Chicago cafe owner takes a stand against boisterous children!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Would you rather have been a single adult in the 1950's, back in the lovely era of kidfree restaurants?

I would enjoy having the option of a kidfree restaurant or perhaps a kidfree theater.

I didnt ask that. I asked if youd like to go back to the 1950s as a PACKAGE - kids are seen and not heard, and well behaved little things, AND theres no nudity in film, theres no video games, most mothers stay home, progressive opinion sees homosexuality as a disease, abortion is illegal, etc, etc. You want the one or two old fashioned things that YOU like, while not wanting the entire, organic society they were a part of.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Would you rather have been a single adult in the 1950's, back in the lovely era of kidfree restaurants?

I would enjoy having the option of a kidfree restaurant or perhaps a kidfree theater.

It seems to me that for society to be any more 'kid friendly' means to take away any rights for single adults to have any fun (ie, banning 'M' rated video games).

quite franly when I was single I found plenty of means to have fun that didnt involve M rated video games

And if you think the jerkiness of some kids is unrelated to some games, youre a fool. Again, ive watched a lot of kids and not just in restaurants. In general the ones today who ARE well behaved are the ones whove had the least exposure to the junk culture.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I didnt ask that. I asked if youd like to go back to the 1950s as a PACKAGE - kids are seen and not heard, and well behaved little things, AND theres no nudity in film, theres no video games, most mothers stay home, progressive opinion sees homosexuality as a disease, abortion is illegal, etc, etc. You want the one or two old fashioned things that YOU like, while not wanting the entire, organic society they were a part of.

And so what is the point of your idiotic question? So because I want to eat dinner without having a child screaming behind me for half an hour, I want to go back to denying blacks and homosexuals civil rights... yeah... riiiiiight

And of course, lord knows that you don't want any 'old fashioned' things at all, because then you'd have to accept the entire society.

I'm against affirmative action... oh oh! Must mean that I want the entire 1950s society back! Please...

[smacksim]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And of course, lord knows that you don't want any 'old fashioned' things at all, because then you'd have to accept the entire society.

I'm against affirmative action... oh oh! Must mean that I want the entire 1950s society back! Please...

+1 to Imran

LotM, what do you mean about it not being a family-friendly world, other than that there is a junk culture? Or is that what you mean?

[lord of the mark]

smack I agree with you that broader social expectations would help. Indeed I think they would not only help the restaurant owners and patrons, they would make this a much MORE child friendly world. I grew up in a more conservative world - children had expectations, and so did everyone else. And traditions, and community.


But do you think Mr Positive Energy is interested in broader social standards? A return to tradition, a respect for authority? NYT didnt explore that, but I kinda doubt it. Now youve gotta know, smack, that the original poster here is the one who rushes to slam every pol who takes issue with some video game or other "in the name of the kids". Now, personally, I dont see how we can communicate to our kids a set of social expectations, a respect for the rights of others, and of authority, when the whole society is pushing on them DISRESPECT for authority, for the rights of others, and for even the very idea of tradition. Some folks want to have the indulgent, completely free, junk culture of today, while expecting children and families to look like a 1950s sitcom. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by smacksim


+1 to Imran

LotM, what do you mean about it not being a family-friendly world, other than that there is a junk culture? Or is that what you mean?

thats one piece of it. The economic and social pressures for two income families is another - which even effect kids with a parent at home, since there arent other parents watching the neighborhood, other kids playing on the street, etc. When i grew up there were moms, seniors, etc sitting outside, and kids playing. Today the moms are at work, the seniors are in Florida, the kids are either inside doing homework, locked onto some electronic entertainment, or at an organized activity. Theyre exposed to more choices and more knowledge than kids should have, have less community support than they should have, have more pressures than kids should have. Huge numbers live without one parent - when theyre lucky it was an "amicable" divorce- when theyre not its a horror. Parents dont know how to parent cause their own parents arent around to tell them, or any other extended family.

Its a range of things, and thats just a sample.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And so what is the point of your idiotic question? So because I want to eat dinner without having a child screaming behind me for half an hour, I want to go back to denying blacks and homosexuals civil rights... yeah... riiiiiight

And of course, lord knows that you don't want any 'old fashioned' things at all, because then you'd have to accept the entire society.

I'm against affirmative action... oh oh! Must mean that I want the entire 1950s society back! Please...

Cause you dont acknowledge the extent to which the behaviors you dislike are the logical result of certain particular changes you defend.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


:And of course, lord knows that you don't want any 'old fashioned' things at all, because then you'd have to accept the entire society.
...

I acknowledge there are tensions. For ex the revolution in gay rights has made the world better for gay children (as well as adults) its also made straight children think about their sexuality much earlier than they ever did before, in ways not necessarily beneficial to them, and has often (and ive seen this) cast a sexual overtone on same sex friendships in distinctly unhealthy ways. Does that mean we should go back? No, that would mean deep pain for both gay children and adults. Nor does it mean we should give up on restoring some degree of innocence to our children. But it means that the topic is complex, and not suitable for rants. Similarly the topic of parenting in general is complex.

[smacksim]

Ah I see, that there's another longer debate going on behind this one, and also about your 'family-unfriendly' world concept.

I do agree with you about this latter, but more indirectly. As you said: "children had expectations, and so did everyone else. And traditions, and community", these and other things are not completely incompatible with a violence and sex-obsessed junk culture, for if you have the former then the latter is exterior to your sense of propriety. Its only those who lack for one that cannot resist the other.

