Family Etiquette

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I do agree with the point made that single kids are probably a lot easier to manage in this regard than any multiple. Again, a lot like being on the road with...but I digress. 

Ah, but it was just getting good!  Tease!

[Errant Bard]

5 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

The kids you see behaving beautifully in the restaurant today, will be the same ones someone is complaining about behaving badly the next time they're in a restaurant. And so, according to some, the parents will be great parents today and bad parents next time, despite the fact that they've done nothing differently. Their kids just had a good day or a bad day. 

 

Yeah, because parents do the things exactly the same when their kid has a good day than when he has a bad day, of course, that's good parenting, not paying attention to that kind of thing. Great point.

 

Quote

Let me short-circuit the discussion of ADHD, ADD, autism etc. I know, you 'weren't talking about those kids'. Yes, you were. You just don't know it.

 

 

Oh, I notice you have a power of disturbance you are willing to imposes on others because fuck them they should tolerate  what you tolerate, but now you're resorting to mansplaying? What next, you'll take a sorry anecdote and try to pretend it's the general case? Oh, my bad, you already did with the ADHD.

 

Quote

And it's not their parents' fault either. Did you behave well in restaurants as a child?

My single parent did not bring us to restaurants when we could not behave. We had no money to go out on a regular basis but/so we were not going to spoil anyone's evening by feeling entitled to stay and have a steak.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Ah, but it was just getting good!  Tease!

Lol, I was never a roadie, more front man, and tbh that tease was pretty much just that. On the road with a few people you might have heard of, bu lower tier (mostly) and no great stories that wouldn’t be cliched. 

Here is one aspect that might surprise, though. Everyone knows the road is filled with temporary relationships. But when you are actually ON the road, it’s really a grind. Looong days, either actually on the road or working, so your priorities become quite narrowed, and what becomes of increasing urgency is...laundry. Yeah, not so sexy, but true. Because you just don’t have 2-3 hours to spend hanging around a laundromat, and you’re not usually staying in places with laundry service, and you’re spending all day/night in bars and clubs and smaller stadiums, and in crowded vans, and, well, you smell.

So, the trick became to choose your temporary relationship partner with an eye to whether or not she had laundry at her place, and so the runnIng competition in the band became about who found the most...or sometimes hilariously least...creative ways to bring that up in conversation. Try imagining it. I’m tellIng you from a lot of experience, it is not easy. Not in the kind of conversation that’s heading to her place in the near future, anyway. I mean, yeah, you can just come out and be honest, but that’s not easy for most guys, hardly guaranteed of success, and if she doesn’t have laundry and your ardour suddenly dies...well...it doesn’t go over well. Besides, it’s not as much fun when later recounting. 

So, anyways, that was the game. And there were some very creative ventures. Some guys professed to have a thing for the smell of fresh laundry (which it turns out is not entirely unknown), others would kind of work in the rhythm of the machines, other times it was completely oblique, like brought up ‘casually’ when asking about roommates, living situation, etc. Lots of going down in flames. Lots of fun later. And genuine rooting for each other because, worst case that’s one les smelly guy you’re stuck sitting next to, best case you might be able to be offered the couch/laundry access as the tag-along. 

So, yeah, not so glamorous, but that’s kind of what the road was like. Food, laundry, Tylenol, the smells of booze and cigarettes and body odour and dried sweat, sometimes puke breath, lots of white nights, frayed tempers and a ton of laughter. Good times, really. 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

so the runnIng competition in the band became about who found the most...or sometimes hilariously least...creative ways to bring that up in conversation.

I think my angle would be to bring up I really love fabric softener - because that's true, I love the small and feel.  Not too hard to go from there if I don't screw it up.

[Alarich II]

15 hours ago, baxusalah said:

Sorry, but sitting down at your table in a restaurant is not an unreasonable request. If kids can't do it, don't take them to the restaurant. Or you can take them and be considered rude. It is that simple. 

Public spaces are public, but generally there are rules for behaving properly in each of them. Restaurant and park/playground have different sets of rules and the expected behaviour when at one of them is pretty different. What is perfectly fine in one may not be in the other.

And yes, if my kid was running around the restaurant, you can rest assured they wouldn't be running for long. If nothing else worked, I would leave. Next time, I'd make sure that I find a babysitter when going to a restaurant. It's not really rocket science.

