Lap Babies & the Agencies & Parents Who Don’t Care About their Safety

Articles like this (NTSB: Give babies their own airline seats) annoy the hell out of me. Why? It’s not that I’m against giving babies their own seats. It’s stuff like this (emphasis mine):

The National Transportation Safety Board is urging parents to buckle baby carriers into airline seats instead of holding infants in their laps aboard planes.

Under current Federal Aviation Administration regulations, children younger than 2 can fly for free if they sit in a parent’s lap.

Not requiring. Urging. Well, every day I urge parents to stop being such jerks in public. Guess what? Urging doesn’t do jack shit. These agencies need to grow a pair and stand up to these idiots. Don’t even waste your time “urging.” It’s a god damned joke.

My emphasis again:

The NTSB and the Association of Flight Attendants have tried for years to convince the FAA and airlines to require seats for all passengers, including babies. Still, many parents prefer holding their children for free instead of buying a ticket for them.

*coughcheapskatescough*

The agency fears that parents will opt to drive to destinations rather than buying plane tickets for their babies, and FAA officials said they believe driving is more dangerous than flying.

Oh, please don’t make me laugh. I still haven’t recovered watching from the Robert Klein comedy special last night. (Please tell me you saw that! Good stuff!) These damn agencies actually want us to believe that they are “saving lives” by “encouraging” people to fly versus drive? This is all out of the goodness of their hearts? Give me a break. These people are about as genuine as BP!

So it’s all about fear of losing revenue, right? They think that parents will determine driving is cheaper than flying. Who can honestly say that driving is cheaper than flying these days, especially when we are dumping millions of gallons of finite oil resources into the ocean! I don’t want to do the math or research on costs of driving vs. flying because there are too many variables and I’m lazy, but my guess is that for shorter trips, maybe driving is cheaper. Longer trips, not so much, especially when you factor in wear-and-tear on your vehicle. If you want to go visit your mommy every year twice a year and she lives four states away (middle states, not those piddly East Coast states), that all adds up in time, gas expense and wear on the vehicle.

But more importantly though, who the hell is driving to Hawaii or Europe? Show of hands – I’m really curious! Yea, that’s what I thought. Yet you don’t see these asshats requiring children strapped into their own seats for overseas travel, now do you? If this was only about encouraging people to fly versus drive for safety reasons, then they would only offer the free lap babies on flights where one could opt to drive instead, right? That would only make sense. There is (albeit slightly) higher risk for overseas flights, so if they were concerned about safety, they’d want to keep infants safer on those flights. But they don’t.

Seriously, FAA and airlines don’t care about safety. Clearlythey don’t. They care about money. Period. Right?

At this point, this becomes a whole lot like the smoking bans debate. Now, I don’t want to know what side of that debate you are on because that argument is a dead and rotting horse corpse, but I do recall many business owners screaming that they would be put out of business if smoking was banned in their establishments. Yet later, after smoking bans had been in place for a while, business owners were reluctantly admitting that business had picked up as the non-smokers returned and smokers continued to patronize them and grudgingly smoked outside. All the hysteria was for nothing.

These days its the airlines who are playing this Chicken Little game. “If parents stop flying because they can’t afford to pay for seats for their children, we’ll go out of business!! The only people who fly at all are people with children under the age of two! Our business will be decimated!”

Calm down and stop being ridiculous. Even IF demanding children be put in their own seats actually does keep people from flying with infants, trust me, many of us will start flying again once the unofficial “ban” on babies takes effect, more than making up for the supposed lost revenue. Can you imagine a flight with no screaming infants and no toddlers racing up and down the aisles because his mommy couldn’t keep hold of him? BLISS! If anything airlines should be DIScouraging small children on planes and it would likely be GOOD for business.

Additionally, what do you think happens to all these parents who are traveling with their children-under-two-for-free after the child turns two? Do they all just stop flying for the next sixteen years? Somehow I don’t think so. But even if they did, what do they do with the loss of that revenue? Obviously they make it up somewhere, just as they would if they lost revenue from butthurt mommies with infants.

Maybe I’m missing a piece of the puzzle, but I think the airlines are being incredibly stupid about this. I’m pretty sure they could make MORE money by requiring parents pay for seats for all children. These parents today are the instant gratification crowd, and they are not about to postpone their vacation because they can’t afford to pay for a seat for Junior! They’ll find a way to pay for that seat. They’ll beg, borrow or put it on the credit card they never plan to pay off. They are not about to practice the art of delayed gratification. Nor are they likely to drive; here’s a secret: they generally don’t like their kids any more than the rest of us do! They certainly do not want to be trapped in the car with Junior for six or eight hours! If they have to suffer, then damn it, they want everyone else to suffer right along with them!!

