Do you like being around children?

amcluesent

It's them bloated, tubby kids that are worst - are they hyper after stuffing their gobs with McDs and KFC twizzlers? A typical parent/child interaction is

"WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"
"Shut it, our Wayne!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"
"I'll gi' yous a smack!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"
"I mean it!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"
Shall we go to McDs?

Generali

Jonbvn wrote: »

Sorry but you are a hypocrite. Before you condemn us all in the UK (not just Engerland), IIRC you were going to start work for a large hedge fund in London which fell though due to the credit crunch.

No need to apologise. I did work for a small hedge fund and I was planning to make a shed load of money to leave the country with!

Loughton_Monkey

Jonbvn wrote: »

What a bizarre viewpoint. With the world population increasing exponentially, it hardly seems selfish.

I really don't think selfishness enters into it. People have conflicting views.

Some people may think delebrate childlessness (like mine) is 'selfish' because I am too mean to pay to bring them up. This is certainly not the reason. Without and paternal instincts, and with an overpopulated world, why should we do something we would not enjoy, and be very bad parents anyway?

I have lost count of the number of times when we have mentioned choosing to be childless, only to receive the standard question "[Gasp]... so who's going to look after you when you are old?". This implies a sort of selfishness on their part if they perceive (as in Asia) that the primary purpose of a child is to provide a 'pension scheme'.

It is a matter of individual choice.

martinbuckley

Jonbvn wrote: »

What a bizarre viewpoint. With the world population increasing exponentially, it hardly seems selfish.

Fortunately for you, your mother and father did not take that view!

I do not advocate breeding for benefits, nor do I advocate breeding to trap someone. I do however advocate couples having enough children to replace them when they have gone (ie 2), which if everyone was to take that approach would not result in over population. I have 2 kids by the way.

The debate is about whether we like children, and all too often I see "professional" childless people sniffing in disgust at a child who is crying - do they ever consider that the child may be feeling unwell? No, they just assume that the child is an unruly offspring of a single mother on benefits.

A few questions to these childless child haters...

1. If your house is on fire, who puts it out?
2. Who taught you at school/college/university?
3. If you are sick - who makes you better?
4. When you go on your foreign holiday, who flies you to your destination?
5. If you are housebound when you are old, who will come and provide home care?
6. If your pet gets ill, who will treat them?

The answer is "Another person's child will". Possibly even that child who you sniffed at all those years ago when they were crying because they were ill.

olly300

martinbuckley wrote: »

Fortunately for you, your mother and father did not take that view!

I do not advocate breeding for benefits, nor do I advocate breeding to trap someone. I do however advocate couples having enough children to replace them when they have gone (ie 2), which if everyone was to take that approach would not result in over population. I have 2 kids by the way.

Some people, from all different economic spheres I should add, have more than 2 so there are enough children in the world to replace the childless.

So not everyone has to have children for there to be enough people to replace those who are childless.

martinbuckley wrote: »

The debate is about whether we like children, and all too often I see "professional" childless people sniffing in disgust at a child who is crying - do they ever consider that the child may be feeling unwell? No, they just assume that the child is an unruly offspring of a single mother on benefits.

That's until they have children themselves who are actually little brats due to their own attitudes. Oddly with some of the children take them away from the parents for anything from a few minutes to a few hours, give them a few rules, stick to them and they are no problem.

Can't reply to your next bit as I don't hate children.

ILW

martinbuckley wrote: »

The debate is about whether we like children, and all too often I see "professional" childless people sniffing in disgust at a child who is crying - do they ever consider that the child may be feeling unwell? No, they just assume that the child is an unruly offspring of a single mother on benefits.

.

The child may be crying for all sorts of reasons, but should be taken somewhere to do it where it does not disturb others. It's called good manners.

Loughton_Monkey

martinbuckley wrote: »

Fortunately for you, your mother and father did not take that view!

There is not 'fortune' in this. I could have fathered 15 children (I assume). Where are the 15 'unfortunate' people?

martinbuckley wrote: »

I do not advocate breeding for benefits, nor do I advocate breeding to trap someone. I do however advocate couples having enough children to replace them when they have gone (ie 2), which if everyone was to take that approach would not result in over population. I have 2 kids by the way.

If all couples followed you advice worldwide, then there would be a considerable population explosion. This is because a significant number of couples have far, far, more than 2 (thinking that 2 is not enough. Unless, of course, you are also advocating that couples cannot have more than 2? You must be otherwise your comment about population increase is faulted.

martinbuckley wrote: »

The debate is about whether we like children, and all too often I see "professional" childless people sniffing in disgust at a child who is crying - do they ever consider that the child may be feeling unwell? No, they just assume that the child is an unruly offspring of a single mother on benefits.

Correction. You are changing the goalposts. The debate is about whether we like being around children (and 58% of us don't according to the poll). You seem to be making a big bag of assumptions here. Why do you 'assume' what others are 'assuming' when you have no facts?

