I need a lot of things. I need, for instance, for my cold to go away and never return, I need the teams I support to do well in the world cup, and I could also do with a drink.
To be fair, the world needs a few things as well. Safe drinking water, food and access to health care for many who don't currently have it, less violence towards nature, more intelligence, less idiocy, m
To be fair, the world needs a few things as well. Safe drinking water, food and access to health care for many who don't currently have it, less violence towards nature, more intelligence, less idiocy, m
ore animals, less human beings and so on.
This post however isn't about what we need. This is about something that neither I nor the world require, but which exists in abundance- positive discrimination and the unfairly favourable treatment of babies, and those who have them.
I think the world puts up with wayyyy too much in the name of infancy and childhood. More often than not, this involves a violation of others' freedom and convenience. Take public transport for instance. We are often asked to offer our seats to those in need, which includes people with children. This pisses me off. Did I get the woman pregnant? No. Did I force her to have a child? No. She chose to put herself in a more uncomfortable position, travel wise, so she must face the consequences of her actions. Let's get one thing straight. Having a baby is not a disability or an injury. It may be a handicap, but it's a voluntary one. Expecting people to give up their seats for people who are travelling with infants is plain ridiculous. Based on this principle, I may be suffering from high fever and invisible aches and pains, but unless I am carrying a gurgling infant, not to mention all the paraphernalia that goes with it (does a child really need ALL that??) I am unlikely to be offered a place to park myself.
This post however isn't about what we need. This is about something that neither I nor the world require, but which exists in abundance- positive discrimination and the unfairly favourable treatment of babies, and those who have them.
I think the world puts up with wayyyy too much in the name of infancy and childhood. More often than not, this involves a violation of others' freedom and convenience. Take public transport for instance. We are often asked to offer our seats to those in need, which includes people with children. This pisses me off. Did I get the woman pregnant? No. Did I force her to have a child? No. She chose to put herself in a more uncomfortable position, travel wise, so she must face the consequences of her actions. Let's get one thing straight. Having a baby is not a disability or an injury. It may be a handicap, but it's a voluntary one. Expecting people to give up their seats for people who are travelling with infants is plain ridiculous. Based on this principle, I may be suffering from high fever and invisible aches and pains, but unless I am carrying a gurgling infant, not to mention all the paraphernalia that goes with it (does a child really need ALL that??) I am unlikely to be offered a place to park myself.
The photo was taken on a train in Paris.
While we're on the subject of tolerating more than necessary for the sake of children and their parents, I think there should be an explicit rule about noise control. People who make noise and upset the decorum of any public space should be kicked out. Someone is always up in arms about how "children are people too".
No, I don't think your baby is cute. When it stares at me I feel murderous rage towards it. Can you get it out of my face now?
If I went to a restaurant and started climbing onto chairs and tables, and staring at other people, I would no doubt be asked or made to leave. I don't quite understand why children and their parents are not subjected to similar punitive measures. The other night on a bus in Edinburgh, there was a man obviously under the spell of psychosis having a rather loud conversation with himself. He wasn't verbally or physically aggressive. He sat in a corner in the back row, and spoke. He got dirty looks from pretty much every other passenger. Why? Because he was being loud. If a baby came into the bus and started screaming however, most people would coo and caah at the creature to make it feel better.
There is a difference between a crazy person and a child, some might say. I agree. The crazy person didn't choose to be crazy. The apparently non-crazy adult chose to have the child and then inflicted the child's childishness upon the rest of us. Which is the more heinous crime? Where is the justice?
What else? Ah yes, airports. People travelling with children are often allowed to go to the head of the queue, board first and disembark first. Frankly speaking, they should be asked to go last because they will take the longest. Have you seen the amount of stuff people with children tend to carry?! Imagine waiting for all that to be scanned and searched! The standard procedure on flights is that people who require assistance are asked to wait till other passengers are on their way. Why should it be any different in case of those travelling with kids? Again, I play the choice card. People with disabilities didn't ask to be put in a position of "requiring assistance". People with babies on the hand.....
Finally, I don't think one should be entitled to any financial assistance if one has kids. You should have considered the economics of it prior to birth. I think it would solve the rather prevalent, at least in UK, problem of teenage pregnancies as well. At least in part. Once that incentive is gone, people without money to look after the kids might be more careful. If you exercise your basic right to reproduce, then you bloody well take on the responsibility that goes with it.
So what am I asking for?
All I am asking is that people who commit a particular act should be the ones to suffer the consequences. Not the rest of us.
A few years ago, I was concerned about a friend's decision to rely on what I thought was an unreliable method of contraception. A common friend of ours was due to be married soon. Failing to convince first friend of the potential dangers of her method, I pointedly told her that she could forget about asking me to hold her child while she wanted to go have dinner at second friend's wedding reception.
I rest my case.
No, I don't think your baby is cute. When it stares at me I feel murderous rage towards it. Can you get it out of my face now?
If I went to a restaurant and started climbing onto chairs and tables, and staring at other people, I would no doubt be asked or made to leave. I don't quite understand why children and their parents are not subjected to similar punitive measures. The other night on a bus in Edinburgh, there was a man obviously under the spell of psychosis having a rather loud conversation with himself. He wasn't verbally or physically aggressive. He sat in a corner in the back row, and spoke. He got dirty looks from pretty much every other passenger. Why? Because he was being loud. If a baby came into the bus and started screaming however, most people would coo and caah at the creature to make it feel better.
There is a difference between a crazy person and a child, some might say. I agree. The crazy person didn't choose to be crazy. The apparently non-crazy adult chose to have the child and then inflicted the child's childishness upon the rest of us. Which is the more heinous crime? Where is the justice?
What else? Ah yes, airports. People travelling with children are often allowed to go to the head of the queue, board first and disembark first. Frankly speaking, they should be asked to go last because they will take the longest. Have you seen the amount of stuff people with children tend to carry?! Imagine waiting for all that to be scanned and searched! The standard procedure on flights is that people who require assistance are asked to wait till other passengers are on their way. Why should it be any different in case of those travelling with kids? Again, I play the choice card. People with disabilities didn't ask to be put in a position of "requiring assistance". People with babies on the hand.....
Finally, I don't think one should be entitled to any financial assistance if one has kids. You should have considered the economics of it prior to birth. I think it would solve the rather prevalent, at least in UK, problem of teenage pregnancies as well. At least in part. Once that incentive is gone, people without money to look after the kids might be more careful. If you exercise your basic right to reproduce, then you bloody well take on the responsibility that goes with it.
So what am I asking for?
All I am asking is that people who commit a particular act should be the ones to suffer the consequences. Not the rest of us.
A few years ago, I was concerned about a friend's decision to rely on what I thought was an unreliable method of contraception. A common friend of ours was due to be married soon. Failing to convince first friend of the potential dangers of her method, I pointedly told her that she could forget about asking me to hold her child while she wanted to go have dinner at second friend's wedding reception.
I rest my case.