Ultimately, I don’t think the airlines really believe they’ll lose money on this. I think they assume that the planes will fill up anyway, and if it’s not the baby in the seat, then it’ll just be someone else and they’ll still make money. And with as crowded as flights are these days, maybe that’s true. But if it is true, then if the mommy with the lap baby refuses to fly, there will certainly be someone else willing to pay for the seat she was going to use. Right? So then what is the problem?

Here’s the bottom line: Airlines worry about the PR nightmare of changing the policy. While they must know that eventually they will be forced to change the policy, like the rest of us putting off that dentist appointment because we just don’t want to deal with it, they procrastinate. They know that as soon as the policy is changed, all the idiot, unemployed mommies with nothing better to do with their lives will start harassing them for their “right” to put their children in danger in the interests of saving a few dollars. (After all, mommies need that money to buy the latest cell phone, coach bag or video game system! They shouldn’t have to deprive themselves just because they have kids, don’t you know!)

But that is what really bothers me about this whole debate. Parents who don’t really give a shit about the safety of their kids. Oh, they SAY they would die for their kids, but if turns out that protecting their children might cost them a few bucks, their resolve crumbles. “We’ll risk it,” is their attitude. Lovely. Oh, that’s great. I wonder what other shortcuts they are taking to save money at their child’s expense? If it wasn’t required by law, would they even use car seats in the car? Probably not.

The bored housewife mommies will surely argue that they’ve flown dozens of times with a child on their lap and nothing happened and that the likelihood of something happening is almost nil, so it’s completely fine of them to take the chance to save a few bucks. Strangely enough, the airlines force adults to buckle up on those same flights where the chances of something happening are slim. If it’s SO unlikely that something will happen, why does anyone need to buckle in?

If anything, consenting adults should the only ones allowed to not buckle up. You’re grown, perhaps you can brace or protect yourself, and, having weighed the risks, you’ll forgo the seat belt. Fine. But these small children should be protected – that’s in the very job description of PARENT!! For fuck’s sake: protect your kid! Babies can’t protect themselves and they can’t give informed consent!

It’s not just airplane accidents that are a danger to lap babies. Turbulence can also be an issue. A kid squirming away from mom and running around the flight could hurt themselves in any number of ways (other passengers kicking or stepping on them (accidentally! Don’t get ideas!) or the food service cart could hit them, etc) and in at least one case, a mother smothered her infant (allegedly by accident) while holding the child during a flight. Why risk it? These issues wouldn’t be a problem if children were strapped in for their own safety which should always trump the parent’s convenience. Too bad it doesn’t.

I’ve never been in a car accident yet, but I always buckle up my seat belt regardless. One could argue that you’re about a billion times more likely to get into a car accident because all the teens are too busy texting to pay attention to the road. This is true, but airline pilots are all too often busy playing on their laptops to actually fly the planes, and air traffic controllers at major airports are too busy being “weekend dads” and playing with their kids while on the jobto actually pay attention to their job, so I’m not feeling all that safe during air travel anymore, either. If you can’t trust the pilots and you can’t trust the air traffic controllers, who can you trust? It’s just dumb luck if you arrive in one piece anymore. And don’t even dare travel on a commuter flightwithout getting your will in order first.

I am pleased the article points out how terribly irresponsible it is for any parent to hold a child on their lap during flights. This IS dangerous and absolutely not in the child’s best interest. But isn’t it pathetic that as a society we literally have to force parents to do the right thing because they are too cheap and lazy to do so otherwise?

Be A Better Neighbor

Occasionally people send me articles and ask me to comment on them. Sometimes I don’t because I can’t find anything interesting to say, but this typical entitlement mommy really annoyed me. Here’s my thoughts on the article, Love thy neighbour? Not with kids.

The article stars off with the woman complaining her neighbor isn’t understanding enough of her children, who like to play on the balcony of her apartment and throw things into the neighbor’s yard. Really? This surprises her?

