This is really random, but on the Peter Birkenhead article in the side column there was a hyperlink to an article about the College GGW scene. It discussed how college-aged women are so shameless in regards to their "wild" sex lives. It makes me wonder if they are having sex with themselves. Men--due to testosterone--have a greater sex drive then women, which is why during lesbian sex different hormones are being released in the female brain versus heterosexual sex. I once read an article that suggested that during heterosexual sex an element of fear caused a specific hormone to be released in the female during sex, but back to the point. Apparently "getting laid" isn't a big deal for guys, its expected, its almost a mandatory college experience, but god forbid you have breasts.

But society needs to stop telling me to turn myself into a mother just because it can't imagine that I might be anything else.

AMEN! God(s) help me I've ranted and raved about this before because I don't ever want kids and I've caught hell from people telling me otherwise. I'd love to see more articles like this in the MSM. And to everyone Happy Mother's Day, even though, as my mother says, you're already mothers every day:)

Thanks for the nod; I just want to offer a small, probably persnickety correction:

I didn't review the model kidnapping-torture flick, which I haven't seen, merely its ad campaign.

What I hate is the fact that they tried to attract people that way...

Hey Ben,

I live in Los Angeles with the ad brouhaha and they still haven't taken down all of the billboards. There's on on sunset with her looking through the chain link fence with the bloody finger.

Though I can't speak for them I think Rotten Tomatoes might have been trying to be funny or something. Usually films like this are referred to as Torture Porn, which is becoming a genre in and of itself with films like Devil's Rejects, Hostel, etc. Good critique of the ads though.

Also totally random:

Go see Waitress! I saw it on Friday, and it moved me. Seriously.

So the wedding becomes an exercise in magical thinking: If my teeth are white and my linens match my napkins, he and I will stay in love forever. (Salon)

You're made to feel guilty if you try to cut corners, as if to do so is to cheapen your love. (Salon)

“I think there is a way in which the trauma of the wedding planning is substituting for the trauma of the newlywed. People feel they have to go through some type of traumatic experience to show that they’re married, to show that there is something different about them.�--Ms. Mead (New York Times)

It's just incredible to me how the modern wedding culture/industry has managed to create a ceremony so far removed from the actual (and much more deeply meaningful) realities of real relationship commitment.

It makes me want to run away and hide at the thought of ever having to figure out how to honor the beginning of a future marriage of my own without reference to this crap.

The thought of weddings makes me gag.

If you need some blown out affair costing tens of thousands of dollars and over a year of planning just to ostensibly show that you love each other so so much, you've got problems. Big, serious problems.

Maybe I'm just too practical or something, but I always thought that marriage was just a legal contract you signed to declare to the government "Hey! We're together." in order to receive certain privileges like being able to visit your significant other in the hospital, and so on. I would think that if you have a monogamous relationship where both partners love and respect each other, making the distinction that they're married shouldn't matter either way. They're still going to love and respect each other whether or not there is a piece of paper on file stating that they're together. It's just a good thing to have from a legal standpoint.

Not to mention that the whole wedding ceremony is just a giant "let's pass the property from the father to the husband" affair.

Ick.

"Not to mention that the whole wedding ceremony is just a giant 'let's pass the property from the father to the husband' affair."

Now I wonder how many of the gay couples having weddings (whether officially recognized or not) included the father giving the groom away to the other groom in the ceremony...

To summarize this published medical journal article:

1. In the FUTURE I trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 2 and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma -- the only recognized precursors to cervical cancer.

2. In the larger FUTURE II trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma -- the strongest (and many would argue only valid) precursors to cervical cancer.

3. Extrapolating from GARDASIL's very limited clinical "success" (in the FUTURE II study only) against grade 2 cervical dysplasias (40% of which regress spontaneously), 129 women would be have to be vaccinated (at a cost of about $60,000) to prevent a single grade 2 cervical dysplasia.

4. GARDASIL's protection against cancer associated HPV strains 16 and 18 appears to cause a disproportionate increase in of pre-cancerous dysplasias associated with other HPV strains associated with cervical cancer "raising the possibility that other oncogenic HPV types eventually filled the biologic niche left behind after the elimination of HPV types 16 and 18."

5. Even if you segregate out the women who hadn't been previously exposed to either HPV 16 or 18, we are talking about just a 17% decrease in all high grade dysplasias (266 out of 6080 vs. 219 out of 6087) -- many of which would spontaneously regress without treatment. So we would have vaccinate 129 women (at about $500 for the three shot regimen) to avoid a single, eminently treatable dysplasia. That's about $60,000 per dysplasia prevented.

This is all directly from the article linked above.

I myself would add that we currently have only 3 years of follow up to go on in terms of both GARDASIL's safety and efficacy among the 16 to 26 year female population, no data concerning its efficacy among 9 to 12 year old girls and only 18 months of follow up on less than 600 total preteen girls in terms of safety data about GARDASIL within its targeted population.

It's true that I don't think I've ever seen Colbert break character as thoroughly or for as long as he did when Jane Fonda plopped down in his lap. That was truly hilarious, and a rare moment.

Some great articles this week, thanks!

If you need some blown out affair costing tens of thousands of dollars and over a year of planning just to ostensibly show that you love each other so so much, you've got problems. Big, serious problems.
Hear, hear! I mean, you can show your love without blowing that much money.
When I was in college, I knew several girls that had bridal magazines that they would squirrel away the way guys had porno. It was so sick.
If I ever did get married, it would only be to share benefits & I'd just throw a fun, small, weird party.
Maybe it's my age, but the idea of pledging to spend your whole life with one person seems ridiculous. People grow & change & we don't grow at the same rate.
...
I'm childless, & I imagine I'll be childless my whole life unless I foster or adopt (I have some medical issues that I fear passing on to my child, & I think it may be irresponsible for me to have kids). But the other point is that I DO dislike children & hate having to defend that. Well, children & their parents who let them run wild. What's wrong with admitting that I dislike children & some of their parents?
I hate being at an R movie & having children screaming (I saw young kids in the theater when I went to see Zodiac & Land of the Dead--FtW?). I'm sick of the sidewalks being crowded with giant $1,000 carriages. I'm sick of going to read a book at a cafe or library, places that are supposed to be quiet, & having to hear shrieking kids.

