Child-free places are great, but do we really need any more?
Timothy P. Carney
Video Embed
Ten years ago, when there was a rash of adult writers being upset about crying babies on planes, I supported the compromise position, that airplanes should offer no-baby sections on some flights.
On a selfish level, I figured this would benefit me: the baby-averse would pay extra to sit in a baby-free area and this would result, in aggregate, in lower ticket prices for those like me, who find babies cute and who can effectively tune out babies crying and sympathize with parents who have their upset babies on board.
DESANTIS SHOWCASES ABILITY TO GOVERN WITH HURRICANE RESPONSE
More broadly, I agree that child-free places are good to have. My wife and I for our 15th anniversary went to an adults-only resort (and avoided the nudist parts), which provided a nice break for us since our daily lives and most of our vacations involve lots of children.
Ten years after this debate flared up, European airlines are offering tickets in a no-kids section, and I’m rethinking my support of this idea.
Turkey’s Corendon Airlines “has just announced it is introducing child-free zones on one of its routes. The so-called ‘Only Adult’ zone will be accessible to passengers over the age of 16,” reports Euro News.
I think an airline has every right to do this. They could make a “no reclining” section or a “no eating seafood” section if they thought it would make some customers happy. But nowadays, I wonder if these child-free zones will be bad for our culture.
First of all, who the heck is bothered by flying near a 16-year-old? They don’t cry, they don’t yell, they don’t stand on their seats and throw cheerios. The dude just barely at drinking age is the one I would want to be far away from, not the teenager.
But the real problem here is that I think our culture is harmed by having way too many child-free zones. It is obvious when you follow the commentariat that many folks, when speaking of the shape of society, don’t have friends with children, don’t have nieces or nephews, and so forget about the existence of children. Thus the world they want is one that doesn’t accommodate children.
Here’s a typical article about lawns in Scientific American. The author argues, scientifically, I suppose, that lawns’ “primary purpose is to make us look and feel good about ourselves.” Words that never appear in the article: kid, child, parent, family, play, game, or fun.
I’ve also read articles about how nobody needs to own a car, and such articles never consider what it’s like to have children.
Many COVID protocols ignored the effects on children and parents. The most furious lockdowners shouted for closures, masks, and capacity limits while ignoring the effects on children.
Our birthrate is at record lows. There are fewer and fewer children in America every day. So more people are going through their day without seeing children. That means that more people are going through their day without thinking about children. That means that our culture will increasingly be built in a way that is not conducive to children.
A culture with fewer children will in turn demand more places without children. This is exactly what’s happening in very-un-fecund South Korea.
I don’t blame people who want a break from children. I just fear that our culture is already too child-free.