How would she like it if people were dumping garbage in her living room all the time? I bet she’d bitch like hell! The neighbor is responsible for keeping her yard cleaned up and doesn’t want her yard littered with other people’s trash and discarded toys. It’s RUDE to expect other people to clean up after your kids. You’ll notice the woman doesn’t even offer the woman an apology! This entitled mommy thinks the neighbor should just blissfully clean up after HER kids.

Additionally, Mommy is upset that the neighbor lady yelled at the kids for continually throwing stuff in her yard. Well, if Mommy wasn’t going to do it, SOMEONE needed to teach the kids that it was wrong! If you have a problem with the neighbor yelling at your kids, teach your kids yourself!

And of course, this mommy whines about “bad language.” She has a problem with people using “dirty” words in front of her children. (The neighbor apparently said “pissed off” and this was objectionable.) I hate this argument because parents do not want to behave or make their children behave to the rest of society’s standards, and yet they want the rest of society to conform to THEIR standards. Talk about a double standard! You expect me to live in a world full of screaming kids? Then you need to live in a world full of swearing adults. (When did “pissed off” become a “dirty” word anyway? For that matter, when did “suck” become a swear word? Give me a break!)

The Mommy writes:

I usually care what other people think, but as I get older I’m finding if people take issue, I’d prefer they take themselves and their issue to some far corner of the globe, face the wall for a while and think long and hard about their actions before rejoining the group.

See, typical entitlement Mommy attitude! “If you doesn’t like my behavior, you need to go somewhere else! But if you doesn’t like MY (or my children’s) behavior, you need to go somewhere else!” The rules NEVER apply to mommies and their precious little snowflakes. And they wonder why no one in the village likes them!!

From the comments to the article:

Kids make noise. If they don’t like it (within reason) they should live in an adults only, no kids, no pets block.

Lovely idea. Let’s start building them now! Sadly, they are illegal, since The Powers That Be realize that no one would want to rent to people with kids if they weren’t forced to. (This article is from Australia, where, apparently they aren’t illegal. I’m jealous, but not enough to move there.) Of course, this solution wouldn’t satisfy the mommies at all, because then they’d be forced to live near other people’s kids and they don’t want to deal with the noise from other people’s kids, either.

But you do see the subtle subtext here, don’t you? “If YOU don’t like my children’s noise, YOU go live somewhere else.” Again, the typical entitlement minded breeder attitude.

I didn’t read all the comments, but I was pleased to see that many of them (even other parents) told the Mommy she was totally wrong. There is still some common sense out in the world

But here is my favorite part of the article:

In my day balls, kites, frisbees, remote control planes and all manner of objects landed in the neighbour’s yard and there was no issue with asking your friendly neighbour if you could simply retrieve it.

Not so in the stifled existence of an apartment complex where the world is riddled with boundaries and rules and noise restrictions.

There are two big differences between your-day and to-day. In your-day, people actually got to know their neighbors and were friendly with them. As a general rule, folks tolerate a lot more from their friends than they do from rude and demanding strangers. If you mommies continue to refuse to befriend your neighbors and refuse to build these close-knit communities you feel nostalgic for, you can’t complain about people not being as friendly.

The other big difference is that in your-day, parents were, generally, more considerate of others than they are now. No neighbor would have ever had to yell at me for throwing stuff in their yard because my mother would have been yelling at me before they even noticed their yard was littered with my toys and trash! After yelling at me, my mother would have marched me to the neighbors house and forced me to apologize, then she would have apologized herself and sworn it would NEVER happen again, and then she would have made me clean up the trash from the neighbor’s yard while she and the neighbor watched and made sure I didn’t miss anything. And it was GOOD for us kids to have parents behave like that. It taught us personal responsibility and that every action (even an accident) has consequences. When was the last time you saw parents behave in that way? 1989? Quite possibly.

You know how they show people in movies throwing things, breaking glasses and shattering mirrors? Every time I see scenes like that, I get distracted from the movie and think, “Who is going to clean that mess up? You know you have to clean it up, right? I know you’re mad, but think about the mess!” I would NEVER throw something in anger, because I don’t want to have all that extra work to do cleaning it up! I’m very consciously aware that my actions have consequences – something parents taught in your-day but have lost in the last generation or two. This is the sort of thing that you should be teaching your children, Mommy!!

Here’s a clue: Until you start behaving the way parents behaved in your-day, you have no right to complain that the neighbors of to-day don’t behave the way they did in your-day.

Here’s another: If you want better neighbors, you need to BE a better neighbor.

