The No Kids Allowed Movement

79 posts / 0 new
Last post
TyrantOfTheWeek's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 12/26/05
Posts: 1147
The No Kids Allowed Movement
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 01/06/03
Posts: 1175

Not everybody has kids. Not everybody wants to be interrupted by kids when they are out with other adults. Certainly some children are little angels who are a joy to be around... but unfortunately, not all children necessarily fit into that category. I have kids but I can totally understand why some businesses/etc. would go this route. I have no problem with some places/events/etc. being child-free. I love my kids and I bring my kids many places but they are not attached to me and I do very much enjoy going out childless, either by myself, with my dh, or with friends. I don't think that makes me a terrible person.

Sure businesses that do this may lose some business from those who have kids/want to bring them everywhere with them, but I think they will gain business from the childless ones/those who want a kid-free time... so I think in the end it will all even out. I do not agree it is discrimination. They are simply catering to a specific clientele. There are probably far more child-friendly options out there than non-child-friendly anyway. If the ones with children are going to cry discrimination... then the childless ones could turn around and argue the same by saying there aren't many non-child options for them Wink I think the word "discrimination" is thrown around far too much sometimes.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

It's both. I'm all for taking your kids to nice places for dinner once in a while, but not if they have a meltdown. You know your kids, leave them home if that's what they do at 7pm or if there isn't grilled cheese on the menu or crayons & paper to entertain them. And if you get somewhere & they're rowdy & noisy, then take them out quickly. Don't subject the rest of us to their noise & disruption when we're trying to have a nice dinner or enjoy a movie. But while I completely understand the desire to ban kids altogether from some places, as a parent who wants to expose my kids to nice things & who teaches them how to behave in nice places (mostly by practicing at home & at less-nice places) I can't quite accept it. I just really wish more parents in the recent past would have trained their kids to use manners in public so that this wouldn't feel necessary now. Sad

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"Princess&ThePea" wrote:

Not everybody has kids. Not everybody wants to be interrupted by kids when they are out with other adults. Certainly some children are little angels who are a joy to be around... but unfortunately, not all children necessarily fit into that category. I have kids but I can totally understand why some businesses/etc. would go this route. I have no problem with some places/events/etc. being child-free. I love my kids and I bring my kids many places but they are not attached to me and I do very much enjoy going out childless, either by myself, with my dh, or with friends. I don't think that makes me a terrible person.

Sure businesses that do this may lose some business from those who have kids/want to bring them everywhere with them, but I think they will gain business from the childless ones/those who want a kid-free time... so I think in the end it will all even out. I do not agree it is discrimination. They are simply catering to a specific clientele. There are probably far more child-friendly options out there than non-child-friendly anyway. If the ones with children are going to cry discrimination... then the childless ones could turn around and argue the same by saying there aren't many non-child options for them Wink I think the word "discrimination" is thrown around far too much sometimes.

This. I love my kids and my plethora of nephews and my niece. But, it's nice getting a break in a place you know is adults only. I don't want to have to wait til after 9pm at a bar.

Obviously children can't be banned from everything so, I'm not concerned about it 'going too far'.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I think it's a really interesting development.

I absolutely agree that there are some places where I absolutely don't want to take my child (and I'd be just as pleased if your kids weren't screaming/running/et cetera in my vicinity.) I like to have dinner at nice restaurants, have drinks in a fancy bar, go to movies, go to nail salons and get pedicures, all sans child and preferably sans anyone else's children if they are going to act up. So I get it.

But there seems to be something kind of...I don't know if this is the right word, but....unkind, mean-spirited about outright banning all children from places (other than places that children absolutely shouldn't be exposed to, like strip clubs.) I think that parents should exercise common sense and courtesy and either not bring their kids or take them out if they are misbehaving, but the idea of banning children all together just seems a little like they are assuming that all kids will misbehave and that even if they don't that adults simply shouldn't have to bear the sight of a child even if they are behaving themselves. That seems a bit over the top to me.

So, not really my style. I don't care enough that I would boycott a place like that and refuse to go even if I had a babysitter, but the idea still rubs me the wrong way a little bit.

Also, I think it's a very bad idea when it comes to things like grocery stores (although the article says that it's just an optional childcare service, not a child ban) because many people would be unable to run their errands if they couldn't take their children. That would be very unreasonable. Banning them from playing outside is also completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Childhood obesity, anyone?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Princess&ThePea" wrote:

If the ones with children are going to cry discrimination... then the childless ones could turn around and argue the same by saying there aren't many non-child options for them.

