Ed Driscoll at PJ Lifestyle: "The no kids-allowed-movement is spreading."
posted by Helen at 2:38 PM
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Will women ask to see men's biceps before having sex?
- Men and women do similar amounts of household chores.
- My post over at the PJ Lifestyle blog: "A Bridal ...
- John Hawkins at RWN: The Slow, Painful Coming Dea...
- "Manorexia" is on the rise:NHS figures have shown ...
- "The only ones who seem to get upset are the ones ...
- John Kendrick at the Washington Examiner: "How to...
- New PJ Lifestyle blog
- "75% of women wouldn't marry someone who was unemp...
- Amy Alkon: When Women Confuse Being Asked Out With...
27 Comments:
A private business has the right to be no kids allowed. That is their choice. And it opens up a market for kid friendly allowed services. So I see no problem with this and I have lots of kids.
Trey
Kids are nothing but God's way of punishing you for taking your damn pants off in the first place!
All this means is an increasing marginalization of families by progressive "non-breeders" in the urban core. In the suburbs, entities doing this would die a horrible and well-deserved economic death.
All you childless people remember, my snotty kids will be paying taxes to supply your Social Security checks. They might even be on the Obamacare Death Panel when you are up for review.
That might be the case, might not. Your "snotty" kids might end up on welfare being supported by taxes on my retirement income. Now that that is out of the way...
Not all kids are a problem but too many parents think that the whole world revolves around them and their "little darlings" and give no thought to anyone else that has to put up with their poor parenting.
Hugh Hefner and Gloria Steinem must be pleased. To be honest, I am not sure why those two never married. Too similar would be my guess. Ignore the fluff, look to the ends.
As I posted over there, it isn’t children pre se that we mind, it’s undisciplined children. Several years ago, I was sitting next to a woman on an airliner. The child behind her was putting both of his feet against the back of her seat and pushing hard. He did this several times before the woman turned around and demanded Momma Oblivious put a stop to it. “Oh, is he bothering you?”
Conversely, my wife and I were on a cruise last March. On one of the cruises formal nights, a young family sat at a nearby table. Their children were perhaps 3 and 5 years old and were perfectly behaved. I made it a point to complement their parents. They obviously care enough about their children to teach them how to behave even at those young ages. I only wish my grandchildren were 1/10th as well behaved in public.
Larry J,
I see your point. And concur. It depends more on how the parents react though too. Children will act up, no matter how well taught. So I base it on the parents. If they, like the mother, are oblivious to the obvious, then yes I get a bit peeved. But if the parents are embarrassed and deal with the child, I don't mind near as much if at all. I was that kid and my mom was terrible embarrassed (on rare occasions). Uhrm, I learned. *thwack* Usually in private, even then.
I agree that the issue is with undisciplined children, but some slack needs to be cut when even the best kids lose it. Kids won't learn without making some mistakes.
I wouldn't worry too much about the world going kid-free. And Trey makes a good point (see first post) re kid-friendly operations. If you want to go out with the spouse, you likely don't want to deal with other people's kids. And when you want to take the kids out, a specifically kid-friendly place (Chuck-E-Cheese or such) might work out better than, say, Chez Parisienne.
I remember back in the 80s there was an apartment building in California that catered to retirees. You couldn't have kids on the premises (so how did grandma see the little ones). Grandma had to go visit. The other retirees had had their fill of kids, and now was the time for peace and quiet.
The world will keep turning.
Here's my question:
If I can't go to specific places in a public park (that my taxes support), because I don't have children, then why is it a problem when a place that your taxes don't support don't want children there?
This is the fallout from 8 years of having family values shoved down our throat combined with a plummeting reproduction rate. Somebody was sure to complain about too many unruly children misbehaving and negatively affecting other people. It might be new information for some parents but kids wailing in a restaurant can be disruptive for other patrons. Considering that 64% agree with the decision about banning children under 6 at that PA restaurant I'd start expecting more not less brat bans. If you don't like it Chuck E. Cheese will always be there to embrace your kids.
@E. Steven: I am not certain about "public parks" that don't allow adults "because I don't have children," but I think I have heard of these. "No adults without children" goes the signage. I am all for children-safe places, but public (tax-funded) parks that deny admission to adults without children are, in my view, total bullshit. If I am paying for the park through my taxes, don't tell me I can't go there because I don't have kids.
Completely unrelated: a place that your taxes do not support doesn't enter into the discussion.
I completely sympathize.
Let me also agree that the parks that restrict entrance to people with kids are the wrong solution to a real problem. The problem is perverts coming into the park, masturbating while watching the kids, and taking photos to do the same at home.
A good old fashioned ass whipping by the community would solve that quite nicely. I am not talking tar or feathers or a lynching, just a beating.
My father and one of his school mates was put in a dark closet on his knees for most of 2nd and third grade. The teacher would put them in their every school day. The other boy told what was happening, and his father came to school one morning and asked the teacher to have her husband meet the father after school.
The boy's father beat up the teacher's husband in front of my dad and the other boy. Dad said it took about 4 or 5 punches, nothing severe.
The trips to the dark closet stopped. Now this would have been about 1933 in rural Louisiana. But the problem stopped. I do not think you would actually ahve to beat up the perverts, 10 or 15 moms throwing garbage on them and insulting them would probably work fine. Those types are not really very robust in their interactions with adults.
Trey
The problem is perverts coming into the park, masturbating while watching the kids, and taking photos to do the same at home.
That isn't a problem except in your imagination. Sure, there are few creeps out there, but very few.
The bigger problem is nanny staters who take away the fun playground equipment or do something dumb like having ground up tires put down for mulch, forgetting that it turns damn hot in the summer sun and isn't comfortable anyway.
