Animal Lovers That Dislike Children

[Guest donatella]

Why? (Dons flame suit) Because we have overpopulated the planet and the last thing we need is yet another first world child consuming more than its fair share of resources while millions less fortunate starve.

That is indeed one of my reasons for not wanting to have a child.

I am glad we live in a society that values individualism more than valuing traditional patriarchal family structures. It means that people like me that don't have the biological urge to breed are not trapped in a hideous life in servitude of the children we were expected to have.

Well said. I feel exactly the same. So glad I wasn't born thirty + years earlier than I was.

When I am on a plane and a child is crying or doing things that children do it does stress me a touch. However, I feel so much for the person trying to care for them. Their stress levels must be double mine as they are getting less rest than me and they also are usually acutely aware that their child is disturbing others.

Yes, but it was their choice to travel with the child. My choice is to travel without, and that includes other people's.

Anyway, children are individuals so it makes no sense to me to 'not like children' unless you 'don't like humans' in general.

Read the last 15 pages again, you obviously missed something.

Noone likes listening to the squealing of children on planes (particularly the parent) but until it is banned (aka never) I suggest you build a bridge or buy some ear plugs

I don't think anyone's calling for it to be banned. :laugh:

The point here seems to have been lost along the way - that is, someone has the right to be moved in a plane if they don't want to sit next to a screaming child/man/woman/whoever.

I agree, but the person stated that parents chose to travel with children and they chose to travel without. There really is no choosing to travel without children on planes unless they are banned. Yes you can asked to be moved (and have every right to do so) but to say you don't want to travel on planes with children at all is a far fetched statement that will never eventuate (because odds are there might be one sitting somewhere on the flight and we all know noise carries)

Edited March 3, 2012 by donatella

[Kavik]

a long haul flight is the LAST place any parent wants to be with a child :laugh: Really, 14 hrs on a plane with not being able to get up and no space is absolute torture with kids the only reason I do it is to visit family, even then it is only when I have to go (organised Christmas, weddings).

What I am amazed at is that people in playgroup are talking about camping with little kids - that comes pretty close on the torture scale to me :laugh: but NOTHING is worse than flying with kids.

....crying baby in a Cinema! That where I lose it.

Ah, but you see I would not go to the cinema with a baby. Don't have much choice those times I go overseas. I would certainly prefer not to go.

[~Anne~]

When I am on a plane and a child is crying or doing things that children do it does stress me a touch. However, I feel so much for the person trying to care for them. Their stress levels must be double mine as they are getting less rest than me and they also are usually acutely aware that their child is disturbing others.

Yes, but it was their choice to travel with the child. My choice is to travel without, and that includes other people's..

I too choose to travel without children but I understand that others can choose to travel with theirs. I guess I accept it as part and parcel of air travel and I am not so selfish that I view my happiness over the happiness of someone who chooses to travel with their child.

[mr.mister]

Why? (Dons flame suit) Because we have overpopulated the planet and the last thing we need is yet another first world child consuming more than its fair share of resources while millions less fortunate starve.

That is indeed one of my reasons for not wanting to have a child.

I am glad we live in a society that values individualism more than valuing traditional patriarchal family structures. It means that people like me that don't have the biological urge to breed are not trapped in a hideous life in servitude of the children we were expected to have.

Well said. I feel exactly the same. So glad I wasn't born thirty + years earlier than I was.

When I am on a plane and a child is crying or doing things that children do it does stress me a touch. However, I feel so much for the person trying to care for them. Their stress levels must be double mine as they are getting less rest than me and they also are usually acutely aware that their child is disturbing others.

Yes, but it was their choice to travel with the child. My choice is to travel without, and that includes other people's.

Anyway, children are individuals so it makes no sense to me to 'not like children' unless you 'don't like humans' in general.

Read the last 15 pages again, you obviously missed something.

Noone likes listening to the squealing of children on planes (particularly the parent) but until it is banned (aka never) I suggest you build a bridge or buy some ear plugs

I don't think anyone's calling for it to be banned. :laugh:

The point here seems to have been lost along the way - that is, someone has the right to be moved in a plane if they don't want to sit next to a screaming child/man/woman/whoever.

So they have the right?! I never knew that.

