I thought about this a lot, and honestly, I am of two minds here. On one hand, mothers should be able to participate in political action, and it's often true that the lack of community and childcare means they can't do that. That said, I wasn't able to attend the Hands Off protest in my red state suburb because I didn't have childcare. I didn't feel like my 2 and 4 year old could be adequately supervised in an environment with a lot of yelling, counterprotesting, and even some altercations. I expected that might happen, and it did. It seems sensible to me that any child who is too young to attend without a play structure nearby is likely too young to meaningfully understand, to keep themselves and others safe, and to be there.
I do think turning a protest into a block party somewhat undermines your ability to keep your wits about you and remember you are engaging in resistance, with its elements of risk. Also, if I were supervising my children in a bouncy castle, I don't think I would have been *doing the thing.* I might as well have taken them to a park.
There is a difference between inclusion/accessibility (is it physically possible to do this thing) and our preferences - and while there is overlap, I don't think we can say a protest is *inaccessible* to children if they're bored.
I echo the thought that communities should be thoughtful about childcare when planning political actions - and offer, say, a church/mosque/temple basement or community center for children whose parents want to participate. It's interesting to me that we don't consider that a form of resistance - caretaking is about as political as it gets.
So, I'm firmly on team Little Kids Don't Belong At Protests. They can't consent to being there, they usually don't understand the issue at hand, and their safety could be at risk. If they are young enough to want a bouncy castle and not old enough to not be bored, then they shouldn't attend.
Now, I do like the suggestion of the poster who said if you want a bouncy castle, rent one yourself and make that a safe place to land (heh, heh) for the kids in your community while their parents are at the protest. I actually think that's a great idea and am now mulling over what kind of childcare options could be a part of mutual aid.
Part of me agrees that if protests were big, fun, family friendly events, more people would attend to protest joyfully and safely, after all, I didn’t bring my young kids to the DC protest this weekend because I feared for their safety (also I have Covid, but unrelated). It’s a nice idea! But ultimately, the reason that doesn’t work is because once the protest becomes a fun event, people who don’t care will start to attend and then even people with opposite opinions will demand they can attend and are catered too, as well. And then yeah…you no longer have a protest but a carnival. Joyfully protesting seems nice but ultimately I think protests have to be uncomfortable…it’s kind of the point.
I appreciate the quotes you used from people who had thoughtful opinions and could see the nuance of the situation because I can't get away from my knee-jerk reaction, which echoed those of the user who said "It's not a fucking carnival." Yes, a bouncy house would make the event more fun for kids, but is a protest even supposed to be fun?? I just think it's ok to take some things seriously. Nobody complained that there were no water slides at the Boston Tea Party.
Y'all have good and nuanced takes here! I think it's worth mentioning that, unless there's a clear threat/risk, there's some middle ground for little kids. I don't take my kid to protests for any significant length of time, but he's listened to books that explain protesting and we stop and notice when people are protesting in our city's main square, normalizing it in case he can or wants to participate when he's older. I know this is a separate thing from entertaining kids at the site of a protest, but it seems fair to pick your percentage of parenting-focus time and percentage of protesting time based on your particular kid's needs. We do a decent amount of walking and strollering around downtown, and it seems very reasonable to pop in and out of a protest, cycling out to do the work of parenting a kid who isn't the right age for a sustained occupation of a particular protest space.
Exposure is honestly great! And I think there’s this sense you’ve hit on here that there are a lot of ways to do conscious parenting. It’s not “be at a protest the entire time or do nothing!” We can parent in ways that scaffold to something like this.
The consent question is a really interesting one. I make all kinds of decisions for my toddler - as she gets older, I try and give her as much autonomy as I can, but ultimately sometimes she has to do things she doesn’t like (sunscreen, every day, ugh) or that have risks she can’t comprehend. Realistically, a child is far more likely to be harmed in a car accident than at a protest, and that’s a risk I accept on her behalf.
All that said, I have chosen not to take her to recent protests in my country because of the risk of violence from counterprotesters, but a lot of people have made different choices and I fully respect that (and somewhat envy their courage!). As long as they’re not expecting bouncy castles…
I think that's more accurate - when I make decisions for my kids that they won't like or agree with, I think of the risk vs benefit to the child. The benefit of brushing her teeth? 100% benefit, likely no risk. A car, yes, is risky, but also we need that transportation in order to make a living and get them where they need to go. For me to do something against their will, the benefit needs to be pretty substantial - and that threshold goes up as the risk goes up and also goes up further when the benefits go down.
