What is so important that you need to get on a plane?
See this is what has bugged me so much about how common anti-natalism has become. It has become diluted but present everywhere.
Children are a part of our society. They are a part of your community. They are going to be around you, they are going to be where you don’t want them to be, they are just going to be present in general. And this can’t possibly be a safety argument, as planes I believe are the safest mode of transportation. If you’re worried about safety, then kids should never get in cars, which is also completely unfeasible.
So if it’s not about safety, then what is this really about?
Regardless of what it is, I as an adult have full autonomy to do that, understand the pain in my ears that I will experience, and will do my best not to disrupt those around me. I also don't become a small baby-sized fleshy projectile on impact.
Children cannot fully understand what is happening to them for many, many years. This goes so far beyond planes. They don’t understand why they got jerked forward when you slammed the brakes on a car, or why the buckle burned their arm on a hot summer day. They don’t understand why they get a shot at the doctor, they don’t understand why the stove is hot, they don’t understand any of this crap until they get older and are exposed. The problem is that in order to avoid these situations, the only viable solution is to ask every parent to live in a lockdown-lite mode for 3 to 4 years every single time they have a kid. Is that reasonable?
Parents have lives and families and obligations. Kids are along for the ride until they can exert their own autonomy. That’s how it has always been and that’s how it will continue to be.
> Parents have lives and families and obligations. Kids are along for the ride until they can exert their own autonomy. That’s how it has always been and that’s how it will continue to be.
It's giving: "people want to have kids but also still want to do all that fun stuff they did but now with a kid because whatever, the kid will deal with it".
Alternatively, keeping kids locked up at home for the first 3-4 years limits their exposure to a variety of situations that help their brains and bodies develop. Then the next generation has a terrible immune system, no social skills, and are underdeveloped mentally.
In fairness, I _do_ agree that there are some things that need to be given up as a parent of young kids... Don't take your kids to a fine restaurant. But at the same time, I don't think children should be excluded from 95% of things because it inconveniences someone else. If it were about preventing people from inconveniencing others, then I think there's a strong argument that it's more than just kids that shouldn't be allowed to do the "fun stuff".
its not reasonable because the only way kids or anyone learns these things is by
experiencing them. and the earlier you expose them
to these situations the better they cope
and eventually understand.
its not like magically one day they are old enough to just "get it" by being explained. when was the last time you really understood something only conceptually without any kind of experience with it. its the jobs of parents and society* to safely expose our kids to the situations that they need to experience to learn how to function on their own.
Like to
use the airplane example its not like parents just do it for fun and also every parent does stuff to try and give their kid the best ability to cope with the pressure change. snacks, pacifiers, timing flights around naps. its not like they are just like "eh, suck it up kiddo".
*there is a much longer diatribe about how even if you don't have kids or hate kids or never want to be in 100 ft of a kid its still your responsibility to society/biology to help make sure the next generation is raised. And maybe you could fulfill that responsibility at the literal bare minimum by managing to have a little compassion and understanding and not rag on parents who are (even by choice) doing something really hard with their kids. (flying)
This is the exact sort of take if you ever have a kid you will look back on and realize how ignorant it is.
You will not be worried about the baby in it's mother's arms if you crash land on a plane. In reality you don't want to be inconvenience. That's what happens when you live in a society full of different people though. Sometimes you have to wait as they load people in wheelchairs in planes. Sometimes a baby cries.
You do realize today’s kids are going to be feeding you, delivering your groceries, keeping your electrical and water running, farming your food and so on when you are old. Probably far before you are old. Unless you live alone on a farm homesteading, the anti-natalism is ridiculous.
Are you saying this is the worst economy or political climate the world has ever seen? Both economies and political climates change. It is strange to make a permanent decision based on a temporary circumstance.
Nevertheless, you have made a decision not to have kids and that decision is worthy of respect even if it rests on shaky logical foundations. But you should similarly respect people’s choice to travel with their children and appreciate that as someone who has opted out of that part of the human experience, you have no insight into it and shouldn’t be making statements about disincentivizing parents from traveling with their children. Ultimately, children are just small people. If you can’t deal with interacting with that subset of the population, I suggest you fly private. Or… don’t fly.
the discomfort in the ears becomes a non-issue if the baby sucks on something while it's happening because sucking helps readjust the pressure. having flown with a baby myself, we never had problems with that.
and if you want my personal opinion, anyone who feels crying babies are disruptive is an asshole. i am not saying that lightly. parents are not just flying for fun and letting their babies cry to torture you.
as a society we need to be more child friendly and supportive of parents. especially when they have a baby in distress. this whole idea that children should always be quiet and never bother adults is absurd, and only really found in western culture. that doesn't mean kids should be allowed to get away with anything, but a crying baby is not something that can just be stopped until the parents can identify the cause, and we should have some tolerance for that.
No one travels with babies for fun, visiting my terminally Ill mother over the several years of her decline was indeed a nightmare with young children, we would not have put ourselves through that otherwise.
I have encountered this many times flying so it’s not “no one”. It’s usually younger couples who either don’t know what they are getting into or just have the energy to deal with it.