If you need some blown out affair costing tens of thousands of dollars and over a year of planning just to ostensibly show that you love each other so so much, you've got problems.

Only if you dismiss the importance of ceremonies and parties. I happen to think ceremonies are a deeply human need and very meaningful, and in my experience, many, many people like big parties. Further, I think that people deciding to make a life together is a worthy occasion to celebrate with a big party. The wedding industry is a giant suckwad--though I must say, it's hard to think of an industry that isn't--but I don't see how that means that the concept of weddings is inherently bankrupt.

Not to mention that the whole wedding ceremony is just a giant "let's pass the property from the father to the husband" affair.

Not really. That was a major aspect of weddings in times past, but it was never the single and entire meaning of the ceremony cross-culturally, and in our culture currently it's barely a whisper, if that. I've been to many weddings, for example, and I've never once seen a bride being given away by her father. Now, I move in particularly progressive circles, but that just underscores the fact that the ceremony and its meaning is quite malleable.

A wedding is institutional and community recognition and celebration of a loving relationship--I really don't see why that's such a dreadful thing.

At age 19, within months of entering into my first serious relationship with my then-boyfriend, who is now my husband, I received pressure from other women to reproduce.

The subject was usually brought up by these other women like this:
"So when are you going to have children?"
Note the word "when". Not if -- when.

Although the question of if I'm going to have children or not isn't their business either.

And then of course the assumption is always that you're going to reproduce -- not adopt.

In fact, when I told my mother-in-law, who is a very liberal and open-minded woman, that I do not want to reproduce but was thinking about adopting one day, she replied, "But there's just something special about having your own."

Good to know. When your son and I bring home our adopted child, you'll be thinking that he/she just isn't special enough. Oh, and not really our own. I guess we'd just be borrowing the child for a while.

This is the mentality I've encountered in person and online in the past 5 years. And it has soured me even more towards motherhood. Clearly, society just can't wait to define me as a mother. That is the only role in which I will truly be valued.

But even then *I* won't really be valued -- the little babies will. I have seen this from how my sister and other female relatives have been treated after they reproduced. Once the babies are no longer babies -- once they become adolescents -- the rest of the family pays them little attention.

Truly, families and society as a whole places too much pressure on women, and little girls!, to become mothers, and then forgets them when they need health care, job assistance, daycare, therapy -- you know, support. Plus, all of the pressure is placed on the mother to care for the child; the father can do as he pleases.

Fourth, having children is not necessarily a selfless decision.

This needs to be said more often. A common misconception. I hate the phrase "holier-than-thou", since in my experience it's most often employed by SUV-driving neaderthols when I explain why I bike everywhere. But I can't think of a better descriptor for about 80% of the parents I meet.

Weddings: I understand EG's sympathy for them. I like big parties. I like seeing old people get drunk. But there's just something unsavory about the obsession. Why is that the only time we have big parties anymore? Why is there so much craziness involved in the details? Weddings are like the visible tip of the submerged pyramid of our unhealthy obsession with romantic love. It would be great if people just wanted a big party and ceremony, but in common practice the whole thing seems deeply rooted the whole wedding-as-the-most-important-day-of-a-woman's-life-thing.

Once the babies are no longer babies -- once they become adolescents -- the rest of the family pays them little attention.

Heh. Well, you know. That's because teenagers are vile, generally speaking...(joke, but only sort of)

The trouble is that there is tremendous social pressure to become a mother, but absolutely no actual material support for doing so, which puts women of all minds about having children under horrible pressure. It's one of those situations in which it's very clear that the sin, as far as patriarchal culture is concerned, is being female, because whatever choice you make, you're screwed.

Once the babies are no longer babies -- once they become adolescents -- the rest of the family pays them little attention.

I've noticed that too with celebrity babies. Everyone's all excited when the women are pregnant and the babies are...babies. But once they're into their tween and teen years no one pays them any kind of attention.

But once they're into their tween and teen years no one pays them any kind of attention.
Until they're old enough to drink Red Bull & vodka (about 15) & flash their vag's to the paparazzi.

tremendous list, as ever, and i am sorting through it now, but i really just wanted to say how much i got a kick outta calling the pontiff, 'Papa Ratzi.' so cheeky, so clever. love a good word play!

It's 2007, it's the Guardian, and apparently it's still controversial for a woman to say she doesn't want to have kids.

Jeez. Not what I wanted to hear first thing on a Monday.

"If you need some blown out affair costing tens of thousands of dollars and over a year of planning just to ostensibly show that you love each other so so much, you've got problems."

Yes, the wedding industry is out of control. My cousins wedding was ridiculous- massive MASSIVE party, flew in Belinda Carlisle from France, all the hip wedding trends, got her picture in some bride magazine, etc.

While lots of her friends thought it was a great wedding, my mother and grandmother made the distinction between a great wedding and a great party, and what she said really stuck with me.

"A wedding is supposed to be about your families coming together and witnessing this important event in your lives, in order to recognize that you've made the choice to include someone new in the family. It's about your family and friends showing their love for you and their support for you as you move into a different way of living your life."

That's what I want my wedding to be like. Obviously I want to feed people well and make it a day that they remember, but I want them to remember the people who were there more than what songs Belinda Carlisle sang or what extortionate amounts of money I asked them to cough up for one day of festivities.

