To think society hates children?

[Orangeandgold]

During a crisis people tend to defend children and babies, but on a day to day basis when everything is “normal” I usually find and feel so much hatred towards children.

My DD picked this up quite young too. It is small subtle everyday conversations and actions.

I would have to remind an adult not to barge past a 5 year old when there is enough space on the pavement; or people that feel that they can comment or roll their eyes at you and be malicious because you have a buggy; or general comments in conversations about “all kids are brats/ those children/why would anyone have them.”; animals are so much more loving than children …

… and the comments go on!

If you don’t want children you don’t have to have them, but we were all kids once. AIBU to feel that society in general hates children and to get upset about it every now and then? Or am I just in a pessimistic bubble? Maybe it’s also the city, people have less tolerance? I just feel nobody really looks out for each other the way we would growing up - I would have neighbours on the look out as a child but now it’s different.

I think the point about losing a year mattering less to the young is fair tbh.

Covid challenged everyone in different ways but ultimately I do feel more sorry for elderly people spending their last days in total isolation than children who have struggled developmentally but still have their whole lives ahead of them and spent the time with their families.

I don't think it needs to be a competition but I can't agree with people who think Covid was generally worse for children than everybody else.

@aSofaNearYou I actually can't believe you're saying this. If someone said the same in reverse it would be jumped on as agist immediately. A year to a young child is a huge amount of time. And actually the brain becomes less plastic as we age, meaning there are time windows to learn particular skills or the opportunity is lost forever.
Of course losing your last days in total isolation is fucking horrible but you could turn it around and say they don't have the next 70 or so to pay the price.

I think the point about losing a year mattering less to the young is fair tbh.

There's more brain development in under 3 than at any other time - they get to 80% of adult size - it's a time of massive development and then 3-5 is when they get to preschool/school so social development takes off - - I personally don't think it a surprise that lockdown badly affected this age group.

The whole point of sure start with New Labour was research showing how vital and what a lifelong affect these early years had.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-impact-of-lockdown-on-childrens-development-will-last-for-years-and-years-12500806

In the schools she works in, she says 80% of children starting reception do not have age-appropriate language skills. Before COVID, she estimates it would have been around 40%.
"In reception in the schools where I'm working, it is most of the children," she says. "It wasn't like that pre-pandemic."

I had children who fell behind in primary - the shear amount of support needed at home to get them up to their potential was exhausting - and if we hadn't stepped in that was it they were just behind - with cuts to schools budgets and SEN budgets that is going to get any better with increased demand.

That not to say many people in population were adversely affected - but it's an inconvenient truth that an entire generation development was impacted and instead of denying that we should be expending resources to mitigate affects instead because large chunks of population don't want to hear it or want to paly victim top trumps we're compounding it all with further cuts - it will impact our society eventually.

Well you perhaps need to calm down about it, because nobody is saying anything particularly bad, just slightly different opinions.

Personally, I think people who lived alone, particularly old people without much time left, had it worse, obviously setting aside people living in abusive situations. I had a young child during lockdown and have not noticed any particular adverse affects, the other day she asked why we used to wear masks but that's it. I'm sure it's affected some kids badly but tbh yes I do feel less sorry for them than people for whom that was it for their lives.

There are some people (and this comment from you gives off this vibe) who are adamant that children had it far worse than everybody else and are almost angered by anyone not agreeing with them. I find that odd.

@TripleDaisySummer I'm not really denying any of that - though as mentioned I did have a young child through Covid and don't feel they've been impacted. It is unfortunate, and they were affected. I just don't personally find being delayed developmentally to be as bad as having to come to terms with dying alone. If it matters which is worse, which it shouldn't because it is not a competition.

But it is not my experience that it is people who think children were the most affected that are playing top trumps. In my experience, much as has happened here, it's if you say anything other than "children were indisputably affected far worse than anybody else" that people start playing top trumps, and reacting like you've just said something disgusting.

As someone who lived alone and is still working on the ramifications of 2020 for my mental health - I don’t think it was as bad for me as for young children (speaking generally).

I can’t speak for other singles but I was at least able to rationalise it, and I can access help to recover from it. It’s very different for children for whom this happened in a really important developmental window, especially as they aren’t able to simply access therapy to help them get over it.

I’m very much against the “children were the only ones who suffered” school of thought, and very much in favour of pointing out that single people got treated the way they did because we’re not valued within society. But I do think that, generally speaking, it was particularly difficult for young children, and that it will likely be harder for them to recover what they lost out on than it will be for single adults.

There’s surely a difference between children’s development being affected and the negative effect overall on a person. Particularly adults living alone or in a small bubble had a horrendous time. Substance abuse and MH issues rocketed. The NHS was strained even further so people with health issues have to wait longer and things like cancer diagnoses were delayed. At least there was an effort to protect children the most and make sure they still got some sort of education.

Well you perhaps need to calm down about it, because nobody is saying anything particularly bad, just slightly different opinions.

Personally, I think people who lived alone, particularly old people without much time left, had it worse, obviously setting aside people living in abusive situations. I had a young child during lockdown and have not noticed any particular adverse affects, the other day she asked why we used to wear masks but that's it. I'm sure it's affected some kids badly but tbh yes I do feel less sorry for them than people for whom that was it for their lives.

There are some people (and this comment from you gives off this vibe) who are adamant that children had it far worse than everybody else and are almost angered by anyone not agreeing with them. I find that odd.

