But seriously, this seems like part of the distinction being drawn: that mamis and kids and papis and abuelitas and non-kid-bearing members of the community (including the queers, the trans sisters & brothers, etc.) are just that: members of the community.

This historical blip that has been mostly middle class white folks living separated from their extended families in nuclear units in the suburbs – I wonder how something that is such a fiction got so much traction? (Some perfect storm of postwar trauma combined with racism combined with cheap automobiles and capital’s drive to alienate people from each other?)

They (truly) listen when I speak, if I ask them to repeat what I said, they can repeat it almost verbatim. What I say is important to them. They’re fully engaged and enjoy our quality time. They respect me, because I respect them and it’s become less about what I’m “adding” to their lives or teaching them and more about the gifts they give me (what has opened up for me): a geniune concern for “my” well-being and love that’s accepts me for EXACTLY who I am. How often can we say that about how “adult” relationships?

If I didn’t welcome those relationship(s) into my life, I may never have fully realized the potential of my (own) life.

Gracias,

A

Cosign to everything Aaminah said, but that in particular stood out to me. It was a real revelation to me as an adult that not everyone grew up that way. Even now, I have a hard time imagining the logistics of how someone could grow up in a way other than that—being quietly (or relatively quietly, definitely respectfully) present with the grown-ups. Me and my cousins had a tradition of what we called “spying on the grown-ups”, where we would engage in hilariously elaborate ways of sneaking a listen to what we weren’t “supposed” to be hearing (gotta remember, that was back in the days of all the superspy programs and/or re-runs on tv! we weren’t eavesdropping, we were spying, lol!!)…..and in reality, all our adult relatives knew we were present, at all times. It’s like a ritual of introducing growing children into the world of adult thoughts, conversations, and intimate experiences. But most of the time, there wasn’t even that pretense—it was a frank acknowledgement and place at the table, for kids who were old enough to prove (by our behavior/response) that we were ready.

By “logistics”, I mean—how can children be that sheltered, even if that was a parent’s desire? (which, it wasn’t mine—sheltering just means the former child doesn’t have the mental/emotional resources for adulthood when he or she becomes an adult—-it was my (extended) family’s practice to require a level of responsibility and independence that it seemed the outside world frowned upon).

I like what bfp said about “apprenticeship”, because that seems to me the natural progression of parenting. Why throw blockades in our way?

But what seems to happen at conferences, and what i understand the issues being raised being, is that either women are told they can’t bring their kids, which for most of us means we just can’t go. sometimes perhaps it’s just a classist lack of clue that for many of us it isn’t possible to find someone to take care of our kids for us to attend. but more often, i think it is an unspoken sigh of relief by organizers who do want to exclude “those kind” of women. and the thing is, when a conference actually SAYS mamis and children are welcome, well, yeah, we expect them to make us welcome. we expect that they have taken into account some basic realities, like that people who have flown into this city they don’t know aren’t going to have transportation, can’t afford to take the kids out to eat for every meal anyway, that the kids need something to do for the WHOLE time parents are going to be in the conference, and that yeah, kids need to not be kept apart from their parents that whole time either.

Like BFP i grew up in a family where the kids sat with the grown ups and we were expected to behave or go outside. We were not made to feel like we couldn’t or shouldn’t be there, and we learned a lot from listening in, for better or for worse. we were also little activists right alongside our parents, and there’s a lot i learned about activism, about history, about radical thought, because of that, even if some of what i learned was that i radically disagreed with my parents (for example, we participated in anti-abortion pickets… i don’t regret walking with my parents on that even if i dislike it because i learned so many things from it, including how much i disliked the people around us).

i’m just saying i think there is a difference between looking after kids and entertaining them. there are so many ways to look after them, to allow them into community, without it being a huge burden on anyone or anyone having to feel like they’re being asked to do something they don’t want to do.

Good point Aaminah. I said that women do not have to like kids and that EVERYBODY – meaning every person in the room – does not have to look after them when kids are present. BUT acknowledgment and treating them with respect is the minimum.

I have a habit of distracting toddlers in the midst of noisy tantrums in my store… I now do it everywhere, it works so well. (I initially started doing this because the racket was giving me a splitting headache, particularly after the 20th kid has decided to show out for the day.)

I stand before them, open my eyes cartoon-wide, say OMIGOOOOODNESS! And sometimes, I talk about their clothes or shoes or toy or whatever they have with them: “That’s a nice doll! What’s her name?” etc. If there is music playing on the overhead PA and I know it, I sing it. (Last time it happened, the song was “Stayin Alive”–which is perfect for childlike goofiness.)

And about 75% of the time, they stop crying immediately, distracted and just gape at me.

I have stopped the tantrum.

About 50% of the kids who stop and gape, stop crying and fussing totally and forget they were having a tantrum. Many will break out a spontaneous smile. The others might continue making whimpering noises, but I took the wind out of their sails, they have lost their juice; they forgot what they were upset about.

The parents beam at me, happy and grateful. Some quietly say “Oh THANK YOU!” (And one of them actually brought me a Christmas present one year.)

And then there are the 15% or so whose parents SHIELD them from the crazy lady.

My first thought: “Well, okay, if you want your kid to continue howling in your face and deafening you, I guess it’s your call!”

But I have wondered: do they even know what I am doing? Do they want the child to stop crying or NOT?

Is it more important to have TOTAL CONTROL over their own children and everything they see and find amusing, than it is to make sure their children are happy? (Not to mention the happiness of other customers who do not want to be deafened that day!)

In these cases, I believe so. If their kid cries, THEY will handle it, thankyouverymuch. Their kid has THE RIGHT to cry. And yes, that attitude has everything to do with race and class as currently constructed in America. Since they take the same attitude with everyone else’s kid: handle it yourself.

Apologies for too much talking. A subject that interests me, as you can see.

The teachers (mostly white) said it lay with the parents.

The research team piloted a program training teachers to cultivate strong relationships with their students – the kind of relationships the teachers previously handed off to the parents. And lo and behold the kids started succeeding. The big change was in teacher’s minds of what was or was not their responsibility.

When my aunt had her first baby, it was really fussy and colicky and she was severely under-rested and even though I’m not crazy about kids, when it looked like she was going to snap and potentially hurt the kid the first thing that came to mind wasn’t “maybe children’s services should get involved” — it was, well, I should take this baby out of her arms and tell her to get some damn rest. I feel like a lot of people would do that for family or friends, but like me, would hesitate to reach out like that to a stranger. But why? If state intervention isn’t right for my aunt why is it right for someone’s else’s aunt just by virtue of them being *someone else’s*? That’s rather arbitrary isn’t it?

And honestly, how would I have survived as a kid without teachers and charitable strangers stepping in, taking care of me when my parent couldn’t (emotionally or financially)?

At some point we have to stop thinking of ourselves and each other as strangers and instead start thinking of ourselves – including kids – as community members. And figuring out what our relationships are to community members in different spaces – from a neighbourhood to a conference room to the planet as a whole. Isn’t the shit we do to animals and the environment really just another failure to integrate them into our community (or ourselves into theirs)?

It reminds me of the taxes I pay as a Canadian that go towards free healthcare for all (documented) Canadians. Do I have to like all Canadians to pay taxes? No. Will I even *meet* a fraction of the people my taxes help? Never. But they are paying their taxes so that I can afford the doctor and I am paying my taxes so that *they* can afford the doctor, and that feels like an act of love to me.