 

Sitting down is not a problem, in fact most children can sit before they can walk. But in your first post, you added two important qualifiers: a) quietly and b) for a couple of hours. And that's not a reasonable request, in fact, most adults wouldn't pass that test. I certainly don't go out just to quietly shovle tood in my mouth: I want to talk and laugh with the others on my table. And of course I will let my kids participate in the conversation, and sometimes when children talk, they get excited about their topic, so they raise their voices. I will also let them walk around in the restaurant: I will not let them play tag but at 5 years, I let them go to the toilet alone. I will not let them wander into the kitchen, but - depending on the restaurant - I tell them, that if they ask the waiter nicely, maybe they can have a peek from the door. And when they come back to our table to tell me what they saw, how the food was made, they may get excited. So they run, which means, I will talk to them why that's not a good idea. They will try to interact with other guests, like for example my 3 year of daughter will look or wave at a neighbour table and see if the people there will play peek-a-boo with her. Or she walks to a table and says hello. And I will let her do that, but I'll also step in, when I see that people feel disturbed. But I will not go out and preemtively chain my kid to a chair for hours. Allowing my kids (3 and 5) this kind of freedom, means that sometimes, things can go wrong. So far, we've been lucky but the risk is there, that others may be disturbed and will call me rude. It's a risk that my wife and I can live with.

On your second paragraph, we are in agreement. However I wouldn't call it "rules", it's more of a social expectation. And it behooves every participant in the general public to recognize that his or her expectations may not be the same as someone elses. Which leads to tow points: first, if you are not ready to develop a certain amount of tolerance to what you may find disagreeable behaviour, being out in public will be a miserable experience to you. And second, you must be ready to communicate your expectations in ways that makes a compromise possible.

Third paragraph: It's amusing to see and hear the proud proclamations of the childless on how they would do this and that with their children and how their child wouldn't be doing this or that. I suggest you come back when you have children and then you can tell us your parenting war stories.

[mormont]

19 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Nah. I can be emphatic towards the mother, and still understand her actions were selfish.

Maybe she doesn't get out much. Maybe this one time going to the movies was the first thing she did for herself since her child was born, and she was going to enjoy it.

I can empathize and understand her POV, while at the same time knowing her staying in the theater with a screaming infant was selfish.

You know, rather than argue about whether this should be assumed to be selfish or not, and whether that's reasonable or fair, or getting into the definition of 'selfish', I'm instead going to say: in the circumstances, I don't have a problem with the mother of a small child being a little bit selfish. I'm not saying it wouldn't annoy me if I were in the theatre. But I would get over it pretty quickly. 

13 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Yeah, because parents do the things exactly the same when their kid has a good day than when he has a bad day, of course, that's good parenting, not paying attention to that kind of thing. Great point.

That's not my point at all. My point is that the parents are the same people they always were, not that they behave identically in all situations. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that. 

13 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Oh, I notice you have a power of disturbance you are willing to imposes on others because fuck them they should tolerate  what you tolerate, but now you're resorting to mansplaying? What next, you'll take a sorry anecdote and try to pretend it's the general case? Oh, my bad, you already did with the ADHD.

If you mean 'mansplaining' I'm not sure how that's relevant, or if you understand the term.

I think my point there was pretty clear: you, a stranger, cannot tell why a child may be acting the way it is. You don't know whether there are underlying issues: you don't know their story, nor that of the parents. Do you disagree with that point, or are you just angry that I made it?

13 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

My single parent did not bring us to restaurants when we could not behave. We had no money to go out on a regular basis but/so we were not going to spoil anyone's evening by feeling entitled to stay and have a steak.

Is this some sort of counter argument? I have to say I don't understand why. 

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

Sitting down is not a problem, in fact most children can sit before they can walk. But in your first post, you added two important qualifiers: a) quietly and b) for a couple of hours. And that's not a reasonable request, in fact, most adults wouldn't pass that test. I certainly don't go out just to quietly shovle tood in my mouth: I want to talk and laugh with the others on my table. And of course I will let my kids participate in the conversation, and sometimes when children talk, they get excited about their topic, so they raise their voices. I will also let them walk around in the restaurant: I will not let them play tag but at 5 years, I let them go to the toilet alone. I will not let them wander into the kitchen, but - depending on the restaurant - I tell them, that if they ask the waiter nicely, maybe they can have a peek from the door. And when they come back to our table to tell me what they saw, how the food was made, they may get excited. So they run, which means, I will talk to them why that's not a good idea. They will try to interact with other guests, like for example my 3 year of daughter will look or wave at a neighbour table and see if the people there will play peek-a-boo with her. Or she walks to a table and says hello. And I will let her do that, but I'll also step in, when I see that people feel disturbed. But I will not go out and preemtively chain my kid to a chair for hours. Allowing my kids (3 and 5) this kind of freedom, means that sometimes, things can go wrong. So far, we've been lucky but the risk is there, that others may be disturbed and will call me rude. It's a risk that my wife and I can live with.

