kids did enjoy attending a few air shows and the grandkids have enjoyed touring a few museums chronicling certain aspect of my former lines of work. The propriety of children in the workplace depends largely on it being in the right place at the right time!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

It's a result of allowing women in the workplace. This is yet another problem that will be instantly fixed by sharia law.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

No one would want to bring their children to most of the places I've worked! (chemical reactors, isotope labs, hot cells, etc!)

But no, children certainly don't belong in the workplace, with rare exceptions (such as a family-owned business in which the children work there, or the family is all there and so the children essentially are "at home" there when not in school), or possibly as a special visit in which the parent specifically is bringing the child to learn something (this is where daddy works.)

I remember once, I suppose around 1970-1971 (I was about 5 years old), my father took me to his office to see the computer system. Of course, this was well before PCs, so no one really ever saw a computer outside of movies, or of course the workplace IF they worked with them (which was itself rare). It was a big room filled with magnetic data reel systems, serious men with Kissinger-esque spectacles, short-sleeve button down shirts with ties (ie. "engineers"), and the green glow of monochrome CRTs. It was loud and cold, and I was AMAZED; it was so cool. From then on, I had a father who *works with computers*.

Of course, I'm sure I was shown around other places as well, and said hi to a few people, and a couple of those people were annoyed at some five-year-old poking around, but generally I think such visits are a good thing.

I assume that 90% of "children at work" these days are simply fallout from inability to find or to afford nannies.

DH


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Just like in the filmclip, little kids ARE going to run around and blow off energy, and have little understanding of the concept of "don't run into things". It's who they are and what they do, loudly.

Therefore, they should be kept out of offices, plants, mills, shops, warehouses....did I miss anything?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Although I was occasionally brought in to my father's place of work on some of the Saturday mornings when he was on duty, and thoroughly enjoyed it (I'm inclined to think that he was not too subtly trying to influence me in my career choices), I agree that having children in the work place is nothing less than a distraction from one's purpose. They tend to be noisy, ask questions all the time, and generally get in the way. In my area of endeavour work is far more efficient and productive if other people's kids could be kept out of the workplace.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Despite our having a clearly defined policy stipulating that infants should not be introduced to the working environment under any circumstance, still every dimwitted breeder that has ever sired a sproglodyte cheerfully parade their vile issue up and down the building, announced by the piercing shrieks and ear-splitting howls these diminutive horrors are wont to make then, inevitably, accompanied by a chorus of inane cooing and mewling from post-menopausal biddies. It is all very ghastly.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
My friend, I may occasionally disagree with what you say, but the way you say it, arguably, verges on being poetic and I always look forward to reading your posts. You are indeed, a wordsmith of note!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There's an odd perception out there amongst new parents that everyone will find his/her child just as adorable as they do.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> There's an odd perception out there amongst new parents that everyone will find his/her child just as adorable as they do.


Quite.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ... inevitably, accompanied by a chorus of inane cooing and mewling from post-menopausal biddies. It is all very ghastly.


Well put!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ...breeder...


You are aware that this is anti-heterosexual hate speech, right? 
I'm all for women and children staying home, but the anger at the procreative is envy that one might wish to leave at home as well.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> You are aware that this is anti-heterosexual hate speech, right?
> I'm all for women and children staying home, but the anger at the procreative is envy that one might wish to leave at home as well.


Your statements become increasingly bizarre.

Still, I find it somewhat surprising that you are able to assign emotions to a simple noun.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

By way of a public service announcement, Balfour's threads are *not* a 'safe space' (google if meaning unclear).

:devil:


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

This may be a transcontinental language issue again, but I'd only ever heard the derisive breeder term used by *********. I'm just letting one know that people may misidentify one using the term.
As another childless man, I'm amused by attempts to claim virtue in productive failure.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ It seems to be quite a favourite term of Shaver's, but I don't think I have ever heard it used anywhere, nor previously encountered the underlying hostility to procreation that is seemingly implied in one or two of his statements. Possibly I lead too sheltered an existence.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Your statements become increasingly bizarre.
> 
> Still, I find it somewhat surprising that you are able to assign emotions to a simple noun.


I'm not wishing to enter this argument on one side or the other, but Tempest is correct regarding a common, current use of the word "breeder". A definition found online:

_slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do._


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Diminutive horrors! I love it! Thank you, Shaver.

My wife and I are both aghast at the number of diminutive horrors that many women seem capable of squishing out these days. Whole passels of the squirming, peeing, pooping critters, it would seem. We don't get it ourselves, but then not everyone is or should be cut out to belong to that group of human species reproducers who, in slang terms, might go by the name that Kim Deal and Tanya Donelly used to christen the American alternative rock band of theirs that produced the widely acclaimed Pod album.

As for children in the workplace, sure, why not. But then put the little brats to work and teach them the value of putting in the labor for the reward of a little food on the table. Toilets always need cleaning--shove that mop at 'em and tell 'em to stop the whining or there will BE no dinner.



Shaver said:


> Despite our having a clearly defined policy stipulating that infants should not be introduced to the working environment under any circumstance, still every dimwitted breeder that has ever sired a sproglodyte cheerfully parade their vile issue up and down the building, announced by the piercing shrieks and ear-splitting howls these diminutive horrors are wont to make then, inevitably, accompanied by a chorus of inane cooing and mewling from post-menopausal biddies. It is all very ghastly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> This may be a transcontinental language issue again, but I'd only ever heard the derisive breeder term used by *********. I'm just letting one know that people may misidentify one using the term.
> As another childless man, I'm amused by attempts to claim virtue in productive failure.


Speaking of diminutive horrors...

At any rate, were we to absent every word which is provided with a slang alternate on the urban dictionary from our vocabulary then it should be very sparse conversation indeed.

********? I do so hope that you know better and this is merely yet another of your increasingly feeble attempts to irritate.

Finally, one cannot apply the term failure to an endeavour one has not attempted.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Speaking of diminutive horrors...
> 
> At any rate, were we to absent every word which is provided with a slang alternate on the urban dictionary from our vocabulary then it should be very sparse conversation indeed.
> 
> ...


Gotta admit this post is absolutely correct on all counts. Shocked? LOL


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Tempest said:


> This may be a transcontinental language issue again, but I'd only ever heard the derisive breeder term used by *********. I'm just letting one know that people may misidentify one using the term.
> As another childless man, I'm amused by attempts to claim virtue in productive failure.


