Pendragons Princess

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4212440.ece

When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, my parents would have parties and the children would run around the garden, staying up late and eating what they felt like — there was much less of a controlling atmosphere. Now, we try to control every aspect of our children’s lives. We think we can create the perfect child by giving them the right music lessons or choosing the right pushchair. It is taboo that any conversation with another adult should take precedence over something going on with your child. When I was a child, children played, and I don’t remember expecting my mother to give me her attention no matter what she was doing.

A friend recently bought her two-year-old a pair of squeaky trainers that make the most annoying sound — a noise that would drive any adult insane. The fact that the child wanted the trainers was, for my friend, enough of a justification for inflicting them on herself, her husband and her family. So her world is punctuated by an unbearable high-pitched squeaking. To me, this is a metaphor for our generation’s philosophy of parenting.

Nowadays, people plan their weekends around what their children want to do, rather than having them experience life through their parents. In some marriages I see, the kids end up as a substitute for adult relationships; the relationship between the parents becomes so much about the children that it gets in the way of adult intimacy.
……………………………………………………………………………………

Now Katie has a very good point here, just why are so many parents cultivating “worthwhile relationships” with their children instead of cultivating a worthwhile marriage? Is it possible that in our society, it is much easier for an adult to mold a child to his or her desirable image, rather than actually relating to the spouse or significant other? Read on:

There is a danger in the way we focus on raising our children. The book The Secret Life of a Slummy Mummy, which came out last year, epitomises the romanticising of this idea, this kind of wholesome woman who stays at home and doesn’t aspire to anything. She is not that interested in her looks and yet she is magically attractive to everybody. It’s a perverse glamour, one that adheres to old-fashioned ideas of what a woman should be.
I think it is related to the bitterness we have towards our men for not changing enough nappies or not waking up enough at night, or about who is really doing all the work. To me, worrying about that stuff is a pointless and boring expenditure of energy.

In the 1930s, Winifred Holby, a journalist friend of the writer Vera Brittain, wrote about what she called the “rich unrest of family life”. I think that we’re supposed to embrace that rich unrest. It evokes a different attitude to the difficulty and chaos of child-rearing. We seem to be so oppressed by all these basic aspects of child-rearing, and I wonder if it is not self-imposed.

It also displays a lack of imagination and tolerance. Is it okay if someone raises their children differently, if a mother, instead of giving them art projects, puts them in front of videos at 8am so she can get dressed? Our judgments contain our own insecurities and a lack of imagination.
……………………………………………………………………………………….

Outside of admitting I have never been a child-oriented woman, this would be more than boring for me. I cannot possibly imagine wasting my time thinking up ways to please a child (hardy harhar).

Katie Roiphe is the author of the highly controversial book, The Morning After. It is in this book that she points the finger to the whiny, naive young women who would go to a bar while a student at a university campus, pick up a guy after having a few drinks, then become surprised when she winds up in the guy’s bedroom the morning after. Drug laced drinks at these bars is nothing new but these young women seem terribly surprised at what happens to them. Roiphe argues that these women must take responsibility for accepting these drinks at a bar. Not surprisingly, feminist Camille Paglia also applauds Roiphe’s intellectual feminism. As a long time fan of Paglia who also notes that young women playing the field with men on college campuses, is “treading on dangerous ground.” Common sense prevails here, just as it should with squeezing out a few watermelons. Let’s just hope that American women can grow up out of the baby rabid child worshipping society before we are all done for. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

http://www.ketv.com/cnn-news/17553170/detail.html

Father Talks About Abandoning His 9 Kids

Recent Cases Involving Teens Test Nebraska’s Safe Haven Law

OMAHA, Neb. — The mother of nine kids left at an emergency room in Creighton University Medical Center died from a brain aneurysm 17 months ago, days after delivering the youngest child, said the father.

Gary Staton dropped off his kids Wednesday night at 8 p.m., officials at the Department of Health and Human Services said.

“I was with her for 17 years, and then she was gone. What was I going to do?” Staton said. “We raised them together. I didn’t think I could do it alone. I fell apart. I couldn’t take care of them.”

Staton said he was overwhelmed by his family responsibilities and had to quit his job. He said he couldn’t pay the rent or utilities.