Ceremonies are important to most people, and you can't just write them off altogether because some people take it way too far and turn it into a contest about who can look the most beautiful and throw the biggest wedding bash rather than a celebration of their love for another person with the people they care about.

I happen to think ceremonies are a deeply human need and very meaningful, and in my experience, many, many people like big parties.

I agree with EG and Nula, that ritual and ceremony can be extremely meaningful. If/when I get married or otherwise want to legally and socially recognize a committed relationship, I do want to have some sort of communal gathering--not just signing legal papers, etc. I think it's important to speak your intentions before witnesses, and make your creation of a new family (with or without children) an occasion.

The daunting thing is trying to figure out how to do that while not getting dragged into the vortex of the commercialization crap.

"While abstinence education has been continually misrepresented by its opponents, we were confident that parents would strongly prefer abstinence education over so-called 'comprehensive' sex education after they received full, accurate information about this common sense educational approach."

Old news, but I just get SO FRICKIN' IRRITATED when the abstinence-only people, anti-abortion people, and other conservatives position themselves as the victims of misinformation campaigns.

MacNair said, “Only if the report comes out with conclusions opposite to what one would expect with the ideological commitment of half of its members would it have credibility; if it comes out as would be predicted, the absence of balance on the task force will be a problem for its scientific credibility.�

So . . . only if the APA panel comes to certain ideological conclusions will their credibility as non-ideological scientists be recognized by the anti-abortion activists. What's wrong with this picture???

"In fact, when I told my mother-in-law, who is a very liberal and open-minded woman, that I do not want to reproduce but was thinking about adopting one day, she replied, 'But there's just something special about having your own.'"

stupendousness, my own mother told me that, and she adopted me! Of course, since I reminded her that she didn't have "her own" she hasn't brought it up again, but it's amazing how ingrained the anti-adoption mindset gets.

It doesn't take a degree in genetics to understand that intelligence is being bred out of the population and that the strata of society least likely to bring up hard-working or successful children is the one that is having a disproportionate number of them. It does not bode for a happy or successful future.

Yowza! The comments section on the "Get pregnant or rue the day?" article is brimming with racism, classism and misogyny.

You know, I hate to bring it up again, but upon the discussion of motherhood, I have to say that Waitress really did it for me. It was such a statement on motherhood for women -- how many don't want them, and others just kind of fall into having them, but, regardless, the overwhelming experience of it all. There's this part where she is given this book on the happiness and joy of motherhood by her friends who think she should warm up to her child, and she exposes the bullshit of the book, and the bullshit of the whole experience. Awesome stuff.

I LOVED the article on masculinity and politics. I could not agree more. It made me think of women who reject femininity because they're feminist. Currently, I'm just moving on to grad school, getting married, and finding my identity. To go along with the femininity of weddings, it disgusts me. My fiance and I have met with wedding coordinators and most of the "talk" is "It's all about her on that day, you just sit back and relax." My fiance is an active part of the wedding planning and gets fed up with this "talk" as well. This is going to be an all over the place post because this is how my life is going right now. I really am sick of femininity, but then what do I lean toward? Masculinity? I look at the social construction of gender and see places like Libby Lou cultivating our children into a "pink or blue" dichotomy. I was raised this way too. There's so much theory on high-heels (they slow you down, so you can't run if you're being chased, it's a man's tool) and cosmetics. Women spend so much on beauty and I used to. When I wear makeup and get dressed up I get so many compliments and feel good about myself and I know where that's coming from, but I do feel good. I guess it's just that the social construction of gender makes me wonder if most feminists are caught in this same bind: How do we still be feminine and feminist at the same time once we have all the information at our fingertips?

I hear everyone on the wedding industrial complex. I'm a newlywed, and what appalled me the most wasn't the spending of thousands of dollars on one day, but the wastefulness of the spending. Spending money to bring the people you love together and showing them a grand time is well worth it to me- spending money to keep up with whatever Vera Wang thinks you should look like ain't, especially as her creations can usually only be worn once a lifetime, and the tuxes guys are obliged to wear must be returned. Sadly, there's loads of pressure to create the kind of event that people attend out of a sense of obligation, and endure rather than enjoy. I remember getting flak for wearing a pink and gold dress that I can wear again, instead of the usual white elephant of a gown. This can be just the tip of the iceberg, as everyone feels they have more right to dictate what goes on at your wedding than you.

Ah, Nakia, yet another time in a woman's life where the world feels they have a right to control over her actions. I'm not sure which is worse, the way everyone feels an ownership over pregnant women or brides.

Thanks for all the good links this week.

Okay, I'm not trying to tell anyone they have to have a wedding or whatever. However, just a few points.

Weddings do not have to cost tens of thousands of dollars. Mine cost about two thousand, and most of that was the place rentral (generic events center), food (veggie trays, cheese trays, and three cakes - vanilla, chocolate, and sugar free) and such all.

Nobody gave me away. Nobody promised to obey anybody. In fact, we wrote our own vows. Everything was pretty low-key and it was lots of fun to see all the relatives and friends from out of state. It was also very meaningful to me to make that kind of statement about my life and my future with so many people I loved around me.

Of course, the marriage didn't hold out past five years, but I don't think we can blame the wedding for that.

I just have to say, EG, that your comments are consistently so smart and well-written that I really look forward to finding them as I scroll through!

What's wrong with a little flattery? :)

moxiehart writes..

"What's wrong with admitting that I dislike children & some of their parents?"

Nothing really except sounding like a jerk. It's a lot like saying I don't like old people b/c they are too slow or something. It's disrespectful. I don't think anyone should be pressured into having children or feel less successful as a woman b/c of it. Just accept that you live in a world where children exist, and most children are loud and boisterous much of the time. I refuse to stay at home or at the park with my 1-year-old just because so many people today don't like children.
(first post by the way)

Okay, another childless (by choice) woman chiming in on this one. I'm never going to tell people that they shouldn't have their children in public.