Your slide into the abyss is quite a sight, I must say.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> Gotta admit this post is absolutely correct on all counts. Shocked? LOL


Thank you smmrfld, I appreciate your saying so.

Keep an eye on the fountain pen thread as my conversion to appreciation of their delights is imminent- I shall be collecting my purchases this weekend.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> At any rate, were we to absent every word which is provided with a slang alternate on the urban dictionary from our vocabulary then it should be very sparse conversation indeed.


I think it is fair comment to suggest you were using this term as a derogatory one for those who procreate. For example, wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_(slang)



Shaver said:


> Finally, one cannot apply the term failure to an endeavour one has not attempted.


Hah! Wonderfully put.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I think it is fair comment to suggest you were using this term as a derogatory one for those who procreate. For example, wikipedia:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_(slang)
> 
> Hah! Wonderfully put.


I will, proudly, concede to a Swiftian overture but must insist that my usage was proper; one who breeds is a breeder. I trust that you might take me at my word for I have no reason to dissemble.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I will, proudly, concede to a Swiftian overture but must insist that my usage was proper; one who breeds is a breeder. I trust that you might take me at my word for I have no reason to dissemble.


What synonyms could we explore? Progenitor? Spewer of sprogylodites?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Speaking of diminutive horrors...


Now that there is funny.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Thank you smmrfld, I appreciate your saying so.
> 
> Keep an eye on the fountain pen thread as my conversion to appreciation of their delights is imminent- I shall be collecting my purchases this weekend.


You bet...no doubt you'll find a fountain pen to be a worthwhile acquisition.

Diminutive horror...still laughing about that one. And so accurate.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> ^ It seems to be quite a favourite term of Shaver's, but I don't think I have ever heard it used anywhere, nor previously encountered the underlying hostility to procreation that is seemingly implied in one or two of his statements. Possibly I lead too sheltered an existence.


So typical of the parent, that those who do not applaud the accretion of their genital froth must be cast as hostile to procreation. Each beast in rut, each lizard that slithers, each cockroach that scuttles, each slime mould that spores, all are capable of this base activity yet we are seemingly obliged to acknowledge the efforts of parents as if they are somehow an achievement tantamount to the artistry of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It is all very tiresome.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ Hah! Yes, one of my favourite expressions is even rats can reproduce. It is not an accolade to procreate; just witness the feral animals that run around both the UK and the US. To be a good parent; that is another matter. Idiocracy beckons ...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> So typical of the parent, that those who do not applaud the accretion of their genital froth must be cast as hostile to procreation. Each beast in rut, each lizard that slithers, each cockroach that scuttles, each slime mould that spores, all are capable of this base activity yet we are seemingly obliged to acknowledge the efforts of parents as if they are somehow an achievement tantamount to the artistry of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It is all very tiresome.


Shaver, your deft imagery would really be quite an asset to English poetry I think - is that something you have ever considered?

Here again, I would say your careful choice of words - rut, slithers, scuttles, slime, genital froth, spores - seems expertly calibrated to project an antipathy to procreation.

I quite understand other people's children are very tiresome; indeed from time to time even one's own can be testing. Parenting, while rich in promise, can nevertheless be occasionally trying, and feeling as you apparently do about children, Shaver, you are wise to have remained unencumbered.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I think tiresome is the very best word in that passage.



Langham said:


> Shaver, your deft imagery would really be quite an asset to English poetry I think - is that something you have ever considered?
> 
> Here again, I would say your careful choice of words - rut, slithers, scuttles, slime, genital froth, spores - seems expertly calibrated to project an antipathy to procreation.
> 
> I quite understand other people's children are very tiresome; indeed from time to time even one's own can be testing. Parenting, while rich in promise, can nevertheless be occasionally trying, and feeling as you apparently do about children, Shaver, you are wise to have remained unencumbered.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Shaver, your deft imagery would really be quite an asset to English poetry I think - is that something you have ever considered?
> 
> Here again, I would say your careful choice of words - rut, slithers, scuttles, slime, genital froth, spores - seems expertly calibrated to project an antipathy to procreation.
> 
> I quite understand other people's children are very tiresome; indeed from time to time even one's own can be testing. Parenting, while rich in promise, can nevertheless be occasionally trying, and feeling as you apparently do about children, Shaver, you are wise to have remained unencumbered.


Why thank you Mr L, that is very kind of you to say so.

I will allow that I possess a measure of sly pride in having bequeathed the phrase 'accretion of genital froth' to the world.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Its own special circle of Hell:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Its own special circle of Hell:
> 
> View attachment 15616


True enough but adults may be equally frustrating passengers. I am exceptionally sensitive to the back of any seat that I occupy being jostled, once is perhaps an accident, twice is careless, the third time and I will speak politely (but sternly) to the offender. Any further incidence and I have been known to exhibit my temper.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Off topic, but amen, Shaver.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ... Any further incidence and I have been known to exhibit my temper.


While I agree with this, the problem in this day and age of 'safe space entitled BS' that spouts from anyone who thinks their God given right to be a PITA has been infringed is probably that you would be thrown into a holding cell by the air marshals.

B.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> While I agree with this, the problem in this day and age of 'safe space entitled BS' that spouts from anyone who thinks their God given right to be a PITA has been infringed is probably that you would be thrown into a holding cell by the air marshals.
> 
> B.


No space is safe when my dander is up.

Actually after 12 months in anger management (stop laughing there at the back) a few years ago I am much less, shall we say, volatile than once I was.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm reminded of the "special" parking space reserved at a crunchy Asheville food co-op for "expectant mothers or parents with small children." As it was a prime spot, right in front of the door, I used it routinely, and deliberately, even when other spots were available. Someone raised an eyebrow once and I responded that I certainly was a "mother" in the colloquial sense, and if they wished to test my expectancy, to bring it on.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Despite our having a clearly defined policy stipulating that infants should not be introduced to the working environment under any circumstance, still every dimwitted breeder that has ever sired a sproglodyte cheerfully parade their vile issue up and down the building, announced by the piercing shrieks and ear-splitting howls these diminutive horrors are wont to make then, inevitably, accompanied by a chorus of inane cooing and mewling from post-menopausal biddies. It is all very ghastly.


