General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops

Started by Gregory Morrow · · Last activity · 149 posts · 2,984 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
10 November 2005
Last activity
18 November 2005
Original author
Gregory Morrow
Posts
149
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,984
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 149
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html

    November 9, 2005

    At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops

    By JODI WILGOREN

    "CHICAGO, Nov. 8 - Bridget Dehl shushed her 21-month-old son, Gavin, then
    clapped a hand over his mouth to squelch his tiny screams amid the Sunday
    brunch bustle. When Gavin kept yelping "yeah, yeah, yeah," Ms. Dehl whisked
    him from his highchair and out the door.

    Right past the sign warning the cafe's customers that "children of all ages
    have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of
    Heaven," and right into a nasty spat roiling the stroller set in Chicago's
    changing Andersonville neighborhood.

    The owner of A Taste of Heaven, Dan McCauley, said he posted the sign - at
    child level, with playful handprints - in the hope of quieting his
    tin-ceilinged cafe, where toddlers have been known to sprawl between tables
    and hurl themselves at display cases for sport.

    But many neighborhood mothers took umbrage at the implied criticism of how
    they handle their children. Soon, whispers of a boycott passed among the
    playgroups in this North Side neighborhood, once an outpost of avant-garde
    artists and hip gay couples but now a hot real estate market for young
    professional families shunning the suburbs.

    "I love people who don't have children who tell you how to parent," said
    Alison Miller, 35, a psychologist, corporate coach and mother of two. "I'd
    love for him to be responsible for three children for the next year and see
    if he can control the volume of their voices every minute of the day."

    Mr. McCauley, 44, said the protesting parents were "former cheerleaders and
    beauty queens" who "have a very strong sense of entitlement." In an open
    letter he handed out at the bakery, he warned of an "epidemic" of antisocial
    behavior.

    "Part of parenting skills is teaching kids they behave differently in a
    restaurant than they do on the playground," Mr. McCauley said in an
    interview. "If you send out positive energy, positive energy returns to you.
    If you send out energy that says I'm the only one that matters, it's going
    to be a pretty chaotic world."

    And so simmers another skirmish between the childless and the
    child-centered, a culture clash increasingly common in restaurants and other
    public spaces as a new generation of busy, older, well-off parents ferry
    little ones with them.

    An online petition urging child-free sections in North Carolina restaurants
    drew hundreds of signers, including Janelle Funk, who wrote, "Whenever a
    hostess asks me 'smoking or non-smoking?' I respond, 'No kids!' "

    At Mendo Bistro in Fort Bragg, Calif., the owners declare "Well-behaved
    children and parents welcome" to try to stop unmonitored youngsters from
    tap-dancing on the 100-year-old wood floors.

    Menus at Zumbro Cafe in Minneapolis say: "We love children, especially when
    they're tucked into chairs and behaving," which Barbara Daenzer said she
    read as an invitation to cease her weekly breakfast visits after her son was
    born.

    Even at the Full Moon in Cambridge, Mass., a cafe created for families, with
    a train table, a dollhouse and a plastic kitchen in a carpeted play area,
    there are rules about inside voices and a "No lifeguard on duty" sign to
    remind parents to take responsibility.

    "You run the risk when you start monitoring behavior," said the Full Moon's
    owner, Sarah Wheaton. "You can say no cellphones to people, but you can't
    say your father speaks too loudly, he has to keep his voice down. And you
    can't really say your toddler is too loud when she's eating."

    Here in Chicago, parents have denounced Toast, a popular Lincoln Park
    breakfast spot, as unwelcoming since a note about using inside voices
    appeared on the menu six months ago. The owner of John's Place, which
    resembles a kindergarten class at recess in early evening, established a
    separate "family friendly" room a year ago, only to face parental threats of
    lawsuits.

    Many of the Andersonville mothers who are boycotting Mr. McCauley's bakery
    also skip story time at Women and Children First, a feminist bookstore,
    because of the rules: children can be kicked out for standing, talking or
    sipping drinks. When a retail clerk at the bookstore asked a woman to stop
    breast-feeding last spring, "the neighborhood set him straight real fast,"
    said Mary Ann Smith, the area's alderwoman.