I disagree with this. Couples without children are still allowed to go to child friendly locales. If they choose not to, that is their choice, not discrimination.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I think it's great! There are a tiny fraction of a percent of all restaurants in the country who do this, I have absolutely zero fear that my children will be deprived of the opportunity to learn good manners Smile

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 01/06/03
Posts: 1175

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I disagree with this. Couples without children are still allowed to go to child friendly locales. If they choose not to, that is their choice, not discrimination.

I don't mean they're not allowed to go... I mean they could (theoretically... I doubt any actually would) claim it was discrimination that there are so many more places that allow children than not allow.

And really... people with kids are allowed to go to the childless places... just can't take their kids. So if they chose not to, that's their choice too... and not discrimination.

The point I'm (badly) trying to make is that I don't think it is discrimination at all no matter which side you look at. Everybody makes the choice to go or not to go to these places. It would be (kind of) like saying a barbershop is discriminating because it only cuts mens' hair and not womens. I think that would silly. Smile

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

And I have to say, if Trader Joe's offered a childcare service, I would happily take them up on it! I'd even be willing to pay a nominal fee for it -- not for Weston, but for Tiven! She's at an age where she's no longer interested in helping, but her constant chatter & questions & requests are soooooooo distracting. The last two times I've had to take her with me, my shopping took twice as long as it should have, and I forgot a few things, too.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Our local Wegman's offered drop off childcare when it first opened- but had to stop as some parents were going offsite and running other errands, which blows mind. I would not have used it anyway, however.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1316

I'm not opposed to it. I love bringing my boy out to lunch/dinner with me (to a family friendly restaurant) but sometimes it's nice to get out without having to worry about if the child next to me is going to start crying, yelling, or playing the never ending game of peek-a-boo over the top of the booth.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Banning them from playing outside is also completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Childhood obesity, anyone?

I'm pretty sure this also violates the federal Fair Housing Act.

momW's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 09/29/09
Posts: 5634

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I think that parents should exercise common sense and courtesy and either not bring their kids or take them out if they are misbehaving,

Well, I think so too but do you really see a lot of common sense and courtesy going on nowadays.

elleon17's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

I guess it is the private owners right to dictate what they want.

Are kids under 'proctected' status? If they are then it would be illegal. Just as if you couldn't say noone with a disability is allowed to be there.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Princess&ThePea" wrote:

I don't mean they're not allowed to go... I mean they could (theoretically... I doubt any actually would) claim it was discrimination that there are so many more places that allow children than not allow.

And really... people with kids are allowed to go to the childless places... just can't take their kids. So if they chose not to, that's their choice too... and not discrimination.

The point I'm (badly) trying to make is that I don't think it is discrimination at all no matter which side you look at. Everybody makes the choice to go or not to go to these places. It would be (kind of) like saying a barbershop is discriminating because it only cuts mens' hair and not womens. I think that would silly. Smile

To the first bolded, how is it discrimination to put less restrictions on who can come? I'm seriously not following your logic. That's like if some stores only allowed blondes, and some stores allowed blondes AND brunettes, and the blondes sued the stores that allowed blondes and brunettes for discrimination. How is it discriminating against anyone to allow everyone to come?

To the red bolded (I color coded just to keep my points separate) it is not the parents that are discriminated against in that scenario, it is the children. The children do not have the choice to go or not go because they are not allowed to go.

zefroim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 05/18/06
Posts: 126

"Potter75" wrote:

I think it's great! There are a tiny fraction of a percent of all restaurants in the country who do this, I have absolutely zero fear that my children will be deprived of the opportunity to learn good manners Smile

This. I think it's ridiculous parents complain because they can't take their kids to one, possibly two restaurants in their town. People like that seek crap out to complain about.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"zefroim" wrote:

This. I think it's ridiculous parents complain because they can't take their kids to one, possibly two restaurants in their town. People like that seek crap out to complain about.

See, I don't think that the "it's only a couple of restaurants" argument is a good one - what if there were only one or two restaurants in town that didn't allow black people, or whatever (choose literally any other group of people other than children.)

Haha, this debate is making me sound like I am a lot more up in arms about this issue than I am. I really don't care that much, and I wouldn't complain, but it still does rub me the wrong way somehow. I think it's just this idea that people who don't have or don't like children shouldn't have to be subjected to the very sight of them, no matter how well they are behaving. I know someone who feels that way (she's constantly irritated by just seeing kids in places that you would expect to see kids - like the grocery store) and I find it a really negative and annoying attitude.

Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

What I don't like about this is that it assumes the mere presence of children will hinder the dining experience of others. This is a slippery slope because children of all ages have stereotypes - would a ban on teenagers in public places be okay? Even when with their parents? College students could be stereotyped as sitting at a table for hours while only spening $5. Should restaurants say no college students because some of them might camp out?

Business owners should kick out anyone who is not behaving appropriately whether he/she is drunk 20something, bachelorette bridezilla, or a two-year-old having a meltdown.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What I don't like about this is that it assumes the mere presence of children will hinder the dining experience of others. This is a slippery slope because children of all ages have stereotypes - would a ban on teenagers in public places be okay? Even when with their parents? College students could be stereotyped as sitting at a table for hours while only spening $5. Should restaurants say no college students because some of them might camp out?

Business owners should kick out anyone who is not behaving appropriately whether he/she is drunk 20something, bachelorette bridezilla, or a two-year-old having a meltdown.

YES!!!! That is what I am trying to say. I totally agree that a child that is not behaving appropriately should be taken out of ANY situation, and if the parents aren't smart enough to figure that out by themselves, the business owner should feel free to give them the boot. But I dislike the notion that the very presence of a child (no matter how well behaved) detracts from the experience.

zefroim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 05/18/06
Posts: 126

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

See, I don't think that the "it's only a couple of restaurants" argument is a good one - what if there were only one or two restaurants in town that didn't allow black people, or whatever (choose literally any other group of people other than children.)

Haha, this debate is making me sound like I am a lot more up in arms about this issue than I am. I really don't care that much, and I wouldn't complain, but it still does rub me the wrong way somehow. I think it's just this idea that people who don't have or don't like children shouldn't have to be subjected to the very sight of them, no matter how well they are behaving. I know someone who feels that way (she's constantly irritated by just seeing kids in places that you would expect to see kids - like the grocery store) and I find it a really negative and annoying attitude.

Well "behaving" is highly subjective. Way too many parents think it's totally fine to let kids scream, cry and/or run around restaurants, because you know they're kids :eyeroll: So the only way to avoid is all together is to ban kids. Does it makes sense at a place like Applebees, no. But there are a lot of upscale restaurants that it does make sense for. If I'm paying $50 a plate for dinner there is no way I should have to listen to a kid carry on. I worked at a fine dining restaurant when I was in college. Children under 12 were not welcome, and in the 5 years I worked there we maybe had 2-3 complaints.

fuchsiasky's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 959

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What I don't like about this is that it assumes the mere presence of children will hinder the dining experience of others. This is a slippery slope because children of all ages have stereotypes - would a ban on teenagers in public places be okay? Even when with their parents? College students could be stereotyped as sitting at a table for hours while only spening $5. Should restaurants say no college students because some of them might camp out?

Business owners should kick out anyone who is not behaving appropriately whether he/she is drunk 20something, bachelorette bridezilla, or a two-year-old having a meltdown.

Exactly! I feel like there are those who dislike children to such a degree that seeing them is offensive. Like the people who don’t even want them outside their condos. I understand that a poorly behaved child is difficult to deal with, but not all children are poorly behaved. It is stereotyping.

I guess I don’t mind if people who dislike children want to ban them from places because it will keep those people away from kids. Group the child-dislikers together so that those of us who have and like children can enjoy them without anyone glaring at us! Kids are people too.

Do I think it is discrimination? Yes I do. It is ageism. Do the business owners have a right to dictate who they will serve? Apparently they do. I think it is a terribly slippery slope though. Would I go to a business that has banned children? No, because it rubs me the wrong way. I am not up in arms about it but it makes me feel grouchy.

And all those people who don’t want to see children – who do they think will be caring for them in their old age? The children of today. They dislike them now, but will rely on them later.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"zefroim" wrote:

Well "behaving" is highly subjective. Way too many parents think it's totally fine to let kids scream, cry and/or run around restaurants, because you know they're kids :eyeroll: So the only way to avoid is all together is to ban kids. Does it makes sense at a place like Applebees, no. But there are a lot of upscale restaurants that it does make sense for. If I'm paying $50 a plate for dinner there is no way I should have to listen to a kid carry on. I worked at a fine dining restaurant when I was in college. Children under 12 were not welcome, and in the 5 years I worked there we maybe had 2-3 complaints.