Is your mother aware of the horrible consequences of her being a breeder?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> No space is safe when my dander is up.
> 
> Actually after 12 months in anger management (stop laughing there at the back) a few years ago I am much less, shall we say, volatile than once I was.


I'm reminded of that Jack Nicholson flick, Anger Management, where when confronted by someone 'manspreading' into his seat, he responds, deadpan "We're not going to have a problem here, are we?"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Is your mother aware of the horrible consequences of her being a breeder?


Now Mike, what do *you *think?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I would think she would be proud that her offspring/accretion/diminutive horror turned out so well. I have to say, I was certainly horrified by the two diminutive horrors I helped produce, and they continue to terrorize me into their adulthood. Just say no to parenthood.



Mike Petrik said:


> Is your mother aware of the horrible consequences of her being a breeder?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Duvel said:


> I would think she would be proud that her offspring/accretion/diminutive horror turned out so well. I have to say, I was certainly horrified by the two diminutive horrors I helped produce, and they continue to terrorize me into their adulthood. Just say no to parenthood.


How sad for you.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Now Mike, what do *you *think?


I don't know, which is why I asked.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Duvel said:


> I'm reminded of the "special" parking space reserved at a crunchy Asheville food co-op for "expectant mothers or parents with small children." As it was a prime spot, right in front of the door, I used it routinely, and deliberately, even when other spots were available. Someone raised an eyebrow once and I responded that I certainly was a "mother" in the colloquial sense, and if they wished to test my expectancy, to bring it on.


And you're actually proud of this boorish, immature behavior? Sad indeed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't know, which is why I asked.


OK.

*humourlessness detected* *solemnity engaged*

Breeding is not in and of itself a terrible act, as I believe I have made clear throughout, it is the unrealistic expectation of parents that we should share in their joy and tolerate any irritation their offspring care to unleash.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Duvel said:


> ... Someone raised an eyebrow once and I responded that I certainly was a "mother" in the colloquial sense, and if they wished to test my expectancy, to bring it on.




[extra text required to post]


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

How humorless and self-righteous for you.



Mike Petrik said:


> How sad for you.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

smmrfld said:


> And you're actually proud of this boorish, immature behavior? Sad indeed.


Straight out of the Dale Carnegie Institute....winning friends and influencing people. It really is pathetic, isn't it.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Proud? Yes. Fiercely so! Sad? I think you're projecting.



smmrfld said:


> And you're actually proud of this boorish, immature behavior? Sad indeed.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Duvel said:


> Yeah, well, stick a sock in it, old friend.


Might need to borrow one.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Actually, I committed the crime of parking in Stork Parking more than once, and I was confronted, even more aggressively, a couple of times. I did manage a less boorish retort on these other occasions, because it occurred to me that some of these hippies, fufu though they appeared on first glance, actually (even the female ones) might be able to kick my butt. My new response was, "But I am pregnant, I tell you. I am pregnant with promise! (Or, I am pregnant with ideas!--I forget which exactly I used.)" They left me alone.

What I don't get is this. You're pregnant, or you're a parent, and that's all--you're not disabled. I don't feel sorry for you. Sure, being pregnant CAN be physically demanding, but if anything, that should mean you should make even doubly sure that you are in good physical shape, and I don't see how cheating your distance from the front door of a store is going to help you in that regard--if anything, you should be encouraged to park as far from the front door as possible. Get out those fitbits!

I can understand that it is also physically demanding to drag your diminutive horrors from place to place. But you made the choice to become pregnant (one assumes) or become a parent (again, one assumes)! You did not inherit a disease or become unavoidably disabled. And I tell you what, working for the man for 8-10 hours a day is pretty physically demanding as well. I don't see a parking space reserved for the working stiff whose nerves are frayed after a long day of dealing with office politics, unreasonable deadlines, jerks for coworkers, and sockless hipsters.

This only my opinion, however, and I do not recommend this course of behavior as a way to get in good with pregnant women or as a method for winning friends and influencing people.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Duvel said:


> What I don't get is this. You're pregnant, or you're a parent, and that's all--you're not disabled. I don't feel sorry for you. Sure, being pregnant CAN be physically demanding, but if anything, that should mean you should make even doubly sure that you are in good physical shape, and I don't see how cheating your distance from the front door of a store is going to help you in that regard--if anything, you should be encouraged to park as far from the front door as possible. Get out those fitbits!
> 
> I can understand that it is also physically demanding to drag your diminutive horrors from place to place. But you made the choice to become pregnant (one assumes) or become a parent (again, one assumes)! You did not inherit a disease or become unavoidably disabled. And I tell you what, working for the man for 8-10 hours a day is pretty physically demanding as well. I don't see a parking space reserved for the working stiff whose nerves are frayed after a long day of dealing with office politics, unreasonable deadlines, jerks for coworkers, and sockless hipsters.


AMEN!!!!!!

So many entitled mommies where I live. Exercise is supposed to be good for pregnant women--so why do they need the close-in parking space? I always park there if I see one.

What's next--parking for fat people? (Yes, I know that morbid obesity is a "disease"--but if you're that huge, you probably have a handicapped tag already anyway.)

Just as bad are the "parking for families with small children" spots I've heard about. That one is simply baffling. Do people think little kids should not have to walk? OR is it their lazy-slob parents who have badgered retailers into this?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Breeding is not in and of itself a terrible act, as I believe I have made clear throughout, it is the unrealistic expectation of parents that we should share in their joy and tolerate any irritation their offspring care to unleash.


This break in the curmudgeon act allows me to agree. The womenfolk are pumped of on dopamine or some chemical, I think. I have no idea what the excuse is for men. It's exactly as if we stormed in with our fancy clothes and insisted that acquaintances examined the stuff, tried it on, complimented it all.

I also agree with this feelgood parking space hooey. There is some ounce of pity for the cumbersome pre-toddler age where the actual child, possibly a car seat or a crib, and a mommy bag of survival goods is toted around. But then, where's the father?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> AMEN!!!!!!
> 
> So many entitled mommies where I live. Exercise is supposed to be good for pregnant women--so why do they need the close-in parking space? I always park there if I see one.
> 
> ...


Another example is the thinking that pushchairs have automatic right of way, in all circumstances, even if other pedestrians are mowed down like the thing was one of Queen Boudica's chariots.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Tempest said:


> There is some ounce of pity for the cumbersome pre-toddler age where the actual child, possibly a car seat or a crib, and a mommy bag of survival goods is toted around. But then, where's the father?


