I recently ran across a piece of child-hate (no, I’m not telling you where) that said, in part, “Sure, I think children are people, but their parents need to make sure they act like it in public! People in restaurants don’t crawl on the floor or dance between the tables!” Really? Because I’m pretty sure what you were talking about just then was a person who was, in fact, dancing between the empty tables.
This is but one example of the widespread phenomenon of child-hate disguised as simply a “concerned citizen”: children are OK in public, as long as they don’t in any way attract an adult’s attention. It usually comes with a hefty dose of mother-blame (which is a type of misogyny, remember), in the form of “she should control her kids, or keep them at home!”
I don’t really want to get into a discussion of what level of behavior is appropriate to allow children in public, though: what I want to talk about is the message behind these kinds of statements (and the fact that the discussion is about allowing in the first place).
When the parent-blaming child-shaming folk say “I treat kids like people by expecting them to act like it” what they’re really saying is “I expect kids to act like adults”, which boils down to the belief that only adults are people. Because if you actually recognize that children are in fact persons, then you would be able to see that yes, actually, people do do those things in public, and the proof is dancing right in front of you.
This argument is common among so-called “allies” in many fields of anti-oppression work: “Of course I don’t have a problem with [women/gays/immigrants/people with disabilities/people of color/trans persons] — when they act just like me. As long as they [act like men/couple and get married/learn English/act able/act white/are straight and gender normative], of course they should have rights!” It is a fundamentally flawed position, whose bigotry I trust is self-apparent, and serves only to reify the hierarchies it purports to reject.
This is just as true when it comes to children as for any other oppressed group, but with the complication that children will, should all go minimally well, eventually turn into adults; no other group can be said to be reasonably certain to transition from oppressed to privileged. This does not mean that how we treat them doesn’t matter, however, or somehow negate their oppression; rather, it means that however we treat them now, while they are powerless, is how they will learn to treat those they have power over by “right” of unearned privilege.
You might doubt the status of children as an oppressed class. There is much I can use to support this assertion, but simplest and most starkly is this: in the United States of America, and in too many other countries (any would be too many), physical assault on a child is considered a parent’s legally-protected right, often explicitly granted. You might quibble about whether any given act of violence is “assault”, that it’s not really “abuse” unless it leaves a mark for more than a day, or breaks the skin, or breaks a bone, or whatever line you wish you use to delineate “acceptable” from “abusive”, but the fact remains that it is legal for an adult to hit a child against their will, and it is not legal to hit another adult the same way. Physical violence enacted on children’s bodies to “discipline” them is a mark of their status as not-persons, as things, in culture’s conception.
(What, you may argue, of those children who are not hit? Those who are “spoiled” with toys and sweets and activities galore? Surely they are not oppressed! To which I say: that we treat some children as prized possessions does not make acceptable their status as property; that some individual parents choose not to exert their right to hit their children does not offset the injustice that it is their right to exert or not in the first place; that some nations have even removed that “right” and granted children special protections doesn’t mean children as a class are not still oppressed, still considered “ours” to do with what we will or nill.)
I use the example of legally sanctioned violence rather than any of the plethora of other rights denied to children (including other violations of their bodily domain) because I am not arguing that the personhood of children demands they be granted all adult legal rights: that is merely, once again, equating personhood with adulthood. There are many things that are appropriate for adults to do which are not appropriate for children, and there are many times that they do not have the capacity to make choices for themselves (though, as with the delineation between “male” and “female” activities, allowing certain rights based on ability rather than arbitrary age would be a more reasonable, if more complicated, policy). Children are not adults — and they shouldn’t have to be, nor to act like it, in order for their personhood to be honored.
What does it mean, exactly, to honor their personhood? It means simply that we start with the radical idea that children are people: that they have the right to bodily integrity; that their needs are no less important than ours, that their desires are no less worthy than ours; that their feelings matter, that their ideas matter, that they matter; that they should be respected for who they are, not just valued (or devalued) for what they do for us.
From here, many things become obvious: we do not hit children, because we do not hit people. We do not cut their genitals, because we do not perform unnecessary and harmful amputation on people without their consent. We do not shun them and segregate them away from us, because separate is not equal. We do not expect them to act like adults, because they have the right to act like children.