“I was able to get the kids to a safe place before they were homeless,” he said.
He said he made the final decision Wednesday to take the children to Creighton University Medical Center. He said he handed a woman there the birth certificates and said he was there to surrender his kids.

“I hope they know I love them,” he said. “I hope their future is better without me around them.”

Past History

Staton and his wife were cited in 2004 for child neglect, according to Omaha police records. An article in a North High School newspaper quoted Staton’s oldest daughter as saying she graduated at 16, in part to care for her younger siblings.
“I was always feeding kids, checking homework and sending kids to bed,” Amoria Micek was quoted in the paper as saying. “I just don’t have anyone backing me up any more.”

The state’s Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that an 15-year-old boy was taken to Immanuel Hospital at 5 p.m. and an 11-year-old boy was taken to the same hospital at 8:30 p.m.

One of the boys was placed in foster care and the other is still at the hospital undergoing evaluation.

The case brings the total number of children left at Omaha hospitals during the past 24 hours to 11.

Staton will not be charged because of Nebraska’s new Safe Haven law, which states any child under the age of 19 can be left at a hospital if they’re in immediate danger.
The two additional cases are the fifth and sixth tests of the state’s Safe Haven.

Before Wednesday, children ages 11, 13, and 15 were dropped off at hospitals since the law was implemented in July.

State May Revisit Safe Haven Law

Nebraska lawmakers said they may need to clarify the law, which was intended to protect newborn children, if a parent is overwhelmed.

Further, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman called for an amendment to the state’s Safe Haven law Thursday, saying lawmakers likely wrote the bill too broad of a stroke.
“I’m absolutely surprised. When this bill was being discussed in the legislature, we had the discussion that this was going to be about young children and when they were in immediate danger,” Heineman said at an opening for an early childhood care center in Millard. “Like the rest of the country, we wanted to be there to help.

Unfortunately they wrote the language too broad. We now need to amend that to change that.”

Heineman urged parents to take advantage of area nonprofits instead of abandoning children at hospitals.

“I want to continue to encourage parents to really think twice before you leave your kids at a hospital, unless they’re in danger,” he said.

Department of Health and Human Services Reacts

Nebraska’s Safe Haven law was not intended for those having difficulty parenting defiant and unruly youths, according to the state’s Department of Health and Human Services.

Thus, they may still be charged.

“There seems to be a misconception that when a child is dropped off at a hospital, the parents are absolved of responsibility. That couldn’t be further from the truth,” said Toddy Landry, director of the Division of Children and Family Services in Department of Health and Human Services.

Landry said in a press release Thursday that the courts will get involved in the lives of families who drop off children.

He said courts are likely to require parents and guardians to participate in parenting classes, family therapy, conflict resolution or other services and may order child support payments while they are in state custody.

“I am very concerned about the situations we’ve seen so far. I empathize with parents who aren’t sure where to turn, but I want to encourage those families to use other options before taking the drastic step of abandoning a child,” Landry said in the release.

Other options include community support groups, crisis hot lines, treatment centers or other services. Faith-based community services can also be a source of support, Landry said.

“Get the help before you get so desperate to where you drop off your kids at the hospital,” said April Blevins, of Lutheran Family Services.

……………………………………………………………………………………….

I won’t go into the whys of Staton had nine kids with his wife, though it is obvious the last birth took a toll on her body (It’s not a clown car, you know). But really, had the guy been snipped, or his wife gotten Essure, they would not have had this problem. Hopefully the Cornhuskers will realize their version of the Safe Haven law has allowed these abuses of the law to happen. Get it fixed already. (pun intended)
It does sound like the Statons do not know why they had children (just like the rest of them).

I found the following in one of my files and decided this was an appropriate place to post it. Motherhood does not keep a woman’s beauty without Suave:

Topped with a messy child sitting on Mommy’s shoulder. Childfree women have no such problems. Even though I admit to using Suave shampoo and conditioner because they come in nice scents, it’s not like I “need” a product to keep me looking good after chasing a grommet around the house all day long.

Speaking of looking good, I suspect that if I did have a child I would look at least twenty years older than my real age. Now, upon turning forty-one come November, I still look at least twenty but that is precisely because I do not have any kids to turn me into a screaming, screeching, nervous wreck. Who needs that. Childfree people are smarter than what credit is given to us. My husband looks great for his age, too, and he is only a year older than me. He could pass for an 18 year old. Suave’s advertisement in the coupon section of the newspaper is actually a great way to tell the readers, become childfree today - you won’t regret it.