How about this: Don’t Bother

Another one from Australia:

How to stay friends with parents

I won’t quote the whole article, but I’ll show you a chunk of it. Take a gander:

Here’s my five rules for dealing with friends who are parents.

Rule 1: 5pm to 7:30pm is never a good time to call. And if you want to drop around be prepared to be ignored for at least some of that time. During these hourse I need to get two children fed, bathed, dressed in their pyjamas, read them a story and get them to sleep. It’s not easy and it’s no time for chatting. Parents call this time the “witching hours” when even the best behaved children can turn into attention seeking monsters who cry at the drop of a hat because they are tired and hungry.

Rule 2: If you are organising a party please don’t be dissapointed if only one parent turns up, particularly if the event is at night time. Babysitting is expensive, can’t be organised at the last minute and sometimes it’s just too hard.

Rule 3: Fancy restaurants and children never mix. I’ve lost count of the times our family has been invited out with the line: “We’d love to see the kids” but the venue chosen is entirely inappropriate. We did try it once. It was a disaster. We took turns taking CJ for walks outside and cruising the hallway. Never again. If you want to see the kids and have them behave, then it’s always better to discuss the venue with parents to ensure it’s age appropriate. Otherwise you may end up back in Rule 2 – only one of us can come.

Rule 4: 9:30 to 10pm is my bedtime. Don’t phone me after that, I won’t answer. If you have invited me out for drinks and I’ve made the effort to come, I will probably stay later than 9:30 but I get really tired and I’m not really up for 2am dancing because I have to be up with the kids at 6am. I will pike out early. Don’t call me names, just be grateful that I managed to come at all.

Rule 5: If I don’t call you back don’t take offence. It’s most likely because you broke rule 1 or rule 4, not because I don’t like you. Parents forget things a lot. Just call me and remind me that you called.

That’s all fine and dandy, but if you’re going to be so uptight and demanding, why not simplify this for everyone and make just one rule:

Rule 1: Don’t bother dealing with friends who are parents.

Problem solved.

Vote! (Just don’t vote for Rick Perry)

I’m dwindling off-topic slightly, but bear with me just this once:

Attention American readers: Elections are next month and I’m reminding you to vote. It’s so incredibly important that you do. Even if you don’t like the politicians, even if you don’t think any of them will be any good, even if you think your one vote won’t count, vote. People fought hard for us to have the freedom to vote, and these elections matter. Yea, so you think all politicians are scum – at least vote for the lesser of two evils. It breaks my heart when people say they don’t care – because that’s how things got this bad in the first place: because people didn’t care and continue not to care.

Don’t just blindly vote, and don’t just vote for whomever your boss or preacher told you to vote for. Go find out today who is running in your local elections and do some research on them before election day. Then vote for someone who sounds inspiring or at least vote for someone who sounds the least sucky. Listen to the wise words of Bill Maher:

When it comes to voting… you gotta grow up and realize there is a difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy.

Fine, so you find all the candidates to be disappointing, but realize that some of them aren’t just disappointing, they are down right dangerous. Vote for the disappointing guy so the dangerous guy doesn’t win.

Don’t just worry about the big elections – the gubernatorial or senatorial elections. There are a lot of smaller, local community elections you need to care about because those elections directly affect your neighborhoods and cities. If you don’t care about the governor or the senators, fine, but care about your local elections. Don’t bitch later if you didn’t bother to vote.

Go visit your local campaign headquarters and ask questions, get flyers and get informed. Maybe even get involved. Maybe even find out how you or someone you know can run for election next time if you think all the candidates are so terrible.

If you need an absentee ballot, order it now. For the rest of you, do your homework starting now to find out when and where you vote (some states have early voting, and I suggest you take advantage of it) so there are no excuses later.

I don’t even care who you vote for (although if you are in Texas and you vote for Rick Perry I might just have to come and kick you in the teeth), just get out and vote, and not just any vote: make an informed vote.

And next month, after the elections are over, don’t just stop then until the next time I nag you to vote. Get involved in your local communities. Get interested in local politics, get involved with various groups that help protect your rights, volunteer in your communities, try to help make the lives of people in your local area better. There are a plethora of opportunities that you don’t even know about and won’t until you start getting involved (and no, they don’t all involve kids). Find something you believe in and get involved. Check your newspaper or your local library or various local bulletin boards and you might just stumble upon opportunities. You’re unlikely to find those opportunities if you don’t start looking, though.