So that child, dancing in the aisle while you are dining? Their personhood means they have just as much right to be there as you do. If they are unreasonably blocking the way, or damaging property, or causing such a commotion that no other patron is able to also be comfortable in that space — in other words, if they are actually doing something objectively objectionable — then of course you have a cause to complain. And perhaps that was the case in the original screed I read: I cannot know. But regardless, if in the course of your complaint, no matter how legitimate, you state that children need to act like adults (especially using the code word “people”) or not be allowed out in public? If your objection is, at its base, that they are a child in public, daring to act like a child? Then you are an anti-child bigot, and you are the problem in that restaurant that needs to be sent home until you can act like a person.
Arwyn
In my bathroom hangs a plaque with a picture of a yin yang and the word BALANCE. I can never get it to hang straight. This probably says something deep and meaningful about my life.
There’s nothing I can say to this except yes, yes, and yes again. I’ve been trying to put this into words for a while now (as you’ll see from various posts at Mothers for Women’s Lib) and haven’t managed to say it as succinctly as this.
And also, the idea that children, as adults, should be able to self-define and do – whatever it is – based on ability and not age – yes. Absolutely. If a child tells us they are ready for something, and have the ability to do it, they are ready to do it. (And as you probably know I include voting in that.)
I think everyone in the world should read this post. Now. How do I arrange that?
Thank you!
And there’s always the Share This links, if you have StumbleUpon, Digg, etc accounts.
What a wonderful post! I couldn’t agree more!! I let my 18 month old run around a clothing store today. And guess what she acted like an 18 month old! She ran around, stopping at every rack to examine the clothes with gleeful excitement and I let her. She did not pull things down, make a mess, or do anything else destructive so there was no need to intervene. I imagine that there were plenty of people there who thought that she was being ‘disruptive’ by barrelling around the place. Care factor – zero. My job is to nurture her wonder and joy for as long as possible.
Hear, hear. I think Ruth might be submitting this for the Feminist Carnival, and I’m definitely including it in the Carnival of Feminist Parenting.
)
Clap. Clap. Clap.
My youngest just turned two and is a spunky little guy. Very different than my first and I am appalled at how we are being treated in public. People act like 1) I am the worst parent (I’m not) 2) how dare we be out in public and 3) will someone discipline that kid.
I’m a little befuddled at this point. We tried to go out to eat at a family restaurant to celebrate a business success. It was loud and full with two other families in the room. My 2 year old started randomly yelping. He was happy and exploring how loud his voice could go in such a loud room. (We had lean over the table and talk loudly to hear each other). Every time I leaned over and distracted him or lovingly said, “Shhhh” and turned his attention somewhere else. He started doing it regularly so I suggested my partner take him out so I could finish and then we’d switch so he could finish and pay. They got up and left. A moment later a woman at the table next to us totally leaned over and told me I needed to stop my child from screaming.
Uh, say what? He’s not in the restaurant anymore b/c we were trying to be courteous. I said I was sorry and that’s why we took him out. I added for all mothers’ sakes–You know those two year old’s….so full of spirit.
She said she knew all about two year olds because once she had them. I asked her how she handled these situations and she said she told them to stop. I sort of chuckled and said–did that work? She said that if it didn’t she would take them out.
Well, that’s what we did lady.
The thing that irked me was that her tone and facial expression was one of disgust. It was out to hurt. There was no compassion or friendly communication. Must we be rude? I felt emotionally attacked.
It sucked and made me a little less impressed with my fellow citizens.
I think the “problem” was likely that you weren’t commanding him to stop, or threatening removal from the store. To many, it’s not “discipline” if it’s not punitive, so in her view, you likely “did nothing” about it, even though your actions (shushing in the moment, and then removing from the area) were essentially the same as hers would have been — if with entirely different emotional and relational significance.
This attitude, I think, is both a product of the unrecognition of children’s personhood and a wider symptom of kyriarchy in general, which believes that if we are not fighting against, we are submitting to. This belief obscures the infected (which is all of us, at one time or another) to the recognition of forms of working with. Which is a shame, because “fighting against” dehumanizes the “enemy”, and “submitting to” dehumanizes the self: working with is the only option that acknowledges the humanity and personhood of all involved.