I found the following clipping in an old school folder with other articles on human overpopulation:

From The Hartford Courant, Thursday January 20, 2000

The Problem Is Humans, Not Deer.

I am writing in regard to the recent controversy over the deer hunt in Groton [“Bluff Point Deer Hunt Allowed,” Page 1, January 12]. It seems that those in favor of the hunt believe that they are acting in the best interest of the deer because, due to the overpopulation of deer in the area, most of the herd will die a slow death of starvation that is “less humane” that a quick death by bullet.

The reason the deer in the area are supposedly overpopulated is due to the fact to another species’ overpopulation - humans. The deer herd is too large due to a loss of habitat caused by human development in the area.

Human overpopulation is the main threat to a fragile ecosystem, not a herd of deer. There are millions of starving people in the world, and this too is due to human overpopulation. The more we feed hungry people, the more people reproduce. Then we have even more hungry people starving. The only way to really cure the world hunger problem would be to thin out the population. Wouldn’t this be “more humane” than allowing millions of people to starve to death each year? But I don’t think anyone would endorse the idea of “thinning the herd” of starving people with shotguns and orange vests, even in the most overpopulated parts of Africa or Asia.

I am not saying that I think we should solve the problem of world hunger with a manhunt. What I am saying is that we should not accept a fate for our fellow animals that we are not willing to accept for ourselves.

- Katie A. King, Wethersfield, CT

……………………………………………………………………………………..

This article brings up an interesting viewpoint: while legally organized hunts of wildlife have been held in order to reduce the “swelling” population of wildlife in certain suburban areas, mentioning that the swelling human population must have cures of its own has its own taboos of just how do we do it. I agree, I don’t think anyone would legally endorse eliminating starving people with guns - after all, we have wars to “take care” of that problem - but in reality, it does not do anything to reduce world hunger.
The other problem is, even in poor nations with a high rate of hunger, they also have high rates of birth, particularly in Africa. There are in fact more humane solutions to overpopulation and one of them resides in the childfree community over the world.

From The Arizona Daily Star, January 22, 2006

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/112250

Advice by Carolyn Hax

Dear Carolyn:

I have a group of seven girlfriends who get together about once a month. The topic of children and parenting frequently dominates the conversation, which can annoy the three child-free women. One of them, “Sarah,” has been trying to get pregnant for about two years without success . . . but not every-one knows that, and she doesn’t want everyone to know that.

I’ve talked to a couple of the other mothers and their attitude seems to be, “I have children, so of course I’m going to talk about children, so they need to get over it.”

I make efforts to keep the kid conversation short or change the subject, but even if it comes up for a few minutes, I can see Sarah shrink from the conversation. I’m left feeling really uncomfortable. Should I be?
— Mom

Carolyn responds:

Of course. Your friend is in pain, and you’re forced to watch while others unwittingly make her pain worse. But that doesn’t mean you can or should even try to change anything. Four friends all in one room and all in some active stage of motherhood are going to talk about kids; it could be that you’re particularly sensitive to the volume of kid talk because of Sarah’s situation.

As long as the mothers are mindful of including others and willing to change the subject, there’s nothing wrong with discussing kids “for a few minutes” — just as four of you who have seen the same movie will also want to discuss it, and should feel free to, as long as you don’t let your discussion dominate the evening.

If you’re right, however, that the other three moms dominate the conversation, then they’re being rude. But Sarah’s fertility problem doesn’t change either scenario. It’s just common courtesy neither to banish nor beat to death any one topic of conversation.

If everyone knew of her struggle, then certainly some regard for her feelings would be expected — again, to keep the kid talk moving along, not to stifle it. One person’s pain does not bring all other lives to a halt.

By choosing both to keep her situation private and to keep coming back, Sarah herself has shown that she appreciates this — and, more important, appreciates these friends and these gatherings.

Her choices, however, might also keep her from saying the one thing you (and anyone else) can and should say when needed: “Aaaagh, enough about kids!”

……………………………………………………………………….

Carolyn gives some good advice here. Sarah’s want for a child and not being able to have one that easily can also be a benefit to the childfree women in the group in that if she speaks up along with the childfree women about not wanting to hear about everyone else’s children, maybe the childed women will direct their attention to other subjects of discussion. Childfree politics does make strange bedfellows.

