1
   

Breeders vs. DINKs: let's get ready to rumble!

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 09:49 am
Oh, the temper tantrums of those childless complainers

Dennis Byrne
Published November 21, 2005 (Chicago Tribune: registration required)

Now a few words about the latest picked-on people: childless couples by choice.

"We're probably the largest and least recognized group in Western society right now," Scott Wenzel, a 39-year-old computer consultant from Maryland, whined in American Demographics magazine.

Their support groups complain on Web sites that "people with children" get a better deal from the government, merchandisers or anyone else with something to dispense. They feel as if they're treated like second-class citizens, while "breeders" get all the attention. They're fed up with pressure to have children.

Aw, poor babies.

Despite their complaints, they do get attention, for some reason. Stories about couples who are DINKs (dual income, no kids) and their increasing numbers. Stories reminding us that they're not horrible people just because they decide not to have children and instead enjoy their weekends hang gliding at resort Coquina Blue. Stories about how they really, really like children and do volunteer work for them, and that it's no crime not to take them home.

To be clear: Who cares? Have children or don't have children. Your choice. As far as I know, there's no organization trying to drive DINKs into isolated compounds, although living apart seems to be their own preference. We breeders agree: It's probably best that some people don't have children.

None of this would be worth anyone's attention, if not for the fact that the past several decades have witnessed the most profound period of family-, child-, father- and mother-bashing in America's history. And no small amount of it comes from some DINKs, despite their claims of live and let live. If there is indeed a bias against couples who choose not to have children, the bias against those who do is at least equal.

"Kids are parasites," reads a message board on a "child-free" Web site. A nursing mother yearning for the good old childless times laments, "I had the life sucked out of me for nine months, and now this thing [emphasis added] is still sucking the life out of me. ... Thank your lucky stars you don't have one of these little beasts." Kids "make a mess and scream in public ... [and] now I've become one of those people in the store I always hated. ... If you ever think about having a kid--don't!! Get a cat or a dog!"

This might be considered the exception, except that such--what do they call it?--mean-spirited comments aren't exceptional. Choosing to have three kids is "selfish." "In the developed world, we don't `need' to reproduce. There is not a necessity to procreate to populate the Earth with humans." In the best of Gloria Bunker Stivic-like thinking, they assert that procreants endanger Mother Earth. When it comes to kids, just say no.

One especially tortured posting lamented the passing of the "brats!" site and berated those who feared for their own children in the wake of the London subway terrorist bombings. "[A columnist writes] about how when he saw the carnage on TV the first thing he thinks of--you guessed it--is his pweshus chyuld [sic] and how he couldn't stand her having any pain like that, how hard it was just watching Snotleigh [sic] cry at the doctor, blah blah blah ... How can he turn these people's pain into an excuse to ramble on about his [deleted] kid? Why do these breeders have to make every single thing about them?"

As Primo Breeder, let me answer: It's called empathy.

Maybe they don't intend to mean this, but the adults of the childless nation sound like having kids is just another lifestyle choice. They seem bothered by the human and innate urge to have children, an urge installed in all of us by the process of natural selection. Maybe what they're really fighting here is their own instincts.

Or maybe they just hate children.

If they truly don't care if the rest of us choose to adore and nurture our children, then they might lay off the nasty attacks. If they could see how small they make themselves look by crabbing about people who like to talk about their children, maybe they'd stop.

Having children is both a blessing and a great service to society, perhaps one of life's greatest. Raising children is vastly more important (and difficult) work than childless couples planning a wine tasting. Those who do a good job deserve praise and help. No one should have to explain why it is heroic work.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,415 • Replies: 91
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:04 am
Hmmm.

I'm sympathetic to the family-, child-, mother- and father-bashing part, but this guy is a little too smug for me.

I agree with, "Who cares? Have children or don't have children. Your choice." But then he contradicts himself by seeming to care a great deal. ("Or maybe they just hate children."????)

There are cranky DINKS, and there are psycho parents. That the two extremes react to each other doesn't seem very surprising.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:06 am
Heeheeheeheeheeheehee . . . self-labelling folks crack me up . . .
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:39 am
Lament of a Previous D-I-N-K

Those were the days, my friend,
We thought they'd never end...
Those days and nights of free-for-all
And sex.