And again, if a child were behaving that way, I would hope that the restaurant would say something to the parents. Same as they would if an adult were acting "out of control" (screaming, running,et cetera.) But if a child is quietly sitting there eating their dinner (I know this is possible, I have seen it!) then I don't see what that has to do with anyone else's dining experience.

Of course, it's a moot point since I don't typically take my 3 year old to fine dining establishments anyway. I like the adult time too. I just still don't like the attitude that kids are disruptions by their very presence.

Minx_Kristi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 01/02/09
Posts: 1261

As a parent, I try not to judge a child or the parent if that child is making a fuss. I think if anyone should understand it should be me.

If all restaurants were to take on the child-free zone, how are you meant to teach your child how to behave when you're out of the house?

I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

If you don't want to be around children, stay away from movies directed at kids and go to a restaurant after 8pm when more than likely there will be no kids around anyway.

xx

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Minx_Kristi" wrote:

As a parent, I try not to judge a child or the parent if that child is making a fuss. I think if anyone should understand it should be me.

If all restaurants were to take on the child-free zone, how are you meant to teach your child how to behave when you're out of the house?

I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

If you don't want to be around children, stay away from movies directed at kids and go to a restaurant after 8pm when more than likely there will be no kids around anyway.

xx

Are you honestly worried about all eating establishments going child free? Like less than one percent currently are.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 01/06/03
Posts: 1175

"Minx_Kristi" wrote:

As a parent, I try not to judge a child or the parent if that child is making a fuss. I think if anyone should understand it should be me.

I do try to be understanding and I have less of a problem with a child making a fuss if the parents are trying to do something about it. I do have a problem with it though if they just sit there and do nothing about it. That's what spoils it for the majority who do have a handle on their children.

If all restaurants were to take on the child-free zone, how are you meant to teach your child how to behave when you're out of the house?

I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

If you don't want to be around children, stay away from movies directed at kids and go to a restaurant after 8pm when more than likely there will be no kids around anyway.

xx

I don't think we have to worry about ALL restaurants going this route. I think if any restaurant does choose this idealogy it would be from the ones that already don't normally cater to families/children... there will still be umpteen dozen child-friendly ones kicking around for those who do want to take their kids out Smile

RebeccaA'07's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What I don't like about this is that it assumes the mere presence of children will hinder the dining experience of others. This is a slippery slope because children of all ages have stereotypes - would a ban on teenagers in public places be okay? Even when with their parents? College students could be stereotyped as sitting at a table for hours while only spening $5. Should restaurants say no college students because some of them might camp out?

Business owners should kick out anyone who is not behaving appropriately whether he/she is drunk 20something, bachelorette bridezilla, or a two-year-old having a meltdown.

Agreed, I've seen more adults misbehave or be inapprorpiate than children. And frankly, a child crying doesn't disrupt me because I have a child that does the same thing at times, so I understand...I'm not offended. I completely expect a parent of a child throwing a tantrum to take the child to a quiet location rather than leave their child screaming, but again..I am certainly not so offended that I would leave the place or ask them to leave. I also think so places are a given not to take children, when is it OK to start banning people just because you don't like their age?

Minx_Kristi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 01/02/09
Posts: 1261

"Potter75" wrote:

Are you honestly worried about all eating establishments going child free? Like less than one percent currently are.

No, it doesn't worry me in the slightest. Also, I don't know of any that are child-free where I am from and I can't see it ever happening. I'm just saying I don't see the benefit for everyone if every restaurant was to be like this.

Oh and Marla, yes, I feel the same as you when I see a parent doing nothing about their childs behaviour. My sister is one of those parents, but I don't think that child-free places are a good idea all around.

xx

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

The world can't ban children from the world. This is just so ridiculous. So what if a few more places ban kids during daylight hours? I don't even know of a place near me that does it, but it wouldn't bother me. If it did, I'd go somewhere else. No biggie. There will always be plenty of kid accessible places. PLENTY.

This just brings to light the kind of parent who thinks the whole world should revolve around their kids. I love my kids and my own personal world is centered on them, but I don't expect anyone else to feel the same. No matter how well behaved they are.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

Mixed feelings for me.

On one hand. I think its totally fine. I like to be in a child-free environment sometimes. I really do! And I would love to have the guarantee...it would definitely draw me to give my business to a place in some circumstances.