    After a dozen years at one site, Mr. McCauley moved A Taste of Heaven six
    blocks away in May 2004, to a busy corner on Clark Street. But there, he
    said, teachers and writers seeking afternoon refuge were drowned out not
    just by children running amok but also by oblivious cellphone chatterers.

    Children were climbing the cafe's poles. A couple were blithely reading the
    newspaper while their daughter lay on the floor blocking the line for
    coffee. When the family whose children were running across the room to throw
    themselves against the display cases left after his admonishment, Mr.
    McCauley recalled, the restaurant erupted in applause.

    So he put up the sign. Then things really got ugly.

    "The looks I would get when I went in there made me so nervous that I would
    try to buy the food as fast as I could and get out," said Laura Brauer, 40,
    who has stopped visiting A Taste of Heaven with her two children. "I think
    that the mothers who allow their kids to run around and scream, that's
    wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we
    supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

    Ms. Miller said that one day when her son, then 4 months old, was fussing, a
    staff member rolled her eyes and announced for all to hear, "We've got a
    screamer!"

    Kim Cavitt recalled having coffee and a cookie one afternoon with her
    boisterous 2-year-old when "someone came over and said you just need to keep
    her quiet or you need to leave."

    "We left, and we haven't been back since," Ms. Cavitt said. "You go to a
    coffee shop or a bakery for a rest, to relax, and that you would have to
    worry the whole time about your child doing something that children do -
    really what they're saying is they don't welcome children, they want the
    child to behave like an adult."

    Why suffer such scorn, the mothers said, when clerks at the Swedish Bakery,
    a neighborhood institution, offer children - calm or crying - free cookies?
    Why confront such criticism when the recently opened Sweet Occasions, a
    five-minute walk down Clark Street, designed the restroom aisle to
    accommodate double strollers and offers a child-size ice cream cone for
    $1.50? (At A Taste of Heaven, the smallest is $3.75.)

    "It's his business; he has the right to put whatever sign he wants on the
    door," Ms. Miller said. "And people have the right to respond to that sign
    however they want."

    Mr. McCauley said he had received kudos from several restaurant owners in
    the area, though none had followed his lead. He has certainly lost customers
    because of the sign, but some parents say the offense is outweighed by their
    addiction to the scones, and others embrace the effort at etiquette.

    "The litmus test for me is if they have highchairs or not," said Ms. Dehl,
    the woman who scooped her screaming son from his seat during brunch, as she
    waited out his restlessness on a sidewalk bench. "The fact that they had one
    highchair, and the fact that he's the only child in the restaurant is an
    indication that it's an adult place, and if he's going to do his toddler
    thing, we should take him out and let him run around."

    Mr. McCauley said he would rather go out of business than back down. He
    likens this one small step toward good manners to his personal effort to
    decrease pollution by hiring only people who live close enough to walk to
    work.

    "I can't change the situation in Iraq, I can't change the situation in New
    Orleans," he said. "But I can change this little corner of the world."

    </>

  2. Gregory Morrow said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html

    November 9, 2005

    At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops

    By JODI WILGOREN

    "CHICAGO, Nov. 8 - "... what they're saying is they don't welcome
    children, they want the
    child to behave like an adult."

    It were not that long ago that this was the norm. Children were
    expected to display a certain decorum based on adult behavior. Small
    children incapable of this would not be taken to a public place they
    could disturb. Even when i was growing up many theater's had special
    sound proof viewing rooms for mothers with small children to sit in or
    remove themselves to if the children got unruly.
    ---
    JL

  3. Gregory Morrow said:

    wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we
    supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

    That's fscking right, [censored]! If your enjoying yourself means making
    everyone else miserable, you ain't got [censored] comming!

    Ahem... That pretty much sums up my stance on the subject. 😉

    nb

  4. Back to the old adage "children should be seen and not heard."

    Can't say I blame the business owners who are doing these things. In
    my trade one frequently sees store signs such as "unattended children
    will be sold as slaves" "no children under 12 allowed" and "dogs
    welcome, please keep children on leash."

    If I want to see a bunch of loud kids being ignored by their parents
    I'll go to the park, public beach or grocery store. I either did
    something right or got lucky, my kidlet has always been well behaved in
    restaurants and the like. Alas if she did opt to be a brat we were out
    of there or at least one of us was while the other got the meal wrapped
    & paid the check.