Great post again! Those “offensive” acts that children engage in start right from their first cry and suckle at the breast….god forbid a baby should do either in public.
Oh yes — from the very beginning, with the “offensiveness” of nursing, all through teenagehood, when simply hanging around with friends is seen as suspicious, if it’s not outright barred. It is not that children are so disruptive or destructive (though neither do I deny that they can be both, which is problematical no matter the age of the person), but that simply being themselves and acting their age is deemed “unacceptable” in any public space not explicitly set aside for them (which are often few and far between, and frankly, not places I generally want to spend much time in — I’m thinking of “family” restaurants here, like Chuck E Cheese’s). It’s great that some places like that exist, but extremely problematic when we decide those are the ONLY places children who are not preternaturally still are welcomed.
Wonderful post Arwyn! I recently had an experience at a restaurant that reminded me how we de-humanize children. I posted about it on my blog with a link to this post. I hope my readers will come here your take on it!
We were just talking about this on the website. It’s a source of continued frustration to me. Great post!
I especially like your “I don’t mind gays/blacks … as long as they act white/upperclass/straight” argument. Very apt.
Love it! Agree wholeheartedly.. Can’t say more as Roo is nipping me quite hard so I need to reposition!! X
Thanks for writing this – it helps to crystallize some thoughts that I’ve been having for a while.
I think that a lot of the tension around this issue comes from the fact that we don’t have communally-agreed upon definitions for what spaces are ‘quiet space’ (what some would call ‘adult’ space), what spaces aren’t, and what it means to be ‘disruptive’. The world encourages segmentation, and I think a lot of people who aren’t actively parenting have little to no exposure to kids. People can start to feel entitled to have their ideal level of noise enforced *wherever* they go, since they don’t often have to deal with a diversity of ages.
I tend to be more conservative on the kids-in-pathways issue, because navigating around children is pretty tricky for servers. However, I think a lot of the ire often stems from an idea of ‘there’s no dancing in MY restaurant!’ rather than ‘I want people to be safe’. It’s not *your* restaurant or *my* restaurant – it’s a place we’re all coming together to eat.
I couldn’t agree more with you about treating children as people – so many of the misunderstandings and tensions that arise would be quite approachable if we all came at it from the standpoint of ‘everyone here has a right to exist as themselves’. If we all remembered each other’s humanity, we’d be a lot less apt to policing ‘appropriate’ behavior/dress/speech in general, but especially when it comes to kids.
On the noise: the thing is, that it’s not simply a matter of noise levels being “too high” (not always, at least). Adults (men especially) who get loud and forceful (and can be heard as far away as my own child making noise) when declaiming something or other in a restaurant might be shot or a look or two, but would NEVER have their very right to be in that restaurant questioned. It’s especially problematical an argument when the type of restaurant is already a noisy one, with music and people talking and laughing — yet the sound of a young child is seen as especially offensive, even if their decibel contribution is insignificantly more intrusive compared to the considerable ambient noise.
I do agree wholeheartedly that much of the problem comes from our society’s segmentation, as you say, and I appreciate this: “People can start to feel entitled to have their ideal level of noise enforced *wherever* they go” because so often we who advocate for children are accused of thinking that the world revolves around US (or our kids), when the reverse accusation could just as rightly (if as rudely) be leveled.
Kids in pathways I am wary of, if only because of their own and others’ safety (not enough to be a judgmental bigot about it, but enough I usually do try to redirect my own child). Kids in empty or out of the way areas, not so much, because then it is just a matter of us deciding that it “isn’t appropriate” to, say, dance between empty tables. (Why, exactly? Pretty sure some places actually pay folks to do that.) Where that line is, and how strictly to follow it, depends too much on each unique circumstance for me to have a blanket opinion on the matter.
I have felt this way often, but have not had the words to voice it nearly as articulately as you have. Children are people. To deny it is, essentially, bigoted. And it is denied every day, everywhere.
The comment that bugs me most is when people say things like, “Well, you’re OK, but some of those parents are just irresponsible!” I couldn’t put my finger on why, but you stated it so eloquently. Breaking large categories of people into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ groups, and making sweeping generalizations, is just wrong, no matter who you’re talking about.