Working in your community can be a great experience. You’ll find it’s actually good for you and gives you a sense of pride, of being a part of something bigger than yourself. If you tried it once before and didn’t like it, try something different this time. Two years ago Obama told us not to believe in his ability to create change, but to believe in our own. Maybe you don’t like Obama much, but he’s right. We must believe in our own ability to create change. Change begins with individuals; change begins with you.

I often get tired of listening to the mommy crowd whine that “the community” doesn’t do enough for families (i.e. unemployed mommies), and I always find myself bitching at them that “YOU are part of the community. If YOU aren’t doing anything, YOU are part of the problem!” But actually, that applies to all of us. Too many of us just exist in our communities without trying to be a part of them. I’m asking you to be a part of your community. Look out for the best interests of the community as a whole, look out for fairness and equality for everyone, not just the mommies and their special snowflakes. If we do nothing, we let them roll right over us and then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

If you want a better community, you have to make a better community. In the wise words of Phil Collins and Genesis:

This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we’re given
Use them and let’s start trying
To make it a place worth living in

It begins with voting, but it doesn’t end there.

Whenever I hear people say they don’t want to be bothered with voting, it breaks my heart a little. I think of the women who fought so hard so I would have the right to vote today. And about the African-Americans who had to fight so hard to be able to vote without being lynched so that my husband could vote today. And all the soldiers who died believing in this country — in all wars, not just the recent ones that no one seems to believe in. After everything these people fought for, do I have a right to take my freedom to vote for granted?

Sure, I have just one little vote. But maybe in writing this I convinced five other people to vote, and maybe they’ll convince five more and maybe my “one little vote” and my “one little voice” can somehow make a difference (but I’m serious, if you vote for Rick Perry I’m gonna get you!). I owe it to everyone who fought for freedom to take the time to vote and to take the time to write this.

Forgive me for floating off topic briefly. I promise I’ll soon be back to my regularly scheduled rants. I have a good one almost ready, if only I can get the graphic right.

Weird Family Decals

I’m not so much for decorating my car, so I don’t exactly understand why other people do. I mean, if I have to be bored in traffic, I think everyone else should be, too! I’m not going to provide you people with free entertainment while driving. Apparently that’s what your cell phones are for!

I think the weirdest thing people do is put those family decals on their cars, but apparently it’s the latest fad since yellow ribbon magnets went out of style. Who said people didn’t have children as some kind of fashion accessories? Now they are not only fashion accessories everywhere mommy goes, but fashion accessories for her mini-van or SUV, too!

Usually these dumb decals show Dad, Mom, two soccer kids and a baby, plus maybe a dog and/or a cat. So a family decal I saw on a car recently really cracked me up at it’s absurdity. It looked something like this:

Just in case you can’t see the image, it is a family decal depicting a dad, a mom, another dad, and two kids. We weren’t mistaken – the second dad wasn’t just a tall kid — it was the same image as the first dad, so apparently they were both adult males.

My husband and I have been speculating (and laughing) about what possible message this kooky family was supposed to be telling us. Maybe you can help me figure it out.

What do you think this supposed to mean?

  1. The two men in the decal were the two potential baby-daddies and this family can’t afford the DNA test (they had to spend all their money on back-to-school supplies and car decals!) and are still on the Mauryshow waiting list.)
  2. The first dad is the first kid’s father, and the second dad is the second kid’s father, but someone’s feelings might have been hurt if their dad’s picture wasn’t part of the family decal.
  3. This is one of those reverse-Mormon families, where the gal has two “husbands” (They’re trying out for a new show called Brother Husbands!) and the three of them are raising a couple of kids that, hopefully, belong to one or more of the adults involved.
  4. The second “dad” is their adult son that still lives on their sofa (and probably always will) and apparently they are proud of that.
  5. This decal depicts a Grandma and Grandpa with their grown son who still lives on their sofa (and probably always will) and his two children who visit one weekend a month, but no one wanted to hurt their feelings by not including them in the family decal.
  6. The first “dad” is Grandpa living with his daughter, her husband and their two kids. It’s like the final episode of King of Queens! (Oops, spoiler!)
  7. A gay couple, their two adopted kids and the “beard” that pretends to be the wife of one of them so that they don’t get kicked out of the Army.
  8. Someone just making a mockery of those stupid family decals.
  9. Something else entirely. (Share your interpretation with me. I’d love to hear it.)