I *do* think it would be a bad thing if it became so popular that kids really only had kiddie type places to go to. I think its great for kids to go to grown up places. I've given this story before I think:

I used to walk to Starbucks almost every weekday, in the early evening with Emma when she was a baby. Just the two of us...i would get a chai tea latte and we would share a piece of something to eat. There were a couple of regulars that we got to know...one of them was some sort of child development specialist. He told me once that he thought it was great that i took her to out to places that were no geared specifically towards kids. He said in his research he found that many kids that get the majority of their social exposure at things like gymboree classes and kiddie geared restaurants associate socializing with hyperactivity and being loud. He said that kids can forget out how be out and about and be calm, still and quiet.

Now that being said, i don't worry about running out of places to take my kids yet. I would really object if options for more grown up environments became severely limited. I doubt it will ever happen though.

And the last thing is, i really hope it doesn't contribute to some sort of societal mentality that kids should be quiet and never act out anywhere. I just fear that some people will run with this new cultural phenomenon and associate it with a mentality of "if your kid every acts out in public, you are doing something wrong...they are so annoying we have to make RULES to avoid you!"

Some people need to get a grip about kids. My kids are very well behaved in public...i get compliments from strangers very often, esp at restaurants. But i'd be lying if i said that they have never acted out before. Drives me insane when someone sees that and thinks that means I can't control my kid and I'm doing some sort of disservice to them by exposing my unhappy or ill-behaved-at-the-moment child to them in a more public setting.

So yeah...i don't want that to happen, or get worse than it already is.

Minx_Kristi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 01/02/09
Posts: 1261

"KimPossible" wrote:

Mixed feelings for me.

On one hand. I think its totally fine. I like to be in a child-free environment sometimes. I really do! And I would love to have the guarantee...it would definitely draw me to give my business to a place in some circumstances.

I *do* think it would be a bad thing if it became so popular that kids really only had kiddie type places to go to. I think its great for kids to go to grown up places. I've given this story before I think:

I used to walk to Starbucks almost every weekday, in the early evening with Emma when she was a baby. Just the two of us...i would get a chai tea latte and we would share a piece of something to eat. There were a couple of regulars that we got to know...one of them was some sort of child development specialist. He told me once that he thought it was great that i took her to out to places that were no geared specifically towards kids. He said in his research he found that many kids that get the majority of their social exposure at things like gymboree classes and kiddie geared restaurants associate socializing with hyperactivity and being loud. He said that kids can forget out how be out and about and be calm, still and quiet.

Now that being said, i don't worry about running out of places to take my kids yet. I would really object if options for more grown up environments became severely limited. I doubt it will ever happen though.

And the last thing is, i really hope it doesn't contribute to some sort of societal mentality that kids should be quiet and never act out anywhere. I just fear that some people will run with this new cultural phenomenon and associate it with a mentality of "if your kid every acts out in public, you are doing something wrong...they are so annoying we have to make RULES to avoid you!"

Some people need to get a grip about kids. My kids are very well behaved in public...i get compliments from strangers very often, esp at restaurants. But i'd be lying if i said that they have never acted out before. Drives me insane when someone sees that and thinks that means I can't control my kid and I'm doing some sort of disservice to them by exposing my unhappy or ill-behaved-at-the-moment child to them in a more public setting.

So yeah...i don't want that to happen, or get worse than it already is.

Someone always manages to word it so much better than I do. I completely agree.

xx

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Kim, very very well said.

Some people really do need to get a grip about kids. Speaking of thinking that the world centers around someone. When you go out into the public sphere it is possible that you will encounter things that aren't exactly as you would like them. That could include a (temporarily - hopefully) crying child or it could include an adult that is dressed in a way that you find inappropriate or a college student that is a little too far into his cups, or whatever. For the most part, I find that how this effects me is mostly about me - if I'm in a mood to get annoyed, I will be annoyed. If I'm in a mood to shrug it off and go back to what I'm doing, it's easy to get past.

On a side note, I find that someone else's misbehaving children are far less stressful to me than my own misbehaving child. Because someone else's misbehaving children aren't my problem. They REALLY have to be acting up to be much more than a blip on my radar. Not my problem. Yay!

Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

The world can't ban children from the world. This is just so ridiculous. So what if a few more places ban kids during daylight hours? I don't even know of a place near me that does it, but it wouldn't bother me. If it did, I'd go somewhere else. No biggie. There will always be plenty of kid accessible places. PLENTY.