Joe, I have worked with sexual abuse survivors and done legal work in the area for 20 years. It is an area I know a bit about. According to the best research, the average pedophile perpetrates 124 kids. How many perverts in the park is too many Joe? And you know so much about this are because?
Taking away fun playground equipment is a problem, we agree. But you need to get more up to date on the data concerning sexual perpetrators and their behavior to enter that part of the conversation and contribute.
Trey
TMink,
The number of perverts is still extremely tiny. The notion that perverts are visiting parts in any sort of quantity is nonsense and is what contributes to the idiocy.
average pedophile perpetrates 124 kids
It's a meaningless statistic as stated and you know it.
How many perverts in the park is too many Joe?
What a bullshit argument; how many perverts at school is too many? How many plane crashes is too many? How many car accidents is too many?
And you know so much about this are because?
Because I'm literate and can read the damn crime rates. Because I remember all the various child abuse/satanic ritual hysteria when they made EXACTLY the same argument you are making.
And you know damn well that the real problem is family members, close relatives and friends of the family.
And the public isn’t as child-friendly as it used to be.
And kids aren't as public friendly as they used to be. I pretty much agree with Cham although I don't think the "family values" thing has anything to do with it. Just bratty kids. I refuse to go to some people's houses because their kids are so bratty.
Joe, you need to read the research. I have, and the 124 is based on hard research. It is a helpful and scientifically accepted statistic. Your ignorance of the study is not a serious critique of the method or findings now is it?
You have not read the extensive perpetrator research. Now you certainly don't have to, but until you do, I would give up pontificating on something you know nothing about. It makes you look uninformed to stupid.
You are correct that most (72 to 74% is the accepted range according to peer reviewed scientific articles) of sexual perpetrations occur within the family. But we are not talking about that, we are specifically talking about over-reaching laws that prevent citizens from enjoying a park paid for with their money.
We are talking about perverts going to parks and engaging in sexual activity, from masturbating to exposing themselves to making sexual comments to children to abducting, raping, then killing children. I say if you find someone engaged in any of those types of behaviors, get a friend and beat them up.
You have other ideas, why not share the idea rather than deny the problem and argue with an expert? That way you could add to the discussion instead of cluttering up the board.
Good luck with that.
And I encourage you to read the research, you will learn a lot. Most of it would be available free through inter-library loan.
Trey
IT'S ON!
Actually, I thought it was already over! 8)
Trey
Joe, you need to read the research. I have, and the 124 is based on hard research. It is a helpful and scientifically accepted statistic.
Read my comments: it's a meaningless statistic as quoted. It's irrelevant without knowing how many pedophiles there actually are. What matters is the overall rate of offense across the population and in that.
We are talking about perverts going to parks and engaging in sexual activity, from masturbating to exposing themselves to making sexual comments to children to abducting, raping, then killing children.
Which happens at a VERY low rate.
The same is true of terrorist bombings. It happens. It's bad. It deeply affects the victims, but to restructure society and throw out civil rights in the name of stopping terrorists--after all one is too much--is a hysterical response that ends up solving nothing.
But we are not talking about that, we are specifically talking about over-reaching laws that prevent citizens from enjoying a park paid for with their money.
It is people like you who are the ones perpetuating the notion that perverts in parks is an endemic problems. It simply isn't. I'd wager that more people are falsly accused of this behavior than people who actually engage in it.
You have other ideas, why not share the idea
There are no other ideas. Sorry, but life is fraught with risk. We can punish offenders, but there will always be more. No matter how much you control things, people will do things you don't like.
You say, "beat them up". What happens when you beat up someone who merely looks suspicious, or makes an innocent mistake that looks like something intentional? What happens when you beat up the wrong guy? What happens when you beat up someone who is wrongly accused? (Perhaps the child simply wanted revenge, or a parent?)
(Beyond this, I question your entire assumption that physical punishment works. If you are such an expert, you'd know damn well that corporal punishment has limited efficacy. Otherwise, we'd simply beat the shit out of all sex offenders and be done with it.
Perhaps Dr. Helen can enlighten us on how beating up her patients is the new therapy. It cures all ills!)
I have seen "no infants" and "no babes in arms" signs on a number of theaters, and I am sympathetic because I don't want plays and movies ruined. The problem I see seems to lie not with children per se, but with undisciplined brats.
A sign saying "no undisciplined brats allowed" would not work, though, because it would require enforcement (something no manager would ever want to do).
What really bothered me the other day was seeing a mom taking her undisciplined hyperactive ten year old into the women's rest room. He was bigger than I am.
I try to understand all sides, but it just seems that there are too many contradictory goals, policies, and political viewpoints in all directions. Coupled with zero common sense, the result is social anarchy
If you parents are taking offense at this, then next time you bring your kids out, make sure they are not a complete nuisance. Children do not belong everywhere. The problem is parents who want to impose their unruly child on everyone. They ruin it for the parents who make sure their kids aren't disruptive.
Joe, I think you are short selling your ability to tell when someone is masturbating in public.
It is not all that difficult.
Trey
Trey,
People very rarely masturbate in public.
So it will be easier for you to recognize dimwit. Nobody has ever said this was a frequent occurance. The data show it to be quite infrequent. But most of us find the fact that even as few as 140 or so children are sexually abducted a year to be abhorent.
Thank God people rarely masturbate in public. But when they do around children, I advocate a good ass whipping.
You disagree. Give them a medal Joe, let them teach sexuality to 5 year olds if that is your bag. But not in my community.
But I appreciate that you are no longer criticizing science you never read and might not understand.
Trey
Post a Comment
<< Home