First of all, all that you describe is perfectly reasonable and I would definitely not object to parents and kids behaving that way. That kind of behaviour is not what started this thread and (unless I'm mistaken, in which case I do apologize) not what we're talking about here. We (or at least I) meant kids running and screaming, disturbing people around them, without their parents doing anything about it.

Obviously, when I said "sit quietly for a couple of hours" i meant neither absolute silence nor any duration longer than your usual restaurant meal duration.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong but no one mentioned "chaining kids to a chair" as preferred solution to this issue.  

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

On your second paragraph, we are in agreement. However I wouldn't call it "rules", it's more of a social expectation. And it behooves every participant in the general public to recognize that his or her expectations may not be the same as someone elses. Which leads to tow points: first, if you are not ready to develop a certain amount of tolerance to what you may find disagreeable behaviour, being out in public will be a miserable experience to you. And second, you must be ready to communicate your expectations in ways that makes a compromise possible.

It's irrelevant if we call them "rules" or "social expectations" or "flying spaghetti monster". We mean the same thing - acceptable behavior in certain social situations and public places.

Sure, these two points are valid and I'm not going to try and deny either of those but let's not forget point zero - you need to be aware of the "rules" for behavior in specific situations before you voluntarily put yourself in those situations.

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

Third paragraph: It's amusing to see and hear the proud proclamations of the childless on how they would do this and that with their children and how their child wouldn't be doing this or that. I suggest you come back when you have children and then you can tell us your parenting war stories.

It's even more amusing to see and hear the proud proclamations of parents on how difficult it is to not go to the restaurant with your kids.  

I didn't say that my child won't ever be misbehaving in a restaurant, did I? I said I'd try to fix that and leave the restaurant if I couldn't. That's quite different, isn't it?

Either way, I'm becoming a father in the next month so I guess I'll qualify then for all the parenting wisdom out there and we can swap "war" stories then.

[Isis]

I have plenty to say about kids in restaurants and pubs but first I want to pick up on Luke's point about who to give up seats for on public transport.

Someone recently pointed out to me that going back a few years (ie, when I was a kid in the 1980s) it would be expected that kids gave up their seats so that adults could sit down. This was especially for the elderly BUT it was definitely not limited to them. Adults were seen as having more 'right' to sit than an able bodied child. What happened to that expectation?

I'm leaving aside 'parent carrying an infant' because I wouldn't expect them to stand while I sit. I'd usually also be prepared to move seats (but not stand) to allow a parent/parents to sit together with their kids on the tube/train/bus. 

I have chronic back pain issues so I often have to make travel choices which enable me to get a seat. So on occasions I might not give up my seat even when asked and I'll say: no sorry, but I am in pain right now, ask another able bodied person. 

I get that some of the logic of giving up seats to kids is to get them to be less disruptive generally to other passengers, which is fine.

Conclusion - when did it become a given that kids have a greater right or expectation than adults to a seat? 

[BigFatCoward]

My little girl is a little shitbag, if shes screaming in a public place where other people are trying to enjoy themselves either i, or my wife will go outside with her until she calms down.  However, parenting is hard, if you are a single parent, or alone, and you need to sit down for 5 or 10 minutes because you've been on your feet all day and you just need a break, and the baby is crying, everyone else is just going to have to suck it up i'm afraid.  Unless its a cinema, or a decent restaurant.  Don't take your kids to somewhere nice if you aren't prepared to leave if they cause a fuss. 

@Isis, it was always a thing for me to stand for an adult growing up, i wasn't aware it had changed, maybe i need to be more observant on the tube.

