Ms. Trunchbull, the evil headmistress in Roald Dahl’s classic book Matilda, said of children ”small people should never be seen by anybody. They should be kept out of sight in boxes like hairpins and buttons.”
That was originally supposed to be comic dystopian fiction, and Trunchbull was supposed to be a ridiculous, laughable character, summed up by her view that the perfect school would have no children at all in it.
But I have bad news: Today there are Trunchbull types absolutely everywhere, and some of you may unwittingly – or even by choice – be amongst their ranks. Those of whom I speak have no children, don’t regret that fact, and insist they are living their best lives – but this is alone not what makes them heirs to Trunchbull.
No, it is that today they also demand the banning of other people’s children from public spaces. Specifically, I am talking about the rise in venues that cater specifically to people who do not want to be anywhere near children: Child-free hotels. Child-free restaurants. Child-free playgrounds is probably next.
In other words the people I write of like nothing more than to have children everywhere banished from their presence – if not actually locked up in the proverbial chokey – only (and this is the rub) to appear a few years later as perfectly formed taxpaying adults, ready to pay their pensions and work as their nursemaids in retirement.
This is the anti-child, pro-segregation movement and the French, for one, have had enough of it.
I absolutely love the French. I love their churches, I love that nothing opens on Sunday and I love the style. So I was not surprised to hear that the government is pushing back on the ridiculous and borderline evil anti-child agenda:
“Adult-only hotels, campsites and restaurants could face prosecution in France under a government plan to crack down on a “no-kids” movement that it says poses a threat to society. The move comes amid an anguished debate over what some observers say is mounting intolerance towards children in a country that is already facing a falling birthrate.
Sarah El Haïry, the high commissioner for childhood, said the “no-kids trend” amounted to “violence against children.”
Her target is not couples who decide to remain childless, but adults who do not want to be disturbed by other people’s children.”
Amen.
Laurence Rossignol, a socialist senator, who plans to introduce a private member’s bill making it illegal to ban children from establishments such as hotels said “it is without doubt a discrimination. It is a sign of intolerance in our societies. It is the ultimate stage of a society in which children have disappeared from collective space because they are considered too noisy or turbulent.”
Rossignol is absolutely correct to oppose the growing hostility towards children which only makes it harder for people to have children and then contributes to a declining fertility rate.
I have written before that the main issue with low birth rates is a simple one: That we have fewer children. That in turn leads to a secondary consequence – that we have lower tolerance for the children who already exist, and their childlike ways.
Look, I understand how children can be annoying (more on that later) but this move to ban children from the public sphere is wrong. It is not primarily driven by the ‘childfree’ but it is certainly part of the entire movement that says, children are an annoying inconvenience that I would rather not have to suffer whatsoever.
Not everyone who is childfree supports this new segregation but a lot do. And those people are selfish. It is bad enough that the childfree have (in many cases, where the decision is voluntary) actively chosen not to carry on the next generation yet are happy to rely on other people’s children to fund their pensions. But the fact that they do not want other people’s children around them for a certain period of time just compounds the selfishness.
Because in truth what the anti-child, pro-segregation movement are saying is that we don’t want children and we don’t want to be around other people’s children but only while they are children.
Because funny enough other people’s children become important to the childfree once they grow up to be adults.
The manager of the childfree hotel that the childfree are staying at was once (and I shouldn’t have to state the obvious) a child that has been raised to become a responsible adult. The waitress who is bringing the childfree couple their fancy drinks by the pool with the umbrella in it was also someone else’s child. And the children that are currently children but will grow up to be plumbers, nurses, teachers, and hip replacement inventor people, oh the childfree can’t get enough of those children, but only once they become useful adults.
The no children near me movement wants the following set up: They want all their extra time and income they save from not having children themselves and they also want parents who have not only gone to great time, expense and sheer energy of raising the next generation of children to do so out of the sight and sound of the Childfree Overlords. The sheer selfishness of it is breathtaking.
Even Lady Grantham spent an ‘hour everyday’ with her children. The self-absorbed and self-obsessed childfree can’t even handle that.
(It shouldn’t have to be said but if you are childfree for whatever reason but are pro-children as in you do not want to see them banned from the public sphere then the above does not apply to you so don’t bother leaving angry comments.)
It is also very bad for children to be shunned, shamed and segregated like this. Oh I know what you will say – they are all feral, the parents let them do whatever they like. And in some cases this is true. But the answer to this is not to segregate children further so they can become feral animals.
The solution is to make it clear that children should try to be civilised in public. This does not mean handing them a screen the whole time. It means parents should indeed tell their children that they are in public and they cannot scream and shout and if that can’t be managed then they must go back to their room to chill out. No one dislikes excessive noise more than me.
This is how societies used to raise the next generation – there is give and take. One must learn to rub along with other people, even people you may not like.
As for babies, if you see a mother struggling with a baby crying or a toddler throwing a tantrum your instinct should be to offer to help her. It should not be to demand that said mother and her crying infant be banished to the Chokey. What the heck is wrong with you?
I was once on a flight and baby John (my youngest) was about 1. It was stressful – he was crying and he was kicking the seat in front of him which I know is very annoying. I tried to calm him and apologised to the women in front of me. He eventually settled. The woman in question was very nice and said yes it was annoying but she understood. This is called living in a society, and I was grateful to her for her consideration.
Also, while I have you, if this entire anti-child, pro-segregation movement takes off I would like to banish a few annoying people myself from the public sphere. As I always say, if the children are bad the adults are usually ten times worse.
I would like a hen and stag free bar first. Also I demand an obnoxious man on his mobile phone free coffee shop. And I certainly want to ban all the old people grumbling on about their meds from public spaces, because that’s how we are living is it not? Like strangers. Oh who am I kidding no one even notices anyone or anything anymore as they are all on their wretched phones.
So that’s my rage for the day. The only people who should be banned from public spaces are those who are promoting this entire anti–child, pro–segregation movement. It is the Chokey for them.