    Jessica

  5. "notbob" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:
    Gregory Morrow said:

    wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are
    we
    supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

    That's fscking right, [censored]! If your enjoying yourself means making
    everyone else miserable, you ain't got [censored] comming!

    Ahem... That pretty much sums up my stance on the subject. 😉

    Get this:

    "We left, and we haven't been back since," Ms. Cavitt said. "You go to a
    coffee shop or a bakery for a rest, to relax

    YEAH lady, you got it! and I don't find it relaxing with screaming kids
    running all over. Okay with you? I mean, it doesn't have to be like
    a church, for pete's sake, but it's not a playground, either.

    nancy

  6. "notbob" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:
    Gregory Morrow said:

    wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are
    we
    supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

    That's fscking right, [censored]! If your enjoying yourself means making
    everyone else miserable, you ain't got [censored] comming!

    Ahem... That pretty much sums up my stance on the subject. 😉

    Get this:

    "We left, and we haven't been back since," Ms. Cavitt said. "You go to a
    coffee shop or a bakery for a rest, to relax

    YEAH lady, you got it! and I don't find it relaxing with screaming kids
    running all over. Okay with you? I mean, it doesn't have to be like
    a church, for pete's sake, but it's not a playground, either.

    nancy

  7. One time on Usenet said:

    On 2005-11-10, Gregory Morrow
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we
    supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

    That's fscking right, [censored]! If your enjoying yourself means making
    everyone else miserable, you ain't got [censored] comming!

    Ahem... That pretty much sums up my stance on the subject. 😉

    Funny, you fixed on the same part of the article that really got to
    me as well. Parents like this woman (and others quoted in the article)
    make the rest of us look bad.

    Back when my son was a small child, Miguel and I would take turns
    removing him from a public place if he started fussing -- we didn't
    like hearing it, why would anyone else? Sure, it's a pain having to
    disrupt your meal and/or plans, but it's part of the child-rearing
    responsibility package. And by 3 years old, he was a model restaurant
    patron. Go figure. If parents don't like having to deal with it, then
    perhaps they shouldn't have had children in the first place!

    Grumble, grumble...

    --
    Jani in WA (S'mee)
    ~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

  8. S'mee said:

    Funny, you fixed on the same part of the article that really got to
    me as well. Parents like this woman (and others quoted in the article)
    make the rest of us look bad.

    I blame my generation, the 60's boomers. They were the first to rebel
    with, "Do your own thing, man" and "whatever" and "It's your bag".
    These kids grew up, had kids, and that's when I first became aware of
    parents becoming incensed over adults other than themselves
    disciplining their children. "How dare you discipline my child?!? Who
    do you think you are?". This to an adult who is entrusted with a room
    full of kids for 6-8 hrs. Then corporal punishment was abolished.
    The beginning of the end. It's gone downhill ever since. These
    run-amok kids are the one's that will be terrorizing their own parents
    in another ten years.

    nb

  9. at Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:51:25 GMT in
    <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Gregory
    Morrow) wrote :

    Quoted message said:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html

    November 9, 2005

    At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops


    I'm going to voice an alternative opinion. Naturally, people hoping for a
    quiet meal are not happy when confronted with screaming kids. And kids,
    once past a certain very young age, should have picked up enough social
    graces to restrain themselves. IMHO certainly a 4-year-old should be able
    to be reasonably quiet. If parents of kids in this age group have their
    children screaming in public places, there's been a lack of training and
    discipline. Furthermore, the parents of such older screamers have no right
    to demand that their children be given free rein to shout and misbehave in
    public.

    However, restaurant owners and patrons could also do with being more
    tolerant of very young children. It's unfair to expect children below a
    certain age to be perfectly behaved. IMHO a 2-year-old can't be expected to
    be able to maintain fully disciplined behaviour.