However, it is important for parents to realize that children should be assessed for their behavior level before they choose where to take them. Children too young or too active to sit through a movie should not be taken to the movies. No, not even Disney movies.

Children who are prone to shrieking for prolonged periods (or whose parents are prone to allowing it) should not be taken to most restaurants. Children who are in the "see it, touch it" stage should not be taken to stores with breakable objects unless they can be watched and controlled very carefully.

Just as those without children cannot demand an entirely child-free world, neither can parents demand an entirely child-accessible world. It's just a matter of making sure that the interaction is appropriate.

And this isn't pointed to anyone in this thread, but I have three words for parents who think it's cute when their children scream at top volume for several minutes (and who do nothing to attempt to calm, quiet, or entertain the child): It's not cute.

I agree, not cute at all. Especially on flights, especially when they keep kicking the tray table behind you. And my experience is that people are usually rude if you try to tell them that their precious little brat is driving you crazy. I understand there are some situations when the parent can’t do anything, but I have seen plenty of situations when they can and they won’t. If I had a baby with me in a movie theater and it started crying I would promptly leave, instead of just sitting there and trying to hush the child.

Nothing really except sounding like a jerk. It's a lot like saying I don't like old people b/c they are too slow or something. It's disrespectful.
How is it disrespectful that I don't find someone's crotch droppings to be darling? Wow, you reproduced!
I don't expect the world to be child-free but I do expect children to be well-behaved. Case in point--I fractured my pelvis several years ago & spent about 3 months on crutches. The doctor encouraged me to exercise, so, to get me out of the house my mum would take me grocery shopping with her. It was summer time & the local grocery store was swarming with children & I could barely walk b/c so many kids were running through the aisles, playing tag, & generally being underfoot with nary a parent in sight. One kid almost knocked me over at one point b/c he was being such a little douchebag. Hello? Cripple trying to walk. I don't think it's too much to expect children to behave or for parents to at least attempt to keep an eye on them.
Another time, I was riding the bus & some woman sat her child next to me & I spent the next fifteen minutes with the little brat literally climbing over me. FtW? Do I look like a jungle gym?
Call it rude, but some people

I am, so far, not a parent, and not sure that I will in the future (either by pregnancy or adoption). I can see myself being happy and fulfilled in both scenarios.

That having been said, I wanted to write and support TreeStump's first post here. I think it is appalling how much animosity our culture has for children and families, given that we're supposed to be so "child-friendly." All of us were children at one point, and I think there is something to be said for all of us, whether or not we are parents, recognizing that children are the next generation: if nothing else, they're going to be our doctors and nursing-home aides when we grow up. So I think they deserve kindness and respect. They are an extremely important part of our communal legacy.

Children are learning to be grown-ups, they make mistakes and they make our lives inconvenient sometimes. But there are ways of responding that help change a disruptive activity without giving the children or parents a lot of crap.

To take one example that really irritates me: people's response to kids on the airplane. There is only so much parents can do in this situation. They're in a metal box flying through the air, with no way to get off until the plane lands. Kids get restless. Kids get air-sick. You can't explain to an infant what's happening when her when the pressure goes down and her ears pop. Put yourself in the child's shoes, or if you can't do that, put yourself in the parent's shoes. How helpful do you think it is trying to parent a child effectively on a long flight when you sense that half the passengers are rolling their eyes and muttering under their breath every time your kid makes a sound? When I respond to these situations by not getting pissed at the parents or kids, extending offers of assistance with luggage, or just acknowledging how difficult it is to fly with kids, the parents visibly relax and everything tones down a notch or two.

Parenting in our culture is an extremely isolating endeavor. We hold parents almost solely responsible for their children's behavior and when a child is being disruptive we are so quick to criticize instead of understanding the bigger picture. Instead of blaming parents for not being perfect and raising children who will be completely non-disruptive, I wish we could focus on making a) putting together a life with children less stressful, and b) incorporating children into ALL of our lives with more grace.

Like I said, Anna, I just want parents to be sure to take their kids into situations where either (A) they can control their behavior (like keeping them in a shopping basket seat to prevent them grabbing things off shelves or running amok) or (B) the children's behavior is expected and appropriate (running amok is somewhat encouraged in parks, McDonald's Playlands, etc. etc.).

My mother took the view that her children should only be an inconvenience to her. If we misbehaved in a store, we were removed from that store. Ditto restaurants, etc. And they never flew with us. Two or three times a year we'd take an eight-hour drive to OKC from Houston and an eight-hour drive back. There were two reasons for that. One was cost, and the other was Mom and Dad's refusal to try to keep two small chidlren quiet on an airplane. They knew they couldn't do it, so they didn't try.

Not saying that people with children shouldn't fly. I was on a plane not too long ago with three or four children (separate families, it looked like, so it wasn't a matter of just one amazing set of parents) and they were all very well behaved. I could hear them talking, but they weren't shrieking, or throwing things, or running around the plane like little Energizer bunnies. The guy sitting in front of me was way more annoying.

I'm just saying that parents should take a look at where there kids are, behaviorly, what situation they're planning to go into, what they can do to mitigate, and act accordingly.

And I'm sorry, but the fact is that I chose not to have children for a reason. Other women choose to have them. I don't see why I should have to sacrifice my peace of mind (or peace of meal, in the case of restaruants) for somebody else's choice.

I should stress, I'm really not talking about parents who are making every effort to keep their kids well-behaved, or entertained, or who will actually take the screaming infant somewhere else until it calms down, or whatever. (Well, except in R rated movies with lots of blood and screaming, but that's different.) I'm mostly talking about those parents who ignore their children's behavior and make no effort to do anything to change it. If the baby is crying and nothing you do will shush it because the little thing's just genuinely miserable, I get that. No fault, no blame.