On international flights from the US it’s common to hear the reason is to bring the baby to see extended family.
That’s not correct. I took my small children on vacations to grandparents all the time. Taking the kids to any extended family that can help watch them is a vacation. The best vacations you can have involve just taking kids to see family.
That’s not what the idiom “don’t do x for fun” is about.
The expression means that X is the best of unpalatable options to accomplish something else, where X is taken in a literal and narrow sense.
People don’t fly with babies for fun. They do it because visiting grandparents is fun, and driving isn’t a good option. Or, if it involves a trip across the ocean, the alternative would be sailing.
> Approximately nobody “flies for fun” under that tortured definition.
Yes. That is exactly how it’s supposed to be used. The vast majority of people do not enjoy the airport/airline experience and were there any other reasonable way to get where they are going they would probably take it. They are not doing it because it is fun, they are doing it because they have to.
Do you seriously think that parents are flying with infants for the lolz? The vast majority are not. It’s a major operation for both child and parents.
“What is so important that you need to take a baby on a plane” and “Have you thought about driving instead?” have got to be some of the most clueless and unempathic takes I’ve ever read. Ironic considering that’s what you’re accusing parents of.
I mean sure, you have your lived experience, I can respect that. As for my lived experience, most of the families with children that I come into contact with on planes are going away for their first vacation together. Entirely optional.
Based on your judgy comments here about babies and parents, I'm really not buying that you are engaging all these parents traveling with babies in conversation.
Yeah and fuck them, right? Won't these parasite breeders learn that they have no right to take vacations? They should experience nothing but misery until their children are 5.
Unrelated, why are so few people opting to have kids?
As a thought exercise — next time you are are annoyed by being stuffed into a metal tube for 3-15 hours in close proximity to a child who is being annoying try asking yourself:
What’s it like for the child? What’s it like for the parent(s)? What would be the range of reasons that would motivate them to do this? Was I this painful to others at any point? Was it for ‘good’ reasons, or ‘bad’ ones?
Some introspection might at least help pass the time and take your mind of the inconveniences inflicted by others
> Where is SO important that you need to take a baby with you on a plane?
I would guess that in most cases, someone is flying with an infant because they are going somewhere important and traveling with their infant was the best option available to them.
Traveling by air (or at all) with an infant is not fun and I can’t imagine that ever being anyone’s first choice.
So when you see frazzled parents at the airport with their young children, assume the best and be kind.
I flew with my six month old a while back with no issues. Gave her a bottle on both the ascent and the descent so her ears would pop and that worked perfectly.
She slept like a baby for most of the 5 hour flight and only cried once for maybe 60 seconds when she got hungry and I had to prep a bottle.
It definitely didn't seem like "babies experience a lot of pain" holds true at all if you plan for it
Can you truly not think of a long list of things that are important enough and far enough away that it makes sense to take a baby on a plane? I could start writing you a list, but it seems like you should probably think about it for more than two seconds first.
Good thing you spawned into the world as a fully formed adult and never had to be a burden on society, unlike all these other _kids_ and their greedy parents.
poltergeist11 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
wakamoleguy · · focus · HN ↗
derwiki · · focus · HN ↗
But that’s it: we don’t do other flights with the kids
Forgeties79 · · focus · HN ↗
See this is what has bugged me so much about how common anti-natalism has become. It has become diluted but present everywhere.
Children are a part of our society. They are a part of your community. They are going to be around you, they are going to be where you don’t want them to be, they are just going to be present in general. And this can’t possibly be a safety argument, as planes I believe are the safest mode of transportation. If you’re worried about safety, then kids should never get in cars, which is also completely unfeasible.
So if it’s not about safety, then what is this really about?
poltergeist11 · · focus · HN ↗
Forgeties79 · · focus · HN ↗
Parents have lives and families and obligations. Kids are along for the ride until they can exert their own autonomy. That’s how it has always been and that’s how it will continue to be.
poltergeist11 · · focus · HN ↗
It's giving: "people want to have kids but also still want to do all that fun stuff they did but now with a kid because whatever, the kid will deal with it".
JosNun · · focus · HN ↗
In fairness, I _do_ agree that there are some things that need to be given up as a parent of young kids... Don't take your kids to a fine restaurant. But at the same time, I don't think children should be excluded from 95% of things because it inconveniences someone else. If it were about preventing people from inconveniencing others, then I think there's a strong argument that it's more than just kids that shouldn't be allowed to do the "fun stuff".
sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
Forgeties79 · · focus · HN ↗
dgently7 · · focus · HN ↗
its not like magically one day they are old enough to just "get it" by being explained. when was the last time you really understood something only conceptually without any kind of experience with it. its the jobs of parents and society* to safely expose our kids to the situations that they need to experience to learn how to function on their own.
Like to use the airplane example its not like parents just do it for fun and also every parent does stuff to try and give their kid the best ability to cope with the pressure change. snacks, pacifiers, timing flights around naps. its not like they are just like "eh, suck it up kiddo".
