News

It was a column calling for small, daily acts of consideration toward parents and children that really set people off.

"I would like to see an apology in your column, and a big thank you to everyone in society who helps support your child," wrote Lorie.

Another reader was profane: "Like we really give a ---- about your kid. I've had many a meal ruined by some brat acting up in a restaurant. I now stay totally away from any commercial establishment where kids are welcomed."

Who knew? I had sensed underlying hostility toward children, and wrote what now seems rather mild -- that "society does not place a high priority on children's well-being, nor does it protect our children."

I wasn't taking on the big dangers to children's welfare, just the little things that I thought pulled back the curtain on carelessness: gum stuck under restaurant tables; people who don't hold doors for parents with strollers; the lack of child-sized bathroom facilities even in places that cater to kids.

The response revealed more ill will than I had imagined.

Catherine, a librarian and mother of three grown children, wrote that she "enjoyed" the column, but then proceeded down the road to sarcasm.

"Over the past 22 years, I have watched a disturbing (and somewhat uniquely American) parenting trend," she wrote. "Today's parents are no more repulsed by the gum wads than parents of yesteryear were. Today's parents, though, want someone else to protect their children from them."

Parents bring their children to restaurants and expect the wait staff and other patrons to watch the kids, she wrote, and the same is true for library story hour, where "day care" kids overwhelm the librarian while "accompanying caregivers chat amongst themselves."

Is it too far off to ask whether her comments reveal an underlying hostility to day care?

"I observe many of today's parents in public places and can't help but wonder what prompted them to become parents (and not surrender for adoption)," she wrote. "They're clearly not good at it, and they don't seem to be enjoying themselves, either."

That there are special parking spaces for new and expectant mothers smacks of special interests, she wrote, and she would like to see spaces for "fragile veterans" and "dads barely navigating mid-life crises."

I'd like to meet the man who is honest enough to park there.

The writer then thanked me for giving "validity to my observations." Ouch.

Linda, an office manager, wrote a lovely first sentence: "I totally agree that small courtesies toward families go a long way toward building a healthy, civil society." Ah, validation.

But she went on to say that those courtesies should be extended to childless people, too. "A colleague arrives an hour late and leaves early to accommodate summer day camp for his child," she wrote. "I've stepped up to the plate."

She continued: "My belief is that today's kids will be tomorrow's adults helping me in my old age. Maybe some recognition or time off would be nice."

Good point.

An apparent amateur economist in the crowd queried, "If a restaurant advertised 'gum-free tables,' would you be willing to pay more to go there?"

Well, I'm an amateur economist myself, thank you very much. No, I would not. I don't believe that one can put a value on people -- in this case, restaurant personnel -- taking pride in their work. Pride in our work is something we all owe ourselves.

Lorie posited another strange question of economics, but one that perhaps goes to a root of animosity between the generations.

"You pay fewer taxes, but use more things, when you have children, that taxes fund," she wrote, such as schools, parks and libraries.

Well, no, I do not pay fewer taxes. Having purchased a home in the very recent past, I pay taxes right up there with everybody else, and I think most new families who are lucky enough to afford a home are in the same position. Nor do I qualify for an exemption, often quite small, that many taxing districts offer to older residents.

That aside, could the frequent call for school tax increases, which raise everybody's property taxes, account for some ill will toward children and parents? That's very possible.

Lorie went on to list the great number of ways commerce caters to children: restaurants for kids, children's menus and movie ticket discounts, McDonald's play lands, entire TV networks, magazines, special grocery store shopping carts.

Oh, sure. As though someone is not counting on making money from my children with these various ventures. Lorie suggests I "thank" the "stores, restaurants, and other businesses that have catered to your child's needs." I do "thank" them, dear, every time I open my wallet.

She also believes that nursing women should feed their babies in private. "It's a natural act, you say? So was creating the baby. Do you want to see that in public?"

Certainly not. Thanks just the same.

A lone writer jumped aboard and agreed with me. She has children, ages 3 and 4. She raved about the Giant Eagle that staffs a room, "Eagle's Nest," where kids can play while parents shop.

"We plan to return to this Giant Eagle even though it isn't our 'hometown' store," she wrote.

My husband and I traveled well out of our way to shop there, too. I would venture that this is a commercial enterprise that actually works for everyone -- parents, kids, shoppers who dislike kids and the store's owners.

She described another scene, on vacation at a family resort in Maryland, where some people in their 50s were complaining loudly about kids crying. "Don't they know I'm on vacation and will not listen to that?" she quoted one woman.

She wondered whether that woman remembers when she was young. Memories do seem awfully short. We seem to have a limited ability to put ourselves in each others' shoes. It would be an improvement if we tried harder.

• Most Read
• Most E-mailed
• Latest News