If your four year old is shrieking "MOM" over and over at glass-breaking decibals for twenty minutes while you deliberate between two different kinds of creamed corn, however, I feel justified in feeling annoyed. At you. The parent. Answer the damned kid before I kick you.

i agree with you moxie 100% I blame the parents mostly, but the fact is, i find children annoying. now, perhaps its bc i generally feel as though people dont take responsiblity for anything, whether its a mistake at work or their own children. but no one seems able to say that without being called a "jerk" by people like treestump. no i will not take my animosity out on children, but i also dont have to find them adorable and cute and amusing. i just dont. that situation is only compounded by the fact that parents these days are absolutely abhorrent for the most part. its sad, bc you wonder how these children are going to grow up.

I don’t Anna, I am not going to refrain from the occasional eye roll just because the kid is going to grow up to be my nursing home. I think I’d rather have no nursing home aides or doctors all together. Like I said, I understand there are situations in which the parent cannot do anything about, but if you know your two children are going to scream for the good part of a three hour flight, well, maybe you should make sure they don’t sit next to each other, or I don’t know make sure they are tired so they sleep on the flight or just don’t fly. If you’re not gonna do that well then expect that people are gonna be pissed. I fly frequently and actually children are usually well-behaved but there are exceptions ( I am thinking of a particularly annoying family right now). And in reference to Moxie’s first post, and TreeStump's response to that, I think it is fairly reasonable to expect not to have to put up with crying children at an R-movie. Yes, it is the parents’ responsibility to make sure their children don’t drive other people nuts. I know quite a few parents who are able to do that, including parents with hyper-active children.

also, I think its entirely unreasonable to incorprate children into ALL of our lives. that is just ridiculous. clearly, if i choose not to have kids, i shouldnt have to incorporate anyone elses into my life. more specifically, my life should NOT be disrupted because people who did choose to have children cannot make them behave properly. my childlessness doesnt affect you, and you having a child should not affect me.

Thanks, paleblue!

How is it disrespectful that I don't find someone's crotch droppings to be darling?

Gee, I can't imagine, Moxie, how anybody could find it disrespectful that you refer to children as "crotch droppings." Tell me, what other category of human beings do you think it's acceptable to use offensive terms for?

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what fantasy world of child-behavior some posters here are imagining. If parents cannot "make" children behave, they shouldn't take them places? How, exactly, do you "make" a six-year-old behave? In what world do parents have infinite options about where to take their children? You don't see your parents for 8 years because your kids might flip their shit when the plane gets delayed for two hours? How is that realistic?

katie, I think you have it the wrong way round. You've chosen not to have children, so you get to control whether or not children are in your home. But the rest of the world is public, and you do not get to demand that you never have to interact with children or be made aware of their presence once you leave the house. Kids have a right to participate in public spaces--certainly they should be reasonably well-behaved, but the problem with crying children at an R-rated movie is not that the kids are misbehaving. It's that they're being forced to endure a movie that is obviously going to make them cry. I saw kids when I went to see Pan's Labyrinth, which was deeply wrong, but not because they upset my movie-going experience. They didn't. It was wrong because this is a movie that's going to be a traumatic viewing experience for a six-year-old.

maybe you should make sure they don’t sit next to each other, or I don’t know make sure they are tired so they sleep on the flight or just don’t fly.

My mom made sure my sister and I didn't sit next to each other--it is a basic parenting skill. But if you think that stopped us from fighting, you'd be wrong. C'mon, sojourner. The last thing you ever want to do is tire a kid out. Because they won't sleep. They will, like most of the rest of us, become extremely cranky when tired and crammed into a metal tube without enough air and water. Cranky children are the ones who start crying and can't stop. But really, don't fly? That's the solution? Because, what, parents think to themselves "You know what would be grand? I'd love to make myself and my children miserable, and put us in a situation in which nobody will help me out, but instead cast nasty looks at me because we've been sitting on the runway for 5 hours, and haven't gotten any food, and my kid's eaten all her snacks and her blood sugar's dropping and she's missed her nap because we should have landed two hours ago and now she's wailing. I'd like to do that for fun."

When parents of young kids fly, it's usually because once a year they're bringing them to see family. Do you really think they should just sit back and demand that the entire family, including others with kids, or frail grandparents come to them? Don't you think then we'd just see a lot of resentment about those selfish parents who think that everyone else should travel?

In all honesty, I really don't understand why it's supposed to be OK to disparage children as a group when it's not OK to do that to any other segment of humanity. If I said "I'm not disabled, and I shouldn't have to incorporate any disabled people into my life at all, and it really annoys me when they walk slowly in front of me," everybody would be justly outraged at me. But people feel entitled to say such things about children.

Children are the most radically disempowered group of human beings in the world. Cross-culturally, they have no political power, their daily lives are completely out of their control, they are surrounded by beings three times their size and strength who rule every aspect of their lives, unlike any group of adults in this culture, they can be legally struck, and any possible redress they have against abuse requires them to find an adult who will help them. Would any reasonable human being not throw the occasional temper tantrum in such a situation?

There are some good reasons that children are so disempowered, and some not-so-good ones. But it strikes me that on this website, whenever we're faced with any other power dynamic involving a ruling group and a subordinated group, we advocate for the subordinated group. Why, when it comes to children, is it suddenly OK to make sweeping condemnations? Yes, there is an ideology of child-worship, but it's an ideology that often ignores what's actually happening to children in our society.

I actually come from the exact opposite end of the issue from you on this, EG. But you make some really compelling points. Thanks. I'm going to have to do some thinking about this.

The Telegraph (much more traditional and rightwing than the Guardian) also ran a similar piece, but no comments section thank goodness.

