Mother Parkers!
Mother parking. Such a novel idea, isn't it? Let's have a spot right near the front of the store, beside the handicapped spaces, for expecting mothers and mothers with young children! Brilliant! So Courteous!
Indeed, it may be a courteous thing to do, but I say it's a little too selective and misguided. Misguided because since when is pregnancy a disability? Why do these women need that much more help? As well, exercise helps everyone, including pregnant women.
How about we replace "pregnant women" with overweight people? It may seem ridiculous, but in both cases it is a self-inflicted "ailment" (maybe less so for overweight people) that are both just as in need for this extra boost of help. I'm not talking about morbidly obese people, either. A guy with a big beer belly, how is he in any less need of that closer spot than a woman who chose to have this child, but doesn't want to walk that extra 50 yards? Another example would be the elderly: they did not choose their outcome (the ailments, not their age). They've just been lucky enough to survive long enough to have to deal with the problems of getting old, so we can't say they don't deserve a little extra help because these are, generally, not self-inflicted problems. If anything, they're more deserving, and yet they will have to give up these spots and park further away in order for these fertile, younger women to get a helping hand. While we're at it, what about injured people? If I have a broken left leg, I can still drive, but I have problems with mobility. Or how about people with athlete's foot? It hurts to walk!
Okay, now I'm getting a bit ridiculous with it, but my point is that these spots could be used in a better way. Either we should help everyone with mobility problems that are temporary (as they may not qualify for a handicap parking pass), or we should help none of them.
It has been brought to my attention that this might be a deterrent to have kids; we're giving the message that if you're pregnant, you should walk farther. That's not my point at all. Firstly, I'm not saying that they should have special parking at the back of the lot or anything, and secondly, whoever is deciding whether to have kids or not based on the parking should not be having kids!
As well, where are the partners of these women at? Assuming they're there, why are they sitting back and letting their third trimester partner do the grocery shopping? Get off your ass and help a woman in need!
All of the above just covers pregnant women, how about mothers of young children? I repeat, mothers of young children. What? Fathers are less in need of this privilege? As well, I'm assuming that we're saying young children because of the same reason as the pregnant women: mobility. So, does this include kids that can walk? I don't think it should. And strollers.. come now, it has wheels! Multiple children? Bring your partner with you for help! If you think they're so much of a hassle, why did you have so many?
Yet another problem brought to my attention with my analysis is that we want to promote, as a society, having children, but condemn getting fat. Therefore, we give a boost to pregnant women, but not to fat people. This problem neglects the argument of the injured or the elderly. It's also been argued that fat people chose to be fat. What about people with metabolic disorders or people whose parents raised them in a very unhealthy manner and they never learn how to lead a healthy lifestyle? The clinically depressed (symptoms may include: weight gain, increased appetite)? Medications that cause you to gain weight? Certain diseases that cause weight gain? Taking it further, how about people with problems that come from obesity, but are no longer obese (joint problems, respiratory problems, heart problems, etc.)?
Final message restated: Either we should have special spots for anyone with temporary mobility problems, or none. We should not single out a particular group to help and neglect the rest.
Edit: I retract the part about young kids being able to walk the distance; multiple kids can be unruly and difficult to manage all at the same time. They seem more deserving of being close than a single pregnant woman for their own safety's sake.
Edit: If most of my argument were to fall away, the part that stands is that these are rather sexist corporate ploys at appearing to cater to women and be "family friendly". If it's for women with young children, it should be for men with young children as well. I also briefly stated "since when is pregnancy a handicap?", which I still stand by. I don't believe that they need the extra help, unless they have young kids running around already.
I agree, only handicap people should get spots. If we give out spots to everyone whose not normal, then there would be no place to park.
How about the sanctity of life? As a species we should protect our young and soon to be young. If a mother has to walk through the parking lot, she is more likely to get hit. So by putting her near the door we are helping to protect future generations.
Sure, but as I said I think that there should be a spot for people with mobility problems.
As well, I'm not against protecting these people, but is the extra ~50 meters so dangerous? Is there so much peril in a parking lot? Anything else I have to rebut this has already been stated in the post.
There are spots for people with mobility problems! It's just all lumped under 'handicapped'
Are you so bored that you have to complain about parking spots? So expentant mothers have a spot. There's a difference between being fat and being pregnant.
Who cares? <- my rebuttal to your entire argument.
Invalid argument. Rejected.
So in other words you can't think of anything to refute my claim, hence you're giving up.
I believe that the handicap arguement is completely valid. Your claim that we should help everyone is invalid because you offer no reasoning behind your claim. This whole argument is weak and arbitrary. There are at most maybe like 4 spots which have this designation, which hardley effects anyone. The only purpose it serves it show your lack of respect for pregant mothers.
@Zal: ugh.. It's not that I didn't have a response, it's that I didn't want to respond because you annoyed me with your "who cares" comment, which is ridiculous since you cared enough to make a comment.
Alright, mobility isn't all bundled under the handicapped spaces because you can't just park there without a pass. That being said, it's been brought to my attention that you can apply for temporary passes if you're injured. As well, I thought I'd say something on this since i haven't seen anyone else say anything and I thought it was worth voicing my opinion. Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, the mobility of a pregnant woman is no worse than that of a fat man. That's my point, not that there isn't a gross biological difference between them.
@Josh: It's not about disrespecting pregnant mothers, or pregnant women for that matter (as there is a difference). If most of my argument were to fall away, the part that stands is that these are rather sexist corporate ploys at appearing to cater to women and be "family friendly". If it's for women with young children, it should be for men with young children as well. I also briefly stated "since when is pregnancy a handicap?", which I still stand by. I don't believe that they need the extra help, unless they have young kids running around already.
As well, how is not giving pregnant women special parking a sign of disrespect? Furthermore, why do these women deserve additional respect than the average person just because they did something that we are biologically built to do; it doesn't take an extraordinary person to have a child, there's plenty of proof out there for that claim.
That's right, I did care enough to comment. However, does it really inconvenience you that much for an expentant mother to have her own spot? Do you have any idea how taxing it is physically for a woman to move around if she's like seven or eight months pregnant? They have to woddle everywhere and it does put quite a bit of strain on their bodies. So yes Phil, that extra 50 feet or meteres or whatever makes a big difference, to them. Not giving them a parking spot is not a sign of disrespect, I think that it just makes life a little easier for them.
I am well aware that you cannot park there without a pass. I get what you're saying, but people that are fat or overweight can do something about it. A pregnant woman cannot.
Also Phil, I didn't mean to annoy or upset you, I just wanted some further clarification on why you feel the way you do, and I guess I got what I came for.
I understand your position, but I must respectfully disagree.
Fair enough Phil, fair enough.
I would just like to point out that the greater problem lies beyond the parking lot and into the store. Yes, there are designated parking spots, but eventually everyone must walk once they are in the store...coming from a female perspective, I would be offended if someone suggested I use a motorized cart within the store because I was pregnant, especially since the people who use them most are either obese, elderly, or have a motor condition. Women were built for childbearing for a reason; to be able to carry children at any stage in pregnancy. This does not excuse obesity as being more deserving of closer parking spots or motorized vehicles than pregnant mothers, because at one point they could have helped themselves and avoided getting so large in the first place.
Basically, whether pregnant or obese, we choose our own lifestyles. Therefore, unless disabled or elderly which are both out of human control, we should have the right to choose where we park without any designation from a mere sign.