I feel compelled to relate the story of my most vivid and awful restaurant experience: my mom and I were on a road trip, and had stopped at a nice little place. We were seated in a back room, next to a party of 5 or so men, apparently out on a business trip. Starting from before we ordered, and continuing until halfway through our meal, they, and one man in particular, were having a conversation (loudly enough to make ignoring them quite difficult, but not “loud” exactly) about the disposability of pets. I am an animal person, and generally believe in ensuring the quality of life for all animals, but ESPECIALLY those we have brought into our families. The last story (because after that I leaned over and told him some of us were trying to eat here, and would he please watch what he said) was about how his dog’s leg had been broken or somesuch, and since it would have cost all of a few hundred dollars to fix (after which the dog would have been just fine, and which he easily could have afforded, according to his own admission), he had the vet put him down instead.
There were further details which disgusted me, which I won’t relate, but the point is this: of all the restaurant experiences I have had, of all the meals that have been less than perfect, of all the times I’ve eaten next to children (including back when I swore up and down “no kids for me!” and certainly had never heard of any of the parenting philosophies I’m now conversant in), THIS is the one that churned my stomach, clenched my jaw, and made me wish his mother would take him home and not let him out in public until he could “behave”: a middle aged man, talking within “socially acceptable” levels. This is the one meal I vividly remember ruined, with not a child in sight or sound.
And yet, even with the example of this experience, and the dozens if not hundreds more where rich white men have disgusted me when I’m out at dinner with their overheard misogyny and racism and fatphobia, I would be laughed out of the restaurant if I complained to the maitre d’ about being seated near business men, or about their allowing such types in the restaurant in the first place. And rightly so, because they as persons have the right to exist in that space, even if they are being offensive boors, and especially if I am just expecting them to be offensive boors because they belong to a class of people against whom I hold prejudices.
That’s why I object to the characterizations of and objections to children in restaurants, and in public in general: not because I think everyone must enjoy my precious little dear and his every little noise and movement as much as I, but because the behavior of children is held to uniquely high standards, and is criticized in a way that is uniquely discriminatory against the young.
Well said. Thank you!
I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree with your analysis. You open with the statement that people hold children to an unreasonably high standard of behaviour in public stating that children must behave as adults since only adults are people. The problem I have with this is that while children are indeed persons, it falls to the parent/guardian to teach children how to behave in various social situations. This is not to say that children are not welcome in these situations but if their behaviour becomes disruptive they need to be removed (just like any other person in that space who becomes disruptive). The standard for behaviour in these situations, contrary to popular opinion is not set by the patrons but by the owner. The patrons merely attend the venue on the promise of a certain level of behaviour as dictated by the owner (who is completely and totally within their rights to set any standard they see fit). it is then the patrons responsibility to behave within the expected norms. Therefore, it is not that the adults are “child haters” as you put it, but rather they are expressing displeasure at the disruption to the promised level of behaviour as set by the owner.
You as a person in this environment have just as much right to express displeasure at any disruption caused by anyone within the environment be they children or adults.
In the further statement you made regarding the boorish man and the disposable pet, I commend you for speaking up against his behaviour however you go on to build a strawman of how you would be laughed out of the restaurant for complaining, yet you DID NOT COMPLAIN TO THE MAITRE’D. you simply made an assumption of how you believed you would have been treated and built you whole argument around this belief. They, as offensive boors, had NO MORE RIGHT to be there than any other disruptive person be they adult or child. the fact that you did not complain about them at the time and yet use the scenario as an example of the rampant misogyny and child hate in our society is disappointing at best and hypocritical at worst.
with regard to your other statements, I’ll get to those later.
That’s interesting, because I have never once seen a statement of “promise of a certain level of behavior”, not even in the fanciest-schmanciest of restaurants. What I am speaking of here is unspoken cultural assumptions about behavior, which allow for all sorts of boorishness and disruptions — yet not that of a age-appropriately-behaving child. When the expectations of behavior (whether socially or dictated by an owner) treats the behavior typical of one group differently than the behavior of other groups, that is called discrimination.