    And it's unfair to exclude children from establishments simply on the
    grounds that they might misbehave. There are many reasons for this. First
    of all, there is no way kids are going to be able to learn the social
    graces without being exposed to environments where those kinds of social
    graces are expected. If every establishment they visited is similarly
    packed with loud, boisterous kids, they're going to expect that this is the
    social norm and never really learn to behave, certainly not at a reasonably
    young age. Second, the risk is high that exclusionary policies will
    relegate kids only to lowest-common-denominator places. Shut off from
    higher culture, they get no chance to develop a more broad-minded, cultured
    background from a younger age, and miss out on a critical developmental
    opportunity that means later they may develop a disdain for or at least
    ignorance towards high culture. Most importantly, it sends a terrible
    message to young kids: that they're second-class citizens. Even fairly
    young kids pick up, if often unconsciously, cues that they're not welcome
    and each event where that happens will eat away at their self-esteem.

    So I think exposing young kids to high-end restaurants, theatre, opera,
    etc. pays off enormously in the long run in the development of kids with a
    larger world-view and better understanding of culture. It is imperative,
    however, for parents to maintain discipline and have some sensitivity to
    others in the establishment. Once a kid starts misbehaving, you immediately
    take him outside until he regains his composure. And if he persists, the
    evening is over! It's ridiculous to have a kid screaming at the top of his
    lungs without end and have the parents sitting there doing nothing about it
    or worse still, acting like everyone else should put up with it. That goes
    back to the picking-up-social-graces bit. If the kid gets no cues from his
    parents that this sort of behaviour is not tolerable, he's likewise not
    going to learn to behave.

    However, if staff and/or patrons make moves to expel a kid permanently at
    the *first* sign of trouble, it is they that could use the attitude
    adjustment. A kid may, yes, explode momentarily, but if he brings it under
    control in short order, then I don't think he should be admonished or his
    parents excoriated. If you do so you are sending another terrible message:
    that there can be no forgiveness for certain offences, even if they are
    relatively minor.

    I'm sure a lot of the resentment and hostility is not directed against kids
    but against that group of insensitive, undisciplined parents who refuse to
    take action when their kids are turning into little devils. I've seen
    first-hand what happens when parents exert no discipline: you create kids
    who are literally the limb of Satan! And again, no discipline is another
    terrible message to give a kid: it implies that fundamentally you don't
    care enough about them to teach them very much. In that sense, blatant
    misbehaviour is usually a kid crying out for attention - attention he's not
    getting from his parents. Really, the kids should be pitied, not condemned.
    It might be fair to lay the blame on parents, and it's tempting to do so,
    but it's not productive. Such accusations only make people defensive.
    Better I think as the friend of such parents is to try to offer your help
    with the kids. Then by setting an example you might at least be able to
    send the parents a message, and if nothing else the kids might have someone
    who pays attention to them. One might claim that as a friend it's not your
    responsibility to raise their kids, but if they're not doing it, who will?
    In times past people could turn to extended families for support with
    child-raising, but todays era of the nuclear family has broken those sorts
    of bonds and perhaps friends need to step in to fill that social void.
    --

    Alex Rast
    [email hidden]
    (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

  10. Joseph LIttleshoes <[email hidden]> looking for trouble wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:
    Gregory Morrow said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html

    November 9, 2005

    At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops

    By JODI WILGOREN

    "CHICAGO, Nov. 8 - "... what they're saying is they don't welcome
    children, they want the
    child to behave like an adult."

    It were not that long ago that this was the norm. Children were
    expected to display a certain decorum based on adult behavior. Small
    children incapable of this would not be taken to a public place they
    could disturb. Even when i was growing up many theater's had special
    sound proof viewing rooms for mothers with small children to sit in or
    remove themselves to if the children got unruly.
    ---
    JL

    In my day and age, we were always threatened with having to wait the meal
    out in the car. Of course in this day and age that would most likely be
    considered abuse or worse yet, there might be a carjacking.

    Michael

    --
    Send email to dog30 at charter dot net

  11. Alex Rast said:

    at Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:51:25 GMT in
    <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Gregory
    Morrow) wrote :

    Quoted message said:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html

    November 9, 2005

    At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops


    I'm going to voice an alternative opinion. Naturally, people hoping
    for a
    quiet meal are not happy when confronted with screaming kids. And
    kids,
    once past a certain very young age, should have picked up enough
    social
    graces to restrain themselves. IMHO certainly a 4-year-old should be
    able
    to be reasonably quiet. If parents of kids in this age group have
    their
    children screaming in public places, there's been a lack of training
    and
    discipline. Furthermore, the parents of such older screamers have no
    right
    to demand that their children be given free rein to shout and
    misbehave in
    public.

