It shouldn't be all about the children

By Beth Quinn
August 2000

I think it all began with that stupid "Baby on Board" movement. By implication, a "Baby on Board" sign in a car's back window meant there was precious cargo inside more precious than me, for example.

It was a way of telling bad drivers, "If you want to hit someone, crash into that lady! She doesn't have a baby on board!"

Now the whole country is at full throttle in the Baby-on-Board mentality. No matter what the issue, the battle cry inevitably becomes, "Think about the chiiiiildren!"

Saving the children from something makes it righteous. Geese in Fallsburg? "Kill 'em! Save the chiiiiildren from goose poop!" A quarry in Warwick? "No way! Save the chiiiiildren from dust!" Genetically altered food? "Good grief! Save the chiiiiildren from big tomatoes!"

I raised two kids of my own but, for cryin' out loud, don't adults count any more? Do the children have to be invoked to add legitimacy to every issue that comes down the pike? I'm not sure whether I'm for or against geese, quarries and big tomatoes, but screaming about children doesn't automatically make someone right.

This child-as-god mentality is only part of the reason why there is now a growing backlash on the part of child-free adults.

The child-free (not childless, which implies that something is sadly missing) have grown weary of a world run amok with parents who believe that having children gives them automatic entitlement to the world.

As a story in last week's New York Times Magazine pointed out, the child-free in our midst are now railing against the entire "everything for the children" mentality, from the inconvenience of child-guard caps to the unfairness of being expected to work longer hours because a co-worker has to leave early for the kid's soccer game/dental appointment/child-care issue.

You know what? They have a point.

There's no question that certain recent, pro-family changes were long overdue in the workplace. Flex time and paternity leave, for example, are good things. And the plethora of family restaurants that cater to kids are great for parents.

But the child-free argue that some of the perks for parents discriminate against them. Why does a family health-insurance policy for two cost the same as for five? Why should parents get a $500 tax credit just for having a kid? Why are upscale restaurants getting so "child-friendly" that the evening is ruined for everyone except the child's parents? Why are children allowed to bounce a basketball in the neighborhood from dawn to dusk, setting the neighbors' teeth on edge?

"Because they're chiiiiildren!" isn't good enough.

I'm child-free myself, if having grown-up children qualifies. I don't have child-care issues, I don't get up in the middle of the night with a pukey kid and I never have to leave work early for a Little League game.

I remember what that was like, though, and I have sympathy for those going through it. I also feel some envy. It was fun having little kids in the house. I wouldn't have chosen to be child-free for the world.

But I don't recall expecting a child-free co-worker to pick up the slack for me. I don't recall demanding that the world be child-proofed for them. And I don't recall expecting them to be welcome everywhere.

After all, there are adults on board, too.