Wow, Cara. Well, thanks! I'm kinda flattered...

Gee, I can't imagine, Moxie, how anybody could find it disrespectful that you refer to children as "crotch droppings." Tell me, what other category of human beings do you think it's acceptable to use offensive terms for?
I've made it clear, I don't like children & that's what they are to me. I don't advocate hurting them & I think they should be protected, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. Also, it might help if you grew a sense of humor.
If parents cannot "make" children behave, they shouldn't take them places?
I don't think that's unreasonable. If I misbehaved in public, I knew that my mom would put me int he car & we'd be going home & I would be getting a time out--no tv, video games, reading etc. & my mum was a single mom, who was working & trying to raise me. It's not like she had a million hours to shop for groceries.
Why is it wrong to expect quiet in a library or a Barnes & Noble? EG, you seem to have missed the part of my post where I hold both children & parents at fault.
Just b/c I loathe most children doesn't mean I won't advocate for them globally. I've actually been involved in activism to end sweatshop labor, end child abuse (Having been a victim of it, I know how traumatic & devastating it can be), and I've advocated heavily for a living wage, universal healthcare & daycare & whatnot.
Btu just b/c I don't thinkl that children shouldn't be hurt doesn't mean that I want to be surrounded by them when I go to see 28 Weeks Later (Which I was, BtW). I don't want to deal with them or their stupid parents who can't pull themselves off of their mobiles for two minutes to tell them not to shriek in the store.

I am always amused by people who HATE children. I certainly understand the desire to not want to parent them, and the desire that act properly, but LOATHING? Really?

I don't see why anyone should respect an opinion from someone who degrades an entire group of people. My husband works with a guy who, while not advocating violence or opposing hate crimes legislation, regularly states that he "hates n*****s". How are you any better?

Exactly, manda.

I've made it clear, I don't like children & that's what they are to me....Also, it might help if you grew a sense of humor.

So if a man said "I've made it clear, I don't like women, and "whores" is what they are to me, also you should lighten up and get a sense of humor," that would be OK with you? "Droppings" means "shit" in this culture. If you want to characterize an entire group of human beings as shit, it's certainly your right, but why should you expect any more respect for that point of view than a misogynist who calls all women whores? Plus, come on, Moxie. We've both been around long enough to know that I have a fairly good sense of humor, though I says it as shouldn't--I am, after all, the Only Begetter of the Top Undead Model reality show. But what I don't find funny, and what I've never found funny, is when members of a privileged dominant group use slurs to attack members of a weaker, disenfranchised group.

If I misbehaved in public, I knew that my mom would put me int he car & we'd be going home

That's nice. So, if you flipped out in a grocery store during the 45 minutes your mom had to shop for groceries, she just went home and what, did without food that week? Or you're in the post office trying to buy stamps so you can pay your bills and the kid throws a fit, so you just call the bill fairy to deliver them? Or if you have two kids and one of them flips out while the other is in her ballet class you abandon the second one in order to take the first one home? And then the six-year-old has to give up the classes she loves because her three-year-old sister gets whiny? Or you demand that the pilot turn the plane around immediately because your kid has lost it and therefore shouldn't get to visit grandma? Do you really not see how unworkable your blanket statement is in a variety of common, real-life scenarios? You're really just betraying how little you've thought about the daily realities of raising kids.

Why is it wrong to expect quiet in a library or a Barnes & Noble?

A library is certainly a place where you have an expectation of reasonable quiet, with "reasonable" adjusted for being in or near the kids' section or not, but libraries are an exception when it comes to public spaces. Theaters also carry with them a reasonable expectation of quiet, as I have been the first to remind adults who continue to chat while sitting behind me. But I must have missed the memo that includes mega-bookstores in such a category. Barnes and Noble is a huge bookstore that usually has extensive parenting and children's sections. Why on earth do you think you have a right to library-like quiet while you're there? I don't drink cappuccinos in libraries or have social meetings with my friends there.

EG, you seem to have missed the part of my post where I hold both children & parents at fault.

Nope. I didn't. I just think your definition of "fault" is far too wide-reaching, and I really don't see how kids are to blame for most of what you object to. When it comes to your activism work, I'm pleased, as I always am, when people fight the good fight for such righteous causes as you espouse, but I don't think that lets anyone off the hook for showing some basic respect to others. If Tom Head, whom we all know to be a tireless advocate for women's rights, came on here and started referring to bitches and ho's getting uppity and out of place, I'd call him on it (well, actually, I'd be convinced that somebody had hacked his account, but you take my meaning).

just b/c I don't thinkl that children shouldn't be hurt doesn't mean that I want to be surrounded by them when I go to see 28 Weeks Later (Which I was, BtW).

And this is what I don't understand. You say you blame both parents and children. How is this scenario, which I suspect was far more painful for the children involved than for you, the children's fault in any way whatsoever?

I don't want to deal with them or their stupid parents who can't pull themselves off of their mobiles for two minutes to tell them not to shriek in the store.

Well, you know, you live in the world, so once you go out in public, you don't get just "not deal with them," any more than you get to "not deal with" any other group of people. Once you leave your house, you sometimes run into people who don't fill you with joy. I'm an atheist, and every time I leave my house I have to look at people wearing crosses. Sometimes they talk about God. And I just have to suck it up, because the world is not my living room. Similarly, the godly have to deal with me and my family, and might have to overhear us talking about our atheism. When it comes to lousy parents who won't get off their cell-phones, the world is full of thoughtless creeps. Some of them have children, but I've run into enough thoughtless cell-phone assholes who don't have kids with them that I don't think the determining factor is that they're parents. I think the determining factor is that they're assholes.

How are you any better?
*shrugs* I don't have to defend myself to you. I've listed my advocacy for children, I would never hurt one. I just don't want to be around them. I'm hardly alone, there are other people like me.
& there are children I do like--well-behaved ones.

there are children I do like--well-behaved ones.