I never said that it was worse for children than anyone else. you said you thought losing a year matters less when you're young. I simply pointed out what a ridiculous agist comment that was. And why.

@aSofaNearYou - I do get it - Dh complains about his uni students still complaining about covid and thinking they were worst affected - they were affected - how much varies - and I wouldn't have like to go to uni at that time but I can point to worse.

Clearly DSis single parent who had to work all day with no available childcare for her toddler was in a worse position than my older kids with two parents who could help them out between them.

The impact is uneven but research and teachers are reporting seeing adverse affects - your lucky many of your child's peer haven't been.

It could impact more privileged children like yours who had less problems because other kids in the class likely have been affected - depends on area you may be lucky - and will need more support than in previous year meaning less for rest of the class.

I'm not anti lockdown either - at least initial one - but I don't think we should downplay or dismiss any effects from them rather try hard to mitigate problems now rather than embed them and denying research showing increased problems means it easier for politicians and society to dismiss and not fund mitigation.

I've seen recent expert talk of seeing covid impact in education for next 15 years - that's a hell of a burden in an area facing cuts, staff and funding issues.

I never said that it was worse for children than anyone else. you said you thought losing a year matters less when you're young. I simply pointed out what a ridiculous agist comment that was. And why.

I don't agree that it's ageist and I don't believe you made a good case for it. It isn't ageist to acknowledge that things might be easier or harder for someone based on their age. Somebody said that that was a ridiculous thing to say, I disagreed and said I thought the original poster had a valid point.

And I stand by the fact that losing a year is less of a significant loss when that year is not your last.

Of course it's agist to say that a year of an elderly person's life is more important than a year of a young child's life. What an absolute load of nonsense. I don't actually care whether you accept it or not though tbh.
And we weren't talking about people dying alone. Obviously that's fucking horrible. But it's not something that only happened to elderly people

I didn't say it made them "more important", but yes, the loss of that year is emotionally more significant when it is your last/one of your last years, in the same way that it is developmentally more significant when you are a small child. Is that ageist to say, too? I do not think so.

And actually yes I was talking about people dying alone. That is what I was talking about when you responded to my comment.

Genuinely asking to clarify because my jaw dropped - are you referring to an actual literal vote? As in, extra democratic representation in local/national elections just through having reproduced?

@PomegranateRose I assume they meant in the sense of one vote for themselves and one on behalf of each child? Rather than as a reward for having children as such. Not sure though

I’m boggling along with you!

How is a five year old going to engage with the electoral process outside of their parental input???

It's more I'm questioning whether they are seriously suggesting that anyone should get more than one vote for anything whatsoever, let alone for the mere fact that they happen to have guardianship of children, which would open up a whole other can of worms re: anyone with a duty to advocate for children or indeed any other vulnerable people should then arguably also be allocated "extra" votes because of that ideally vested interest in things impacting the wellbeing of those other people. E.g. I'm a nurse working primarily with a specific subset of people by age/health condition/etc. and responsible for preserving their safety and assisting their recovery while I am at work - does that mean I should get an extra vote because I will hopefully use that to vote in the interests of those people?

But a genuine thank you for your clarifying nonetheless (I am very much hoping that doesn't sound as sarcastic as I'm afraid it does - it is not intended that way)!

It's a completely unworkable idea, that clearly hasn't had a few seconds thought actually spent on it

Take brexit for example. Say one parent has been pro brexit and one parent anti brexit. They have 1 child so the household gets 1 extra vote - who gets the final say on which way the "child" votes

It also assumes that the parent will be decent enough to use the child's proxy vote to vote for whatever is in the best interests of the child, rather than using it as a way to get additional votes for their preferred party. My parents would absolutely have used it to get 3 Brexit votes and that definitely wouldn't have been my preference or in my best interests!

Well I don't actually agree with the poster that suggested it but I guess it would be bit like having power of attorney, maybe? So you don't vote in your own interests but in the interest of whoever you are acting as a sort of "proxy" for? I agree it wouldn't work, for the reason suggested such as which parent gets to over rule the other, how would we know that the vote was genuinely in the interest of the person unable to vote and not just on the interest of the one placing it etc, but I think that was what they meant.

I can really make your head spin - I have colleagues who believe that you should only get a vote if you've reproduced as if you haven't, you have no stake in the future.

Do you work with Andrea Leadsom? That’s appalling!

There was a poster on here a little while ago who was adamant that if you didn't have children you shouldn't be entitled to a state pension

It wasn't just offensive to childfree/childless people either. It was emphasise on if you hadn't "successfully" raised a child to adulthood. So if you had a child and that child died then you would be punished by losing your entitlement to a state pension.

Some people have truly vile thoughts. Some of those thoughts are directed towards parents/mothers/children Some towards non parents/disabled people of all ages/older people etc etc.

I don't agree with the OP that people are nastier about children. I think the issue personally is that nasty people have an easier time getting a platform to share their nastiness, regardless of who the target of their opinions is.

No, but my colleagues are about as knobbish. 😂

@Neitheronethingnortheother I remember that. Several people asked whether you should be deprived of an SP if you raised a child that ended up in prison (because that’s not terribly “successful”). No answer, shockingly!

(For avoidance of doubt, I do not agree with removing SP from people, nor that what a child does should attract liability for their parent. I just thought it was quite obvious that it was nothing to do with rewarding the raising of well-rounded happy kids and everything to do with thinking women who have kids are superior.)