I've never understood why a family trip to the mall nowadays requires a ginormous MRAP-sized vehicle and parent-schlepped bags with enough gear to outfit a week on the Appalachian Trail.

When I was a small child (mid- to late 1970s), my parents didn't do that. Thirsty? Find a water fountain. Hungry? Tough it out till we get home. Bored? You'll live. There were certainly no bags full of juice boxes and snacks! True, there were no car seats back then (except maybe for babies)--but those, once installed, stay in the car. Likewise, we had no minivans or SUVs. We had a station wagon, and not even a very large one. It was fine. (And once I was about 9, it was all coupes and small sedans.)

These little s--ts today are just spoiled into uselessness by their parents. No wonder the Millennials are (mostly) weak, lazy, entitled, reliant on others at all times, and unable to write with actual punctuation and capitalization.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

There is an overbearing theme to this all of self-absorption, avoidance of inconvenience (for yourself, not others) and probably a few other social ills. I'm sure someone can piece it together better than I can.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Has the Interchange actually devolved into a bunch of shrill dandies who live in terror of mothers, pregnant women, and children?

And really, parking in expectant mother parking spaces - of all the groups to bully... expectant mothers? At least park in the loading zone, or possibly the fire lane, where you can at least challenge other men.

Gentlemen - the supposed denizens of the Interchange (according to the blurb) - *allow* themselves to be inconvenienced for the sake of courtesy.

I can only imagine the people "contributing" to this thread also balk at holding a door for someone - what could be more entitled than an a following pedestrian's expectation of slave labor!

DH


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> Has the Interchange actually devolved into a bunch of shrill dandies who live in terror of mothers, pregnant women, and children?
> 
> And really, parking in expectant mother parking spaces - of all the groups to bully... expectant mothers? At least park in the loading zone, or possibly the fire lane, where you can at least challenge other men.
> 
> ...


+1000. Rather sad stuff if some of these posts are to be taken seriously. I only just recently ventured into the Interchange....had not previously even browsed any threads. Based on most of what I've seen, I don't see enough like-mindedness to cause me to want to stick around. Just the opposite, in fact.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> Has the Interchange actually devolved into a bunch of shrill dandies who live in terror of mothers, pregnant women, and children?
> 
> And really, parking in expectant mother parking spaces - of all the groups to bully... expectant mothers? At least park in the loading zone, or possibly the fire lane, where you can at least challenge other men.
> 
> ...


I hold the door for women--all women--and even men if they happen to be behind me. Or for people with a ton of stuff in their arms.

The idea that it's somehow an act of bullying to park in a legal space that has been unofficially designated as for pregnant women, minivan families in sweatsuits with 18 children, or whomever is utter nonsense. These spaces never even existed 10 or 15 years ago; by your logic, all pregnant women who parked a car before then were in a state of being bullied every time they did so.

And yes, I do park in the Home Depot "Pro" spots and the "online customer only" spots. I park wherever there's a legal, non-disabled spot. If someone confronts me (and they haven't yet), I'm ready. That includes any indignant husbands/boyfriends/dads/brothers who may be driving a pregnant women and don't like seeing me park in what they consider the baby-momma's entitled spot.

What's next--spaces for recovering heroin addicts? How about for cigarette smokers who can't walk more than 40 feet without hacking up Indiana? Heck, why not divide up every parking lot by age group--so that if you're under 45 and healthy, you park in the hinterlands! And the only way you could park within 50 feet of a business is if you're elderly, pregnant, disabled, or are a minivan family with 18 hollering hellions with juice boxes and sweatpants. It's a slippery slope.

"Gentlemen - the supposed denizens of the Interchange (according to the blurb) - *allow* themselves to be inconvenienced for the sake of courtesy."

Yes--but the key word is "allow"--not "are forced." What galls me about the spaces is the sense that these people _expect _the rest of us to inconvenience ourselves for something they _chose _to take on! No one asks to be in a wheelchair, but pregnant? You brought that on yourself! (And any doctor will tell you that walking is _recommended _for pregnant women.)

Imagine you're approaching a door to an office building, along with a young-ish woman you do not know. She stops at the door, looks at you, and says "Hey! You need to hold that door for me, Mister!" Would you? I wouldn't--even though I would have, had she not asked.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I think that's the right decision. We certainly wouldn't want you to feel challenged by any points of view that don't conform with your own preconceptions of how the world is supposed to look or behave.



FLCracka said:


> I don't see enough like-mindedness to cause me to want to stick around. Just the opposite, in fact.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> ...
> What's next--spaces for recovering heroin addicts? How about for cigarette smokers who can't walk more than 40 feet without hacking up Indiana? Heck, why not divide up every parking lot by age group--so that if you're under 45 and healthy, you park in the hinterlands! And the only way you could park within 50 feet of a business is if you're elderly, pregnant, disabled, or are a minivan family with 18 hollering hellions with juice boxes and sweatpants. It's a slippery slope. ...


That could have been written by Larry David, and I mean that in an entirely complimentary way!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

You're right! Larry David is a hero of mine. I may write him in for my vote for POTUS in the upcoming.



Balfour said:


> That could have been written by Larry David, and I mean that in an entirely complimentary way!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> And yes, I do park in the Home Depot "Pro" spots and the "online customer only" spots. I park wherever there's a legal, non-disabled spot. If someone confronts me (and they haven't yet), I'm ready. That includes any indignant husbands/boyfriends/dads/brothers who may be driving a pregnant women and don't like seeing me park in what they consider the baby-momma's entitled spot.


I can't possibly be the first person who's pointed this out, but the attitude of "I'm Super Special, so I don't see why I should follow rules or adhere to commonly accepted standards of decency" is *itself* very "entitled".

Actually, the various expectant mothers, handicapped folks, etc. who benefit are not "entitled" - they are simply using a courtesy extended to them? That's hardly "entitled".

I enjoy walking on the sidewalks in my neighborhood - they were there when I moved here - and I hardly see how that makes me "entitled", even if motorized vehicles aren't permitted on them.



AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> What's next--spaces for recovering heroin addicts?


Ah, here's the part where you equate "expectant mothers" to "heroin addicts". That falls beneath my "reply to this" floor, so I won't bother. Perhaps someone else will carry *that* banner.



AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> (And any doctor will tell you that walking is _recommended _for pregnant women.)


In fairness, I will say that I agree with the medical suggestion here; indeed, my wife never used the "mother" parking spaces when she was pregnant, and never used them when our daughter was an infant (in the case of the "mothers with children" spaces, or whatever they are), nor did I when I was driving her around. BUT, the spaces ARE there, and they're a courtesy extended by OTHERS to the expectant mothers, and it is not for you to swoop in and take them, any more than you should swoop in to grab a piece of candy being handed to a child (did the child earn it? surely not!) Common courtesy and civility are in short-enough supply these days that one should at least make SOME effort not to be, as they say, a "douche".



AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> Imagine you're approaching a door to an office building, along with a young-ish woman you do not know. She stops at the door, looks at you, and says "Hey! You need to hold that door for me, Mister!" Would you? I wouldn't--even though I would have, had she not asked.


That has never, every happened to me, ever, during the whole of my life (living in four countries, passing through countless buildings, and being followed through, at this point, two-hundred thousand doors, at least.) If it DID happen, I would hold the door for her: I'm not so small a person that I will allow another's boorishness to alter MY behavior; afterward, I wouldn't give it a moment's thought.



AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> If someone confronts me (and they haven't yet), I'm ready.




There very fact that you're ready to squeak out some kind of "prepared reply" only shows that you *realize* that you're in the wrong; right-acting people don't go through life "ready" in case someone "confronts" them. That guilt is a stressor, by the way (per Baumeister's "ego depletion" model of self-regulation).

DH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Duvel said:


> I think that's the right decision. We certainly wouldn't want you to feel challenged by any points of view that don't conform with your own preconceptions of how the world is supposed to look or behave.


I myself am unfortunately drawn, moth to candle, to contrarian environments.

DH


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

This thread is all about encroaching infringements and what one can be stuck with if they don't squelch them early on. Currently, these privileged spots are suggestions. Honor them and they become law, and then the entitled bar lowers and soon everyone that isn't a whiner is walking from the far end of an empty lot for no good reason. 
Don't lend honor and credibility to silly ideas by obliging them. How do you think this boiled frog nonsense of office space with loose children running amok started? Incrementalism. Nip it in the bud!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

This calls for action, and now!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Tempest said:


> Incrementalism. Nip it in the bud!


Fighting "incrementalism" is fine (a worthy mode of light activism), but when choosing one's battles... pregnant women? families with small children?

At least pick on people who are actually deserving of scorn - double-parkers, smokers, music-enthusiasts who fail to use headphones in public.

Choosing to confront an pregnant woman, or a woman with a toddler in tow, smacks of the worst kind of pipsqueakery: selecting a target who will have to direct their attention to defending another rather than defending themselves.

DH


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> Choosing to confront an pregnant woman, or a woman with a toddler in tow, smacks of the worst kind of pipsqueakery: selecting a target who will have to direct their attention to defending another rather than defending themselves.
> 
> DH


Not sure where Tempest suggested a confrontation of the nature you imply here; I think he was talking about confronting a culture of entitlement on a macro-level, rather than a confrontation with a specific person (where I agree the point you make about this being boorish would be well-made). But no doubt he is better placed to respond.

Having said that, of course the slightest murmur or susurration of objection about anyone's children behaving antisocially in public can provoke the most visceral and disproportionate confrontation from those that beget them ...


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> I can't possibly be the first person who's pointed this out, but the attitude of "I'm Super Special, so I don't see why I should follow rules or adhere to commonly accepted standards of decency" is *itself* very "entitled".


I'm anything but entitled or expecting special treatment. I'll park in the most far-flung without complaining, if that's all that's available. I obey the laws as passed by the actual authorities but won't participate in this silly business of reserving spaces for certain non-disabled groups who think their own aversion to exertion obligates the rest of us to accommodate.



Dhaller said:


> Actually, the various expectant mothers, handicapped folks, etc. who benefit are not "entitled" - they are simply using a courtesy extended to them? That's hardly "entitled".


You're grouping human beings who have chosen to take on a temporary state of marginally greater wobbliness (one that in no way prevents walking) with people who are disabled through no choice of their own?



Dhaller said:


> I enjoy walking on the sidewalks in my neighborhood - they were there when I moved here - and I hardly see how that makes me "entitled", even if motorized vehicles aren't permitted on them.


As you should; the sidewalks were built by the locality but are open to everyone. Likewise, handicap spots are reserved by the state/locality and have the weight of official authority.



Dhaller said:


> Ah, here's the part where you equate "expectant mothers" to "heroin addicts". That falls beneath my "reply to this" floor, so I won't bother. Perhaps someone else will carry *that* banner.


Read my post again; I did not equate them. I said that the principle one establishes in saying that proximity of parking spaces should be based on the presumed degree of physical hardiness (the principle behind reserved-for-pregnant spots) sets up a slippery slope--which it does. If pregnant-woman spots are Ok by you, why not some reserved for non-disabled elderly? And then we'll have to have them for non-disabled obese. And then people will want them if they have X number of bags.



Dhaller said:


> In fairness, I will say that I agree with the medical suggestion here; indeed, my wife never used the "mother" parking spaces when she was pregnant, and never used them when our daughter was an infant (in the case of the "mothers with children" spaces, or whatever they are), nor did I when I was driving her around. BUT, the spaces ARE there, and they're a courtesy extended by OTHERS to the expectant mothers, and it is not for you to swoop in and take them, any more than you should swoop in to grab a piece of candy being handed to a child (did the child earn it? surely not!) Common courtesy and civility are in short-enough supply these days that one should at least make SOME effort not to be, as they say, a "douche".


I think it's douchey when anyone who is not disabled expects to have spots reserved for those like them. It's no more "swooping in" to park in a space with this ridiculous designation than it is to park in any other space. And it's not like I go looking for those spots, but if one is there and is closest, I'm taking it. If an expectant mother comes along later, she can park in another spot just as easily. A few more feet of walking won't kill her--nor will it kill me if I end up in the farther-out space. (If she's so far along that the extra few feet are that big a deal, she's fit to burst, and she shouldn't be driving or shopping.)