Isn't that like saying that there are women you like--just not the slutty ones?

If the behavior is the problem, not the age, why does your insulting term of choice refer to their age-status rather than their behavior?

How is it disrespectful that I don't find someone's crotch droppings to be darling? Wow, you reproduced!

You don't have to find them "darling," but calling them "crotch droppings" is insulting and disrespectful both to children and women.

I don't expect the world to be child-free but I do expect children to be well-behaved.

They're children. There are times when they're going to misbehave. Sorry, but that's the nature of children. Let's take a case in point:

Case in point--I fractured my pelvis several years ago & spent about 3 months on crutches. The doctor encouraged me to exercise, so, to get me out of the house my mum would take me grocery shopping with her.

How insulting would it be for someone walking through the store to talk about how annoying it was for you to be out in public with your crutches, slowing other people down and generally being in the way?

I've made it clear, I don't like children & that's what they are to me.

Yes.
You have.
How, exactly does that excuse it or make it "okay?"
You're using a hateful, insulting, hurtful term to talk about an entire category of people. So... hrm... how is that different in any significant way, from, say, calling homosexuals "fags" or using racial slurs?

I don't advocate hurting them & I think they should be protected, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. Also, it might help if you grew a sense of humor.

I'm sorry... are you really saying "get a sense of humor" about your use of a slur? Where have I heard that before... Ooooh, right!

If I misbehaved in public, I knew that my mom would put me int he car & we'd be going home & I would be getting a time out--no tv, video games, reading etc. & my mum was a single mom, who was working & trying to raise me. It's not like she had a million hours to shop for groceries.

And, so you always behaved? You were a model child and never caused any disturbance of those around you?

Parents should absolutely try to make their children behave. Even the best behaved children will misbehave at times, and it's not always possible or reasonable to expect a parent to suddenly stop whatever they're doing and remove the child from your presence. I was a pretty well behaved child, but I'd act up sometimes. Did I get punished for it? Of course. Did that stop it from happening completely? No. Did I probably annoy people sometimes? Sure.

I have to say, manda nailed it perfectly:

"My husband works with a guy who, while not advocating violence or opposing hate crimes legislation, regularly states that he "hates n*****s". How are you any better?"

Going off-topic for a minute, one thing I think is really interesting as regards children's behavior is that children don't get to do the damage control on their moods that many adults do. There are days when I feel cranky and anti-social, and I can usually make some amendations to my schedule to deal with it--I focus on working on non-interactive aspects of my job, or I treat myself to a slightly nicer lunch to pick my mood up, or I make a point of finding a friend to vent to and let off some steam. But a small child who just wakes up in a grouchy mood is kind of just screwed. They don't get to make any kind of amendations that way. If I feel enough like crap, I can decide the hell with it, the errands can wait until tomorrow, because I'm going to go home and put my feet up. If I wake up with a pounding headache, I can take an advil or go home early, or whatever. But a kid is almost never the arbiter of whether or not their ailments or crappy feelings are worth working around unless they flip their shit and make life difficult for everyone around them. It's a frustrating time of life. I'm glad I'm not in it any more.

In retrospect, I know you guys are right. I guess my problem is more with the parents, than the kids & I know I was crude, so I'm sorry.
It just bothers me, this culture of having to adjust everything for children, whether it's tv or movies--i.e. the MPAA giving R-ratings to movies that depict smoking. It's infantalizing & degrading for them--generally, kids are pretty smart & understand more than we give them credit for. I think that kids are generally much smarter than people give them credit for and are capable of being really well-behaved, but it seems like nowadays no one expects much from them.
I remember when this one cafe put up a sign asking children to be quiet & parents freaked out--I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to have quiet in a cafe or resturaunt. It's more of an individual thing, parents have to gauge their activities with what they know their kids can handle.
So, yeah. I'm sorry for my attitude. I really didn't see what I was saying as degrading a whole group, but in retrospect, you're right. I am really sorry for what i said. I don't think I'll ever want children, but I'll admit that there's something special about them, especially when they're learning.

I have just been reading this thread. I have always wondered if the people who hate kids are jealous cause they had shitty childhoods?!?!?

First and foremost, children are people. I am the mother of two...'crotch droppings'. It offends me to no end to hear them referred to that way. Just like it offends me to no end to hear people who don't have kids rant and rave about how rotten parents and kids these days are, ad nauseum.

Children have basic human rights, such as respect. They also have the right to learn, make mistakes, and be him or herself. Not all of that happens behind closed doors at home.

My version of religion etc. is that since we are all reincarnated, kids are closest to God when they are first born, and they teach us as much as we teach them, if not more. They are here to teach us about God, about goodness, to live in the present, etc. and we teach them how to exist on this planet.

Pardon me, but I will NEVER teach my 'crotch droppings' to be seen and not heard. I know that they are not going to be well-behaved all the time, and sometimes, they will misbehave at inopportune times and places. My 'crotch droppings' and others in their age brackets are not mini adults.

Moxie Hart. How the fuck can you call yourself an advocate for children if you don't respect them, don't like them, and want nothing to do with them?

and Katie, as far as your assertion that my children should not affect you in any way, good luck with that. Are you moving to a child-free community sometime soon?

You don't have to love my (or any) kids, you don't have to have kids of your own, obviously. But don't disrespect them because you get irritated with them when they have the audacity to exist in your presence.

Children are the most powerless, poor, and abused group of people on the planet. They have no representation in most government, they have very little voice in what happens to them... from which wars their governments engage in, to what kind of cereal mom will or will not buy for them at the grocery store.