Of course the child might be unwell. But it is crying. Babies do cry and many mothers will sometimes take them away. But do I have to like it? Do I like to be 'around' children when they cry? No! This alone does not make me a child hater.

Think logically. If you were halfway through an expensive meal and a guy on the next table had a heart attack and died? Would you go home and tell friends that you 'like being around' old people, even when they die? Of course you don't. Who is more ill? Your crying baby, or the man who died? Who deserves more sympathy?

Personally I do not 'like being around people who die', and
Personally I do not 'like being around babies who cry.'

Neither of these statments make me a child hater or an old person hater.

martinbuckley wrote: »

A few questions to these childless child haters...

1. If your house is on fire, who puts it out?
2. Who taught you at school/college/university?
3. If you are sick - who makes you better?
4. When you go on your foreign holiday, who flies you to your destination?
5. If you are housebound when you are old, who will come and provide home care?
6. If your pet gets ill, who will treat them?

The answer is "Another person's child will". Possibly even that child who you sniffed at all those years ago when they were crying because they were ill.

After a 'hat trick' of illogical observations and statements above, this is another one. You are simply stating the obvious that children grow up and some of them do sensible and rewarding jobs. A bit obvious isn't it? You seem to think that the "No" Voters in the poll believe that no child should ever be born from now on. Who is seriously suggesting that?

Any man from Mars reading this thread would come to the conclusion that a large number of people are uncomfortable around children these days, in the main because of a serious decline in parenting standards. Even the pub/restaurant industry - who derive huge incomes from 'families' - have recently been complaining about the huge number of children simply allowed to screach and run amok around tables while their parents sit in complete ignorance and watch.

Like most people, although I wouldn't 'rush' to be in the company of children, I wouldn't mind too much if they were reasonably well behaved. But every day I witness the most appalling behaviour. If the parents cannot control them, then 'society' will react ultimately against them.

breadlinebetty

Generali wrote: »

Correct.

The 'retribution' bit doesn't have to be huge but there has to be a sanction for bad behaviour.

Eg. Generali, our suave, handsome, witty, surprisingly modest hero: Stop doing that thing
The Boy: No!!!
GOSHWSMH: TB, you need to do what you are told. Stop it or you will lose [favoured toy] for [defined period of time]
TB: NO!!!!
GOSHWSMH: 1......2.......[usually that's the end of it but occasionally we get to....]....3
GOSHWSMH: Ok, toy gone. Them's the rules. Sorry pal. Are you done now? I don't want to have to take anything else from you.

Usually some tears follow but then he's 5 so he'll cry now and again and I'm certainly not going to apologise for chastising my kids in public.

Kids should be well raised and Mrs Gen taught me all the good stuff about kids being taught the rules and how to teach them.

I find the hatred of children by many posters on here utterly dispiriting and hateful and a small part of why I will not raise children in the UK.

What tosh! It doesn't matter which country you bring children up in - it's the parents who influence their behaviour - NOT the country! Just look at the fragrant Kate Middleton - would you say she's been brought up badly in England?;) I don't know where you were brought up in the UK, or what circles you mixed in, but in my part of the world all of my relatives/friends young children are loved and cherished. I don't know of ANYONE who hates children! You were brought up in the UK - did you feel hated, then?

Anyway, you said before that the reason you went to Australia was that you were skint and had no job? You were very reluctant to leave, but felt you had no choice, you never mentioned moving because of your children.

By the way, why don't you start producing some of those mirrors that turn a plain man into a handsome (and suave!) hunk!:D And while you're at it, let us know which Self-Help book you've been reading that's convinced you you're full of wit and charm!:rotfl: Sounds like you've lost your specs and been on the Ginger Schnapps again! My word - without meaning to sound rude - I've never even heard George Clooney call himself handsome...........and he's certainly not plain, bespectacled, weedy and ginger!

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

ILW wrote: »

The child may be crying for all sorts of reasons, but should be taken somewhere to do it where it does not disturb others. It's called good manners.

You see this sums the whole issue of having to put up with other people's children.
Good manners,a lot of parents don't seem to have them and whereas the same people would complain if your dog barked or ran around in a public place they don't seem to think that their little lovelies are being just as offensive screaming /squealing /shouting or running around you.
When a parent has a child in public it's the parent's responsibility,I wish they'd realise this and act in a suitable manner to control them.
Personally in this country especially I try to avoid public places when children will be there.
I'm not paying for meals or tickets to have kids and their bad mannered parents ruin the experience.

JonnyBravo

Generali wrote: »

No need to apologise. I did work for a small hedge fund and I was planning to make a shed load of money to leave the country with!

Somehow I think you'd have stayed.
The lure of the cash would have been too strong. Easy to dismiss it as you never got the chance. Of course you'll never be able to prove it one way or another now.