Chicago cafe owner takes a stand against boisterous children!

[DanS]

I'm guessing that Imran doesn't have much day-to-day interaction with kids.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Plenty of parents can support their kids, and keep them well behaved (Flubber's posts in this thread for example show him to be a parent who has raised his kid very well).

Thanks . . . . I think -- I'm sure there are people who could find lots to criticize in what we do

We try . .. . but I bet in the past two years there have been times when someone looked at either Mrs Flubber or I and wondered "can't you control your child?" . . . It's exhausting to keep up

So please cut us some slack . . yes the child running around a restaurant for 10 minutes is inexcusable but the minute of loudness or crying or screaming is pretty much unavoidable . . . If you (generally, not specifically Imran) can't hack that, I recommend you return to you cocoon.

Remember, you were all children once

[smacksim]

The double standards of parenting? Oh I do sympathise with that!

Its also clear from the parental reactions in this thread that at least polytubbies feel immense pressure on their parenting from within and without [eg 'bite me' if you disagree]. A sort of: "I'm doing everything as well as I possibly can, and if you criticize my choices you shall die!" response. I can't blame you guys!

The fact of the matter remains though that some parents do make bad choices, that many of these poor decisions stem from societal influences on them or their child (as you would have it said). Indeed as you say you are 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' with regard to other people's opinions, which goes to show that there is no standard (nor perhaps can there be in a rapidly changing society).

The other sad fact remains as well, that no matter how good you 'Poly parents are, there are crappy parents too. And there are otherwise decent parents who feel its their 'right' to bring their kids to keggers and keep them sober, to bring them to restaurants and expect everyone to actively sympathise with their in-your-face parenting snafus. There are good people who can't seem to grasp that though a restaurant is a public place that doesn't make it free from expectations of behavior and a mixed bag of them at that.

Combining the immense pressures of parenting with an ambiguous set of behavioral expectations of course leads to lawsuits. Quite sad!

Really, after hearing some of you I wouldn't be surprised if you took a swing at me if I asked you to leave with your child from my restaurant (I don't run one now, only speaking hypothetically). Don't you think thats going too far? Owners do make mistakes, and what if their expectations for decorum don't match those of a parent: "MY child is acting perfectly well. I don't see why they cannot be allowed to x, y, z in your place. You are a bastard for having a different expectation! I'm going to a,b, and c you!". Ugh. Isn't it the patron's responsibility to learn the expectations of an establishment and either subscribe or move on? I think it is, but parents get caught in this trap of feeling that they've 'done our very best' and that has to be good enough for everyone else. It usually is, but when its not its easy to see why parents then take it so personally.

Another example is the classic: "Hey, why don't I take my kids to the grocery so I can beat them in an interesting and air-conditioned public place?".

We've all seen that I'm sure. Probably most of us take such an occassion to sneer and feel superior. But isn't that parent really just parenting how they think is best? I dare you to ask them to keep their beatings at home! They'd react just as the 'beauty queens and cheerleaders' of Chi-town do, only with fists instead of lawyers and boycotts.

At the root of all this is the attachment to hard-won social rules we've adopted for ourselves and families. When things conflict with our constructs we generally don't react well: "How DARE you tell me my child is too loud"......"But sir, I merely said that your child is too loud for our restaurant", etc.. The more pressure the parent feels to conform, perhaps the more strongly they'll react to changes in the rules around them......or so I'd guess.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Plenty of parents can support their kids, and keep them well behaved (Flubber's posts in this thread for example show him to be a parent who has raised his kid very well).

I was responding to

"Well they are the ones who decided to have the kids. "

The bearing of children is necessary for the continuity of society. It is appropriate that society be supportive of parents, even if some parents dont need that support.

[Flubber]

Well smacksim, I was the "bite me" poster and I don't retract it. I described a certain standard of behaviors which most people would find very reasonable for the setting . If they are not good enough for a given person well "too bad for them"

Note also

1. I was very clear in that I avoid places that might require long periods of inactivity as inappropriate. I agree the patron should assess the appropriatemenss of bringing a child to an establishment

2. I have no problem with adult-only establishments

3. I would never strike anyone

4. I don't claim to be a perfect or even a good parent. I do claim that I try to the best of my abilities.

5. I am concerned about disrupting others but it may opccurr temporarily.

[smacksim]

Originally posted by Flubber
So please cut us some slack . . yes the child running around a restaurant for 10 minutes is inexcusable but the minute of loudness or crying or screaming is pretty much unavoidable . . . If you (generally, not specifically Imran) can't hack that, I recommend you return to you cocoon.

Remember, you were all children once

Flubber, there's a difference between an unexpected shout or spontaneity and an either expected or prolonged one. I see your point that the rare outburst should be tolerated because the math works out (IE, banning a family from somewhere when the chance of disturbance is very small is like asking a library which occasionally doesn't have the book you are looking for to shut down.....ridiculous). But are you saying that no place should ban children ever because yours 'generally behaves'? It seems to me that some places would prohibit all children even if the risk were quite small (4 star restaurant for example), that some places would take a no tolerance approach (maximize profits by kicking out only the offenders), and some would take other approaches, and all could be acceptable to parents.

Why is it that on the one hand you say you understand the right of owners to ban kids, but on the other that people should tolerate the occasional outburst? Or do you simply mean that places that allow kids-that-are-generally-behaving also require that patrons accept this fact? I agree with that then.

but I bet in the past two years there have been times when someone looked at either Mrs Flubber or I and wondered "can't you control your child?" . . . It's exhausting to keep up

Ignore us non-parents when we make this mistake. I mean, either you are going to be a frustrated conformist (seeing as there is no standard to conform to as everyone has their own) or are going to be a miffed non-conformist. If you know you're doing well with your kid, whats the big deal when stupid people don't 'get it'?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I was responding to

"Well they are the ones who decided to have the kids. "

The bearing of children is necessary for the continuity of society. It is appropriate that society be supportive of parents, even if some parents dont need that support.