And the really sad thing about this discussion, is that every single person on the planet has been a child and SHOULD remember what it's like to be in those shoes!

kpsisu: Scroll up, I actually DID apologize for what I said. It was wrong. & I'm sorry.
However, I do still plan to try to limit myself to activities where children aren't present just b/c they're not to my taste--I have that right, no?
I have always wondered if the people who hate kids are jealous cause they had shitty childhoods?!?!?
Actually, I did & I know that's part of my problem. it pisses me off when I see parents ignoring their kids when I know they should be protected & given attention, the way that I should have been protected.

We must have posted at the same time, Moxie. of course you have that right. I am sorry that your parents didn't protect you- in a perfect world, all parents would do a really, really great job. Wouldn't it be nice if kids could pick their parents? I've read a theory that kids do pick their parents before they come to earth (I know this is very woo woo) to teach them the lessons they want to learn here, in this life. It's hard to comprehend. Especially when you think about it, and look at your own parents, and go 'what the fuck was I thinking, again?!?'

;)

A couple of points...

I'm a librarian. In a public library, you really can't expect complete quiet. That's not just from kids, but from homeless and mentally ill as well. Many libraries are trying to create spaces for kids that are separate from the adults, but if this doesn't happen, it is because of funding, so don't complain about your taxes!

I do not have children. I have decided never to have children for a variety of reasons, but I have nieces and nephews. I never had any idea how hard parenting was until my sisters had kids. Our culture focuses on the nuclear family, which I think does kids and parents a disfavor. raising kids is a lot of work, and while I can see how it would be rewarding, I think the sentiments of the posters here that do not like kids reflects a larger cultural problem of isolating parents with children. Many of the social safety nets that were available in the past, ie extended family, welfare, are gone. I see this in my library when school gets out and parents don't have affordable childcare options, so they send the kids to the library because they know that the old biddies like me will watch out for them.

It's ok, kpsisu.
I've heard that theory too. I'm kind of having a crisis of faith right now, though, I blame Carl Sagan. I'm trying to balance skepticism with faith. I actually really like Sylvia Browne & she says something similar.
My parents were generally good. I love them. But they also made a few, significant, very big mistakes. I daydream about picking my parents, for some reason I always choose Emma Thompson. When it's not Emma Thompson, it's always someone English, I don't know why.

Straying away from the hot topic of children...

I was browsing Yahoo's summer movie pages when I came across their page for Captivity (the model-torture movie). It's absolutely disgusting, insinuating that the movie is a love story at heart and drawing comparisons to Hitchcock. More reasons to avoid this movie.

I've never even heard of Captivity. Scary movies have gotten so lazy nowadays. I love scary movies, they're one of my guilty pleasures, but I'll stick to Hitchcock & George Romero. THEY know how to scare people.
Is Captive one of those "torture" movies like Saw or Hostel? I haven't seen either of those, but Mr. Cranky has an interesting review of one of the Saw movies & how it relates to the U.S.'s current political climate.

Children are the most radically disempowered group of human beings in the world. Cross-culturally, they have no political power, their daily lives are completely out of their control, they are surrounded by beings three times their size and strength who rule every aspect of their lives, unlike any group of adults in this culture, they can be legally struck, and any possible redress they have against abuse requires them to find an adult who will help them. Would any reasonable human being not throw the occasional temper tantrum in such a situation?

EG, this was gorgeous. I wanted to say it, but you did, so well it made me tear up with admiration for the simple way you expressed it. There needs to be a whole lot more democracy in parenting, a whole lot more talking that goes both ways, and a whole lot more respect from parents to children.

I read one author who said the first thing parents should do when a child throws a tantrum in public is to FORGET everyone around them. Because invariably, when you're yeilding to the pressure of the tsk tskers, you will do something more oppressive to make it stop than you might have if you had more time and a supportive environment, just because you're uncomfortable, stressed out, and motivated to make it stop NOW. Kudos to the people who reach out on planes for this reason. It's an act of basic humanity, not an ad campaign for your own desire to have children in your life.

And Moxie,

it pisses me off when I see parents ignoring their kids when I know they should be protected & given attention, the way that I should have been protected.

I can totally see that. It takes a brave person to stare down her unconscious responses this way. I would add, further, that identifying with the mind of a child in conflict is probably painful to you in general. You might like to "put yourself in their shoes" but it's difficult for you now. So no wonder you just want them to go away. There is anger there, and the obvious place to pin it is on them, but that might not be where it accurately belongs once you have time to reflect, safely removed from the emotionality of the immediate situation.

Children are the most radically disempowered group of human beings in the world.

Yes, there is an ideology of child-worship, but it's an ideology that often ignores what's actually happening to children in our society.

Can't get into a point-by-point discussion of the parenting issue here, but wanted to thank you, EG (and kpsisu & roymac as well) for being so eloquent about children's human rights.

People always ask me if I "like" children, which I think is a weird question. I like them as much as I like other human beings--some I get along with really well, some I can't be around for more than five minutes! But I don't think of them as a category to adore in an idealized way or "loath" with particular vehemence.

I think there's an important conversation we need to have, as a culture, about how to incorporate children and families into our daily lives now that, increasingly, parenting is optional. We have started to think of it as a "lifestyle choice" rather than (as someone said on my breastfeeding board) a social service. There's a huge benefits to parenting being a choice, and I would never argue against that. But I don't like the way that we are developing a worldview that says people who have children must handle (without systematic support) ALL the implications (good, bad, and unexpected). And not inconvenience the rest of us while they're doing it. Children are people that need care, and it should be our corporate responsibility to ensure their survival and quality of life, whether or not we choose to be actively parenting.

Oops. The above should read "on THE breastfeeding board" here on Feministing!

People always ask me if I "like" children, which I think is a weird question.

Totally, Anna. It creeps me out the same way I always knew to steer clear of men who said they "loved women."

:o).

And I liked your thoughts as well, sage . . .