This just brings to light the kind of parent who thinks the whole world should revolve around their kids. I love my kids and my own personal world is centered on them, but I don't expect anyone else to feel the same. No matter how well behaved they are.

Couldn't I say this movement is about self-centered people who think the world should cater to their wishes to not have children contaminate their evening?

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Couldn't I say this movement is about self-centered people who think the world should cater to their wishes to not have children contaminate their evening?

No, because the itty bitty sliver of a percentage of places that want kid-free zones are hardly going to be taking over the world.

Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

No, because the itty bitty sliver of a percentage of places that want kid-free zones are hardly going to be taking over the world.

How does that make it less self-centered to not want children at a restaurant? Whether it's one restaurant or 14,000 that doesn't change the reason for not wanting kids there.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

How does that make it less self-centered to not want children at a restaurant? Whether it's one restaurant or 14,000 that doesn't change the reason for not wanting kids there.

Agreed. Picture saying that about literally ANY other group of people than children. "It's okay if one or two places ban (black, Jewish, short, blonde, women, Canadian, accountant) people because there are lots of other places that they can go!" Doesn't fly, right?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Agreed. Picture saying that about literally ANY other group of people than children. "It's okay if one or two places ban (black, Jewish, short, blonde, women, Canadian, accountant) people because there are lots of other places that they can go!" Doesn't fly, right?

Yeah but there are a lot of things with kid that don't fly if you try to substitute a race or other type of marginalized group.

You can't tell black people they can't vote. But we can tell kids they can't.

You can't tell black people they cant buy cigarettes, but we can tell kids they can't.

You can make a night club or show 18 and over...but you can't tell black people they aren't allowed in.

I suppose in this instance, it doesn't have to do with the welfare of the child though, but instead with the desire to please another group of people.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

How does that make it less self-centered to not want children at a restaurant? Whether it's one restaurant or 14,000 that doesn't change the reason for not wanting kids there.

Those people who are mortified that their little angels might not be ideal company are stuck on that emotional side of it, the rejection. It IS about the numbers. It's VERY few places in the world that are kid free. Miniscule amounts. And they wont be the majority as long as there are children in the world. How anyone is worried that they might take over is beyond me.

And if it's just the fact that someone might not want to be around children, well who cares? People are entitled to their feelings and wants for a paid excursion, whether it's shopping or eating out. If someone doesn't want to be around my kids and is paying money to do that, then I couldn't care less why. That's their problem and they've found a solution.

If I want to be somewhere that kids are welcome, there are a bazillion options and always will be. I'm not taking it personally that other people have feelings that are different than mine and those feelings they have don't affect me in anyway.

It seems the focus is just on 'baby haters' and that the actual numbers are being overlooked.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"KimPossible" wrote:

Yeah but there are a lot of things with kid that don't fly if you try to substitute a race or other type of marginalized group.

You can't tell black people they can't vote. But we can tell kids they can't.

You can't tell black people they cant buy cigarettes, but we can tell kids they can't.

You can make a night club or show 18 and over...but you can't tell black people they aren't allowed in.

I suppose in this instance, it doesn't have to do with the welfare of the child though, but instead with the desire to please another group of people.

Ditto.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

Hmm, although now that i process it more. It is true, you could never exclude any other group for the sole reason that they are annoying.

Any other time we apply special rules to children its because its for their own welfare or because it would be a major liability to the business.

Are we ok with making an exception for this group? That this one group, its ok to exclude based on irritation levels.

(I actually think i am ok with it, making an exception...but it is a bit illogical)

I mean, you certainly can't do it to someone who has turrets. Perhaps we are so used to making special rules around kids...that we are ignoring the fact that this one is based on something rather...i don't know. Distasteful and mean, as Alissa said in her first post.

I still have mixed feelings on this. I don't want to care, but something inside me is telling me i should care.

ETA: Jut to clarify my point. This exclusion of children is purely based on an annoyance factor. I'm questioning if that is really ok to exclude, even children, strictly because they can be annoying. That is indeed very different from excluding them for safety or liability reasons.

zefroim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 05/18/06
Posts: 126

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

Those people who are mortified that their little angels might not be ideal company are stuck on that emotional side of it, the rejection. It IS about the numbers. It's VERY few places in the world that are kid free. Miniscule amounts. And they wont be the majority as long as there are children in the world. How anyone is worried that they might take over is beyond me.