When all the cash we made
in our big pockets stayed.
Those were the days...
Oh yes, those were the days.

And all the fun we had,
Gee, we were never mad,
Loud little kids meant nothing
'Cept for laughs.

But now we rant and rave,
We fuss and then we pay
Those were the days,
Oh yes, those were the days.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:47 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:52 am
I'm a SINK, I guess, but I like kids. I have a cool nephew, and I get a kick out of my friends' kids, too.

I've been bewildered about adults who hate the idea of kids since I was a kid. I remember being warned to stay away from a house in the neighborhood because the guy who lived there didn't like kids. How could this be, I wondered. He was once a kid himself...
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:54 am
I feel uniquely qualified to respond to this question by virtue of having been a unmotivated DINK soley based on my personal evolutinary oddity of not been motivated to procreate who is now raising a child that was left on her doorstep.

Dennis Byrne is a gass-bag of the highest order whose "heroic" parenting and sour grapes demenor don't warrent serious consideration but were, meanwhile, good for a chuckle.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 11:37 am
Re: Breeders vs. DINKs: let's get ready to rumble!
Dennis Byrne wrote:
As Primo Breeder, let me answer: It's called empathy.

I don't think so. I'm more inclined to attribute it to "self-absorption." Many baby-boomers, of course, come by that naturally: the world revolved around them as children, so they figure it should continue to spin around their satellite offspring.

Dennis Byrne wrote:
Maybe they don't intend to mean this, but the adults of the childless nation sound like having kids is just another lifestyle choice. They seem bothered by the human and innate urge to have children, an urge installed in all of us by the process of natural selection. Maybe what they're really fighting here is their own instincts.

Or maybe they just hate children.

Like D'art, I'm a SINK. I don't hate all children, but I do have some problems with the parents who, in their quest to make the world perfect for their kids, seek to infantalize the rest of us. Your kids get upset watching prime time television? Send 'em to bed! The wee'uns can't sit still at restaurants or movie theaters? Leave 'em at home! Your precious babies won't stop crying during a four-hour flight to LA? Next time check them with the rest of your luggage!

Dennis Byrne wrote:
If they truly don't care if the rest of us choose to adore and nurture our children, then they might lay off the nasty attacks. If they could see how small they make themselves look by crabbing about people who like to talk about their children, maybe they'd stop.

I don't think anyone wants to deprive parents of their ability to "adore and nurture" their children. Just don't be too disappointed if folks like me aren't as enthusiastic about your kids as you are.

Dennis Byrne wrote:
Having children is both a blessing and a great service to society, perhaps one of life's greatest. Raising children is vastly more important (and difficult) work than childless couples planning a wine tasting. Those who do a good job deserve praise and help. No one should have to explain why it is heroic work.

When did having kids become "heroic?" My folks never, never would have thought that they were doing something "heroic" in raising their children, but then they came from a generation that viewed having and raising children as just something that people did because they wanted to do it, not as some kind of epic, comic-book type of mission. Have we now so totally debased the notion of "heroism" that anything that requires some effort is regarded as "heroic?"
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:23 pm
I'm a DINK... but not really by choice. We would like to have kids but find it impossible to have kids, raise them ourselves (as opposed to daycare), and be able to earn enough income (from one source) to support a family. So we wait...

I don't underdstand how breeders do it. Mortgage, school loans, car payments, car insurance, energy bills, phone bills, etc., etc., and all the bills that come along with kids. Nope... I don't understand how they do it at all.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:24 pm
Ooh, it's the cool signing avatar!

We did it with a whole lot of planning and saving -- what you guys are doing, it sounds like. We were 30 and 32, respectively, when the kid came along. You're younger than that, right?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:34 pm
How serendipitous. This article just came in over the transom:

War on Brats[/url]

Café's move to boot bad kids kicks up skirmish between the childless and the child-centered.