A protest is murkier to me. The benefit to is less clear - at a very young age, there may be almost no benefit. The risk is highly dependent on location and also the children you have. I don't think anyone is necessarily violating their kids' consent by going to a protest, but certainly there are some instances where I would determine that my kids are too young to fully understand and consent. I would take that into account.
As someone with a toddler AND a chronic illness, protests aren't really practical for me. Some of this is how they are set up, and there's absolutely things that could be done to make them more welcoming/inclusive/accessible. But (and this may be controversial and get me cancelled but here I go anyway): maybe these events just aren't for me? Some events and spaces can never been fully accessible and inclusive due to the nature of the event. And as someone else said, there's a risk of changing it so much it loses it's original meaning and purpose and becomes a carnival. As a teacher union rep I have done labor day marches and protests without a toddler, and it was honestly costly. I don't know if it would be possible in this life stage, and maybe that's okay?
I felt really conflicted about this! I wanted to go to a protest, but I wasn’t sure how the timing would work over the weekend. Ultimately I took my toddler to a smaller, safe protest a suburb. We walked through the crowd, cheer a little bit, and then he got bored so we peeled away and he ran around in an outdoor mall a few feet away.
But, I live in a very blue city in a very blue state, and I felt safe at a small suburban protest. Would I take my almost 2 year old to the big downtown protest? No. If I lived somewhere less blue, I probably wouldn’t take my child. I think, with anything, it depends!
I also at a glance thought that original poster was joking. But I guess not, yikes.
So, I've seen this post and I 100% thought it was a joke? And that, like anytime moms post something that becomes viral on the internet, people take it too seriously and say things that they would never say to a mom in person. I genuinely do not think this poster thinks there should be bouncy castles at a protest.
As to whether kids belong at protests, I agree with your point that kids are human beings and are therefore inherently political. I think when you're fighting for the rights of your country to even exist (Canada!) or for it to not be beholden to a fascist takeover (US!), then take the whole damn crew because you're fighting for THEM and their ability to even have a future. And you're fighting for the people who can't take time off work to be there or they're scared they'll be arrested because of the colour of their skin or they've simply decided to stay home with the kids because kids are kids and probably being at a protest without a bouncy castle would be boring for a lot of them. But sometimes we have to take kids to boring things because temporary discomfort on their end has been outweighed by the crisis at hand.
This is interesting. Here’s where I agree: For older children, I think strategic boredom can be a growth experience. Not everything needs to be fun. Kids old enough to be bored without being genuinely disruptive is not my wheelhouse really, my oldest is 4.
That said, I am pretty stubborn about taking children as unwilling participants to something like this. Everyone at a protest is taking a risk, and they should consent to that risk, which to me requires enthusiasm. I don’t know that I think the cause is enhanced by a bunch of bored elementary kids being there or that if you don’t foster civic engagement of this type at a young age kids are doomed to political disengagement.
Children did not make this crisis, and it is not their responsibility to fix it, either.
Lauren already said everything I'm thinking better than I could, but-- just wanted to clarify that the original poster seems to be 100% serious. She deleted the initial post but doubled down x20 in the replies, posted further follow-ups, and her previous posts seemed just as tone deaf as this suggestion.
Oh, interesting. I guess that's why she deleted the post then. I guess sometimes it's hard for me to believe that people that tone-deaf exist. I do agree with Lauren that there is an issue of consent to risk with children, especially young ones. And perhaps my opinion of how safe a protest is reflects where I live (I'm Canadian) vs. America.
One of her replies was “for people saying do you know how hard it is to organize a bouncy castle, of course I do, I’m a mom. We do it all the time” and that’s the comment that made me realize she was serious and also so confused about thinking people were going to agree with her
Hands Off Chicago was the same time and location as Paw Patrol Live and I think if we'd had a bouncy castle we could've had even more adorable crossover.
