Never mind

[regentrude]

The desire for child-free spaces follows directly from the increasing prevalence of some parents not teaching their kids how to behave around other people. 

If I attend a concert or show, I expect parents to use discernment and only take their children if they are developmentally ready and have been taught to sit quietly. If the child cannot, I expect them to leave the venue (unless it is specifically an event for a young audience). I had small kids, and sometimes you had to miss out because a kid wasn't able to handle it without disturbing the audience. 

If I eat in a sit-down restaurant,  I expect that parents have taught their children to behave in public. I would not have thought if foisting my screaming kids on other diners. 

None of this is hating children. 

 

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, regentrude said:

The desire for child-free spaces follows directly from the increasing prevalence of some parents not teaching their kids how to behave around other people. 

If I attend a concert or show, I expect parents to use discernment and only take their children if they are developmentally ready and have been taught to sit quietly. If the child cannot, I expect them to leave the venue (unless it is specifically an event for a young audience). I had small kids, and sometimes you had to miss out because a kid wasn't able to handle it without disturbing the audience. 

If I eat in a sit-down restaurant,  I expect that parents have taught their children to behave in public. I would not have thought if foisting my screaming kids on other diners. 

None of this is hating children. 

 

This part. I flew with my children. Dined out with my children. Went to the theater with my children and to venues designed with them in mind. The behavior I see from parents these days is very much...they're kids, get over it...not they're adults in training, I'll remove them if they are ill-behaved/prepared. There's a BIG difference. I like kids too and my DH and I are now caring for a child raised with the latter attitudes. It's not good. The baby in our house sat through Les Mis and, when she was bored, cuddled up with her coat and slept (PROGRESS!!). The teens behind us talked nonstop. Home training is lacking.

Edited Tuesday at 08:46 PM by Sneezyone

[BronzeTurtle]

Animal feet or behinds should not be in places where food is sold with rare exception. Seeing any animal that licks its own behind or possibly rolled in a dead bird earlier in the day... in a shopping cart ... gives me the ick every time. 

Maybe I've just been around enough kids where it doesn't phase anymore, they are nothing near the level of animals in places where food is sold. Kids are people. People eat in restaurants and shop in stores. Kids are humans which are different than pets. The idea that a healthy dog is somehow cleaner than a sick kid is a) apples to oranges; no one wants a sick anyone or anything near them but also, b) laughable.

Also, not related to the above but just to say that childfree vitriol has been on the internet for a long time. Refering to kids as spawn and crotch nuggets and WAY worse, refering to parents as breeders. That's been going on for years and years. Maybe it's hyped up more now with the tablet generations coming of age where they just don't know how to behave without a screen in front of them, but it's always been around. THe saying "f them kids" is making a resurgence i think, but that usually in relation to other things.

Edited Tuesday at 09:03 PM by BronzeTurtle

[KSera]

23 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

The idea that a healthy dog is somehow cleaner than a sick kid is a) apples to oranges; no one wants a sick anyone or anything near them but also, b) laughable.

I don’t like to see animals where they don’t belong either, and DEFINITELY not in shopping carts where I will be putting my food. But also, it’s definitely true you are far far and away more likely to get ill from a sick child than a healthy dog (or even a sick dog, for that matter! Most of their illnesses aren’t transmissible to us). So I don’t see why that part is laughable. I don’t want a sick kid or a healthy dog in my shopping cart, but hands down if I have to push a cart around that has had one of them recently in it, I absolutely pick the dog one. No question. 

[Kalmia]

I imagine that the primary reason for declining birth rates is related to careers and economics. American corporations do put their own bottom line first and that means that things like parental leave and flexible hours are not as common as in other developed nations. Potential parents see that unless they are in very high-earning careers, one of them will have to either stay home or pay for childcare which can be as much or more than they earn. Many people have careers far from home and from potential family caregivers. If some parents drop out of the workforce for some careers there is no reentry (tech & scientific with rapid developments etc.). If they stay in their careers and choose daycare, they are not present for many hours of their children's lives, which is something they may or may not desire. Housing costs have increased astronomically. Food is very expensive. Health insurance premiums are expensive and out of pocket expenses are huge with large deductibles and some health care just denied. Housing insurance may be a thing of the past in some regions of the country and is going up in all regions. 

Many young people will just not be interested in having children. Others who may want them or are on the fence are steeped in the economic realities of current times and do not believe that having children is economically possible. No one should be vilifying the personal choices of others, but we should be taking a close look at the economic systems in place that do not support young people having choices. 

[MEmama]

21 minutes ago, Kalmia said:

I imagine that the primary reason for declining birth rates is related to careers and economics. American corporations do put their own bottom line first and that means that things like parental leave and flexible hours are not as common as in other developed nations. Potential parents see that unless they are in very high-earning careers, one of them will have to either stay home or pay for childcare which can be as much or more than they earn. Many people have careers far from home and from potential family caregivers. If some parents drop out of the workforce for some careers there is no reentry (tech & scientific with rapid developments etc.). If they stay in their careers and choose daycare, they are not present for many hours of their children's lives, which is something they may or may not desire. Housing costs have increased astronomically. Food is very expensive. Health insurance premiums are expensive and out of pocket expenses are huge with large deductibles and some health care just denied. Housing insurance may be a thing of the past in some regions of the country and is going up in all regions. 

Many young people will just not be interested in having children. Others who may want them or are on the fence are steeped in the economic realities of current times and do not believe that having children is economically possible. No one should be vilifying the personal choices of others, but we should be taking a close look at the economic systems in place that do not support young people having choices. 

