To think children do not always come first?

[clairemcnam]

Adults matter too. And their needs and wants also matter.

Its blatantly obvious you dont prioritize needs. Needs are needs, any parent not giving a child these is a moron. Needs are warmth, love, food etc.

If they were all in a burning building i'd get my husband out first as then we both would stand a better chance at saving both the kids.

I was brought up 'kids are seen but not heard' and I know by seeing all the rude, ill-mannered, impolite, entitled little brats around that this certainly isn't being practiced much more.

When I was a child, we were well loved and looked after, but had little or no say in any decisions as to family life. We grew up and took our place in adult society and then had the opportunity to see our wants and needs fulfilled.

Dh and I had equally happy childhoods back in the 60s but I think both our families saw part of their jobs as training us to gradually become more involved in decisions- and they thought that just like reading or swimming, this was a skill that needed practising. They might not let us decide, but they would usually (when our age permitted it) let us be part of a process.

My parents thought of it, I believe, not so much as pandering to my wishes as teaching me a job that I would have to do. Perhaps that is why I haven't really found adulthood so hard: I rather enjoy making my own decisions, just like I enjoy sailing a boat or making a cake or practising other skills I learn in childhood.

Children have little / no ability to change their circumstances. Adults do. In my world, children come first .

Claire cut out the middle man bump off the kids, adults have better chance of survival as more food.

V practical.

Lot of people obviously don't like kids very much.

Threads like this are always interesting.

Adult desires being put before children's welfare (needs, rights) is a cause of massive harm the world over.

They also insisted on good manners, but that was because they also thought of good manners as a necessary skill, not as something children should do because they were less important.

It's ridiculous to try to make a blanket rule about adults' or children's needs coming first.

Everybody's needs in a given situation need to be considered, and balanced appropriately. Sometimes that might mean prioritising a child and sometimes and adult, or it might be possible to compromise and suit both.

I remember from many years ago at school, when we were talking about moral issues in RE, a scenario was presented whereby there was a group of maybe 20 people hiding somewhere extremely well hidden but in close proximity to an enemy who would kill them without a doubt if they heard them and thus discovered them.

All of the people were adults except for one, who was a young baby. The options were to either kill the baby, so that his/her cries wouldn't give them away and the rest would escape alive or not to kill the baby and almost certainly be heard and all put to death.

The choices were either for the baby alone to die, or for them all - including the baby - to die, so logically, it was obvious what to do. But it involved killing a baby. Extremely harsh position to be put in - I have an idea that the scenario was actually based on a historical event as well and not just theoretical.

So some kids desires would be for you to take them to soft play every single day even though you as an adult hate it, and it would cost you so much you could never afford any adult treats at all.

There's also the fact that wants aren't always subservient to needs, but sometimes, they are in direct opposition. Most children would WANT to eat 5kg of sweets a day. What every child absolutely NEEDS is NOT to eat 5kg of sweets a day.

In an emergency situation, put your own mask on before helping others.
In life, do the same. If the adult fails, so will the children.

The options were to either kill the baby, so that his/her cries wouldn't give them away and the rest would escape alive or not to kill the baby and almost certainly be heard and all put to death.

Couldn't they have gagged the baby by stuffing something into its mouth? It would still be able to breathe through its nose, so they would all survive.

Absolutely I'm with you

Sometimes I come first

We see people killing babies on a regular basis and its rarely to save peoples own lives rather that of a matter of convenience, but thats a different topic.

Yukka - Well said. Hit the nail on the head.

In my experience if you have more than one child, you find yourself in the situation where you have to prioritize one over the other. You don't want to upset your child but they have to suck it up for their sibling eg a single parent needs to take child 1 somewhere. Child 2 would rather not go out but isn't old enough to stay home alone so has to go out until child 1 is finished.

There are only three of us in our family. Two adults and one child. I do not think it would be good for the child to “always come first”. I think he’d grow up pretty spoilt if he always came first. As it is we balance child first activities, things we all enjoy and personal time for both adults. Sure he’d sometimes rather I played another game of hot wheels on a Saturday morning but I want to go for a run and sometimes I get to do what I want.

*All of the people were adults except for one, who was a young baby. The options were to either kill the baby, so that his/her cries wouldn't give them away and the rest would escape alive or not to kill the baby and almost certainly be heard and all put to death.

The choices were either for the baby alone to die, or for them all - including the baby - to die, so logically, it was obvious what to do. But it involvedkilling a baby. Extremely harsh position to be put in - I have an idea that the scenario was actually based on a historical event as well and not just theoretical*

It was. Okinawa. The Okinawan civilians hid in caves. Japanese soldiers made the mothers suffocate their babies so as not to alert the US soldier who had invaded as to their presence. They also used the civilians as human shields because they knew the Americans wouldn't directly shoot innocents/throw grenades into the civilian-occupied caves(though I believe they might have done).

I think context is everything really. Most of the time the child comes first as the child is completely reliant on their parents to make sure they have everything they need.
But there will be times when they don’t come first and that will usually be to do with things that are less important e.g. they were promised a trip to the zoo but then the parent can’t take them because they’re ill. Disappointing for the kid but that’s just life.
Or their hobby needs paying for but the parent desperately needs a winter coat or they will get hypothermia standing in the cold waiting for the bus. A difficult decision for the parent but they need to make sure they don’t die don’t they.

*WeBuiltThisBuffettOnASausageRoll

The choices were either for the baby alone to die, or for them all - including the baby - to die, so logically, it was obvious what to do. But it involved killing a baby. Extremely harsh position to be put in - I have an idea that the scenario was actually based on a historical event as well and not just theoretical.*

You're absolutely right about this situation being related to an historical event.

When the ghettos were liquidated during World War Two, there were reports of crying babies being suffocated (potentially by accident) trying to keep them quiet so they didn't give away the hiding places of about 20 other people to the Nazis.

Utterly heartbreaking.

Bold fail, sorry!

WeBuiltThisBuffettOnASausageRoll see my post above

Children’s needs come first. Children’s (is or anyone’s) wants don’t matter.

adriennej gets an eye roll and a referral to a dictionary

This is a TAAT.

Adults do matter. But adults have a responsibility to put the needs of children before their own or those of other adults. HTH.

In real life most good parents balance wants. So your kid loves soft play and would love to go every day, you hate it. You take your kid sometimes, and take them other places other days that you prefer

The first option means you are a grumpy and hard-done-by parent.
Balance the needs. Take the child occasionally. Other time they go for a walk in the countryside as you like that (plus it's good for them).

I was a child of the 60s and anyone who grew up then unless you lived a very sheltered life and been without news for the last 20 years you will have seen the abuse children got and were made to endure because adults needs out ranked children’s needs