If you’re getting off with your family you should just wait for everyone else to exit first anyway unless you have a connecting flight with no time margin or something. Families are super slow to deboard planes.
If your kids are young, you should probably be allowed to board first before other travelers.
A column by column rule wouldn’t apply to you either way.
Column by column would never work. Most people like leaving together with their friends and loved ones who are sitting next to them, regardless if they are families with children.
Uhh, no. First of all, we aren't slow, second kids have tiny bladders and third when did childless folks become such fragile babies?
Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms.
> when did childless folks become such fragile babies?
Huh? I have a 10 month old and a 3 year old. I am offering advice based on my personal experience.
It’s a lot more pleasant for both us and everyone else if we wait for faster groups to clear out first. After sitting on a plane for 2–12 hours, waiting an extra 5 minutes is not a big deal.
> Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms.
I have a 5 and 9 year old and fly regularly. I don't know if you've considered the amount of time that can elapse from seat belt sign on for landing to deplaning. Nevermind a turbulent flight.
And trying to use the bathroom at the rear of a plane that just arrived isn't really going to smooth the deplaning process.
But like I said, my family is not slowing anyone down, we're usually faster because we're ready and the adults organized the kids while we waited for our turn.
What’s new is that they also just don’t care.
Or as others call it - "common courtesy"
I don't have children but I can understand that parenting is stressful enough as it is. Why go about making it worse for them?
I’m not pushing anything into anyone. But just try to push me aside because I have kids!
My kids have just as much right to public spaces as anyone else. If it offends you that the kid acts in a way befitting a kid that’s your problem.
This of course means that I'm currently pretty sure that most _parents_ don't get it and that the commitment is lost on _them_.
But I'm also sure that they aren't doing anything wrong by having kids, it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people. This trickles down into as fine-grain things as walking efficiently in public so that others aren't bothered and running into you and spending countless hours helping people out with without any reciprocation. So when you do encounter a whirlwind-family in public where the parents do not care about affecting others negatively it's unfortunately easy to become judgmental.
It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off?
That's the thing though. I don't think children are born with a debt to their parents or to society that they have to pay off. Now I don't go around complaining about people with kids, and just wanted to add that there are people who could have a general dislike for things being annoying or 'in the way' which could include children (or rather their parents, I don't think it's fair to put any responsibility on the children). I have a friend with with ASD that gets extremely upset with any disturbances, and who have posted more than a few rants about parents 'not controlling their kids' online, but in his case those posts are not unique to children, but without that context they read as if written by someone tho specifically dislikes kids.
I don't think children by and large have a negative effect on families and the individuals around them (if we are trusting parents, not happiness-studies) and they do have a beneficial effect on society (more people, more taxes, more welfare and happiness for the population), it's just that I don't want to create a person, that _I_ would owe a great life. The idea of viewing children as owing anything to their parents or to society before being able to make decisions for themselves as an 'ancestral sin' (original sin?) is something I feel very uncomfortable with.
Now, the thinking that the child who has no say about being brought into existence has a debt and saying it's a bit late to opt out implies that I (and other people) should have ended it in infancy to avoid this debt, and to gain the right to want things to not be annoying, but I am also pretty sure that it's a completely unreasonable expectation and doubtfully even a biologically possible decision. The consequences of that view seem awful both morally and ethically, thought I think few people spell them out.
But yeah, I don't dislike kids, but I understand someone going on a rant about them being annoying either because they don't know how hard it is or because they view themselves as not impacting others in the same way and wanting others to share their values. But I don't agree that it can be dismissed with a statement like this
> They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them. > What’s new is that they also just don’t care.
I’ll complain that I hate people. But you know what? I’m the one with the problem. Not them. They have every right to be and do as they please. If I don’t like crowds, I can easily avoid them by doing my errands some other time.
Point is, we cannot have society change it self to accommodate every whim. Your friend is ASD, it sucks but that’s just the way his (our) life is.
But, people do not have every right to be and do as they please in public. We have norms and laws and they can change and do vary. There are a lot of limitations specifically on being loud.
There is almost NOTHING you can do with an absolute guarantee in this world: You can't even drive down the road with an absolute guarantee that you won't end up having a stroke and killing few people. IOW - this is the true scotsman equivalent of justification. The idea here is that smart, empathetic and introspective folks have children and in turn raise smart, empathetic and introspective kids, thereby tilting humanity towards enlightenment. I look at it as my part to move humanity forward (the other part being me doing my best to provide for them AND ensure my own life has meaning as well). IOW I don't buy this reason - it sounds like perfection blocking reality to me.
> and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives.
It is awesome that folks adopt: Those kids do need a home. It may even be an ethical thing to do. BUT that doesn't make having your own kid unethical. As I mentioned before, I do believe you have an ethical commitment to move humanity forward as well. Ending your own gene branch just because there are other branches you could take care of is not an alternative: It is more of an orthogonal thing. IOW foster as many kids as you can. I don't buy that it is a replacement to not have kids, especially considering the argument above. If you can't foster, you can always contribute as well to foster care systems in your country.