The thing is, we do not have the right to be perfectly comfortable in public, and we DEFINITELY do not have the right to be perfectly comfortable in public if what makes us uncomfortable (much less what simply irritates us) is the normal behavior of an oppressed group: you do not have the right to complain about two men — or an interracial couple — holding hands at the table next to you, nor about the fat woman whose chair sits farther out in the aisle, nor about the man in the wheelchair who takes up two spaces, nor about the woman who is feeding her baby in the biologically expected manner. And if you were to complain, or if the owner or managers at the restaurant said they were unwelcome (which does, alas, happen all too often), you would be guilty of bigotry. People have the right to be themselves in a given space, even if they take up more than “normal” room or “offend the sensibilities” of bigots. Children are people: therefore, children have a right to be in a given space, even if they take up more than “normal” room or “offend the sensibilities” of anti-child bigots.
Further: nor do I even have the right to complain about the table full of fatphobic dieters nor misogynystic businessmen I overhear, nor of the person wearing perfume I can smell as pass hir table, even though I find that obnoxious and it detracts from my experience of the restaurant — but I would have a right to complain about someone loudly sharing fatphobic slurs against me with their dinner companion, or someone whose perfume was so strong I was unable to breathe even sitting at my own table. Similarly, you do not have the right to complain about the child dropping food around or crawling under their own table, or making normal childish noises, but would have the right to complain about a child flinging food onto or crawling under your table, or screaming so loudly and consistently you cannot reasonably hold a conversation. That was my point about unreasonably high standards for children: children acting like children are meant to act are being discriminated against, not just when they are being particularly disruptive, even though we write off normally-obnoxious behaviors from all other classes of people.
And you also misread my businessman story: I said that it would be unreasonable (and I would be laughed at) if I took that experience (which was, objectively I believe, offensive and unacceptable), and generalized it to all businessmen, even though I have further experience of the general obnoxiousness of businessmen to back it up. Anti-child bigots often have a similar set of stories: one case where a child was, in fact, being quite disruptive (which I have throughout acknowledged does happen), dozens of cases where children were being themselves in a way the person found irritating, and they use this as arguments against the unacceptability of children everywhere. That is the very definition of prejudice, and to expect one’s prejudices to be enforced is discrimination. To mutter and glare and generally contribute to an atmosphere of unwelcome for children based on your prejudices or your dislike of the age-appropriate behavior or children is to contribute to their oppression. That is unacceptable.
Moderator note: This comment has been deleted because I choose not to host comments asserting one’s “right” to be a bigot. It is NOT anyone’s moral right and ought not be anyone’s legal right to complain about the mere existence of a breastfeeding woman or a fat person or a same sex couple, or their typical, expected, “normal” behaviors. It is NOT the privileged’s moral right to oppress or to contribute to an atmosphere of oppression. If that is your assertion, go elsewhere. That assertion is not welcome here.
When the rules are discriminatory against the “normal” behavior of a class of people (gestures of affection between same-sex or interracial couples, taking up more space for people of size or with disabilities requiring sizable accommodations, moving around the table for children), they are unjust and discriminatory and unacceptable. The very concept of an adult-oriented space in public, or in a space which serves the public (as opposed to an entirely private space, or an event at which a particularly high level of quiet is required, such as some live performances), and the extension of “adult-oriented space” into most of public life (restaurants, retail spaces, and so on), is discriminatory against an oppressed class of people, and is unacceptable, just as a “white-only space” or a “straight-only space”, and so on ad-nauseum, is discriminatory and unacceptable.
I have the right to complain about anything i choose to complain about.
Sorry, everything that Cory says just sounds like “blah blah blah blah free speech blah blah blah I’m really privileged blah blah blah blah might is right blah blah blah blah”.
Here in New Zealand we had a law change to remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parental discipline that had previously been allowed when a parent was charged with assault on their child. There was a co-ordinated campaign against the law change by right wing conservatives who labelled it the “Anti-Smacking Bill” and said that it would see good parents sent to jail. That hasn’t happened, but that law change was one of the reasons that the Labour Party (like Democrats) lost the 2008 Parliamentary election to the National Party (like the Republicans).
The public campaigns around the Child Protection/ Anti-Smacking legislation (naming depending on your viewpoint) focussed on whether voters saw children as people with rights, or as property that parents had a right to discipline. People with rights might act in lively ways in a restaurant – like adult males getting drunk and singing or children dancing. Property should be well trained and under the control of its owners.
Cory appears to belong to the children as property camp. I belong to the children as people group. Trying reason and negotiation before force has a much better outcome in the long run than making a child obey because of fear.