Well I can only assume that if there is a serious disruption caused by said child, or in earlier posts the person has specifically asked not to be seated next to a young child, they would have the right to be able to move elsewhere. I suppose it would probably depend on how full the plane was - I doubt you'd get any other passengers wanting to swap with you. :laugh:

[LizT]

a long haul flight is the LAST place any parent wants to be with a child :laugh: Really, 14 hrs on a plane with not being able to get up and no space is absolute torture with kids the only reason I do it is to visit family, even then it is only when I have to go (organised Christmas, weddings).

What I am amazed at is that people in playgroup are talking about camping with little kids - that comes pretty close on the torture scale to me :laugh: but NOTHING is worse than flying with kids.

....crying baby in a Cinema! That where I lose it.

Ah, but you see I would not go to the cinema with a baby. Don't have much choice those times I go overseas. I would certainly prefer not to go.

Me neither. I'm talking about someone elses. :laugh:

[~Anne~]

Indeed. I think the lack of "the extended family" is partly to blame for the "me,me" generation.

I don't understand this. Only people who decide to have a child are going to be able to bring it up "me, me" style. Those of us who have no kids did not breed these selfish children.

If a child is brought up in a 'me, me' style, or if children are considered the "me, me" generation why would anyone else want to be near them? If you think it is important to have extended family around kids, there is your reason why I should never have any.

I am glad we live in a society that values individualism more than valuing traditional patriarchal family structures. It means that people like me that don't have the biological urge to breed are not trapped in a hideous life in servitude of the children we were expected to have.

Try thinking of it in the context of "It takes a village to raise a child". :)

That is what I am implying, that the nuclear (closed) family, where we don't have the benefit of the expected respect and input of say, the elderly, neighbours, close friends etc. creates a secular, self absorbed society and we raise children in this environment today.

I still don't understand. isn't that up to you as parents? Surely it is up to you to teach you children respect and seek out input from those you want it. But really it is not up to everyone else to raise your child

Don't know about the person most stressed about children screaming being the parents...I've have seen quite a number in shopping centres who don't seem to even notice their child is throwing the world's biggest tantrum

I was referring specifically to air travel. Surely you've been on an aircraft? You must understand that aircraft cabins are claustrophobic at best and each traveller is forced to be almost on top of one another. I am amazed you can't see the difference between an aircraft and a shopping centre. :laugh:

[Cat]

I can...but I still think there are some parents that don't really care. I have been on lots of long flights and some just don't care how much noise their kids are making. there's also the ones who don't care if their child is kicking your seat. One poster said they complained about a child on a plane and the parent thought she was horrible

Edited March 3, 2012 by Cat

[~Anne~]

Well I can only assume that if there is a serious disruption caused by said child, or in earlier posts the person has specifically asked not to be seated next to a young child, they would have the right to be able to move elsewhere. I suppose it would probably depend on how full the plane was - I doubt you'd get any other passengers wanting to swap with you. :laugh:

I certainly wouldn't. :laugh:

[~Anne~]

I can...but I still think there are some parents that don't really care. I have been on lots of long flights and some just don't care how much noise their kids are making. there's also the ones who don't care if their child is kicking your seat. One poster said they complained about a child on a plane and the parent thought she was horrible

I am sure there are some who couldn't care or simply don't realise how annoying their child is. Still, I guess I look on the positive side of human nature and that there would be far more who would be stressed at their child disrupting orhers.

[LizT]

Why? (Dons flame suit) Because we have overpopulated the planet and the last thing we need is yet another first world child consuming more than its fair share of resources while millions less fortunate starve.

That is indeed one of my reasons for not wanting to have a child.

I am glad we live in a society that values individualism more than valuing traditional patriarchal family structures. It means that people like me that don't have the biological urge to breed are not trapped in a hideous life in servitude of the children we were expected to have.

Well said. I feel exactly the same. So glad I wasn't born thirty + years earlier than I was.

When I am on a plane and a child is crying or doing things that children do it does stress me a touch. However, I feel so much for the person trying to care for them. Their stress levels must be double mine as they are getting less rest than me and they also are usually acutely aware that their child is disturbing others.

Yes, but it was their choice to travel with the child. My choice is to travel without, and that includes other people's.

Anyway, children are individuals so it makes no sense to me to 'not like children' unless you 'don't like humans' in general.

Read the last 15 pages again, you obviously missed something.

