Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So there should be some places where children should be free to act in ways that attract complaints. In reality, extremely few adults are so crazy to complain about truly well-behaved children.
Why shouldn't children be expected to control/restrain themselves even at McDonalds?
I truly believe their God-given "creativity" won't be "stifled" and no profits will be lost in the future (Lord Forbid!) just because they were forced to practice self-control during childhood.
To be honest i have waited tables at fine dining places for the last 6 years and can say i have seen more obnoxious adults then i have little kids.
Lol. So true. I had a few jobs waiting tables at a variety of different restaurants.
My main complaint with kids was that they could be messy eaters and some of the parents didn't even try to control where food was being thrown/smeared/spilled. It always took a while for their tables to be cleaned and bussed which meant a delay in my next party being seated, which meant less tips for me...
But the truly obnoxious, loud, rude, whooping, hollering ones weren't the kids.
Last edited by springfieldva; 02-24-2012 at 06:43 AM..
Children do not receive dirty looks "just for existing".
It is the parents who changed the meaning of the word "existing" and who expect everyone else to put up with that type of "existence".
Oh for the love of Pete - way to take my comment out of context. Usually in these types of threads a small contingent starts railing against kids being brought anywhere or their awful breeder parents, etc. My comment was in reference to that extreme anti-child type of statement. Of course children should be expected to behave in public - there is still a difference between the level of self-control one can reasonably expect from a 2 year old compared to a 10 year old or an adult. That's not cultural, it's developmental. And in case you are wondering, my children tend to be very well-behaved in public, to the point that DH and I have received compliments about their behavior.
My comment was in reference to that extreme anti-child type of statement.
What is that "extreme" anti-child type of statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
Of course children should be expected to behave in public.
Define "behave".
There is a reason why some restaurants will simply say "no kids under the age of X".
1) Most children today DO NOT act in "be seen but not heard" ways. This, in and of itself, can disturb an adult evening.
They don't have to be horribly misbehaving little hellions. They only need to be the typical, normal child of today who has been conditioned to expect inclusion in adult conversations, who fidgets, who interrupts, who needs some form of attention very frequently, often because they are not busy most of the day running around freely with their own kind (other children). So they milk the adults for all the energy and attention they have.
Absolutely ALL of the children I have seen in this culture are like that, mine included. I can alter some aspects through pure training/education but I cannot alter realities of modern life (no fields to run in freely with kids their age, no grandparents handy to keep the children while I am taking a night off, etc).
These children, mine included, are certainly not what my generation was, in X traditional country: literally "seen but not heard", and often not even "seen" as we were expected to play in our rooms or outside; and clearly NOT included in adult conversations. We might have been allowed to listen in but not ADD/INTERFERE.
But modern life is set up in such ways that children invariably land at the center no matter how you twist it.
2) If this is ONLY NORMAL for children (to create some form of stir) this is exactly why some restaurants say "leave your normal child at home". Their normality, which used to be consumed out in the fields, in the company of other bouncy children, is now expected to play out in restaurants, in adult company. Well, too bad, because their normality will invariably mess up a truly adult evening. You know, the kind where adults converse in-depth about a variety of adult issues, where they don't have to interrupt conversation every 3 minutes to say "Yes, honey, this is a nice house you drew, wonderful, now let mommy talk to daddy or to Miss Jenny".
And this is the best case scenario. The worse cases might involve cups spilled, legs hurt, feelings hurt, whining, fidgeting, crying, tension, etc.
So much for the adult evening.
So why can't those restaurants say NO without being accused of "extreme anti-child statements"?
What is that "extreme" anti-child type of statement?
Define "behave".
There is a reason why some restaurants will simply say "no kids under the age of X".
1) Most children today DO NOT act in "be seen but not heard" ways. This, in and of itself, can disturb an adult evening.
They don't have to be horribly misbehaving little hellions. They only need to be the typical, normal child of today who has been conditioned to expect inclusion in adult conversations, who fidgets, who interrupts, who needs some form of attention very frequently, often because they are not busy most of the day running around freely with their own kind (other children). So they milk the adults for all the energy and attention they have.
Absolutely ALL of the children I have seen in this culture are like that, mine included. I can alter some aspects through pure training/education but I cannot alter realities of modern life (no fields to run in freely with kids their age, no grandparents handy to keep the children while I am taking a night off, etc).
These children, mine included, are certainly not what my generation was, in X traditional country: literally "seen but not heard", and often not even "seen" as we were expected to play in our rooms or outside; and clearly NOT included in adult conversations. We might have been allowed to listen in but not ADD/INTERFERE.
But modern life is set up in such ways that children invariably land at the center no matter how you twist it.
2) If this is ONLY NORMAL for children (to create some form of stir) this is exactly why some restaurants say "leave your normal child at home". Their normality, which used to be consumed out in the fields, in the company of other bouncy children, is now expected to play out in restaurants, in adult company. Well, too bad, because their normality will invariably mess up a truly adult evening. You know, the kind where adults converse in-depth about a variety of adult issues, where they don't have to interrupt conversation every 3 minutes to say "Yes, honey, this is a nice house you drew, wonderful, now let mommy talk to daddy or to Miss Jenny".
And this is the best case scenario. The worse cases might involve cups spilled, legs hurt, feelings hurt, whining, fidgeting, crying, tension, etc.
So much for the adult evening.
So why can't those restaurants say NO without being accused of "extreme anti-child statements"?
Please find someone else to argue with rather than cherry-picking my statements to advance your own opinion. The type of statement I was referring to is in the two threads linked in my first post from the other times this topic has come up. I was anticipating, rather than reacting to. Sorry if how I wrote it was confusing. As I have mentioned repeatedly, I have no problem with adult-only restaurants and did not accuse any restaurant of "extreme anti-child statements."
Huh. My kids have more interesting things to say than half the grown ups I know.
Speaking of raising children with a sense of importance.
Assuming your children are indeed very intelligent, so intelligent they are clearly smarter than 50% of the adults out there (waow) - and you still wouldn't have to leave them with the impression that they are smarter than those adults.
Let alone that this is 99.9999% likely NOT TRUE.
Speaking of raising children with a sense of importance.
Assuming your children are indeed very intelligent, so intelligent they are clearly smarter than 50% of the adults out there (waow) - and you still wouldn't have to leave them with the impression that they are smarter than those adults.
Let alone that this is 99.9999% likely NOT TRUE.
"more interesting than" does not mean "smarter than"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