To an extent, I think Cory is right when she says: “it falls to the parent/guardian to teach children how to behave in various social situations.” We do need to teach our children to understand and navigate the social norms.
But I think Arwyn’s underlying point is right: Many times the social norms are wrong and oppressive. (that’s how I interpret her point)
The reality is that in our culture we envy the energy and enthusiasm of the young, but ironically adults also look down on it when it’s expressed where we don’t want it to be expressed.
If you ask a child, joy and jumping are for everyday and everywhere. How can we disagree?
Wish I could delete my previous comment and add to it. I think I sound wishy-washy.
My point was to say that we need to teach our children to understand how to behave appropriately in social situations, but often the expectations of children are themselves not appropriate. And children and their norms are not respected, valued or appreciated or they are only from a distance.
I cannot count how many times I’ve had the conversation with another adult, “Boy, those kids have so much energy. I’m so jealous.”
Usually this conversation is in a living room or at a park.
Not in a restaurant where we’ve been waiting a half hour for food and my son is under the table squirming or trying to talk to the people at the next table.
Not in the grocery store.
I think we need to give children the grace and freedom to be children. Too often we frown at childish behavior.
That, exactly. Although in general, I’m not sure we need to teach them so much as model for them, and occasionally guide them. And more, we need to understand that their behavior isn’t ours to dictate, but (as you said), help them navigate.
Example: I really don’t have a problem with the Boychick standing on his chair (I ask him to sit if he’s eating or the chair isn’t stable, but sometimes he says no, and we work with that) in a restaurant, or crawling under our table, or talking and making noise. But, he’s also in a screaming phase (just making high pitched noise for the joy of it), which objectively does violate reasonable use of dining space (and gives me a headache!), so we tell him that screaming is for outside. We don’t yell at him or chastise him for doing it, and we give him an opportunity to go outside if that’s what he wants or needs to do right then. (And we are privileged to be in a two-parent family that is able to have one play outside with him and one stay with the table.) That’s defining the boundaries of the restaurant in a way that honors both his own way of being and the comfort of the other patrons.
I don’t share this because I expect everyone else to parent their kid in the exact same way, but just to demonstrate that it is possible to respect a kid’s needs (and personhood, and right as a person to exist and behave as themselves around others) and to help them learn to be respectful of others. To be kind to others, and to do it in a way that doesn’t hold them strictly to adult standards of behavior.
Absolutely right about modeling. And I like the restaurant example.
On another tangent, I do find it ironic that we push our children to conform but wring our hands when they conform with peers as teens.
This always drove me crazy. I’m not a mom myself but I’ve had people assume that my much-younger brother is my child enough to know how awful people can be about kids acting like kids. My brother is a teenager now but I still go out of my way (well, not really because it doesn’t actually cost me anything but I don’t know how else to say it) to make sure to let moms with kids who are acting like kids in public know that it’s not bothersome and in fact is pretty enjoyable most of the time. I love watching younger kids do the things they do to entertain themselves and in my experience, they very rarely negatively involve other people. I think a big part of this is that people assume kids are completely oblivious to their effect on other people but they’re NOT; they may not care about it the same way that adults do but they generally know at a very young age what kinds of things they can do to get particular reactions out of people, and they generally don’t try to get negative reactions if they can avoid it and are being raised with some boundaries.
Thank you for this! I came over from Womanist Musings, and I can’t agree more. I’m currently working at a retail store that does ear piercing, and now I know why I object so deeply to piercing the ears for very young kids – especially babies. They’re people too! They should have the choice to NOT have earrings. Never mind all the gender crap tied up in little girls needing pretty earrings to be appropriately feminine.
I came here from Womanist Musings, and I’m so glad that I did. Currently, I don’t have children, but I plan to and I plan to raise them with as much joy and freedom as I can. Your outlook is so refreshing and wonderful to read, and I’m glad that your blog is here.
*waves*
Thank you.
[...] This? Me deleting a comment that defended bigotry? This not censorship. It’s adhering to the comment policy that was already laid out at the time of original posting. It’s keeping my sandbox clean of shit I’d rather not host, and that might sicken the people playing here. [...]
[...] Dancing betwen the tables: On the personhood of children [...]