By Jodi Wilgoren / New York Times

CHICAGO -- Bridget Dehl shushed her 21-month-old son Gavin, then clapped a hand over his mouth to squelch his tiny screams amid the Sunday brunch bustle. When Gavin kept yelping "yeah, yeah, yeah," Dehl quickly whisked him from his highchair and out the door.

Right past the sign warning the cafe's customers that "Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of Heaven," and right into a nasty spat roiling the stroller set in Chicago's changing Andersonville neighborhood.

The owner of A Taste of Heaven, Dan McCauley, said he posted the sign -- at child level, with playful handprints -- in the hope of quieting his tin-ceilinged cafe, where toddlers have been known to sprawl between tables and hurl themselves at display cases for sport.

But many neighborhood mothers took umbrage at the implied criticism of how they handle their children. Soon, whispers of a boycott passed among the playgroups in this North Side hamlet, once an outpost of edgy artists and hip gay couples but now a hot real estate market for young professional families shunning the suburbs.

"I love people who don't have children who tell you how to parent," said Alison Miller, 35, a psychologist, corporate coach and mother of two. "I'd love for him to be responsible for three children for the next year and see if he can control the volume of their voices every minute of the day."

McCauley, 44, said the protesting parents are "former cheerleaders and beauty queens" who "have a very strong sense of entitlement." In an open letter to the community, he warned of an "epidemic" of anti-social behavior.

"Part of parenting skills is teaching kids they behave differently in a restaurant than they do on the playground," McCauley said. "If you send out positive energy, positive energy returns to you. If you send out energy that says I'm the only one that matters, it's going to be a pretty chaotic world."

And so simmers another skirmish between the childless and the child-centered, a culture clash increasingly common in restaurants and other public spaces as a new generation of busy, older, well-off parents ferry little ones with them.

• An online petition urging child-free sections in North Carolina restaurants drew hundreds of signers, including Janelle Funk, who wrote, "Whenever a hostess asks me 'smoking or nonsmoking?' I respond, 'No kids!' "

• At Mendo Bistro in Fort Bragg, Calif., the owners declare "Well-behaved children and parents welcome" to try to stop unmonitored youngsters from tap-dancing on the 100-year-old wood floors.

• Menus at Zumbro Cafe in Minneapolis say: "We love children, especially when they're tucked into chairs and behaving," which Barbara Daenzer said she read as an invitation to cease her weekly breakfast visits when her son was born.

• Even at the Full Moon in Cambridge, Mass., a cafe created for families, there are rules about inside voices and a "No lifeguard on duty" sign to remind parents to take responsibility. "You run the risk when you start monitoring behavior," said the Full Moon's owner, Sarah Wheaton. "You can say no cell phones to people, but you can't say your father speaks too loudly, he has to keep his voice down. And you can't really say your toddler is too loud when she's eating."

Here in Chicago, parents have denounced Toast, a popular Lincoln Park breakfast spot, as unwelcoming since a note about using inside voices appeared on the menu six months ago.

The owner of John's Place established a separate "family-friendly" room a year ago, only to face parental threats of lawsuits.

When a retail clerk in Andersonville asked a woman to stop breast-feeding last spring, "the neighborhood set him straight real fast," said Mary Ann Smith, the area's alderwoman.

Things got ugly

After a dozen years at one site, McCauley moved A Taste of Heaven six blocks away in May 2004, to a busy corner on Clark Street. The clientele is whiter, wealthier and louder, he said. Teachers and writers seeking afternoon refuge were drowned out not just by children running amok but also by oblivious cell phone chatterers.

Children were climbing the cafe's poles. A couple were blithely reading the newspaper while their daughter lay on the floor blocking the line for coffee. When the family whose children were running across the room to flail themselves against the display cases left after his admonishment, McCauley recalled, the restaurant erupted in applause.

So he put up the sign. Then things really got ugly.

"The looks I would get when I went in there made me so nervous that I would try to buy the food as fast as I could and get out," said Laura Brauer, 40, who has stopped visiting Taste with her two kids.

"I think that the mothers who allow their kids to run around and scream, that's wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

Miller said that one day when her son, then 4 months old, was fussing, a staff member rolled her eyes and announced for all to hear, "We've got a screamer!"