[Alarich II]

1 hour ago, Isis said:

Someone recently pointed out to me that going back a few years (ie, when I was a kid in the 1980s) it would be expected that kids gave up their seats so that adults could sit down. This was especially for the elderly BUT it was definitely not limited to them. Adults were seen as having more 'right' to sit than an able bodied child. What happened to that expectation?

IDK, here at least my own expectation remains still: wether as a child or able-bodied adult: you give up your seat for the elderly, infirm, pregnant or otherwise handicapped persons. However, I would not expect a child to give up a seat for an able-bodied 30-something.

Now the seat thing came up, when a poster described her experience as a mother with a small child in a sling. I don't think that anyone said that as a general rule you should give up your seat to children in public transport.

[Deedles]

I wouldn’t expect anyone to stand for a school going child who can consistently and prolonged ly follow instruction , so, say 5-6ish. Young children aren’t completely stable on their feet yet. As adults, and older children we can understand why holding poles and straps is useful and helpful. We can also identify when stations are coming up and braking is likely to happen. A 3 year old just doesn’t have that perception or ability to remember why Mammy says hold the pole for 30 minutes.holding a 6 week old while standing meant I was t comfortable with her holding my legs. 

 

[King Ned Stark]

I agree with those who understand kids have good days and bad days.  As others have said, going out in public means there will be children; with the exceptions of like R-rated movies and high end restaurants, and really how often is that?

I only go to the movies when it’s something my two young sons want to see; Jurassic World, DC/Marvel, Disney, etc.  So I expect kids to be there and don’t mind if their enjoyment gets a little rambunctious.  What I do mind is the big oaf who comes in as the peviews start and sits right in front of one of my kids and blocks their view.

I find adults that are annoyed by kids, quite annoying.  On a day to day basis, I’m probably more annoyed from my interactions with adults I don’t know more than kids I don’t know.

[polishgenius]

3 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

I find adults that are annoyed by kids, quite annoying.  On a day to day basis, I’m probably more annoyed from my interactions with adults I don’t know more than kids I don’t know. 

I work in a kindergarten and generally find children considerably less annoying than the average person does, but I'd still find a parent in a restaurant or cinema who did nothing while their child screams or runs around to be extremely rude.

There seems to be some reacting to an argument that isn't really being made going on. Neither Baxus nor EB are saying that kids should be expected to be completely still and silent, nor are they saying that parents should never risk going out in case their kids misbehave. They're also not saying that any kind or amount of misbehaviour or noise cannot be tolerated. What they're saying is that if you do go out and the kids do misbehave you are expected to do something about it up to and including leaving if it becomes necessary. If you're not the parent sitting still doing nothing, they're not talking about you. I know some people do, but they're not really here in this topic.

And on 'you don't know why that kid is misbehaving' - well yeah, but you also don't know the stories of the other people in the restaurant or whatever and what their lives are and how maybe they themselves rarely ever get an evening in peace, for example, but have managed to arrange one tonight but now it's not peaceful at all.

Sometimes there's no fair way to solve an issue but generally speaking one person or family having their evening spoiled is gonna be considered fairer than everyone in the building having theirs mucked up.


Also:

23 hours ago, Alarich II said:

See, that's the point though: you expect the parents to make that determination based on what you consider a reasonable request. And apparently you consider it a reasonable request for kids to sit down quietly for a couple of hours.

You know, when you go out in public spaces, you should generally expect children and their behaviour to be part of the general public. I know that's sometimes inconvenient, but being an adult means that you should have learned how to deal with inconvenient situations. A reasonable assumption when dealing with such a situation is that neither the parents nor the kids are doing this because they want to annoy or disturb you.

I'm also not a fan of absolving kids of all responsibility. They can and do have to learn to take responsibility for their actions. I would have no problem, if for example in a restaurant, you were to adress this directly: "Hey Kids, your running around my table bothers me, because I am afraid you will knock over my glass of wine, why don't you ask your parents or the waiter for a pencil and a paper and draw a nice picture instead." And most kids will react to that and learn from that. In most cases it's a good idea to ask yourself (wether you are a parent or not): how would I like my child to solve this conflict? And then take it from there.

6 weeks ago, I found 3 boys from the neighbourhood playing on the tire swing that I hung in a tree. They were about 9 to 11 years old. Now, our lot is about 2.5 acres big and not fenced: obviously kids will be inquisitive, but it is also very obvious that it is private property and they knew that. Obviously I cannot expect their parents to lock them inside or supervise their playtime. So I just told them that I don't want them on my property without me or my wife knowing, in case something happens or stuff gets destroyed, but if they want to come and play, feel free to ring at the door and ask. Problem solved, no need to get their parents involved. 

