Fellow Child-free folk - Let's Chat: Do you feel it is risky being "out" these days?

I think people here have kids later in life than a lot of places, so they congregate in a bunch of specific places and are visibly absent in some others. Seattle is a weird town in a lot of ways, but it's nice when "person" is a more automatic default than "parent".

Duoae wrote:

No chance of my current gf and I having children (she's mid 40s and hates kids with a passion) though I love kids and might like to have one or two someday. This relationship feels long term and I've pretty much accepted that I'll never have kids though I constantly chip away at her saying bad things when children are around (i.e. about their noise, etc) cause she can be a major overreactor when they are about.

Maybe I should start a thread for this next part but it kinda fits into "childless people let's talk about other people's reactions" thing.

However, I was thinking of ways I could become more involved with helping children and young people develop but constantly in my mind I get the whole stigma of being a guy interacting with minors thing popping up. I don't have a lot of spare time and I do love my weekends as I'm out the house for about 12hrs a day at work but does anyone have any similar experiences or thoughts on how I could go about helping young people apart from joining a scouting group? I should note I live in a foreign country where the primary language is not English so it makes things a bit difficult as I'm still struggling to learn it.

Just one point, we can't get a puppy because I don't really like dogs and our cat doesn't like other animals. ;)

Are there any organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters where you are at?

People tolerate things that tend to be less disruptive more than things that are more disruptive? Well, yeah.

Demosthenes wrote:
DiscoDriveby wrote:
Maq wrote:
DiscoDriveby wrote:

As a parent I can attest that a puppy really is similar to a baby!

Except taking the baby out to the forest and leaving it there is really frowned upon. People get, like, super judgey.

But I would judge you if you took your dog out in the forest and left it there too ;)

I was going to say, this might just be a cultural thing, Maq, but a lot of people in the US would probably be MORE judgy of you if you did that to the dog than another human being.

Maq's sense of humor might be a cultural thing, too.

fleabagmatt wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
DiscoDriveby wrote:
Maq wrote:
DiscoDriveby wrote:

As a parent I can attest that a puppy really is similar to a baby!

Except taking the baby out to the forest and leaving it there is really frowned upon. People get, like, super judgey.

But I would judge you if you took your dog out in the forest and left it there too ;)

I was going to say, this might just be a cultural thing, Maq, but a lot of people in the US would probably be MORE judgy of you if you did that to the dog than another human being.

Maq's sense of humor might be a cultural thing, too. :D

Oh, I thought it was funny, but I figured I'd let him know that might not work out for some people.

DSGamer wrote:
clover wrote:

This is not the "they" thread you're looking for

The hilarious thing about JD's example is he has no idea if the person who slammed his laptop shut was childfree or a father of 13 who just wanted some peace and quiet while he worked on his long-delayed "great American novel".

I get the point, people tolerate pets being in eating establishments more than kids at times. Same where I live. But if those pets start barking they're going to get the same death stares. And if the kids are quiet more than likely I'm going to smile at them and nod at the parents on the way out.

I'm betting the fact the guy was an early 20-something stereotypical hipster probably meant that he didn't have children, though you're right I didn't know that for sure.

But when I said "they" I was referring to the passive aggressive a-hats who loathe children. I didn't mean it as an attack against any particular poster here, or child-free folks in general. I thought the thread had moved towards a "baby versus pet" discussion, which is why I posted.

I do appreciate you being cool to good parents DS and definitely support your choice. If I could write a letter of protest to your parents-in-law I would. Instead I'm just going to have to gift you something on Steam.

@ Demosthenes - I'm not trying to force my choice on anyone, but in a public place is it wrong to hope for a little common empathy and understanding? As I said before, this wasn't an "adults-only" space, and if the guy had approached me and politely said "hey man I'm not trying to be rude but I'm really on deadline" I would have happily stepped out for a moment.

@ Clover - I've lived in the Seattle area for a few years now but I still feel a bit like a newcomer. It definitely sometimes has that small town feel where if you don't know the secret handshake then you're going to be seen as an interloper. If you have any suggestions about finding more family friendly places I would be very interested.

Agent 86 wrote:

Are there any organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters where you are at?

Thanks for replying. Unfortunately not. It's a bit of a weird situation to be in - not really wanting /being able to have kids but still feeling that urge to contribute something...

@jdzappa: buy me a coffee and I'll teach you the secret handshake. It's not very intuitive so it takes some explaining.

jdzappa wrote:

@ Demosthenes - I'm not trying to force my choice on anyone, but in a public place is it wrong to hope for a little common empathy and understanding? As I said before, this wasn't an "adults-only" space, and if the guy had approached me and politely said "hey man I'm not trying to be rude but I'm really on deadline" I would have happily stepped out for a moment.