Nowhere is baby rabies more prevalent than the city where I live, a metropolitan area with well over a million people. It’s not even the adults, all of the teenage girls are busy oopsing guys to the max while getting pregnant and parading it in public like some sort of trophy. Well, it is a trophy for them. I am reminded of that scene in the 1952 movie, The Snows of Kilimanjaro. Ava Gardner and Torin Thatcher are in Tanganyika sitting by a campfire while her character tells Thatcher that while Harry (Gregory Peck) has his trophy, she has hers too: she is pregnant. Johnson (Thatcher) is of course surprised when she mentions she is going to thigh crunch soon while Harry is running through Tanganyika (present day Tanzania) dodging and shooting at rhinos, giraffes, and elephants. Given the time frame the film was made it was only appropriate to include an Englishman (Thatcher) as a safari guide for Harry’s group. But back to the baby rabies for a minute.

Working at the main mall in the city, located on Oracle Rd., I see many very young girls hanging out with their boyfriends, sometimes with their girlfriends, and these girls are very obviously pregnant. Without going into too much detail, a former colleague is also in the position of getting herself pregnant: she is not even 18, lives with her boyfriend in a small apartment, and none of their parents know about it. Hello! To top that off, she is also doing a hatstand job of reinforcing stereotypes in this part of the United States: she is supposedly an Evangelical Christian. Aren’t they supposed to abstain from living together, and engaging in sex, before marriage? Whatever. Yeah I know, she sounds like a Bristol Palin wannabe. But like she told me the myth, “Everyone does it.” Only in your world. Do not believe everything you hear - only believe those who have actually done it because it will show physically sooner or later. Rube(y) of the desert variety but in reality there is no excuse for that sort of thing.

Tucson has a number of live theatres, museums, a state university, trade schools of every kind, real entertainment and plenty of real educational material available, not the Sprogging 101 that is being taught at Tucson High School. There is even a community college but most of the natives attend there since their grades, or lack of good grades, rather, won’t permit them to make it into the University of Arizona. They were too busy knocking around, I mean, knocking up at the local high school. It’s more than amazing that these young girls buy into the myth of unwed teenage motherhood being glamorous.
Then they can go on a lifetime supply of welfare checks, just like everyone else in the city. Tammy Faye has joined the ranks of Elsie May and Ruthie Sue.

Don’t forget what the song says:

Thigh crunching away, thigh crunching away
The more you do it quickly now
the more you’re thigh crunching away.

I have had this certain tune going through my head in the past week and tonight I finally got it down in the word processor (OpenOffice, my favorite). I would like to dedicate this to every childed person I know. It is called:

Thigh Crunching Away

sung to the tune of Simon and Garfunkel’s “Slip Sliding Away”

Thigh crunching away, thigh crunching away
The more you do it quickly now
the more you’re thigh crunching away.

Ahhh it’s coming out, slowly coming out
We didn’t plan it like this even though it finally came about
She said Henry, you’re a jerk
You said you wore a condom now all you wear is a smirk.

Thigh crunching away, thigh crunching away
The more you do it quickly now
the more you’re thigh crunching away.

What do we do now, another one is coming
She said, “I can feel it squeezing out while you sit there bumming”
He said, “What do you want me to do?
I called a taxi while you sit there all blue
I’m happy we are having number two.”

Thigh crunching away, thigh crunching away
The more you do it quickly now
the more you’re thigh crunching away.

He saw his wife lying on the floor
Her eyes were shut pleading for a doctor who came quickly to the door
“A third one is coming out
And a fourth one too
Is this the end of my route?”

Thigh crunching away, thigh crunching away
The more you do it quickly now
the more you’re thigh crunching away.

Ahhh who knows where all these babies came from
We haven’t done it in five months and she felt numb
Both of them felt only one on the way
but now she’s in convulsions the more she’s thigh crunching away.