Noone likes listening to the squealing of children on planes (particularly the parent) but until it is banned (aka never) I suggest you build a bridge or buy some ear plugs

I don't think anyone's calling for it to be banned. :laugh:

The point here seems to have been lost along the way - that is, someone has the right to be moved in a plane if they don't want to sit next to a screaming child/man/woman/whoever.

So they have the right?! I never knew that.

Well I can only assume that if there is a serious disruption caused by said child, or in earlier posts the person has specifically asked not to be seated next to a young child, they would have the right to be able to move elsewhere. I suppose it would probably depend on how full the plane was - I doubt you'd get any other passengers wanting to swap with you. :laugh:

My husband was travelling in Business Class (company paid, we travelled economy). OH offered to swap with old lady and give her his BC seat. Flight attendant told OH "NO WAY is that B*tch getting upgraded". So she was put up the back.

Incidently, she probably wasn't a good example for me to use. It was just her demeanour and attitude that had such an impact on me that ,22 years later it is still quite fresh. As someone who posted suggested, she was probably just rude. There are better ways to say things I suppose.

[Cosmolo]

Discussions around child raising invariably result in someone saying parents ignore their child having a tantrum and how dare they do that. Extinction training is a valuable tool and one i would certainly not hesitate to use if i were in public with one of my nieces.

I used to say i disliked children. But though i don't desire any of my own, i now very much enjoy spending time with most children. i like most of the kids i meet in dog training sessions, many of whom want to 'help' with the training. I love my nieces and look forward to spending time with them. I remain uncomfortable around babies though- though only if put under pressure to hold them, feed them etc. I am more comfortable when they are interactive and not as fragile!

I feel sorry for parents with distressed children on planes etc. The ones i don't feel sorry for are those who don't put a stop to kids kicking the back of my chair or happily throwing food at me..

[mr.mister]

My husband was travelling in Business Class (company paid, we travelled economy). OH offered to swap with old lady and give her his BC seat. Flight attendant told OH "NO WAY is that B*tch getting upgraded". So she was put up the back.

Incidently, she probably wasn't a good example for me to use. It was just her demeanour and attitude that had such an impact on me that ,22 years later it is still quite fresh. As someone who posted suggested, she was probably just rude. There are better ways to say things I suppose.

To be honest, I think a lot of people lose their tolerance a bit when they get older.

My mum is only 64, yet I have noticed that the slightest things now bother her, and she just doesn't have the patience she used to. There'll be kids playing basketball in the apartment garden next door to hers, about 50 meters away, and it will drive her bonkers. I, on the other hand, only notice when she points it out to me. :laugh: She also cannot tolerate children crying in supermarkets, cinemas or planes. The vitriol with which she speaks about these things sometimes quite surprises me.

This is the same person who lovingly brought up two children.

It is a shame that she was so rude though, LizT.

[hortfurball]

Indeed. I think the lack of "the extended family" is partly to blame for the "me,me" generation.

I don't understand this. Only people who decide to have a child are going to be able to bring it up "me, me" style. Those of us who have no kids did not breed these selfish children.

If a child is brought up in a 'me, me' style, or if children are considered the "me, me" generation why would anyone else want to be near them? If you think it is important to have extended family around kids, there is your reason why I should never have any.

I am glad we live in a society that values individualism more than valuing traditional patriarchal family structures. It means that people like me that don't have the biological urge to breed are not trapped in a hideous life in servitude of the children we were expected to have.

Try thinking of it in the context of "It takes a village to raise a child". :)

That is what I am implying, that the nuclear (closed) family, where we don't have the benefit of the expected respect and input of say, the elderly, neighbours, close friends etc. creates a secular, self absorbed society and we raise children in this environment today.

I still don't understand. isn't that up to you as parents? Surely it is up to you to teach you children respect and seek out input from those you want it. But really it is not up to everyone else to raise your child

Actually, Liz has a point. But unfortunately in today's litigious society, nobody is going to take responsibility for anyone else's kid in case they get in trouble. In the days where it took a village to raise a child, the adults had the right to discipline the child, and could hug or comfort a child without being accused of inappropriate touching, so we have created this 'secular, self absorbed society', and it is reflected in the behaviour of today's children to a great degree, which just makes people want even less to do with them.

When I am on a plane and a child is crying or doing things that children do it does stress me a touch. However, I feel so much for the person trying to care for them. Their stress levels must be double mine as they are getting less rest than me and they also are usually acutely aware that their child is disturbing others.