    However, restaurant owners and patrons could also do with being more
    tolerant of very young children. It's unfair to expect children below
    a
    certain age to be perfectly behaved. IMHO a 2-year-old can't be
    expected to
    be able to maintain fully disciplined behaviour.

    And it's unfair to exclude children from establishments simply on the
    grounds that they might misbehave. There are many reasons for this.
    First
    of all, there is no way kids are going to be able to learn the social
    graces without being exposed to environments where those kinds of
    social
    graces are expected.

    "No way"? should not these "social skills" be developed in the home and
    not left to commercial establishments to instill them?

    I have several acquaintances that do not even try to have structured
    family meals, the kids eat what is available when they want it,
    microwaving or other wise heating as the situation warrents, ordering
    pizza and calling it a meal or otherwise just not practicing the more
    traditonal forms of the family meal.

    These are the kids of working parents, who prefere to 'hanging out' with
    their friends to a sit down meal with family.

    The one family i know that still insists there kids not only come home
    for dinner but require them to dress for it can be criticized for a
    number of other things but not their childrens manners.
    ---
    JL

    Quoted message said:

    --

    Alex Rast
    [email hidden]
    (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

  12. Alex Rast said:

    at Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:51:25 GMT in
    <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Gregory
    Morrow) wrote :

    Quoted message said:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html

    November 9, 2005

    At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops


    I'm going to voice an alternative opinion. Naturally, people hoping
    for a
    quiet meal are not happy when confronted with screaming kids. And
    kids,
    once past a certain very young age, should have picked up enough
    social
    graces to restrain themselves. IMHO certainly a 4-year-old should be
    able
    to be reasonably quiet. If parents of kids in this age group have
    their
    children screaming in public places, there's been a lack of training
    and
    discipline. Furthermore, the parents of such older screamers have no
    right
    to demand that their children be given free rein to shout and
    misbehave in
    public.

    However, restaurant owners and patrons could also do with being more
    tolerant of very young children. It's unfair to expect children below
    a
    certain age to be perfectly behaved. IMHO a 2-year-old can't be
    expected to
    be able to maintain fully disciplined behaviour.

    And it's unfair to exclude children from establishments simply on the
    grounds that they might misbehave. There are many reasons for this.
    First
    of all, there is no way kids are going to be able to learn the social
    graces without being exposed to environments where those kinds of
    social
    graces are expected.

    "No way"? should not these "social skills" be developed in the home and
    not left to commercial establishments to instill them?

    I have several acquaintances that do not even try to have structured
    family meals, the kids eat what is available when they want it,
    microwaving or other wise heating as the situation warrents, ordering
    pizza and calling it a meal or otherwise just not practicing the more
    traditonal forms of the family meal.

    These are the kids of working parents, who prefere to 'hanging out' with
    their friends to a sit down meal with family.

    The one family i know that still insists there kids not only come home
    for dinner but require them to dress for it can be criticized for a
    number of other things but not their childrens manners.
    ---
    JL

    Quoted message said:

    --

    Alex Rast
    [email hidden]
    (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

  13. [email hidden] (Alex Rast) looking for trouble wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:


    So I think exposing young kids to high-end restaurants, theatre,
    opera, etc. pays off enormously in the long run in the development of
    kids with a larger world-view and better understanding of culture. It
    is imperative, however, for parents to maintain discipline and have
    some sensitivity to others in the establishment. Once a kid starts
    misbehaving, you immediately take him outside until he regains his
    composure. And if he persists, the evening is over! It's ridiculous to
    have a kid screaming at the top of his lungs without end and have the
    parents sitting there doing nothing about it or worse still, acting
    like everyone else should put up with it. That goes back to the
    picking-up-social-graces bit. If the kid gets no cues from his parents
    that this sort of behaviour is not tolerable, he's likewise not going
    to learn to behave.