Kim Cavitt recalled having coffee and a cookie one afternoon with her boisterous 2-year-old when "someone came over and said you just need to keep her quiet or you need to leave."

"We left, and we haven't been back since," Cavitt said. "You go to a coffee shop or a bakery for a rest, to relax, and that you would have to worry the whole time about your child doing something that children do -- really what they're saying is they don't welcome children, they want the child to behave like an adult."

Why suffer such scorn, the mothers said, when clerks at the Swedish Bakery, a neighborhood institution, offer children -- calm or crying -- free cookies? Why confront such criticism when the recently opened Sweet Occasions, a five-minute walk down Clark Street, designed the bathroom aisle to accommodate double strollers and offers a child-size ice cream cone for $1.50? (At A Taste of Heaven, the smallest costs $3.75.)

"It's his business; he has the right to put whatever sign he wants on the door," Miller said. "And people have the right to respond to that sign however they want."

Owner won't back down

McCauley said he had received kudos from several restaurant owners in the area, though none had followed his lead. He has certainly lost customers because of the sign, but some parents say the offense is outweighed by their addiction to the scones, and others embrace the effort at etiquette.

"The litmus test for me is if they have high chairs or not," said Dehl, the woman who scooped her screaming son from his seat during brunch, as she waited out his restlessness on a sidewalk bench. "The fact that they had one high chair, and the fact that he's the only child in the restaurant is an indication that it's an adult place, and if he's going to do his toddler thing we should take him out and let him run around."

McCauley said he would rather go out of business than back down. He likens this one small step toward good manners to his personal effort to decrease pollution by only hiring employees who live close enough to walk to work.

"I can't change the situation in Iraq; I can't change the situation in New Orleans," he said. "But I can change this little corner of the world."
_________________________________________________________

Looks like I've found my new favorite restaurant.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:37 pm
sozobe wrote:
Ooh, it's the cool signing avatar!


yeah... but I can't get the background right. It used to be lighter colored.

sozobe wrote:
We did it with a whole lot of planning and saving -- what you guys are doing, it sounds like. We were 30 and 32, respectively, when the kid came along. You're younger than that, right?


28 (until December) and 27 so we still have some time. She is a bit worried about waiting to long, but it seems like people are waiting longer and longer these days without to many concerns.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:42 pm
Yeah, before 30 there isn't much to worry about. After 30, either, but that's when risk factors start accruing. More after 35, etc. (For first child, anyway.)

joefromchicago, I saw that article when it was published and it annoyed me. I don't see it as a kid or parenting thing, I see it as a bad parenting thing. Unless it's a specifically kid-friendly place, I expect my kid to more or less behave.

Quote:
"I think that the mothers who allow their kids to run around and scream, that's wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"


There are so things you can do about it, unless we're talking about a kid with some sort of behavior disorder.

By the same token, though, I think this is stupid:

Quote:
Miller said that one day when her son, then 4 months old, was fussing, a staff member rolled her eyes and announced for all to hear, "We've got a screamer!"


A whole lot less you can do about a 4-month-old, and stupid to think that parents must be in some kind of purdah until a kid can control him/ herself.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:56 pm
sozobe wrote:
A whole lot less you can do about a 4-month-old, and stupid to think that parents must be in some kind of purdah until a kid can control him/ herself.

Why not?

OK, maybe that was a bit facetious, but examine this quotation from the story:
Quote:
Kim Cavitt recalled having coffee and a cookie one afternoon with her boisterous 2-year-old when "someone came over and said you just need to keep her quiet or you need to leave."

"We left, and we haven't been back since," Cavitt said. "You go to a coffee shop or a bakery for a rest, to relax, and that you would have to worry the whole time about your child doing something that children do -- really what they're saying is they don't welcome children, they want the child to behave like an adult."

Here we have someone who goes to the bakery to rest and relax, but who apparently thinks that she is the only person there who wants some R and R. She wants a break from worrying about her child, so instead she makes everyone else in the place assume that burden? Gimme a break! I'll bet she hasn't considered that others in the restaurant don't find her "boisterous" 2-year-old to be very conducive to their rest and relaxation. Really, the irony here is overwhelming.