“When the expectations of behavior (whether socially or dictated by an owner) treats the behavior typical of one group differently than the behavior of other groups, that is called discrimination.”
This is what you stated in a reply to Cory when she stated she disagreed with you.
This statement actually proves Cory’s point perfectly.
So if I treat a child’s behaviour differently than I would an adult’s behaviour, I am in fact discriminating. In this particular case, by allowing the child to dance between the tables, when an adult doing the same would be frowned upon, I am discriminatingbetween an adult and a child..
I see how you got that from what I said, but it was not at all what I meant. In that instance, what I was saying was: it’s one thing to have a decibel-level expectation, and to ask to leave anyone who is going above that level. That would, perhaps, be reasonable (more on that in a moment). But in the case of children making noise in public spaces, it is not that they are exceeding the decibel level limit, or else loud opinionated men (or exuberant parties, or those with raucous laughter) would also be excluded. Rather, it is that people are taking issue with a type of behavior (children’s noises) that is typical only of that oppressed group, while allowing others who make the same level but different type of noise to remain unmolested.
Further problems come when such “objective” limits are structured such that it makes it impossible for those of a marginalized group to participate at all: saying one must walk through narrow halls discriminates against people with mobility disabilities; saying one must have short hair and a shaved face to do a job discriminates against many women and religious minorities; saying diners must have a certain high level of dress or hygiene discriminates against those without easy access to clean clothes or showers. A classic example from American history is the “literacy tests” administered before black citizens were allowed to vote; a more contemporary example is standardized tests which make assumptions of white middle-class cultural knowledge, which discriminate against immigrants and people of color. This is called institutionalized oppression.
So we have two things going on which discriminate against children: inequities in how standards are interpreted and enforced, and oppressive/discriminatory institutionalized rules. The noise example falls in the first, and the expectation that diners remain seated at all times falls in the second.
It also does matter who in each of these situations has power, or privilege. Making a rule to allow for the behavior of a privileged group (white business men, for instance) is discrimination against all others: making a rule to allow for the behavior of a marginalized group (children, or people with disabilities, or people of color) is not, it is rectifying ingrained social injustices.
(Why? Because the definition of privilege is that the world is already structured to give those persons unfair and unearned advantages. Changing the world to better include marginalized/oppressed groups is not creating “special” rules, then, but working to eliminate the special allowances already in place.)
Note: This is pretty basic level anti-oppression theory. I have no problems if people need help understanding it, or wish to debate or discuss with me how children fit into this schema; however, per my comment policy, comments rejecting the fundamental concepts of anti-oppression work may be deleted.
I’m sorry but is simply disagree with you. I won’t go any further than that except to say that while I respect your right to moderate comments in any way you see fit, as is your right, I simply cannot agree with a moderation policy that seeks to quell opposing ideas by deleting dissenting viewpoints merely for being dissenting instead of countering the arguments. Delete this if you wish. or post it. it’s your blog. have fun with it.
[...] kids don’t get to make their own decisions and so that is another whole discussion about the personhood of children. The other part of the answer is that their feet get hot when they wear shoes. Their feet are tough [...]
Thank you for this post. I am the mother of 4 spirited children – all sweet, full of “I love yous” for me and Daddy and interest in other people / situations. Because I have one particularly physical, energetic, forward and precocious little boy, he and I are often ostracized from certain situations as well as the recipients of many unwelcome comments. We have been given many disapproving looks. Sometimes, when he is trying to be friendly or “help” someone in a store or elsewhere (hold the door, hand the groceries to the check-out person, bring a clothing item to a shopper to hold, he is reprimanded – I am given the “tut tut” – “you should make him behave”, etc. His feelings are often hurt, and I am left trying to explain to him why his sweet, “wanna make friends” personality is misunderstood. He moves fast, talks loud and is incredibly coordinated and able to climb, flip, run, etc. way beyond his 3 yrs. of age. I think this puts people off a bit. It’s not his fault. He is his own person – growing, learning, etc. in his own way.
I just got pointed here because a post I wrote on the California NOW blog is really closely aligned with the concepts you raise here. I hadn’t seen this post until now, but I am really thrilled to see so many people thinking along these lines! Here’s the link for the piece I wrote, and would it be ok if I point people to this post for further reading on these ideas?