You think that decal was weird? I’ve seen even weirder. I probably shouldn’t mention this, as it might creep you out a bit, but I once saw a window kinda like this:

If you can’t see this image, it’s two big fish and a whole bunch of little fish. No, it wasn’t the Duggar family. In this case, at least half of the little fish had halos over their heads. Apparently, this family is a death trap for children. Where are the pro-lifers now, huh?

So what the hell does this one mean?

  1. Co-sleepers.
  2. Cheap frequent flyers.
  3. People who “forget” their children in hot cars.
  4. Crappy drivers who keep getting into accidents and losing kids that way. (The person was driving pretty crappy.)
  5. Too much inbreeding and most of the kids were born with severe disabilities and didn’t make it. And these inbred hicks are PROUD of it, too!
  6. It’s a throwback to WWII when pilots would put the number of planes they shot down on the side of their plane. In this case, they mark the people they have run over with their car; halos mark the ones they got good!
  7. Obviously these are religious nuts, so maybe they were intentionally sending their babies to see Jesus. Some of those weird cults have weird ideas you know. Six down, three to go!
  8. Folks bragging about the number of abortions they’ve had to annoy pro-lifers and challenge the rest of us to catch up.
  9. Someone just making a mockery of those stupid family decals.
  10. Something else entirely. (Share your interpretation with me. I’d love to hear it.)

I’m SO tempted to start carrying a tube of bright red lipstick with me in case I ever see that particular car again so I can write “SERIAL KILLERS!!” on the back of it to alert the cops. Look, we have their signed confession on the back of their car! WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? Obviously the cops aren’t pro-life or they’d be more concerned about this!

At this point, I’m thinking I want my own family decal on the back of my car and make it as ridiculous as possible just for fun, just to mock these damn decals. Any suggestions? I know you all are very creative!

I’m not that easily fooled

I haven’t posted much lately, because I just haven’t had much that pissed me off. But then this afternoon I worked myself into such a lather over this damn article and ended up blowing off my entire to-do list. I started to bitch about this on my fan page, but decided I still had more to say and needed more room in which to say it. Lucky you. Maybe.

I wanted to warn you about bitchmedia’s faux-childfree column that is really a bunch of pro-mommy bullshit. It’s supposedly a “feminist” website, but you know how that goes. It seems that most “feminism” today is not about equal right for women – it’s generally “mommyism” – special rights for mothers. What I saw today quickly suggests bitchmedia fits that description perfectly.

This columnist, who is claiming to be childfree (but call me crazy, I’m not sure I believe her from her tone and treatment of childfree), started up last week with an articleabout how she intends to write a series of articles about childlessness. (That’s right, we’re “childless” according to her.)

She starts out by insisting that she LOOOOOOOOVES babies and kids. She just loves them! And anyone who doesn’t can just go the fuck somewhere else, because no one is allowed to NOT like kids on her watch. Yes, we’re not allowed to discuss the possibility that anyone could dislike babies or children in this “childfree” column/forum – that would be demeaning and offensive to moms everywhere and those comments WILL be deleted.

Then she repeatedly refers to us “childless,” which really ruffles my feathers. She bitches about the word “breeder” being insulting, but doesn’t mind insulting us with the term “childless” as if we are lesser people, inferior and lacking somehow. The word didn’t bother me so much when I was younger, but the older I get, the more that “less” word ticks me off. Who is this woman to refer to me as LESS of anything? If I was unmarried would I be referred to as “manless” by these so-called feminists? Fuck that noise!

Worse, while she insists on referring to me as “LESS” of a person, she whines that those of us without children had better know our place: we can’t say anything at all that would offend mommies. No mean words like breeder or brats or anything more inflammatory than that. We’d better keep our damn traps shut because insulting moms or kids is the same as “kicking puppies” as far as she’s concerned. *eyeroll*

Then she stops, without giving any ground rules to parents. Mommies and wannabees (clearly her target audience) are allowed to say anything rude or inappropriate to us (including the put-down “childless”). She might as well have just written, “SCREW YOU CHILDFREE, THIS COLUMN AIN’T FOR YOU!” because that’s exactly what we’re being told.

If only that were the end of it. But no, there is more.

There is one thing we’re allowed to talk about (besides “we LOOOOOOOOOVE babies and kids!”): the “enormous prams that take up the whole sidewalk”. Oh good, I’m glad we childfree have permission to say ONE thing on a supposedly childfree forum!