I thought about this a lot, and honestly, I am of two minds here. On one hand, mothers should be able to participate in political action, and it's often true that the lack of community and childcare means they can't do that. That said, I wasn't able to attend the Hands Off protest in my red state suburb because I didn't have childcare. I didn't feel like my 2 and 4 year old could be adequately supervised in an environment with a lot of yelling, counterprotesting, and even some altercations. I expected that might happen, and it did. It seems sensible to me that any child who is too young to attend without a play structure nearby is likely too young to meaningfully understand, to keep themselves and others safe, and to be there.
I do think turning a protest into a block party somewhat undermines your ability to keep your wits about you and remember you are engaging in resistance, with its elements of risk. Also, if I were supervising my children in a bouncy castle, I don't think I would have been *doing the thing.* I might as well have taken them to a park.
There is a difference between inclusion/accessibility (is it physically possible to do this thing) and our preferences - and while there is overlap, I don't think we can say a protest is *inaccessible* to children if they're bored.
I echo the thought that communities should be thoughtful about childcare when planning political actions - and offer, say, a church/mosque/temple basement or community center for children whose parents want to participate. It's interesting to me that we don't consider that a form of resistance - caretaking is about as political as it gets.
So, I'm firmly on team Little Kids Don't Belong At Protests. They can't consent to being there, they usually don't understand the issue at hand, and their safety could be at risk. If they are young enough to want a bouncy castle and not old enough to not be bored, then they shouldn't attend.
Now, I do like the suggestion of the poster who said if you want a bouncy castle, rent one yourself and make that a safe place to land (heh, heh) for the kids in your community while their parents are at the protest. I actually think that's a great idea and am now mulling over what kind of childcare options could be a part of mutual aid.
Part of me agrees that if protests were big, fun, family friendly events, more people would attend to protest joyfully and safely, after all, I didn’t bring my young kids to the DC protest this weekend because I feared for their safety (also I have Covid, but unrelated). It’s a nice idea! But ultimately, the reason that doesn’t work is because once the protest becomes a fun event, people who don’t care will start to attend and then even people with opposite opinions will demand they can attend and are catered too, as well. And then yeah…you no longer have a protest but a carnival. Joyfully protesting seems nice but ultimately I think protests have to be uncomfortable…it’s kind of the point.
I appreciate the quotes you used from people who had thoughtful opinions and could see the nuance of the situation because I can't get away from my knee-jerk reaction, which echoed those of the user who said "It's not a fucking carnival." Yes, a bouncy house would make the event more fun for kids, but is a protest even supposed to be fun?? I just think it's ok to take some things seriously. Nobody complained that there were no water slides at the Boston Tea Party.
To be fair, you know those guys were having fun doing their little dress up and throwing things into the sea.
Y'all have good and nuanced takes here! I think it's worth mentioning that, unless there's a clear threat/risk, there's some middle ground for little kids. I don't take my kid to protests for any significant length of time, but he's listened to books that explain protesting and we stop and notice when people are protesting in our city's main square, normalizing it in case he can or wants to participate when he's older. I know this is a separate thing from entertaining kids at the site of a protest, but it seems fair to pick your percentage of parenting-focus time and percentage of protesting time based on your particular kid's needs. We do a decent amount of walking and strollering around downtown, and it seems very reasonable to pop in and out of a protest, cycling out to do the work of parenting a kid who isn't the right age for a sustained occupation of a particular protest space.
Exposure is honestly great! And I think there’s this sense you’ve hit on here that there are a lot of ways to do conscious parenting. It’s not “be at a protest the entire time or do nothing!” We can parent in ways that scaffold to something like this.
The consent question is a really interesting one. I make all kinds of decisions for my toddler - as she gets older, I try and give her as much autonomy as I can, but ultimately sometimes she has to do things she doesn’t like (sunscreen, every day, ugh) or that have risks she can’t comprehend. Realistically, a child is far more likely to be harmed in a car accident than at a protest, and that’s a risk I accept on her behalf.
All that said, I have chosen not to take her to recent protests in my country because of the risk of violence from counterprotesters, but a lot of people have made different choices and I fully respect that (and somewhat envy their courage!). As long as they’re not expecting bouncy castles…
I think that's more accurate - when I make decisions for my kids that they won't like or agree with, I think of the risk vs benefit to the child. The benefit of brushing her teeth? 100% benefit, likely no risk. A car, yes, is risky, but also we need that transportation in order to make a living and get them where they need to go. For me to do something against their will, the benefit needs to be pretty substantial - and that threshold goes up as the risk goes up and also goes up further when the benefits go down.