Oh yes, I saw your post and (unsurprisingly) really liked it. Of course you may link here.
[...] wrote a fabulous explanation of the personhood of children, explaining how when we say ‘people’ we often mean ‘adults’, and what it [...]
I found my way here from the Carnival of Feminist Parenting at Mother’s for Women’s Lib. You’ve written a great post, one I really needed to read this weekend. I’ve just had a whole serious of encounters (mainly supermarkets and cafes) where it feels like my toddler son is the only child in the planet who needs to run around and ask questions loudly and who finds it difficult to sit still. Usually I’m happy with the way I parent, admiring his exuberance and loving his enthusiasm for life but there are weeks, like this week, where other people’s disapproving looks and mean comments (the meanest comment was about my 3 month old crying in the sling on the bus!!) have just worn me down. This post was just the buck up I needed. I’m fierce when it comes to defending the rights of those who are oppressed, and this post has given me the intellectual framework I need in my head when I need to fiercely defend my son’s right to just be in public places.
I love where you have written: however we treat them now, while they are powerless, is how they will learn to treat those they have power over by “right” of unearned privilege.
This is so important. Because whilst children may learn from us how to behave in a public forum I think the best kind of learning for this is modeling, not fear of reprisal. And if parenting in this way means that I am also modeling how to lovingly encounter someone who’s personhood makes it difficult/impossible for them to conform to societal expectations so much the better.
[...] certainly is a lot of mother-blaming and child hate in some pockets of feminism. Many others have spoken eloquently and thoughtfully about this before me, so I’m not going to reiterate what [...]
Moderator’s note: this doesn’t show up right on all systems, but is a series of clapping hands when it does display.
This is such a great article. Thank you for posting it!
It can be hard as well when you come in for criticism as a parent for allowing your child to make a decision for themselves that as their parent you are confident they can make, but others don’t agree.
Hi,
I found you via the comments in the California NOW article, which a friend put up on Facebook… I’m glad I clicked over.
I really appreciate your post on this!
On some level, people want quiet in a restaurant but sometimes they also want THAT CHILD TO SHUT-UP. Those are two different attitudes and the second one is the seed from which oppression grows.
As someone who has been inspired and committed to non-punitive discipline, I often see and hear people’s befuddled and sometimes angry concern about how my children “will never learn,” etc. Some people just don’t understand that I fundamentally believe that children have equal dignity with adults.
And they can’t see how once you’re free from the idea that children are property or somehow “less than” adults, punitive discipline (corporeal punishment but also shame, threats, arbitrary consequences, or withholding parental love) becomes revealed as the completely wrong-headed and distasteful practice it is. It is just not worth it! As you point out, teaching children by overpowering them distorts their sense of self and teaches them to overpower others.
Anyway, I could go on and on… Thank you for this article!!
[...] and don’t relish the idea of children in your coffee shop, please try to have a little compassion for the (literal) little guys. You were a child yourself once, unless you are a cyborg, in which [...]
[...] Dancing between the tables: on the personhood of children“… children will, should all go minimally well, eventually turn into adults; no other [...]
I’ve just stumbled upon your blog and become a fan on facebook. This post is so important in so many ways. I’ve often pointed out to new moms that our little people are persons with their own feelings and needs. They want to eat without blankets, snuggle and sleep with their larger people, wake up at night, and laugh when something is funny -just like we expect to be able to do ourselves. Why expect things from our little ones that we don’t expect from others? All this being said, I do guide and discipline my little person away from pulling the cat’s tail and his fur, from extracting arms and legs from carseats, and from throwing chips at other patrons in restaurants (their chips were slow in coming: sharing = good, throwing = not so much). Thanks for being her, and for being on FB.
They tossed them chips because the other folk hadn’t gotten theirs yet? I think that may be the coolest thing ever. I mean, yeah, not the best way to go about trying to share, but still: awesome.
There’s sort of this idea that respecting the personhood of children means we don’t help them act in reasonable ways. Which is, frankly, one of the more ridiculous interpretations I’ve encountered. I must do a post soon on how not-oppositional doesn’t mean acceding-to-every-whim. But it does maybe mean thinking that throwing chips to share = awesome, even as we redirect those quite-fabulous inclinations to something more socially acceptable.