    However, if staff and/or patrons make moves to expel a kid permanently
    at the *first* sign of trouble, it is they that could use the attitude
    adjustment. A kid may, yes, explode momentarily, but if he brings it
    under control in short order, then I don't think he should be
    admonished or his parents excoriated. If you do so you are sending
    another terrible message: that there can be no forgiveness for certain
    offences, even if they are relatively minor.

    Well said!

    Quoted message said:

    I'm sure a lot of the resentment and hostility is not directed against
    kids but against that group of insensitive, undisciplined parents who
    refuse to take action when their kids are turning into little devils.

    See comment above 😉

    Michael

    --
    Send email to dog30 at charter dot net

  14. [email hidden] (Alex Rast) looking for trouble wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:


    So I think exposing young kids to high-end restaurants, theatre,
    opera, etc. pays off enormously in the long run in the development of
    kids with a larger world-view and better understanding of culture. It
    is imperative, however, for parents to maintain discipline and have
    some sensitivity to others in the establishment. Once a kid starts
    misbehaving, you immediately take him outside until he regains his
    composure. And if he persists, the evening is over! It's ridiculous to
    have a kid screaming at the top of his lungs without end and have the
    parents sitting there doing nothing about it or worse still, acting
    like everyone else should put up with it. That goes back to the
    picking-up-social-graces bit. If the kid gets no cues from his parents
    that this sort of behaviour is not tolerable, he's likewise not going
    to learn to behave.

    However, if staff and/or patrons make moves to expel a kid permanently
    at the *first* sign of trouble, it is they that could use the attitude
    adjustment. A kid may, yes, explode momentarily, but if he brings it
    under control in short order, then I don't think he should be
    admonished or his parents excoriated. If you do so you are sending
    another terrible message: that there can be no forgiveness for certain
    offences, even if they are relatively minor.

    Well said!

    Quoted message said:

    I'm sure a lot of the resentment and hostility is not directed against
    kids but against that group of insensitive, undisciplined parents who
    refuse to take action when their kids are turning into little devils.

    See comment above 😉

    Michael

    --
    Send email to dog30 at charter dot net

  15. On Wed 09 Nov 2005 07:43:58p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Alex Rast?

    Quoted message said:

    Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
    Subject: Re: At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops
    From: [email hidden] (Alex Rast)

    at Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:51:25 GMT in
    <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Gregory
    Morrow) wrote :

    Quoted message said:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html

    November 9, 2005

    At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops


    I'm going to voice an alternative opinion. Naturally, people hoping for
    a quiet meal are not happy when confronted with screaming kids. And
    kids, once past a certain very young age, should have picked up enough
    social graces to restrain themselves. IMHO certainly a 4-year-old should
    be able to be reasonably quiet. If parents of kids in this age group
    have their children screaming in public places, there's been a lack of
    training and discipline. Furthermore, the parents of such older
    screamers have no right to demand that their children be given free rein
    to shout and misbehave in public.

    < snip >

    Very well expressed, Alex, and I don't disagree at all with your premise.
    However, for the most part, I shall continue to seek out "adult only"
    venues. It's enough to endure the rowdy ones in other inescapable
    situations without having my meal ruined in a nice restaurant. Since I
    don't particularly like childre, it's better left to other to train them.

    --
    Wayne Boatwright *¿*
    _____________________________________________

    A chicken in every pot is a *LOT* of chicken!

  16. Alex Rast said:

    And it's unfair to exclude children from establishments simply on the
    grounds that they might misbehave.

    Nope, it's a GREAT reason...

    Thats because a child in an establishment is a HUGE unknown
    quantity...the kid might act up, it might be just fine, in any case
    even the presence of a kid creates a lot of tension for many people,
    you have to make all this extra accomodation for them. If adults act
    up you can toss them out, no problem. With a misbehaving kid there is
    always the potential for a lot of extra drama, e.g. the fact that your
    establishment might end up being mentioned in the _New York Times_, the
    fact that you might have some angry jerk parent on your hands...

    There are plenty of places for kids to go act up, they are welcome to
    go there...they don't have to infest each and every place that exists,
    many of which us adults frequent in order to try and enjoy ourselves.