Thigh crunching away, thigh crunching away
The more you do it quickly now
the more you’re thigh crunching away.

http://www.nbc30.com/news/17493910/detail.html?rss=har&psp=news Parents Of Toddler Who Shot Self In Head ArrestedSeptember 17, 2008

JEWETT CITY, Conn. — Three weeks after their 2-year-old son died after accidentally shooting himself, Wyatt Matteau’s parents have been arrested. State police arrested Jason and Rebecca Matteau just after 8:30 a.m. today at their Jewett City home. Jason Matteau, 27, was charged with criminally negligent storage of a firearm and risk of injury to a minor. Rebecca Matteau, 24, was charged with risk of injury to a minor.Warrants had been issued and Jason and Rebecca Matteau surrendered to state police in Montville Wednesday.

State police were called to a home on Green Avenue at 9:13 a.m. on Aug. 28 for a possible shooting incident and found Wyatt Matteau suffering from an apparent gunshot wound, police said last month.

The child was in extremely grave condition, received emergency care at the scene and was taken by ambulance to Backus Hospital in Norwich. He was pronounced dead about 11 a.m. at Hartford Hospital, state police said. Wyatt Matteau’s parents were home at time of the shooting, but were not in the same room, state police said in August.State police said “the child was able to access a weapon that was in the house when it discharged.”

Detectives investigated who is to blame.

“Common sense should tell you a weapon should not be able to be accessed by a child,” Lt. Paul Vance of State Police said in August. Jason and Rebecca Matteau were released on $50,000 bond and are scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 1. ……………………………………………………………………

http://www.utne.com/2008-09-01/Spirituality/Bundle-of-Trouble.aspx

Bundle of Trouble

Kids are supposed to bring joy. So why are parents so unhappy?

September-October 2008 by Robin W. Simon, from Contexts

Americans harbor a widespread, deeply held belief that no adult can be happy without becoming a parent. Parenthood, we think, is pivotal for developing and maintaining emotional well-being, and children are an essential ingredient for a life filled with happiness, joy, excitement, satisfaction, and pride.

That’s not exactly the case. Although studies indicate parents derive more purpose and meaning from life than nonparents, as a group, moms and dads in the United States also experience depression, emotional distress, and negative emotions (such as fear, anxiety, worry, and anger) far more than their child-free peers. What’s more, parents of grown children report no greater well-being than adults who never had children.

Such facts fly in the face of cultural dogma that proclaims it impossible for people to have an emotionally fulfilling life unless they become parents. And yet: Why doesn’t parent­hood have the positive emotional effects on adults that our cultural beliefs suggest?

Children provide parents with an important social identity. They help them forge emotional connections to extended family members and their communities. Children fulfill basic human desires, including having someone to love and nurture, carrying on family traditions, and allowing us to become grandparents. Watching children grow is enjoyable, and parents often feel comforted by the perception that they won’t be alone in old age.

The disconnect lies in the social conditions in which Americans now parent; they’re far from ideal for allowing parents to reap the emotional benefits of having children. Parents cope with stressors that cancel out and often exceed the emotional rewards of having children. Making matters worse, parents and others perceive the strain as a private matter and a reflection of their inability to cope with the “normal” demands of parenthood.

A significant source of parental stress simply comes from the high financial cost of raising a child to adulthood. Even the basics such as food, clothing, and (for those who have it) health care are expensive, not to mention extracurricular activities and the astronomical cost of college education. Demographers estimate that 70 percent of children in the United States are raised in households in which all adults work outside the home—and there’s a fundamental incompatibility between employment as we know it and raising children.

Sociologist Arlie Hochschild was the first to document how the lack of flexible work schedules, high-quality and affordable child care for preschool-age children, and after-school care for elementary-age children all contribute to stress from what’s now commonly referred to as the “second shift” for employed parents, who leave their jobs at five o’clock only to start another job caring for children at home.

There are few policies or programs to alleviate this stress. In the end, the collective response to stressed out employed parents is that they need to become better organized.

Although financial stress and the strain of the “second shift” subside as children become more independent, the majority of parents continue to be involved in the lives of their adult offspring. Among other things, parents worry about their grown children’s financial well-being, social relationships, happiness, and mental and physical health.

Our culture also places high expectations on parents for the way children “turn out.” Irrespective of their children’s age, we question parents’ child-rearing skills when kids have problems. In fact, the way children turn out seems to be the only measure our culture offers for assessing whether men and women are good parents.