Dhaller said:


> That has never, every happened to me, ever, during the whole of my life (living in four countries, passing through countless buildings, and being followed through, at this point, two-hundred thousand doors, at least.) If it DID happen, I would hold the door for her: I'm not so small a person that I will allow another's boorishness to alter MY behavior; afterward, I wouldn't give it a moment's thought.
> 
> I think it's boorishness for a retailer to expect customers not to park in a legal space--and I'm not going to let that affect my behavior.
> 
> [/COLOR]There very fact that you're ready to squeak out some kind of "prepared reply" only shows that you *realize* that you're in the wrong; right-acting people don't go through life "ready" in case someone "confronts" them. That guilt is a stressor, by the way (per Baumeister's "ego depletion" model of self-regulation).


I have no prepared reply; I'm just not afraid of anyone who might confront me. I'm pretty confident of my ability to engage verbally or otherwise. I can assure you my reply would be anything but squeaked out.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> No wonder the Millennials are (mostly) weak, lazy, entitled, reliant on others at all times, and unable to write with actual punctuation and capitalization.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Modern parents are such piss poor role models. Heaven help the human race.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Annoyingly, I am obliged to agree with you. 



Tempest said:


> This thread is all about encroaching infringements and what one can be stuck with if they don't squelch them early on. Currently, these privileged spots are suggestions. Honor them and they become law, and then the entitled bar lowers and soon everyone that isn't a whiner is walking from the far end of an empty lot for no good reason.
> Don't lend honor and credibility to silly ideas by obliging them. How do you think this boiled frog nonsense of office space with loose children running amok started? Incrementalism. Nip it in the bud!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Modern parents are such piss poor role models. Heaven help the human race.


Appreciating this is very much British humour, which our American cousins might not appreciate the full nuances / context of Harry Enfield:






The sad fact is it is a basically news reporting for much of this country now. As I said earlier, feral animals abound.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Smokers? Settle yourself down silly man.



Dhaller said:


> Fighting "incrementalism" is fine (a worthy mode of light activism), but when choosing one's battles... pregnant women? families with small children?
> 
> At least pick on people who are actually deserving of scorn - double-parkers, smokers, music-enthusiasts who fail to use headphones in public.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Whilst it is extraordinarly kind of you to assist my friend still I stand by my original statement. Modern parents are piss weak .



Balfour said:


> Appreciating this is very much British humour, which our American cousins might not appreciate the full nuances / context of Harry Enfield:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Whilst it is extraordinarly kind of you to assist my friend still I stand by my original statement. Modern parents are piss weak .


I hadn't appreciated I was demurring!

B.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

My apologies. It is late and my faculties, diminished by age, begin to desert me.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

It happens to the best of us. Perhaps we of diminished faculties, diminished by age, might one day have our own parking spaces. That hope always makes me feel a bit brighter.



Shaver said:


> My apologies. It is late and my faculties, diminished by age, begin to desert me.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I must state that the annoyance should be with the enablers and lackadaisical enforcers.
Would the workplace be compromised had supervisors promptly put their foot down? No woman asked for preferential parking; thisis smarmy patronizing, sucking up, by a commercial establishment. 

As with many issues, the individuals taking advantage of what is offered can hardly be blamed. It is the authority figures that have failed.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Tempest said:


> I must state that the annoyance should be with the enablers and lackadaisical enforcers.
> Would the workplace be compromised had supervisors promptly put their foot down? No woman asked for preferential parking; thisis smarmy patronizing, sucking up, by a commercial establishment.
> 
> As with many issues, the individuals taking advantage of what is offered can hardly be blamed. It is the authority figures that have failed.


I don't fully agree with this, although it raises an interesting and important dimension to the issue.

First, the responsibility to avoid engaging in anti-social behaviour remains a personal moral responsibility.

Secondly, the culture of special interest lobbying / resort to litigation / political correctness has created a climate where it is very difficult for authority figures to take sensible and right-thinking decisions. It has also fostered a culture of entitlement amongst groups that feel they enjoy a special status.

(I appreciate on the second point, your point may have more validity historically - i.e. such a climate should not have been allowed to develop in the first place. But as things stand now, I think authority figures have been undermined and are in a bit of a Catch 22.)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Just a reminder - - AAAC rules apply even in the interchange and even in threads like this one.

Just out of curiosity, many of the posters in this thread are upset that dress standards seem to be getting more and more casual.

How do threads like this one make people who could learn from our clothing advice respect us or want to be like us in any way?

Amazingly, not one of you thought to report any of this. I found this almost by accident.

There have been three infractions issued; one somewhat major and two minor. I won't tread lightly again.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I trust the moderator's steer will be followed, as I don't want the thread closed.

Having said that, forsb, I disagree with your comment on what I take to be the substance of the thread (rather than moderation decisions to which I was not subject)* - I think (some of) the views aired are valid and I don't much care whether that means people will be more or less inclined to follow my advice on matters sartorial.

Now, I don't approve of the childish overreaction by the adult in this clip, but I have to admit it made me chuckle:






* "How do threads like this one make people who could learn from our clothing advice respect us or want to be like us in any way?"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Concur, please follow moderation advice as this thread is worthy of continuation.

Returning to my assertion about the quality of modern parenting, it would seem that the British government agrees with me. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...plans-parenting-classes-for-all-families.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> I trust the moderator's steer will be followed, as I don't want the thread closed.
> 
> Having said that, forsb, I disagree with your comment on what I take to be the substance of the thread (rather than moderation decisions to which I was not subject)* - I think (some of) the views aired are valid and I don't much care whether that means people will be more or less inclined to follow my advice on matters sartorial.
> 
> ...


That the brat gets his comeuppance is fine. However, the villain of the piece isn't the brat. The villain is the brat's parent who seems to be indulging the brat's behaviour. The problem almost invariably lays at the door of the parent.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed, the problem is with the parent and with the other adult featured in the referenced clip. My children and grandchildren were/are not allowed to act in the manner showcased in the video, but I assure you, if they had and another adult had seen fit to address the problem with the child rather than with me, I would have literally fed them that milk carton...or made a hell of an effort trying to do so! Depending on the local ordinances, that adult committed an assault and battery against the offending youngster.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed, the problem is with the parent and with the other adult featured in the referenced clip. My children and grandchildren were/are not allowed to act in the manner showcased in the video, but I assure you, if they had and another adult had seen fit to address the problem with the child rather than with me, I would have literally fed them that milk carton...or made a hell of an effort trying to do so! Depending on the local ordinances, that adult committed an assault and battery against the offending youngster.