Exactly. And it isn't just an American or North American problem, it's the reality nearly everywhere world wide. From South Korea and Japan to all over Europe and of course on this side of the pond the same obstacles are looming, making the decision for this generation. 

[Carol in Cal.]

58 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don’t like to see animals where they don’t belong either, and DEFINITELY not in shopping carts where I will be putting my food. But also, it’s definitely true you are far far and away more likely to get ill from a sick child than a healthy dog (or even a sick dog, for that matter! Most of their illnesses aren’t transmissible to us). So I don’t see why that part is laughable. I don’t want a sick kid or a healthy dog in my shopping cart, but hands down if I have to push a cart around that has had one of them recently in it, I absolutely pick the dog one. No question. 

Actually, no, my allergies to dogs are life threatening, and it's a very rare kid that could infect and kill me.  

[regentrude]

27 minutes ago, Kalmia said:

I imagine that the primary reason for declining birth rates is related to careers and economics. American corporations do put their own bottom line first and that means that things like parental leave and flexible hours are not as common as in other developed nations. Potential parents see that unless they are in very high-earning careers, one of them will have to either stay home or pay for childcare which can be as much or more than they earn. Many people have careers far from home and from potential family caregivers. If some parents drop out of the workforce for some careers there is no reentry (tech & scientific with rapid developments etc.). If they stay in their careers and choose daycare, they are not present for many hours of their children's lives, which is something they may or may not desire. Housing costs have increased astronomically. Food is very expensive. Health insurance premiums are expensive and out of pocket expenses are huge with large deductibles and some health care just denied. 

In my home country, we have paid maternity leave, three years of parental leave with job guarantee, paid sick-child-leave, comprehensive health insurance, child-raising benefits... nonetheless,  birth rates are declining.

While a lot could be done to improve the social system to help families, it is very difficult to increase birth rates.

The Economist had an interesting article in May about what countries can do to promote childbearing. 

One common misconception is that, as you state, it's the educated career women that drive the decline. This is actually not the case. They have the same number of children, just later. The main decline comes from you ger, poorer women who are delaying when to have children. More than half of the drop in America's fertility rate since 1990 is caused by a collapse of births among women under 19. 

Spending on programs with the goal of  increasing birth rates is very inefficient. Most money will go to parents who would have kids anyway. For example, with a program in Poland,  one additional child born as a result cost $1m. In Framce, double that amount.

 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

In my home country, we have paid maternity leave, three years of parental leave with job guarantee, paid sick-child-leave, comprehensive health insurance, child-raising benefits... nonetheless,  birth rates are declining.

While a lot could be done to improve the social system to help families, it is very difficult to increase birth rates.

The Economist had an interesting article in May about what countries can do to promote childbearing. 

One common misconception is that, as you state, it's the educated career women that drive the decline. This is actually not the case. They have the same number of children, just later. The main decline comes from you ger, poorer women who are delaying when to have children. More than half of the drop in America's fertility rate since 1990 is caused by a collapse of births among women under 19. 

Spending on programs with the goal of  increasing birth rates is very inefficient. Most money will go to parents who would have kids anyway. For example, with a program in Poland,  one additional child born as a result cost $1m. In Framce, double that amount.

 

This though, is where the rub lies. Women under 19 are increasingly brown, unmarried and undesirable child-bearers as a result. I remember, as a young-looking black woman with young kids, conspicuously wearing my wedding rings and discussing  my husband/their dad, to avoid bigoted remarks and looks from random strangers. It was awful.

[KSera]

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Actually, no, my allergies to dogs are life threatening, and it's a very rare kid that could infect and kill me.  

Obviously true for people with severe dog allergies. Just as someone with a peanut allergy could react from peanut butter hands on the cart. I was referring to the general case of kid vs dog being more likely to make someone sick. 

[Scarlett]

@SKL i’m sorry you felt the need to delete your post. I would be very interested to see what all you had to say.

I have three sons. The oldest one has a baby which was unplanned.  The middle one no kids and can’t have any as of yet and the youngest one is engaged and extremely anti kid. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:17 AM by Scarlett

[Faith-manor]

6 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I am against pets everywhere too. I think I am well on my way to gathering my rock collection so I can yell, “Get off my lawn!” 😂

Right there with you.

[Carol in Cal.]

I still believe that children should be prioritized ahead of pets.

[marbel]

16 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Weirdly enough, the same people who discourage kids in restaurants, supermarkets, and airplanes want to bring their dogs there.  Far less justifiable, and far more problematic.  It's appalling, really.

I know of a lot of people who consider their pets their children. I've met people who see pets as equivalent to children, with the same challenges and responsibilities. 

(FWIW, I've been a pet owner; I like dogs and indoor cats. Not a hater. But not equivalent in any way to children.)

[Dmmetler]

17 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

In considering the algorithms, those of you not seeing this- do you still have younger children? I do, and I see and hear these negative comments both online and a few in person.  My kids seeing this are college kids- prime age to be targeted with this messaging., and watching age appropriate content like college age TicToks.  I actually don't see messaging encouraging having children or about the joys of parenthood in general media- you have to go into parenting places to find that content. My young adults do not see any messages encouraging the fun children can be- most stuff is very self-centered,  partying, vacations, relaxation- DINK type lifestyle. 

The whole TradWife movement is pretty visble on TikTok. Because I use TT mostly to follow the bands L likes, their algorithm seems to think I'm a 20 something teacher who likes metal/punk music and cosplay, and I definitely get the TradWife stuff mixed in. 

 

I'm not sure that it does one thing for encouraging having kids, though. Honestly, it seems about as much a cosplay as the vids with folks in goth regalia going to ungothly places or the ones with people living normal life dressed in a raccoon fursuit.