Yes, but it was their choice to travel with the child. My choice is to travel without, and that includes other people's.

Noone likes listening to the squealing of children on planes (particularly the parent) but until it is banned (aka never) I suggest you build a bridge or buy some ear plugs

I don't think anyone's calling for it to be banned. :laugh:

The point here seems to have been lost along the way - that is, someone has the right to be moved in a plane if they don't want to sit next to a screaming child/man/woman/whoever.

I agree, but the person stated that parents chose to travel with children and they chose to travel without. There really is no choosing to travel without children on planes unless they are banned. Yes you can asked to be moved (and have every right to do so) but to say you don't want to travel on planes with children at all is a far fetched statement that will never eventuate (because odds are there might be one sitting somewhere on the flight and we all know noise carries)

Wow, that was a very literal interpretation. I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I meant sitting right next to me, as in traveling WITH a child vs NOT traveling WITH a child. I didn't mean I never wanted to be within a hundred feet of one or that they should be banned. Believe it or not, I've even had kids sit on my lap on occasion.

[persephone]

I think this thread was more trying to understand why some people show such open dislike of children

That's what I understood as well .... :)

I get much enjoyment from being around kids ..and have worked with them most of my working life :) I've done the nappies, the teething, the learning difficulties, the disturbed nights .. and also the honesty, the hugs, the new teeth , and the grasping of new ideas :)

I also chose at 17 to not produce any of my own .

Some folks I see who gaze at kids as some would gaze at a cockroach do have me wondering....

[persephone]

In the days where it took a village to raise a child, the adults had the right to discipline the child, and could hug or comfort a child without being accused of inappropriate touching, so we have created this 'secular, self absorbed society', and it is reflected in the behaviour of today's children to a great degree, which just makes people want even less to do with them.

yes

Edited March 3, 2012 by persephone

[LizT]

In the days where it took a village to raise a child, the adults had the right to discipline the child, and could hug or comfort a child without being accused of inappropriate touching, so we have created this 'secular, self absorbed society', and it is reflected in the behaviour of today's children to a great degree, which just makes people want even less to do with them.

yes

Yes. And I think this is where the lack of respect for todays society elders, teachers, parents etc. comes about.

I'm certainly not saying it is anyone elses responsibility to raise someone elses child, but everyone a child comes into contact with from the sales assistant who serves their mother when mum is buying them school shoes to the teacher who stands in front of them each day, has an impact that will fashion their thinking and shape who they are, regardless of whether that person likes kids or not.

[Perry's Mum]

My husband was travelling in Business Class (company paid, we travelled economy). OH offered to swap with old lady and give her his BC seat. Flight attendant told OH "NO WAY is that B*tch getting upgraded". So she was put up the back.

Incidently, she probably wasn't a good example for me to use. It was just her demeanour and attitude that had such an impact on me that ,22 years later it is still quite fresh. As someone who posted suggested, she was probably just rude. There are better ways to say things I suppose.

To be honest, I think a lot of people lose their tolerance a bit when they get older.

My mum is only 64, yet I have noticed that the slightest things now bother her, and she just doesn't have the patience she used to. There'll be kids playing basketball in the apartment garden next door to hers, about 50 meters away, and it will drive her bonkers. I, on the other hand, only notice when she points it out to me. :laugh: She also cannot tolerate children crying in supermarkets, cinemas or planes. The vitriol with which she speaks about these things sometimes quite surprises me.

This is the same person who lovingly brought up two children.

It is a shame that she was so rude though, LizT.

I am 64 and I have to agree with this - it bothers me far more now than it did even 10 years ago.

[Topoftheheap]

I'm not keen on children, I actually find them rather irritating and certainly wouldn't want to be seated next to a baby or a child on a long haul flight.

I actually love kids, but i would press 'like' if the button was available, because i think everyone knows how you feel

[Topoftheheap]

I'm not keen on children, I actually find them rather irritating and certainly wouldn't want to be seated next to a baby or a child on a long haul flight.

[HazyWal]

I went to the Big Dog Day Out at KCC Park a while ago and I noticed a real difference in the 'vibe' I got from people because I suddenly had a kid in a pram. I can't really explain it, but it was weird.

Anyway, children are individuals so it makes no sense to me to 'not like children' unless you 'don't like humans' in general.

Really,so because I'm not a big fan of kids,I actually don't like humans is that what you are saying?