    Besides which this place mentioned in the article is a BUSINESS...a mom
    coming in with her kid for a treat is in most cases a PITA from a
    financial standpoint, e.g. they don't spend much, they take up lots of
    extra room with those friggin' Humvee strollers, kids are are a real
    turn - off for many from an aesthetic standpoint, etc....

    Quoted message said:

    So I think exposing young kids to high-end restaurants, theatre, opera,
    etc. pays off enormously in the long run in the development of kids with a
    larger world-view and better understanding of culture.

    Yep, AFTER they have learned proper behavior at HOME...

    We had to learn proper behaviour at home, only later were we permitted
    to go to restaurants, church, movies, etc. When I was a kid (I'm 51)
    even events such as weddings, funerals, etc. were primarily adult
    functions, kids were rarely taken along even to these types of
    things...

    The thing that gets me about these yupmoos that are complaining is that
    they are:

    1) stay - at - home moms...

    2) they are financially well - off (daddy usually has a big - cheeze
    job at some broker or lawyer firm downtown) and thus are very well -
    indulged materially. They want for nothing. At a very early age they
    have all the nice things that money can buy, unlike earlier generations
    they don't have to postpone gratification for *anything*...

    3) these kids are *endlessly* exposed to other social settings via pre
    - school, play dates, and myriad other things...

    4) quite a few of these moms have part - time nannies or helpers (or
    even full - time)...

    My folks both worked, we were working class, and yet us kids knew
    proper manners at an early age. SO what is this problem with this
    particular mothering set? All these wonderful advantages and their
    kiddies can't even behave decently in a public setting? I think the
    problem is with the mothers - they themselves have been over - indulged
    and they have never heard the phrases, "No..." and "You can't...".

    There should be no reason why a business owner should have to put up a
    sign asking patrons to use their "inside voices", there should be big
    outrage on either side about this, and there should be no article in
    the national press about this...but there ya go.

    --
    Best
    Greg

  17. Alex Rast said:

    And it's unfair to exclude children from establishments simply on the
    grounds that they might misbehave.

    Nope, it's a GREAT reason...

    Thats because a child in an establishment is a HUGE unknown
    quantity...the kid might act up, it might be just fine, in any case
    even the presence of a kid creates a lot of tension for many people,
    you have to make all this extra accomodation for them. If adults act
    up you can toss them out, no problem. With a misbehaving kid there is
    always the potential for a lot of extra drama, e.g. the fact that your
    establishment might end up being mentioned in the _New York Times_, the
    fact that you might have some angry jerk parent on your hands...

    There are plenty of places for kids to go act up, they are welcome to
    go there...they don't have to infest each and every place that exists,
    many of which us adults frequent in order to try and enjoy ourselves.

    Besides which this place mentioned in the article is a BUSINESS...a mom
    coming in with her kid for a treat is in most cases a PITA from a
    financial standpoint, e.g. they don't spend much, they take up lots of
    extra room with those friggin' Humvee strollers, kids are are a real
    turn - off for many from an aesthetic standpoint, etc....

    Quoted message said:

    So I think exposing young kids to high-end restaurants, theatre, opera,
    etc. pays off enormously in the long run in the development of kids with a
    larger world-view and better understanding of culture.

    Yep, AFTER they have learned proper behavior at HOME...

    We had to learn proper behaviour at home, only later were we permitted
    to go to restaurants, church, movies, etc. When I was a kid (I'm 51)
    even events such as weddings, funerals, etc. were primarily adult
    functions, kids were rarely taken along even to these types of
    things...

    The thing that gets me about these yupmoos that are complaining is that
    they are:

    1) stay - at - home moms...

    2) they are financially well - off (daddy usually has a big - cheeze
    job at some broker or lawyer firm downtown) and thus are very well -
    indulged materially. They want for nothing. At a very early age they
    have all the nice things that money can buy, unlike earlier generations
    they don't have to postpone gratification for *anything*...

    3) these kids are *endlessly* exposed to other social settings via pre
    - school, play dates, and myriad other things...

    4) quite a few of these moms have part - time nannies or helpers (or
    even full - time)...

    My folks both worked, we were working class, and yet us kids knew
    proper manners at an early age. SO what is this problem with this
    particular mothering set? All these wonderful advantages and their
    kiddies can't even behave decently in a public setting? I think the
    problem is with the mothers - they themselves have been over - indulged
    and they have never heard the phrases, "No..." and "You can't...".