A protest is murkier to me. The benefit to is less clear - at a very young age, there may be almost no benefit. The risk is highly dependent on location and also the children you have. I don't think anyone is necessarily violating their kids' consent by going to a protest, but certainly there are some instances where I would determine that my kids are too young to fully understand and consent. I would take that into account.
As someone with a toddler AND a chronic illness, protests aren't really practical for me. Some of this is how they are set up, and there's absolutely things that could be done to make them more welcoming/inclusive/accessible. But (and this may be controversial and get me cancelled but here I go anyway): maybe these events just aren't for me? Some events and spaces can never been fully accessible and inclusive due to the nature of the event. And as someone else said, there's a risk of changing it so much it loses it's original meaning and purpose and becomes a carnival. As a teacher union rep I have done labor day marches and protests without a toddler, and it was honestly costly. I don't know if it would be possible in this life stage, and maybe that's okay?
I felt really conflicted about this! I wanted to go to a protest, but I wasn’t sure how the timing would work over the weekend. Ultimately I took my toddler to a smaller, safe protest a suburb. We walked through the crowd, cheer a little bit, and then he got bored so we peeled away and he ran around in an outdoor mall a few feet away.
But, I live in a very blue city in a very blue state, and I felt safe at a small suburban protest. Would I take my almost 2 year old to the big downtown protest? No. If I lived somewhere less blue, I probably wouldn’t take my child. I think, with anything, it depends!
I also at a glance thought that original poster was joking. But I guess not, yikes.
I think location and political leanings in that location make a huge difference, for sure!
So, I've seen this post and I 100% thought it was a joke? And that, like anytime moms post something that becomes viral on the internet, people take it too seriously and say things that they would never say to a mom in person. I genuinely do not think this poster thinks there should be bouncy castles at a protest.
As to whether kids belong at protests, I agree with your point that kids are human beings and are therefore inherently political. I think when you're fighting for the rights of your country to even exist (Canada!) or for it to not be beholden to a fascist takeover (US!), then take the whole damn crew because you're fighting for THEM and their ability to even have a future. And you're fighting for the people who can't take time off work to be there or they're scared they'll be arrested because of the colour of their skin or they've simply decided to stay home with the kids because kids are kids and probably being at a protest without a bouncy castle would be boring for a lot of them. But sometimes we have to take kids to boring things because temporary discomfort on their end has been outweighed by the crisis at hand.
This is interesting. Here’s where I agree: For older children, I think strategic boredom can be a growth experience. Not everything needs to be fun. Kids old enough to be bored without being genuinely disruptive is not my wheelhouse really, my oldest is 4.
That said, I am pretty stubborn about taking children as unwilling participants to something like this. Everyone at a protest is taking a risk, and they should consent to that risk, which to me requires enthusiasm. I don’t know that I think the cause is enhanced by a bunch of bored elementary kids being there or that if you don’t foster civic engagement of this type at a young age kids are doomed to political disengagement.
Children did not make this crisis, and it is not their responsibility to fix it, either.
Lauren already said everything I'm thinking better than I could, but-- just wanted to clarify that the original poster seems to be 100% serious. She deleted the initial post but doubled down x20 in the replies, posted further follow-ups, and her previous posts seemed just as tone deaf as this suggestion.
Oh, interesting. I guess that's why she deleted the post then. I guess sometimes it's hard for me to believe that people that tone-deaf exist. I do agree with Lauren that there is an issue of consent to risk with children, especially young ones. And perhaps my opinion of how safe a protest is reflects where I live (I'm Canadian) vs. America.
One of her replies was “for people saying do you know how hard it is to organize a bouncy castle, of course I do, I’m a mom. We do it all the time” and that’s the comment that made me realize she was serious and also so confused about thinking people were going to agree with her
I'm also a mom and I've never organized a bouncy castle lollllll
Hands Off Chicago was the same time and location as Paw Patrol Live and I think if we'd had a bouncy castle we could've had even more adorable crossover.