Agree 100 per cent.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> That the brat gets his comeuppance is fine. However, the villain of the piece isn't the brat. The villain is the brat's parent who seems to be indulging the brat's behaviour. The problem almost invariably lays at the door of the parent.


Again agree. The other adult's reaction was not excusable, though as Eagle says. I would have spoken firmly to the parent - what could she have been thinking?!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Again agree. The other adult's reaction was not excusable, though as Eagle says. I would have spoken firmly to the parent - *what could she have been thinking?*!


In my experience there are 2 possible options which may account for a parent's seeming indifference in such situations:

1. Everything my child does is wonderful.

2. I have developed a filter which permits me to escape my child.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> In my experience there are 2 possible options which may account for a parent's seeming indifference in such situations:
> 
> 1. Everything my child does is wonderful.
> 
> 2. I have developed a filter which permits me to escape my child.


Exactly. You can imagine the battle I have on a daily basis with such parents!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> In my experience there are 2 possible options which may account for a parent's seeming indifference in such situations:
> 
> 1. Everything my child does is wonderful.
> 
> 2. I have developed a filter which permits me to escape my child.


Agree re 1. Frequently observed. Care to expand on 2?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Exactly. You can imagine the battle I have on a daily basis with such parents!


Your capacity for patience and impulse control must be significantly more voluminous than my own.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Exactly. You can imagine the battle I have on a daily basis with such parents!


Children and a child's behavior are a direct reflection of the parent(s). While I'm sure there are some true Hell Spawn out there, for the most part children are modeling their behavior based on the parenting style.

I generally avoid places where there are many children. Of course this is quite easy for the most part as the places where children often go have very little to offer me.

It's not that I dislike children. I just don't have any patience for them. They are 100% id. As such, they are unable to recognize any need beyond theirs and could care less about the impact they have upon others. I don't blame them for this; it's what kids do. I'm sure all of us, including myself, acted in this way until a certain age.

Of course how parents react to this and how they handle their little ones impacts the overall set of behaviors.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Your capacity for patience and impulse control must be significantly more voluminous than my own.


Amen. In this consumerist approach to education I imagine the parents are worse than, to gleefully adopt Shaver's expression, the diminutive horrors.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

P.S. Chouan, glad we have finally found a thread on which we agree on The Interchange!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Agree re 1. Frequently observed. Care to expand on 2?


My pleasure.

Many parents seem able to develop a narrowly focused cognitive blind spot which distances them from the behaviour (and most especially the screaming) of their offspring. This accounts for their obliviousness to the discomforts that the diminutive horrors may be inflicting upon others.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> My pleasure.
> 
> Many parents seem able to develop a narrowly focused cognitive blind spot which distances them from the behaviour (and most especially the screaming) of their offspring. This accounts for their obliviousness to the discomforts that the diminutive horrors may be inflicting upon others.


Oh yes, I see what you mean now. I also wondered if you meant that when the horrors were raising hell with others the parent was able to escape the hell-raising. I have observed both what you expand on and what I say here.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> P.S. Chouan, glad we have finally found a thread on which we agree on The Interchange!


As am I!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Well, yes and no. I learned a long time ago that you can't make anyone do (or not do) anything.

A parent can set an example, can offer rules of behavior, ethical and moral standards, and of course, a parent should stand behind those principles with the appropriate enforcement. However. we should remember, and as I think every parent understands, children are not automatons but human beings with free will. Ultimately, no matter how good or bad one's parenting skills, one cannot control how one's child chooses to behave. That does not excuse one of responsibility, of course, but to say that a child's behavior is a reflection of his parent is greatly simplifying the matter.

I did awful things that horrified and embarrassed my parents, and it was entirely of my volition. I even knew I was violating what they'd taught me. My own children did the same from time to time. It's a cliche to say it, but there truly is only so much you can do. Even a parent cannot control everything.



SG_67 said:


> _Children and a child's behavior are a direct reflection of the parent(s). While I'm sure there are some true Hell Spawn out there, for the most part children are modeling their behavior based on the parenting style. _
> 
> I generally avoid places where there are many children. Of course this is quite easy for the most part as the places where children often go have very little to offer me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I once overheard an exchange between a "parent" and a brat. The brat was screaming about wanting something, words to the effect of "I want that toy!" repeated at blood boiling pitch. The parent responded with "Haven't you forgotten a word?" the child responded with "I want that toy NOW!" and was duly given the toy......


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Would that it were all children shared but one pair of ears and into which I could project, with a precisely applied soupçon of menace, "Sit down and shut up."


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Would that it were all children shared but one pair of ears and into which I could project, with a precisely applied soupçon of menace, "Sit down and shut up."


From your lips to God's ears. I wonder what happened in (Western) society such that most children became the masters of their parents and free largely to indulge themselves in whatever they wish as compared to the time when they should be 'seen not heard'.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Duvel said:


> Well, yes and no. I learned a long time ago that you can't make anyone do (or not do) anything.
> 
> A parent can set an example, can offer rules of behavior, ethical and moral standards, and of course, a parent should stand behind those principles with the appropriate enforcement. However. we should remember, and as I think every parent understands, children are not automatons but human beings with free will. Ultimately, no matter how good or bad one's parenting skills, one cannot control how one's child chooses to behave. That does not excuse one of responsibility, of course, but to say that a child's behavior is a reflection of his parent is greatly simplifying the matter.
> 
> I did awful things that horrified and embarrassed my parents, and it was entirely of my volition. I even knew I was violating what they'd taught me. My own children did the same from time to time. It's a cliche to say it, but there truly is only so much you can do. Even a parent cannot control everything.


I'm referring specifically to toddlers.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Oh, well, that's different. There are no rules with toddlers. Just put a leash and muzzle on them and you're good to go.



SG_67 said:


> I'm referring specifically to toddlers.


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

Duvel said:


> And I tell you what, working for the man for 8-10 hours a day is pretty physically demanding as well. I don't see a parking space reserved for the working stiff whose nerves are frayed after a long day of dealing with office politics, unreasonable deadlines, jerks for coworkers, and sockless hipsters.