    There should be no reason why a business owner should have to put up a
    sign asking patrons to use their "inside voices", there should be big
    outrage on either side about this, and there should be no article in
    the national press about this...but there ya go.

    --
    Best
    Greg

  18. "Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Gregory Morrow"
    <[email hidden]> looking for
    trouble wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Many of the Andersonville mothers who are boycotting Mr. McCauley's
    bakery also skip story time at Women and Children First, a feminist
    bookstore, because of the rules: children can be kicked out for
    standing, talking or sipping drinks. When a retail clerk at the
    bookstore asked a woman to stop breast-feeding last spring, "the
    neighborhood set him straight real fast," said Mary Ann Smith, the
    area's alderwoman.

    I think the breast feeding would depend on the establishment. Talking or
    sipping drinks is perfectly acceptable in my book.

    Standing & talking during story time is not being considerate of the patrons
    who would like to listen to the story. As for kids sipping drinks in a
    bookstore, that's an invitation to lost inventory and sticky messes,
    Chapters/Starbucks notwithstanding. Breastfeeding should be ignored in the
    same way as bottle feeding would be.

    Gabby

  19. "Michael "Dog3" Lonergan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Gregory Morrow"
    <[email hidden]> looking for
    trouble wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Many of the Andersonville mothers who are boycotting Mr. McCauley's
    bakery also skip story time at Women and Children First, a feminist
    bookstore, because of the rules: children can be kicked out for
    standing, talking or sipping drinks. When a retail clerk at the
    bookstore asked a woman to stop breast-feeding last spring, "the
    neighborhood set him straight real fast," said Mary Ann Smith, the
    area's alderwoman.

    I think the breast feeding would depend on the establishment. Talking or
    sipping drinks is perfectly acceptable in my book.

    Standing & talking during story time is not being considerate of the patrons
    who would like to listen to the story. As for kids sipping drinks in a
    bookstore, that's an invitation to lost inventory and sticky messes,
    Chapters/Starbucks notwithstanding. Breastfeeding should be ignored in the
    same way as bottle feeding would be.

    Gabby

  20. Nancy Young said:

    YEAH lady, you got it! and I don't find it relaxing with screaming kids
    running all over. Okay with you? I mean, it doesn't have to be like
    a church, for pete's sake, but it's not a playground, either.

    Been to church lately? In my experience, religious institutions are the
    worst for tolerating bad behavior in children, um, er, for putting up
    with parents who don't take the monsters to the cry room when they start
    to fuss.

    Ideally, the parents would take their kids to church, and one of them
    would exit with the baby whenever it got noisy. That could be
    squawling, or it could be the happy vocalizing of a pre-verbal toddler.
    Ideally, before the child had any real understanding of behavior
    modification, s/he would have some pre-conscious understanding that
    noise doesn't happen in that place. This wouldn't be a foreign concept
    since it would be reinforced with the idea that food never happens in
    the living room and running never happens in the department store. The
    older members of the congregation would then coo and tsk and say nice
    things about liking children while the parents pace up and down the
    foyer or front lobby (I like the word and concept of "cry room."😉 with
    the kid.

    The reality is somewhat different. Parents (some of them, I'm not
    making accusations) have the idea that children will grow into an
    attention span and grow into an ability to stay still and quiet the way
    they grow into walking and talking. They think those things just happen
    and don't realize all the ways they encourage them. They think that the
    religious service will somehow foster quiet in the kids. So they bring
    the kids and let them yell.

    None of that bothers me too much. What gets me is the handwringing of
    the clergy and the board of directors. The newsletter is filled with
    pleas for parents to keep their kids quiet. In one instance, they had
    this idea to put toys in the back of the room so the kids would play
    quietly by themselves during the service. But not once did anyone take
    responsibility for telling the parents to remove the children! What's a
    religious congregation for if it's not to give advice and help to young
    parents who could benefit from the wisdom of those who have been there
    ahead of them? But the board and clergy know that if they insist that
    kids who are being active and noisy be removed, the parents will
    effectively boycott, and they need the money.

    --Lia

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.