And if it's just the fact that someone might not want to be around children, well who cares? People are entitled to their feelings and wants for a paid excursion, whether it's shopping or eating out. If someone doesn't want to be around my kids and is paying money to do that, then I couldn't care less why. That's their problem and they've found a solution.

If I want to be somewhere that kids are welcome, there are a bazillion options and always will be. I'm not taking it personally that other people have feelings that are different than mine and those feelings they have don't affect me in anyway.

It seems the focus is just on 'baby haters' and that the actual numbers are being overlooked.

Yes! I don't understand the "ZOMG! the whole world is going to turn into kid-haters!" Who cares if a few restaurants don't allow kids. There is a million other places to take your kids and there always will be. You want to eat at one of the very few kid-free places, find a sitter or wait until your kids are teens. In addition there is obviously a market for places like these, because the few places that have gone kid-free have done very well.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

There are TONS of limitations based on age. My grandparents own a condo that only allows over 65 years to purchase and live in. They own a home in Florida that also only allows over 55 to purchase and live in. I'm over 30 now and can't sign up for certain programs. I'm not 35 yet and can't sign up for certain programs.

There is ageism ALL over the place. Legal ageism. But people seem to take it far more personally when it comes to their children.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

There are TONS of limitations based on age. My grandparents own a condo that only allows over 65 years to purchase and live in. They own a home in Florida that also only allows over 55 to purchase and live in. I'm over 30 now and can't sign up for certain programs. I'm not 35 yet and can't sign up for certain programs.

There is ageism ALL over the place. Legal ageism. But people seem to take it far more personally when it comes to their children.

I think people take it more personally because they feel kids can't help it. Maybe a loud obnoxious adult can't really either.

I also think of seniors wanting exclusivity as a little different too because as a group, seniors are often marginalized. I think they crave a place that revives that feeling of importance and value in an aging community.

I'm not saying I really care that much...like i said. I think i'm ok with it. But i can see why it feels a bit icky.

Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

There are TONS of limitations based on age. My grandparents own a condo that only allows over 65 years to purchase and live in. They own a home in Florida that also only allows over 55 to purchase and live in. I'm over 30 now and can't sign up for certain programs. I'm not 35 yet and can't sign up for certain programs.

There is ageism ALL over the place. Legal ageism. But people seem to take it far more personally when it comes to their children.

Again the reasons are different. I can't join AARP yet, but it's not because I might annoy those around me.

And no, it would bother me more if old people weren't welcome in a restaurant because they *might* tip too little or talk too loud because their hearing might not be so good. Or if they weren't welcome at the movies because they might have to ask their friend, "What did they say?"

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

Yes, but so what if the reason is about children annoying people?

If that bothers those opposing this trend then oh well. It can't be changed.

It's like I tell my husband when he gets irritated at bad drivers: It's a nice thought that everyone should be considerate and understanding, but it's not going to happen (like the bad drivers in the horses on the road thread). And getting upset about it only hurts the person who is upset.

The folks enjoying a quiet meal without kids at those restaurants aren't sitting there with their beer in hand feeling remorse over the fact that they prefer a childless atmosphere. That's not even on their register.

So instead of grumping about kids not being allowed everywhere cause they annoy some people, just take comfort knowing that fewer kid-haters are at your local family joint.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"KimPossible" wrote:

Hmm, although now that i process it more. It is true, you could never exclude any other group for the sole reason that they are annoying.

Any other time we apply special rules to children its because its for their own welfare or because it would be a major liability to the business.

Are we ok with making an exception for this group? That this one group, its ok to exclude based on irritation levels.

(I actually think i am ok with it, making an exception...but it is a bit illogical)

I mean, you certainly can't do it to someone who has turrets. Perhaps we are so used to making special rules around kids...that we are ignoring the fact that this one is based on something rather...i don't know. Distasteful and mean, as Alissa said in her first post.

I still have mixed feelings on this. I don't want to care, but something inside me is telling me i should care.

ETA: Jut to clarify my point. This exclusion of children is purely based on an annoyance factor. I'm questioning if that is really ok to exclude, even children, strictly because they can be annoying. That is indeed very different from excluding them for safety or liability reasons.

Yes. Exactly.

"zefroim" wrote:

Yes! I don't understand the "ZOMG! the whole world is going to turn into kid-haters!" Who cares if a few restaurants don't allow kids. There is a million other places to take your kids and there always will be. You want to eat at one of the very few kid-free places, find a sitter or wait until your kids are teens. In addition there is obviously a market for places like these, because the few places that have gone kid-free have done very well.