Oh, wait! Not so fast! Someone DID comment on the enormous prams (strollers) on the sidewalk. Only to be slapped around by the mommy commenters who have free reign. They told her to shut up and learn the real issues, to stop whining about having to walk around the strollers and that HELLO, the whole world should be set up to make their lives and strollers more easy and if we weren’t so stupid (okay, they didn’t say stupid, but they might as well have) we’d know better! Okay, so we can’t even talk about strollers after being given permission to talk about strollers. Check.

Next up, some gal tried to ask why we can’t mention dislike of children and that there is nothing wrong with having personal preference. The mommies were all over her, screaming AGEISM and going back to the same old argument that anyone who doesn’t like kids is every other kind of ism. (You know what they mean: racism. If you don’t like kids, you’re as bad as a racist. You know, ever since Michael Jackson, these dumb white mommies seem to think that people of color will outgrow their skin color eventually, just like kids grow out of being kids. No bimbos, people of color do NOT grow-out of their race so racism is NOT the same as disliking children (ageism).)

Another childfree commenter complained about covering for parents at work while they are constantly out because of allegedly sick kids, and was quickly jumped upon by mommies lecturing her how she’s obligated to help cover for parents at work, DUH. After all, they don’t like caring for sick children, so we’d better be miserable, too! Okay, so another topic that is off topic on the childfree forum: Can’t complain about parent coworkers.

One childfree person had this intelligent contribution:

I do wish we could have some sort of moratorium on comments from parents trying to rationalize to us why they had kids. It’s great that people choose to have kids but this is not an appropriate place to make sure that you’re seen as “not one of those parents.” It would be completely inappropriate and not tolerated for people who are choosing to not have kids to go in a post about parenting and bray about their choice and why they made it, it should be no different here.

A completely reasonable request, right? I’m not going to go to a “July Babies 2011!” message board and sing the praises of childfree life and why I’m SO much better off than the preggos, so they really shouldn’t waddle on over to our childfree areas and sing the praises of their life choices, either. Fair’s fair? Right. Oh wait, nothing is fair to the childless on bitchmedia.

A woman (mommy) who calls herself the “web editor” insists that no such moratorium will be set because people have a right to have their say. And by “people” she means mommies! Childfree can (and are) censored at whim. Add “no suggestion that mommies stop talking incessantly about their kids on childfree forums” to the list of things childfree can’t talk about.

At this rate, we’re soon to run out of things to talk about you realize. If we can’t fucking talk about ANYTHING, what’s the motherfucking POINT of this damn column? (Clearly, there isn’t one.)

Someone else touched on the overpopulation issue as a reason not to have children, and that was pounced on, too. Waa, waa, waa, that would get into the eugenics of who is “right” and who is “wrong” to have kids and that’s unfair because anyone should be able to irresponsibly reproduce any time they want. Yea. Soooooo, add overpopulation to the things we can’t mention on this… faux-childfree forum.

Okay. Time to give up. The comments are being heavily moderated to make sure the childfree keep in our place, yet the parents are being given free reign to take over, argue with us, basically tell us we’re wrong and chase us out. The only thing we’re allowed to say is, “Squee! I love kids and I love this column!”.

My point being: Please don’t accidentally believe that bitchmedia or Ms. Shoot care one iota about the childfree movement or that this column is childfree-friendly in any way, shape or form. It’s essentially a column for mommies to sound off on all their pet peeves about people who choose not to have kids, and to shoot down or censor anything we say if we dare post there. Save yourselves some trouble and see it for what it is up front. Read it if you want but don’t waste your time taking any of it seriously. It’s a complete fucking joke. Hell, it makes about as much sense as me setting up a second blog on this site to discuss Mommyhood! Yes, let’s trick mommies into coming here thinking I was serious about discussion and then laugh while we all slap them around a bit and delete anything they say that doesn’t kiss our asses. It’ll be fun!!

Eh, never mind.

Wait, one other thing I wanted to mention while I’m on the topic of this idiotic article.

[I will] discuss what it means to be an intentionally childfree woman in Western culture. Why are some famous women (Oprah) relatively unscathed by the media when it comes to childbearing, while other famous women (Jennifer Aniston) can’t shake pregnancy speculation?

She really needs someone to explain this to her? All right, I’ll do it. Oprah is relatively unscathed by Western culture because she’s 1) over 50, 2) not the “right” race, and 3) many people still assume she’s a lesbian. Gee, mystery solved.