This is the first time I've gotten personal, but LeCastor, don't you claim to be a law student? You can join the other law student whiner on this list who fears about getting a job, gasp, b/c someone asks to pump in the workplace. The logic skills are clearly missing.

Many many parents do not even think the things you accuse them off (Janet Jackson, sex ed, Huckleberry Finn, etc.) I happen to take opposite positions on most of the things you listed. Not only am I a arent, but a lawyer who now works on behalf of children. I'm not interested in these things, such as pumping in the workplace for myself (BTDT & won't be doing it again) but for the greater benefits to society.

Perhaps it should be chalked up to youthful ignorance. You can be against pumping in the workplace, be my guest, but don't make assumptions about all parents...what statistics/facts etc. are you basing your argument on?

You're right, not all parents are that way. Perhaps i didn't make myself clear. I know a few parents who understand that children don't belong in bars, nightclubs, or fancy restaurants, that nipples and "bad language" are more or less okay. My boss this summer has 2 children, apparently one of her daughter's first words was "jackass republican." But anyhoo, of course not all parents want to make the whole world kid-friendly, but many do, and many want to involve me somehow, directly or indirectly, in the parenting of their parents. Like just 2 days ago, i was at a bar, a nice trendy one, and someone brought their toddler. Now, first of all, i would say it's too dirty to crawl around on the floor, it might be unsafe with drunk people stumbling around, and now, can i continue to have my profanity-laden conversation about Playboy with my friends in the presence of this child? That's what i'm talking about, and then a restaurant asks people not to bring their kids, and there's an uproar.

As for a job, i don't really have any problems in that departnemt.

I'm delighted that LeCastor's "anti-child" prejudices don't seem to extend to the idea that any economic investment in children's economic welfare makes losers of childfree adults. But some people on this thread do seem to be making that claim, and that's what I was reacting to.

First of all, "anti-child"! I'm not anti-child any more than you are anti-jewish. Just because you don't practice it or don't want to doesn't make you "anti" something. I don't like celery, but i'm not anti-celery. I'm not going on a crusade asking grocery stores to not sell celery and restaurants to not use it.

As for children as investment, i think they're probably a pretty bad investment for the parents. I'm being a little silly here, but, the only monetary return you can hope to gain is them supporting you, and you are not guaranteed that at all. They might turn out to be single moms working as baristas at starbucks.

Keep in mind that it is convenient for politicians to cloak a lot of proposed legislation as "pro-child" or "pro-family" when it is another beast entirely; certainly it's been a candy coating for anti-gay-marriage legislation. That doesn't mean that parents actually back all of this legislation in large numbers. And this legislation should not be confused with legislation that is actually pro-child. I am against a lot of the ideas that are paraded as "pro-family". No parents I know espouse all (and most espouse none) of the ideas LeCastor presented, but I could see how this seems the work of parents because that's how it's packaged.

Maybe you're right, but even though some parants i know are not crazy, many people say that having children moves their political views to the right.

Also keep in mind that most of us who are "children first" put childrens NEEDS first, not children's WANTS first. That might not be obvious in the era of "My Super Sweet Sixteen" or whatever that show is called.

Yeah, but then it depends on what you call needs and what you call wants. Does a child absolutely need to be in a bar? Does a child absolutely need to not see the Cosmo cover?

Deering, i completely agree with your whole post.

Obviously, your list of heroes (Marian Anderson, Albert Schweitzer, et al.) WERE working for the benefit of OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. That was my POINT.

Well my friend, if i work as a mortgage securitization attorney for 100 hours a week, i'm benefitting other people's children too, because my work allows mutual funds to buy investments, and that allows families to invest their money into mutual funds, and to have savings, or retirement fundsm, which benefits their children. So, just because i don't prostrate myself on your chidlren's behalf doesn't mean my childfree existence doens't benefit you.

I did NOT say that the only meaningful work is "caring" for children. I said that INVESTING in children is essential in any decent society, and I stand by that.

There you go with decency again. All decency means is "i think this is good." it's not an argument, it's just a restatement of your previous opinions.

I DID say that all of society has an interest in making a better world for all children. Because children are human beings, like us, and their needs matter, like ours. Because we have power and they don't. Because what we do now affects what kind of world they will inherit from us.

Indeed. So what if they grow up and realize that their parents worked really hard, and now the whole world is kid-friednly and sanitized?