I actually find Canadian society to be modearetly supportive of child-raising. The government helps with a year of incom support through the employment insurance program and many employee programs pay pretty close to full salary for 10-16 weeks.

There are ample entertainment choices and kid-friendly venures. While much tv is inappropriate, there are specific channels with good learning shows.

I don't understand the fuss about a place being a bit less kid-friendly. There are lots and lots of places that welcom and even cater to customers with children. Some don't . . . I say vive la difference!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Flubber
Thanks . . . . I think -- I'm sure there are people who could find lots to criticize in what we do

We try . .. . but I bet in the past two years there have been times when someone looked at either Mrs Flubber or I and wondered "can't you control your child?" . . . It's exhausting to keep up

So please cut us some slack . . yes the child running around a restaurant for 10 minutes is inexcusable but the minute of loudness or crying or screaming is pretty much unavoidable . . . If you (generally, not specifically Imran) can't hack that, I recommend you return to you cocoon.

Remember, you were all children once

The problems that lead to responses such as no screaming cafes aren't kids that scream every now and then, it's those that scream and yell and carry on for a half hour and their parents basically ignore them, retreating into their newspaper. And kids who slam into furnature, or run around, or lay in the middle of the floor.

Screaming every now and then isn't going to bother most people (though at a movie theater that may be a different story... I'd expect it watching Shrek, but if I'm watching an R rated flick, I cannot possibly understand, why you'd bring your 4 year old! Especially if the movie is loaded with violence and sex). It's the extreme behavior you see now-a-days that will.

That's the reason all these SuperNanny shows get such high ratings. People want to see some of these bratty kids, who climb poles, who lay in the middle of the floor, get straighted out.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by smacksim

Why is it that on the one hand you say you understand the right of owners to ban kids, but on the other that people should tolerate the occasional outburst? Or do you simply mean that places that allow kids-that-are-generally-behaving also require that patrons accept this fact? I agree with that then.

Thats precisely what I mean.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The problems that lead to responses such as no screaming cafes aren't kids that scream every now and then, it's those that scream and yell and carry on for a half hour and their parents basically ignore them, retreating into their newspaper. And kids who slam into furnature, or run around, or lay in the middle of the floor.

You see I don't understand any parent that reads a newspaper in an area without a designated play area for their child. I can read a paper at my leisure at Macdonals while Toddler Flubber zooms through their gym. Yelling and running and jumping are expected there so its win-win.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
or.

Screaming every now and then isn't going to bother most people (though at a movie theater that may be a different story... I'd expect it watching Shrek, but if I'm watching an R rated flick, I cannot possibly understand, why you'd bring your 4 year old! Especially if the movie is loaded with violence and sex). It's the extreme behavior you see now-a-days that will.
.

Thats a good example of the situation changing. I EXPECT a lot of children at the 2pm showing of Shrek and don't expect quiet. But then again Toddler Flubber has never been to a movie except for the "Baby day" showings which were specifically marketted to people with infants and toddlers - heck they had a baby gym set up and a change station and a roped off stroller parking area.

Ithink a parent that brings a 4 year old to an adult movie is an idiot but that just me

[smacksim]

Originally posted by Flubber
Well smacksim, I was the "bite me" poster and I don't retract it. I described a certain standard of behaviors which most people would find very reasonable for the setting . If they are not good enough for a given person well "too bad for them"

Like I said, I understand the strong reaction. Perfectly reasonable too if the expectations of the place are understood (thinking of an airport for example where everyone has a right to be there). But thinking of the Chicago case, some of those parents seem to have hardened their sense of what is expected everywhere and have made a blanket statement: "We shall be allowed to bring our children anywhere so long as we feel we are controlling them to our standards."

This is what gets my ire up a bit. The audacity of a person to come into my business and tell me what my expectations for them are! I don't accuse anyone in this thread of acting this way, but the possibility seems there with potentially hardened and certainly hard-won self-expectations for family.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

. I'd expect it watching Shrek, but if I'm watching an R rated flick, I cannot possibly understand, why you'd bring your 4 year old! Especially if the movie is loaded with violence and sex). It's the extreme behavior you see now-a-days that will.

well we havent taken POTM to an R rated movie to this day, and shes 13. (She has seen one at a friends house though) So im hardly in keeping with these social trends.

Of course most parents i know wouldnt take a toddler to a movie theater other than a kids movie. Which is the a priori from which i view this article - if the collective yuppie parents of Andersonville are up in arms, theres something more than meets the eye here.

[lord of the mark]

when i see a parent whos kid is running around loudly in a public place, and the parent isnt doing anything, I sometimes think the parent should do more.

More often I think, at least this parent is taking their kid somewhere, not keeping the kid home in front of the tube, or hooked up to some game.


Too many kids dont spend any time at playgrounds, playing outside, etc. Theyve GOT to blow off steam at some point. If we want kids to be better behaved in public, we should attempt to discourage parents from giveng their kids electronics as a substitute for the physical things that kids need to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if the collective yuppie parents of Andersonville are up in arms, theres something more than meets the eye here.

The 'collective yuppie parents'? What the 4 of them in the article? According to the article there are families with kids that go in there and as long as they don't carry on, nothing bad happens to them. How many are really "up in arms"? 20-30?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to the article there are families with kids that go in there and as long as they don't carry on,

i must have misread - i didnt see any references to parents who were pleased with the policy (just one who was compliant) and several who were displeased. and a whispering campaign.