Children also have their own "expectations [...] and traditions, and community" which are quite cruel in any age, this being no exception. But perhaps I'm mixing apples and oranges because there's a big difference between boistrous toddlers (no toddler culture influences them very much to just be exploring kids) and mean adolescents or pre-teens.

But I would say that people are often too quick to blame the teenager's cruelty / lack-of-manners / rudeness on some present cultural influence or lack thereof when this is omnipresent in all cultures and points of history. Too often parents point to this or that influence and say: "My child is rude to me because they don't have enough Jesus", or "Those children are cruel to each other because they learned it in a video game" when the fact is that children are animals to a large degree. Social animals do have to go through some cruel phases to learn about social order. A rather large proportion of these kinds of complaints have more to do with universal and timeless need for kids to experiment with social phases and sense of belonging than they do with anything else, IMO.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by smacksim
Ah I see, that there's another longer debate going on behind this one, and also about your 'family-unfriendly' world concept.

I do agree with you about this latter, but more indirectly. As you said: "children had expectations, and so did everyone else. And traditions, and community", these and other things are not completely incompatible with a violence and sex-obsessed junk culture, for if you have the former then the latter is exterior to your sense of propriety. Its only those who lack for one that cannot resist the other.

Children also have their own "expectations [...] and traditions, and community" which are quite cruel in any age, this being no exception. But perhaps I'm mixing apples and oranges because there's a big difference between boistrous toddlers (no toddler culture influences them very much to just be exploring kids) and mean adolescents or pre-teens.

But I would say that people are often too quick to blame the teenager's cruelty / lack-of-manners / rudeness on some present cultural influence or lack thereof when this is omnipresent in all cultures and points of history. Too often parents point to this or that influence and say: "My child is rude to me because they don't have enough Jesus", or "Those children are cruel to each other because they learned it in a video game" when the fact is that children are animals to a large degree. Social animals do have to go through some cruel phases to learn about social order. A rather large proportion of these kinds of complaints have more to do with universal and timeless need for kids to experiment with social phases and sense of belonging than they do with anything else, IMO.

no werent talking about preteen bullying. I have a fair amount of experience on that issue, and have some opinions on its relations to many aspects of todays culture, but as some of it involves personal things about my child, id rather not share it here. I would only say that there are certain aspects of the bullying and cruelty that are clearly related to both poor parenting and to some of the kinds of social breakdown we discussed earlier.

[Sava]

If smoking can be banned from restaurants and such...

then children should be bannable if the owners want to

to be honest, children in public places bother me more than smoking

Banning children

and to go further, people should need licenses to have children...

I am serious... you need a license to drive right? you go through an intensive screening process to adopt a kid right?

SO WHY ARE MORONS ALLOWED TO HAVE LIKE A DOZEN KIDS???

seriously... it would solve so many problems

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now youve gotta know, smack, that the original poster here is the one who rushes to slam every pol who takes issue with some video game or other "in the name of the kids". Now, personally, I dont see how we can communicate to our kids a set of social expectations, a respect for the rights of others, and of authority, when the whole society is pushing on them DISRESPECT for authority, for the rights of others, and for even the very idea of tradition.

Because 'M' rated video games are really dictating childrens' behavior. If they are, the people to blame are the parents who are allowing the kids to play games (or on the contrary to watch shows) that are not meant for them. For some reason, LOTM, you don't seem to believe in parental responsibility. You want the society to temper themselves and raise the children. I'm sorry, but it's the parents responsibility to raise their kids. And an 8 year old shouldn't be playing a game which is made for 18+ year olds. The fact that parents are shunning their responsibilities doesn't mean that every other aspect of society should kow tow and now teach the children.

As smacksim said, having expections of children are not incompatable with a violence and sex obsessed culture which is not intended for those who are under a certain age. You can have expectations of your 3 year old while watching the latest violent blockbuster or erotic film after they've gone to bed.

Frankly it's a copout to say that this violence and sex obsessed junk culture is responsible for parents not adequately socializing their kids. And uncompelling in the slightest.

[Flubber]

Re: Chicago cafe owner takes a stand against boisterous children!

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Good for him! I know most of the parents are going to go hrumphing off somewhere else, but somewhere along the way it seems people have forgotten to teach their kids manners in public places.

As a parent of a 30 month old, I don't have any problem with what he is trying to do. The reality though is that 2 year olds are very unpredictable so when I am with my son, I probably wouldn't go to such a place. Its not a boycott . . .

The reality is that there are enough places that are more geared to children with play areas and an atmosphere where more exuberance is expected and easily accepted. We simply don't bring our son to fine dining places etc. But we go to those places without him, because we too, appreciate the relaxed and relatively child free atmosphere

[smacksim]

[edit: forgot how fast OT goes. This is in reply to LotM] Agreed. Its quite a can of worms and far too large and diversionary to go into here. So my question then remains, what do you mean by 'family unfriendly world'? So far as toddlers are concerned? It seems quite the opposite to me, that society welcomes whole families to enter where before they were blocked. If you mean junk culture you must mean its influence on behavior. It can't be toddler's behavior (too young to absorb wholesale), so it must be parents or business owners?

Anyways....

[Flubber]

Re: Chicago cafe owner takes a stand against boisterous children!

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09bakery.html?incamp=article_popular_1

[q]At Center of a Clash, Rowdy Children in Coffee Shops
By JODI WILGOREN



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.

To me this is just silly. I would salute and applaud a business owner that wanted to create a more family friendly area. lawsuits?? To me thats idiotic.