Who is saying "ZOMG!" or that they are "mortified that their little angels...."

I've said repeatedly that I don't care that much, that I wouldn't bother complaining, and that I might even frequent a restaurant that did that if I had a sitter and they had food that I liked or wanted to try.

I still think that it's ageism, and that it's a mean kind of attitude.

Exactly as Kim stated, if we tried to exclude any other group on the sole criteria that they might be annoying to some people, no one would accept it. I think it's even more telling that the children don't actually have to be exhibiting the "annoying" behavior to be prohibited, they just have to be children. I actually do know, in real life, someone who severely dislikes kids and is annoyed by their sheer presence - they don't have to be doing anything at all to be annoying, they just have to exist. To me, this smacks of that attitude, and I find that attitude to be mean and not one I particularly think needs to be catered to.

It's not the end of the world, it's not a huge deal, it's not ZOMG worthy, but since we're debating it, I don't mind stating that I find it distasteful.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I agree w Jordan. I think it's silly to infer that those who might patronize a childless restaurant are kid haters. I love kids. Heck, I made three.

I love kids so much I chose to give up my career to stay home with them all day! I also really enjoy fine dining. I love expensive, fancy restaurants and great food and too much wine. Honestly I never, ever see young children at such places. It's like no one would need to make a rule about that at the restaurants I really love as it's just not something people do in my area. We like babysitters in my neck of the woods. A lot.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

Yes, but so what if the reason is about children annoying people?

I think the question is...why are we ok with saying "I don't want kids here because some are annoying" but we wouldn't be ok doing the same to other people? So basically we are saying its ok to exclude them because some(certainly not all) are annoying AND they are minors. I think we probably interpret that as ok to do...becasue we are used to bossing around minors. However we usually do it for *their* sake...and some of us are saying we feel it might be less classy to use that power over minors for *our* sake...when we would never consider using it on ourselves.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

For me it has less to do w annoyingness and more to do with inappropriateness. Very young kids don't belong out late at fancy restaurants in my world. It's not fun for them. It's not fun for me as a parent. Since we essentially ban our own kids from such a situation I don't mind business owners doing the same.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"KimPossible" wrote:

I think the question is...why are we ok with saying "I don't want kids here because some are annoying" but we wouldn't be ok doing the same to other people? So basically we are saying its ok to exclude them because some(certainly not all) are annoying AND they are minors. I think we probably interpret that as ok to do...becasue we are used to bossing around minors. However we usually do it for *their* sake...and some of us are saying we feel it might be less classy to use that power over minors for *our* sake...when we would never consider using it on ourselves.

I see what you're saying. I guess my 'offended radar' is just set a little differently because I don't see it as that big of a deal in the grand scheme of restaurant trends.

Also, there are more reasons that 'annoyance' that an adult might want a child-free atmosphere. I have a very good friend (had) who could not have children. It broke her heart every time she saw children out with their families. She has since taken to living in an area that is known for it's DINK population and I never hear from her any more.

Or maybe it's a person who works with children on a daily basis and just needs a break. Or a mom (I'd totally go to a place like that).

I think it's being a little narrow to assume the 'only' reason a place like that would exist is because some people are annoyed by the mere existence of a child.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Melissa - That is actually another reason why this ban seems over the top to me. I don't actually know anyone who takes small children to fancy restaurants nor do I commonly see children in fancy restaurants. That's part of the reason that this strikes me as being more of a cultural movement to cater to people who just dislike kids.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"Potter75" wrote:

For me it has less to do w annoyingness and more to do with inappropriateness. Very young kids don't belong out late at fancy restaurants in my world. It's not fun for them. It's not fun for me as a parent. Since we essentially ban our own kids from such a situation I don't mind business owners doing the same.

Inappropriate? I can see how one can say that their particular child might not enjoy..or the parent might not find it fun. But how does that translate to inappropriateness.

Plus that assumes that all children would find it not fun and all parents would find it not fun...because they are banning all children.

Lets be honest here....businesses are not bannign children because they think the poor lads won't have any fun and their own parents won't either. They ban them because they think customers don't like being around othe rpeople's kids.

On a side note, you might feel different about the appropriateness of bringing your children when they get a little older too. Emma still counts as a child...but to stay up late with the grown-ups and go out to a nice dinner would be quite the treat for her...and it would tickle me to see her participate.

Pages