I don't know where you live, but in the places I know, the first one doesn't happen a lot coz talking to the children of strangers is frowned upon and there's a risk that the parents will kick off at you, so people avoid it (I do that sort of thing a lot more than anyone I know, and still generally limit it to a frown and a shake of the head), and the second one would be untenable without letting the parents know partly because of the sad and bad reason of people finding it suspicious but also for the perfectly good reason that if you're knowingly allowing/inviting kids onto your property you're essentially taking responsibility for them and if you do that without the parents' consent you're looking at trouble if something does happen.

[Deedles]

I’ll admit I would be very irate at the cinema, mostly because the two cinemas I have semi regularly attended have had parent and baby events. This week one has Whitney and Adrift that are being shown Tues, Weds, Thursday. The other has the last Jedi, the greatest showman, the post and darkest hour at various times, so, if I were to go to the cinema, I’d go to one of those.

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

There seems to be some reacting to an argument that isn't really being made going on.

Conversely, there seems to be a great deal of 'oh but we didn't mean that kid, or that situation, or the other type of parent' going on.

If you find yourself constantly having to make all these exceptions, then it's worth stopping and wondering whether you might have been over-generalising in the first place. And if you read the first few pages of this thread, then I think that's undoubtedly true. People are starting from a position of kids misbehaving being a problem, and then rowing back when challenged. They should be doing the reverse. Particularly if they want us to credit that this was their position all along. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

34 minutes ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

I work in a kindergarten and generally find children considerably less annoying than the average person does, but I'd still find a parent in a restaurant or cinema who did nothing while their child screams or runs around to be extremely rude.

OTOH, I witnessed one of those little terrorists, during grocery shopping a while ago. There the parent (I think it was the mother, but I can't remember for certain), reacted by grabbing the little bugger by the shoulders and saying loudly (I was some 15 metres away), Behave, or else... And I couldn't help thinking, or else what? C'mon, you are not gonna hit your child here public, I know it, you know it, and the kid probably knows it, too. 

Well, for what it's worth, I wiped the smirk off my face and continued with my shopping, 

[polishgenius]

31 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Conversely, there seems to be a great deal of 'oh but we didn't mean that kid, or that situation, or the other type of parent' going on.

If you find yourself constantly having to make all these exceptions,

But the point is that there isn't. People are complaining about a specific set of circumstances and you're countering that well the complaint isn't valid in this whole different circumstance. Of course people are gonna reply with 'oh we didn't mean that' because they didn't.

[The Mance]

17 minutes ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

People are complaining about a specific set of circumstances and you're countering that well the complaint isn't valid in this whole different circumstance. Of course people are gonna reply with 'oh we didn't mean that' because they didn't.

Exactly.  Refuting a strawman is not the same as walking back an original position.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

I work in a kindergarten and generally find children considerably less annoying than the average person does, but I'd still find a parent in a restaurant or cinema who did nothing while their child screams or runs around to be extremely rude.

This cuts to the heart of the debate. Kids will misbehave in public, that’s just a fact of life. What matters is how the parent(s) responds, and if they do nothing, they’re jerks, plain and simple.

OTOH, we could all just listen to wise old uncle Bender,

 

[King Ned Stark]

@Fellaining Da Bruyne, pretty much what @La Albearceleste said.  Anyway, I wasn’t responding to anyone in particular, just the premise that kids will be kids, and we were all kids once and acted up on occasion.

I take my family out to eat probably 2-3 times a month, and take my sons to the movies about once a month.  I can’t remember the last time I was truly disturbed by kids behaving so badly that I thought it was an actual problem.  I mean the average adult might experience a true “Bebe’s Kids” scenario, what, like once a year, if that?  So this thread started out, to me, reading like people who are just generally annoyed that children will have the gall to behave like children.  An assumption on my part, but that seems to come mostly from people without kids.

I tend to have more trouble out of the waitress that forgets to check on us for an hour, or like I said, the huge middle-aged guy that sits in front of my six year old at Incredibles 2, while the previews are going on; so then I have to get my two boys up in the dark with popcorn and drinks and find three opens seats without an obstructed view.