...so... going out into the world with your child and expecting no negative reaction from anyone is... not forcing your choice and your expectations on the world? I mean, sure, you're not holding a gun to people's heads and telling them to deal with it because you want to do what you want to do with your child in tow... But if you have that expectation of empathy and understanding (something that, frankly, is not exactly at peak levels in the world today, judging by how many people in this country are more than willing to focus on themselves and their loved ones with no regard for anyone else in the world, present or future), isn't that still expecting something from other people because you have a child?

But couldn't this just as easily be turned around? Would it have been wrong for that guy to expect some empathy and understanding that he was trying to get something done without hearing an unhappy baby?

I mean, for me, I generally don't care unless a child is being obnoxious and the parent is either ignoring the behavior affecting me (Chipotle last weekend when this kid kept running up and down the line to talk to his dad, headbutting and pushing everyone out of his way) or gets to the point of being impossible to ignore (straight up crying loudly/screaming).

Also, people have different expectations for privatized "public" spaces than for actual public space. This is why you see far more complaints about children's behavior in a restaurant or a Starbucks than in a public park or on the street.

When people are paying to be somewhere, they expect the environment to be more "like the ad".

clover wrote:

Also, people have different expectations for privatized "public" spaces than for actual public space. This is why you see far more complaints about children's behavior in a restaurant or a Starbucks than in a public park or on the street.

When people are paying to be somewhere, they expect the environment to be more "like the ad".

I think this is it, actually.

I know, for instance, that I have certain expectations of my gym. I like that I don't have to wait for an open squat rack, that folks are pretty good about putting weights away, and that the regulars can generally be counted on to provide a decent spot when asked. It annoys me when January rolls around and all the Resolutionists show up without knowing that curls in the squat rack are like showing up to a Catholic mass and wiping your ass with a communion wafer. The same goes double for the last minute beach body folks that show up in June.

I imagine if a place develops a reputation as a sort of place and people go to it because it is that sort of place, something that dramatically affects that atmosphere is frustrating and disappointing.

These arguments are interesting, and I can see the points people like Demosthenes are trying to make. I, however, see a flaw. These aren't dogs, or Google glasses, they are Children. Children are the future of our society and our species. You will die someday, and if there are no children, everything you've ever done, and anything anyone's ever done, will be lost forever. Children are not "forcing a choice", they are our (as a species and society) responsibility. It's no more a choice than the social contract, such as not killing everyone because you feel like it. It's a part of who we are and our existence.

I get that people don't want to raise kids for various reasons, that's your choice. But being selfish and expecting not to be bothered by them when you're out interacting with society is a little obtuse. Children are a big part of our society, and if you really don't want to be around them then just go be a hermit.

The western world, especially the US, has an odd approach to children. We've spun 180 from "it takes a village..." There's an odd mentality in here that they're somehow not people. We could easily substitute the word "children" with old people, black, asian, women, or any other group and it would instantly sound incredibly wrong.

When you step outside your door you accept that you're entering and about to interact with society, and children are a part of that. Yes, part of the parental responsibility is to properly instruct on behavior, but part of your societal responsibility is to accept and deal with it too - because as I said, they are the future of everything.

I get that this thread exists to pat each other on the back for deciding not to procreate. Where it goes off the rails is when people somehow assume that choice removes them from having to deal with that part of society. Don't have kids, great, but don't expect the rest of society to move them out of the way every time you come around - frankly, they're more important than you are.

I'm just going to pop this in here...see what you all think:

Child Free Zones on Planes

Shoal07 wrote:

The western world, especially the US, has an odd approach to children. We've spun 180 from "it takes a village..." There's an odd mentality in here that they're somehow not people.

I pretty much agree with everything else you said, I would just add that the odd mentality that children are not people is not just in here, but among parents too. They've contributed to that diminished view of children far more than child-free people have. (edit) In some sense, it's just reaping what they've sown, but like what was said in other of the other threads, kids wind up the one who suffer for the stupidity of adults, and that really sucks.

Tanglebones wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.minus.com/ioDhRvuzt5klG.gif)

And these kind of panic-induced proclamations of human extinction at the hands of an increasing number of childless people are pretty insufferable as well. Seriously, I know I don't like children. I don't have the patience to teach a small human about how the simplest things in life work. By choosing not to have children, I am making the choice that is better for myself and for any potential offspring I might have had.

The current world population is roughly 7.05 billion people. The year I was born, it was 4.6 billion. That's 2.45 billion people in 30ish years. Our species isn't at risk of dying off. And our population levels are such that I can make the moral choice to not have children because I would not be a patient parent. It's not just for the betterment of my life, it's also so that I don't inflict my bad parenting on some poor child who doesn't have a choice.

If anything, we have more to worry about overpopulation than under-population.

And the argument that a kid is more important than a child-free person is just dumb to begin with. They're just as human as anyone else.

jdzappa wrote:

@ Clover - I've lived in the Seattle area for a few years now but I still feel a bit like a newcomer. It definitely sometimes has that small town feel where if you don't know the secret handshake then you're going to be seen as an interloper. If you have any suggestions about finding more family friendly places I would be very interested.