Of all the times I've seen men go to lengths to ensure their plights are taken more seriously than those of women, I've never seen someone directly compare the physical demand of _working with sockless hipsters_ to the physical demand of pregnancy. Congrats on setting a new bar, Duvel!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Balfour said:


> From your lips to God's ears. I wonder what happened in (Western) society such that most children became the masters of their parents and free largely to indulge themselves in whatever they wish as compared to the time when they should be 'seen not heard'.


Well, that's mostly confined to the USA (or perhaps to the larger Anglophone world); I don't see it in other countries I spend time in.

Our daughter (3) is subject to the French model of child-rearing (children are taught to maintain strict boundaries, but are very free within those boundaries; also, they must respect their parents without question), with perhaps a dash of Latin American influence (we have a Colombian nanny); she's well-mannered, but most of what makes a "good child" in public is planning, and 99% of the "terrors" one might encounter are failures of project planning by the parents: timing naps, meals, etc. so that "the stars are right" for the interval the child will be out. I would certainly consider "dragging the kids along to the office" to be generally poor planning.

We live in the USA and Japan, and I will say that in Japan, children are far more "invisible"; it's a much less child-friendly environment in general, in terms of public spaces - little accommodation is made for parents.

But like any creature, children benefit from a kind of transparency, knowing exactly where they stand and what they can and cannot do, and it's important to be inflexible in this as a parent. The failure of parents to enforce this lies in simple laziness: it's MUCH HARDER to discipline a child than it is to spoil one (well, in the near term).

Parental laziness, too, is the cause of the office tag-along: it's easier than coordinating with the spouse (or other relatives), and cheaper than hiring a nanny. They don't actually care what you think of their child, or assume you find them cute; that's a performance, more often than not (except in case of objectively very adorable children like, well, my own daughter...)

But in seriousness, having a child hanging around the office is a great disservice to the child: it's the wrong set of stimuli. Pure selfishness for a parent to set their child up at a conference table with some paper and crayons while they get some work done.

Children are better off in a garden, playing with butterflies (and other things).

DH


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ Being serious for a moment, I agree with a lot of what you say above Dhaller. The UK is just as bad as the US in my experience. The Scandinavian experience is quite interesting, as Swedish parents generally speaking seem to be against harsh discipline, but are also generally speaking so engaged in their children's lives that the children are correspondingly better behaved for the reasons you give. I'm torn between the Swedish approach, the Japanese environment and Victorian England, to be honest! (Okay, being less serious in referring to the C19th!) But it sure as h$ll is not the modern UK / US environment.

EDIT: I would question what you say about it being a performance when they assume you think their child is cute. I agree for some it is (and as you say they don't care). But there have been so many examples of genuine sentiment to the contrary that I do think it is a real thing.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm glad you share my sense of humor!



ouinon said:


> Of all the times I've seen men go to lengths to ensure their plights are taken more seriously than those of women, I've never seen someone directly compare the physical demand of _working with sockless hipsters_ to the physical demand of pregnancy. Congrats on setting a new bar, Duvel!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

ouinon said:


> Of all the times I've seen men go to lengths to ensure their plights are taken more seriously than those of women, I've never seen someone directly compare the physical demand of _working with sockless hipsters_ to the physical demand of pregnancy. Congrats on setting a new bar, Duvel!


You should consider a career as a spin doctor given your ability shamelessly to mischaracterise what someone else posted.

Duvel* was discussing whether pregnant women should be afforded privileged parking.

First, an argument that they should not (whether you agree with it or not) does not involve a claim for a plight to be taken more seriously than women, merely one for parity of treatment.

Secondly, Duvel did not at any stage suggest that the physical demands of what he described and pregancy were "directly" comparable.

Thirdly, you alight on sockless hipsters because it suits the point you wish to make, but Duvel listed a concatenation of circumstances to be assessed in their totality.

Those are the logical reasons why your post shot far across the mark.

But the real one was that Duvel was writing in a tone of humorous hyperbole, which appears to have shot far above your head.

*His post in full:



Duvel said:


> Actually, I committed the crime of parking in Stork Parking more than once, and I was confronted, even more aggressively, a couple of times. I did manage a less boorish retort on these other occasions, because it occurred to me that some of these hippies, fufu though they appeared on first glance, actually (even the female ones) might be able to kick my butt. My new response was, "But I am pregnant, I tell you. I am pregnant with promise! (Or, I am pregnant with ideas!--I forget which exactly I used.)" They left me alone.
> 
> What I don't get is this. You're pregnant, or you're a parent, and that's all--you're not disabled. I don't feel sorry for you. Sure, being pregnant CAN be physically demanding, but if anything, that should mean you should make even doubly sure that you are in good physical shape, and I don't see how cheating your distance from the front door of a store is going to help you in that regard--if anything, you should be encouraged to park as far from the front door as possible. Get out those fitbits!
> 
> ...


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

I took one of the more ludacrous lines from five pages of folks complaining about pregnant women getting special treatment and used it to demonstrate how petty it all seems.

I know he was being hyperbolic because no one in their right mind would seriously assert that having a rough day at the office is as physically demanding as pregnancy. I'm just saying I hadn't seen anyone so dedicated to defending a silly sexist argument before, that's all.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Well, at least some people around here appreciate my sense of humor and my efforts to defend silly sexist arguments! Thank you, balfour and ouinon. You both are gentlemen after mine own heart.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

ouinon said:


> I took one of the more ludacrous lines from five pages of folks complaining about pregnant women getting special treatment and used it to demonstrate how petty it all seems.
> 
> I know he was being hyperbolic because no one in their right mind would seriously assert that having a rough day at the office is as physically demanding as pregnancy. I'm just saying I hadn't seen anyone so dedicated to defending a silly sexist argument before, that's all.


Would you be kind enough to take a moment and illuminate us as to exactly how you understand the term 'sexism'?

Thanks in advance for your co-operation,


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I was in transit today and decided to kill some time in a rather upmarket wine bar.

Kid was running around the place with a toy hammer, squealing and screaming like a whirling dervish and hitting random objects with said hammer. Parents beamed on in the glow of breaders enjoying the chaos wrought by their diminutive horrors. Makes one think favourably about eugenics.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Little ***k was really going John Henry in the place:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Seeing this old thread I wondered, briefly, if it was about this kind of thing https://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/ before remembering what it was really about.


----------



## Regent1879 (Jan 14, 2016)

Unless it's take your son/daughter to work day......


----------