Yet unlike other societies, ours offers comparatively little preparation for parenthood, and most parents raise their children in relative social isolation with little assistance from extended family members, friends, neighbors, and the larger community. We lack institutional supports that would help ease the social and economic burdens—and subsequent stress and social disadvantages—associated with parenthood. Instituting better tax credits, developing more and better day care and after-school options, as well as offering flexible work schedules for employed mothers and fathers would go far toward alleviating some of the difficulty of raising children.

Of equal importance is the need to take stock of and reevaluate existing cultural beliefs that children improve the emotional health and well-being of adults. These cultural beliefs—and our expectation that children guarantee a life filled with happiness, joy, excitement, contentment, satisfaction, and pride—are an additional, though hidden, source of stress for all parents. The feelings of depression and emotional distress that parents experience can cause them to question what they’re doing wrong.

These negative emotions can also lead parents to perceive themselves as inadequate, since their feelings clearly aren’t consistent with the cultural ideal.

Reducing the enormous and unrealistic cultural expectations we have for parenthood is as important as greater cultural recognition of the unrelenting challenges and difficulties associated with having children. Hallmark stores stock baby cards filled with happy wishes for new parents, celebrating their precious bundles of joy. Perhaps the selection should also include cards to acknowledge the difficult emotions that often accompany parenthood.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Parents to be screaming, depressed nervous wrecks? That is not news to anyone, especially the childfree. I agree that in this case, parenthood needs reassessing. Stepping outside of that social conformity box of having children because “everyone else does” (wow what a great reason to have children - not) is finally hitting the media since that Newsweek July 7, 2008 issue produced an article to challenge the myth that parents are happier people. Not only does having children cost parents money, but the loving, once close couple before kids (B.K.) can no longer have lives of their own - they spend 24/7 taking care of the baby, toddler, school-year, and horrors, teenager. Yep, that’s perpetual happiness.

This statement really stands out:

“In fact, the way children turn out seems to be the only measure our culture offers for assessing whether men and women are good parents.”

If there was one really bad reason to have children - in order to see if the couple will make good parents or not - that is a sure sign they should not be breeding at all. Maybe she can get Essure, he can get a vasectomy. Avoid contracting baby rabies at all costs, even if it means quitting your job as a daycare assistant. Our society has gone on long enough glamorizing having babies and children. It is nice to see the truth be told for a change.

http://www.noapologiespress.com/editorial/lizard/rant/mothers.html

While written with a humorous slant, the writer does get his point across:

To Whom This May Concern,

I am not required to love your child. Do not expect me to appreciate your progeny. How can you expect me to find your screaming, germ-ridden offspring adorable when it’s obvious you can barely be bothered to contain its raving public exploits? You know that time you smacked your kid in the department store? You’re lucky you got there first. I’m warning you now, out of common courtesy, we, the childless, have had enough of your child ruining public spaces. We are fed up with your crying lump of flesh and are no longer going to take it.

The next time you go to a non-G-rated movie, leave the squirming worm with a babysitter. Remember that ringing cell-phone that annoyed you at the movie? That was me calling myself to drown out your whelp’s cries brought on by the loud explosions of a movie obviously not age appropriate for a child still suckling at your droopy teat. Can’t afford a babysitter? Stay home and watch Oxygen.

Enough with the ‘Motherhood is the toughest job in the world’ rap. If it’s that tough, quit. You should have never taken on the responsibility in the first place. I have no sympathy for someone who chose a tough job and then bitches about it and expects respect. And if you accidentally got the job, then you are stupid as well as bitchy. Do not expect me to care that your three kids are too much for you to handle. Am I to believe that the first two were such an easy task that you felt a third was practically obligatory as opposed to redundant? Ever wonder why the father left? Take a look at your bundles of joy. Or a mirror, I suspect.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

This is just an excerpt from the entire letter. While the letter reflects the sentiments of many childfree people, it also challenges our child-centered culture: that not everyone goes gaga over a baby or toddler. If they are like me, they just glance at the creature as if it is some kind of alien from outer space. I especially love this statement from the letter:

“Your child is not an endless font of wisdom and insight.”

Weird as it sounds, some people actually take the attitude that adults can learn from babies. Learn what? Just what sort of advanced wisdom does a baby have that it can impart to a human? Where I come from, if one wants to learn wisdom from another, one goes to an elderly person. There are still cultures around the world that hold more reverence for the elderly than for babies, and rightly so.