[QUOTE=Cynthetiq]Actually I know many families who did not do anything outside of the house and homes of other families until the kids grew up to about 7-10 for that very reason. No, they did not travel to see sick relatives with the whole family, only sent a representative of the family when the children were young. If both parents had to attend for whatever reason, they left the child behind with other arrangements.
They didn't NEVER get on a plane. They didn't get on a plane with young children, nor go out to restaurants or movies. It was and is a simple sacrifice for courtesy. That is also another choice. [?QUOTE]
You really think that people gave up family holidays and seeing relatives as a courtesy to those without children?
I have a large bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, if you believe that. People do make choices not to travel when they have young children. Young kids are often not terribly entertained by the Louvre, Versailles, St. Paul's, and the Great Wall of China the way older children and adults are. They don't get much out of a large expenditure and my child is pretty happy playing in the local park. But I can pretty much guarantee that the majority really aren't making your comfort part of the equation when deciding whether or not to travel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I would gather to say not different than you not expecting your neighbor to use power tools in the middle of the night or have a barking dog during all hours. Those aren't unreasonable expectations.
|
Lovely - equating a child to a dog.
At any rate, you're back apples and oranges. Noise ordinances and nuisance pet by-laws exist for a reason in most communities. Such by-laws certainly don't pertain to children traveling on heavily government subsidized transportation.