I'm not clover but I do play one on tv.

http://seattle.findwell.com/event/fa...

That's a good starting resource.

Our species isn't at risk of dying off.

Unless you count climate change... then... maybe. But even more people is actually probably going to work against that.

Shoal07 wrote:

These arguments are interesting, and I can see the points people like Demosthenes are trying to make. I, however, see a flaw. These aren't dogs, or Google glasses, they are Children. Children are the future of our society and our species. You will die someday, and if there are no children, everything you've ever done, and anything anyone's ever done, will be lost forever. Children are not "forcing a choice", they are our (as a species and society) responsibility. It's no more a choice than the social contract, such as not killing everyone because you feel like it. It's a part of who we are and our existence.

I get that people don't want to raise kids for various reasons, that's your choice. But being selfish and expecting not to be bothered by them when you're out interacting with society is a little obtuse. Children are a big part of our society, and if you really don't want to be around them then just go be a hermit.

The western world, especially the US, has an odd approach to children. We've spun 180 from "it takes a village..." There's an odd mentality in here that they're somehow not people. We could easily substitute the word "children" with old people, black, asian, women, or any other group and it would instantly sound incredibly wrong.

When you step outside your door you accept that you're entering and about to interact with society, and children are a part of that. Yes, part of the parental responsibility is to properly instruct on behavior, but part of your societal responsibility is to accept and deal with it too - because as I said, they are the future of everything.

I get that this thread exists to pat each other on the back for deciding not to procreate. Where it goes off the rails is when people somehow assume that choice removes them from having to deal with that part of society. Don't have kids, great, but don't expect the rest of society to move them out of the way every time you come around - frankly, they're more important than you are.

All I heard was "I don't belong in this thread. Here's my take on your lifestyle choices that I think are wrong. Here's why you HAVE to accept my children no matter what." and a few other things that I won't put down. I'm surprised you didn't remind us to vote for your child's school levies.

America has a weird relationship with collective responsibility in general. Singling out how we relate to children in society without taking it in full context is oversimplification, I think.

For the record, I made this thread with a more benign intent, since there are already other places in P&C where we can argue about parenting and whether Our Children Are Our Future. The boxing matches can go in those.

We all used to be children, so we're all the present and the future at the same time.

Shoal07 wrote:

But being selfish and expecting not to be bothered by them when you're out interacting with society is a little obtuse. Children are a big part of our society, and if you really don't want to be around them then just go be a hermit.

IMAGE(http://alekseyb.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ad-s1-e11.jpg)

Seattle is what happens when you make a whole city of hermits.

Welcome, Shoal07

Shoal07 wrote:

I get that this thread exists to pat each other on the back for deciding not to procreate.

Actually, it exists so that we can have a conversation without people like you. Sadly, we've seen it doesn't work because the thread has become a dump site for every butthurt parent to Female Doggo at us because random stranger didn't show the proper deference to their precious angels.

There's an odd mentality in here that they're somehow not people.

There isn't and challenge you to demonstrate that there is.

We could easily substitute the word "children" with old people, black, asian, women, or any other group and it would instantly sound incredibly wrong.

You could do that. However it would be idiotic and not prove anything. For example, if I say that children should not be given sharp knives, you are arguing this is extremely offensive because I would not say the same thing about a black man. Congrats, you've written the stupidest thing I've read all day.

Don't have kids, great, but don't expect the rest of society to move them out of the way every time you come around - frankly, they're more important than you are.

And you cap it off with the second stupidest thing I've read all day. A twofer!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Welcome, Shoal07

Shoal07 wrote:

I get that this thread exists to pat each other on the back for deciding not to procreate.

Actually, it exists so that we can have a conversation without people like you. Sadly, we've seen it doesn't work because the thread has become a dump site for every butthurt parent to Female Doggo at us because random stranger didn't show the proper deference to their precious angels.

There's an odd mentality in here that they're somehow not people.

There isn't and challenge you to demonstrate that there is.

We could easily substitute the word "children" with old people, black, asian, women, or any other group and it would instantly sound incredibly wrong.

You could do that. However it would be idiotic and not prove anything. For example, if I say that children should not be given sharp knives, you are arguing this is extremely offensive because I would not say the same thing about a black man. Congrats, you've written the stupidest thing I've read all day.

Don't have kids, great, but don't expect the rest of society to move them out of the way every time you come around - frankly, they're more important than you are.

And you cap it off with the second stupidest thing I've read all day. A twofer!

All the slow clap GIFs.

Q-stone, will you have my babies?

clover wrote:

Seattle is what happens when you make a whole city of hermits.

This explains why I liked it so much.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/M0bWify.gif)

The Shakesville way to go there is "I would so let So-and-so do my taxes."

Not totally sure that I want Q-Stone doing my taxes, but there you go.

Edit: I think originally it was offering to do other people's taxes, but I like my version better.

clover wrote:

Not totally sure that I want Q-Stone doing my taxes, but there you go.

Right? It could go either way

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/XCl0pBS.jpg)