As another mother asked:
Quote:
"I think that the mothers who allow their kids to run around and scream, that's wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

My reply: "that's right. If you bring your kids to an adult establishment, you should make sure they're well-behaved. If not, I'm sure there's a Chuck E Cheese in the neighborhood that would love to have your business."
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:59 pm
That's exactly why I differentiated, Joe. a 4-month-old "fussing" is much different from the other two examples you cited -- which were similar to the one I cited as not having any patience with, myself.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 01:07 pm
sozobe wrote:
That's exactly why I differentiated, Joe. a 4-month-old "fussing" is much different from the other two examples you cited -- which were similar to the one I cited as not having any patience with, myself.

Well, the mother said the 4-month-old was "fussing," the waiter described it as "screaming." Without more evidence, it's impossible to determine the level of the child's "fussiness," but I'd be inclined to guess that, if it was evident to the waiter, it was also evident to other customers.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 01:14 pm
Luckily, a screamer often falls asleep, mid-scream, but you have to stop conversation until that happens.

I thought that comment "We've got a screamer." must have been said by someone who has had enough experience with children to know and could easily be said as a good-natured comment of fact.

It is something I'd say.... probably have said. ;-)

Anyone who has heard that fingernail-grating-on-chalkboard scream of an angry infant knows it is not to be denied and shouldn't be ignored. (Kid might have a diaper pin sticking in its belly.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 01:15 pm
Quite possibly. And?

When my daughter was 4 months old, she loved going out and was generally extremely placid, watching what was going on with interest and not uttering a peep. Going out with her (that would be March, in Chicago, high cabin fever time) was an enormously welcome respite.

I could expect she would be "good" and so would take her to coffee shops and such. She was in fact "good" the vast majority of the time. Occasionally she would "fuss" -- or cry, even -- and I'd quickly deal with the situation. In fact, there are a lot of potential disruptions in the world. People talking loudly on cell phones. Odiferous farts. Some people are just really ugly. Some people have even been known to have bad seafood and upchuck all over the place.

All of these potentialities should be erased by not allowing someone who might possibly constitute a disruption to set foot in public, right? Although that public may be quite drastically reduced if such a law was implemented...
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 01:16 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
As another mother asked:
Quote:
"I think that the mothers who allow their kids to run around and scream, that's wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

My reply: "that's right. If you bring your kids to an adult establishment, you should make sure they're well-behaved. If not, I'm sure there's a Chuck E Cheese in the neighborhood that would love to have your business."


I couldn't agree with you more, Joe. I can not stand parents who feel it is their right to do as they please at the expense of others. Having children is a decision you make. Along with that decision comes consequences. One of those consequences is not being able to do the same things you used to do. No more going out on the weekends. Movies, dinners at nice restaruants, libraries (of the grown up variety), and other places in public where other people are trying to enjoy the same space as you are just a few examples.

If you want to continue doing those things... don't have kids.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 01:21 pm
But Sozobe, don't you think that a parent needs to be careful when going out in public with a child? I was always willing to leave if my kids quit having a good time.

I totally understand that it isn't fair to call it "good" behavior. You're right to point that out.

If my children complained in their most effective voice about my choice of venue, I was always willing to cater to them... and leave.


To bring up another and worse point: My problem with children has never been so much about their noise as their smell. Thank God mine finally grew up. <shudder> Diapers! <worse shudder> Those parents who leave carefully rolled up and taped diapers on the beach... tossed in the bushes.... in a public bathroom.... What the hell are they thinking?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My daughter - Discussion by Seed
Optical illusion, kids vs adults - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Nebraska Safe Haven Law - Discussion by Diest TKO
How fearful were you as a child? - Question by dlowan
Im white . - Discussion by shewolfnm
Excessive Public Affection to Small Children - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Imaginary Friends - Discussion by Joe Nation
Artwork by the grandkids - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Breeders vs. DINKs: let's get ready to rumble!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 07:10:39