'AITA for not moving so a child to sit down on public transport?' 'I have bad blisters on my feet.'
"AITA for not moving so a child to sit down on public transport?"
There is public transport where I live (Subway) and like anywhere, it’s generally understood you give up your seat for someone who is elderly, disabled, or pregnant. I always try to do this.
I was sitting down on the Subway this week and who I assume were parents (mom, dad) with two kids got on. There was one available seat which one child sat on, and then the mom asked if I could give up my seat for the other child.
I politely refused and said something along the lines of ‘sorry I don’t want to give up my seat, I’m on this train for a long time’ (which is true, it’s a long journey for me). Another part of the reason, even though it’s embarrassing and I didn’t say, is that I have bad blisters on my feet at the moment.
The mom responded "wow, you wouldn’t give up your seat for a child?" I said that I wouldn’t, and then someone else on the train gave up their seat. Even if I hadn’t had blisters on my feet, I still don’t think I would have given up my seat for a child.
They don’t have problems standing, and probably have better balance than most adults. I know I have a bias here because I’m purposefully child free and my pet peeve is parents who feel they or their children are entitled to be the priority. While this was happening, everyone on the train was looking at me like I’m a massive a#s. So Am I the Ashole?
Later, OP edited the post to include:
Thanks everyone for your thoughts, didn’t expect this to blow up! The consensus seems to be NTA but a few people have said it depends on the age of the child, or that I should’ve said I had blisters, which is fair. I’m not great at telling ages of children but maybe he was 7? He was definitely able to stand on his own well- I just googled 7 year old child and the images there seem about right.
Also just to clarify, I do not hate children at all. I made a choice not to have kids and I don’t think people who made that choice should take priority over me, but I’m not a kid hater at all. I support everyone’s right to choose whether or not they have kids. Interestingly lots of people assumed I’m a man. I’m a 33 year old woman.
Here's what top commenters had to say about this one:
ImportanceFull27 said:
NTA. Public transport seats are first come, first serve, unless designated for those who are elderly, pregnant, or have disabilities. If you fit none of those categories and there were no such requirements for the seat, you have every right to stay seated.
RaineMist said:
NTA assuming that the child doesn't have any problems standing on moving transportation.
carbsarenotbad said:
NTA, but I think you could have just said you injured your foot and need to sit. They might have understood. You don't need to go into detail about your injury. I'm also not sure why blisters are embarrassing. I think it would go over better that way.
SwimmingCan7802 said:
NTA…I would simply not have the audacity to ask a stranger to get up so my child can take their seat…and I have two toddlers. I would just hold my child or deal with their behavior, or say “oh no there’s no seats right now." Odd behavior on the parents part.
vivi_at_night said:
NTA because you were hurt and couldn't stand up for too long, but OP I think you're seeing this from the wrong angle. It's not that parents think their kids are entitled to seat, it's just safer for kids, specially the young ones, to travel seated.
Not only kids have poor balance than compared to an adult, but they also can get tired easily if they're young and they don't have too much strenght to hold on in case the vehicle comes to a sudden stop or something like that, which makes them more prone to fall and get hurt, so it's common courtesy to give them preference to seat.
Mommabroyles said:
NTA one parent should have sat and put one child on each knee. It's not the most comfortable solution but it would have worked until some seats opened up and covered 3 out of 4 of them.