*there is a much longer diatribe about how even if you don't have kids or hate kids or never want to be in 100 ft of a kid its still your responsibility to society/biology to help make sure the next generation is raised. And maybe you could fulfill that responsibility at the literal bare minimum by managing to have a little compassion and understanding and not rag on parents who are (even by choice) doing something really hard with their kids. (flying)
tonyneel923 · · focus · HN ↗
You will not be worried about the baby in it's mother's arms if you crash land on a plane. In reality you don't want to be inconvenience. That's what happens when you live in a society full of different people though. Sometimes you have to wait as they load people in wheelchairs in planes. Sometimes a baby cries.
poltergeist11 · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
nkrisc · · focus · HN ↗
poltergeist11 · · focus · HN ↗
nkrisc · · focus · HN ↗
Today’s kids are tomorrows doctors, engineers, tradesmen, drivers, etc.
sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
cityofdelusion · · focus · HN ↗
vigilantpuma · · focus · HN ↗
Nevertheless, you have made a decision not to have kids and that decision is worthy of respect even if it rests on shaky logical foundations. But you should similarly respect people’s choice to travel with their children and appreciate that as someone who has opted out of that part of the human experience, you have no insight into it and shouldn’t be making statements about disincentivizing parents from traveling with their children. Ultimately, children are just small people. If you can’t deal with interacting with that subset of the population, I suggest you fly private. Or… don’t fly.
Forgeties79 · · focus · HN ↗
poltergeist11 · · focus · HN ↗
Forgeties79 · · focus · HN ↗
em-bee · · focus · HN ↗
and if you want my personal opinion, anyone who feels crying babies are disruptive is an asshole. i am not saying that lightly. parents are not just flying for fun and letting their babies cry to torture you.
as a society we need to be more child friendly and supportive of parents. especially when they have a baby in distress. this whole idea that children should always be quiet and never bother adults is absurd, and only really found in western culture. that doesn't mean kids should be allowed to get away with anything, but a crying baby is not something that can just be stopped until the parents can identify the cause, and we should have some tolerance for that.
ryeats · · focus · HN ↗
kortilla · · focus · HN ↗
I have encountered this many times flying so it’s not “no one”. It’s usually younger couples who either don’t know what they are getting into or just have the energy to deal with it.
On international flights from the US it’s common to hear the reason is to bring the baby to see extended family.
sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
dgently7 · · focus · HN ↗
there is literally no such thing.
its like people who say that parental leave is a vacation. wildly miss informed and completely tone def.
kortilla · · focus · HN ↗
dgently7 · · focus · HN ↗
small kids are always lots of work and this its pretty hard to have a vacation.
i agree that visiting fam is the best, partly bc they will help with the kids :)
compiler-guy · · focus · HN ↗
The expression means that X is the best of unpalatable options to accomplish something else, where X is taken in a literal and narrow sense.
People don’t fly with babies for fun. They do it because visiting grandparents is fun, and driving isn’t a good option. Or, if it involves a trip across the ocean, the alternative would be sailing.
kortilla · · focus · HN ↗
Forgeties79 · · focus · HN ↗
Yes. That is exactly how it’s supposed to be used. The vast majority of people do not enjoy the airport/airline experience and were there any other reasonable way to get where they are going they would probably take it. They are not doing it because it is fun, they are doing it because they have to.
compiler-guy · · focus · HN ↗
vigilantpuma · · focus · HN ↗
dzhiurgis · · focus · HN ↗
Much harder to keep them entertained them at home lol.
werrett · · focus · HN ↗
“What is so important that you need to take a baby on a plane” and “Have you thought about driving instead?” have got to be some of the most clueless and unempathic takes I’ve ever read. Ironic considering that’s what you’re accusing parents of.
poltergeist11 · · focus · HN ↗
sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
ninkendo · · focus · HN ↗
Yeah and fuck them, right? Won't these parasite breeders learn that they have no right to take vacations? They should experience nothing but misery until their children are 5.
Unrelated, why are so few people opting to have kids?
werrett · · focus · HN ↗
What’s it like for the child? What’s it like for the parent(s)? What would be the range of reasons that would motivate them to do this? Was I this painful to others at any point? Was it for ‘good’ reasons, or ‘bad’ ones?
Some introspection might at least help pass the time and take your mind of the inconveniences inflicted by others
nkrisc · · focus · HN ↗
I would guess that in most cases, someone is flying with an infant because they are going somewhere important and traveling with their infant was the best option available to them.
Traveling by air (or at all) with an infant is not fun and I can’t imagine that ever being anyone’s first choice.
So when you see frazzled parents at the airport with their young children, assume the best and be kind.
dlisboa · · focus · HN ↗
We have child-free hotels, child-free restaurantes, maybe now child-free airplanes...what's next, child-free cities?
boelboel · · focus · HN ↗
ballsac · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Austizzle · · focus · HN ↗
She slept like a baby for most of the 5 hour flight and only cried once for maybe 60 seconds when she got hungry and I had to prep a bottle.
It definitely didn't seem like "babies experience a lot of pain" holds true at all if you plan for it
sanderjd · · focus · HN ↗
cityofdelusion · · focus · HN ↗