Poll: No-kids-allowed movement. Yay or nay?

[Insignia19]

As for enforcing a law like this, it would be simple. If at a restaurant, or theatre, etc. if a child begins to act up, and the parents do nothing to resolve it, then it would allow the business owners to have the nuisance escorted from the premises. Especially if they are getting complaints from other customers, the business owners would act on it.

Personally, I think it could work if done under a situational basis, and not on a strict ban of children that are under a certain age limit. That would be punishing a ton of kids who don't have terrible parents, and that actually behave themselves in public areas. Trust me, there are quite a few of them around.

 

[tiamont]

To everyone saying misbehaving parents and children should be kicked out: Why don't you think everyone does that? Oh, that's right, because the employees can get fired and the businesses' reputation be absolutely demolished by those parents. If a child is screaming and throwing a fit while the parent is ignoring them and I walked up to them and quietly asked them to calm their child down or leave the store, that person could get me fired faster than I could grab my keys. Why? Because the business wants to cater to the customer and employees are just replaceable money-sinks. That is why no one messes with those kids and parents. I did try a few times before when I first started at my retail job. Every time the customers yelled at me, insulted me, accused me of saying they were horrible parents, and threatened to take my job while all the other customers glared at me because they didn't know anything about what happened besides what they heard the parent shrieking. I was told that the store had no right to make them leave by multiple people and that they could allow their kids to act how they wanted so long as they didn't damage anything. All I did was approach them and ask if they could calm their child down or leave the store. As a business owner would you want to risk an adult yelling, cursing, being far more problematic than the child, and insulting your waiter/ress while causing a huge scene therefore making it appear as if you have horrible customer service? If someone who just walked into the restaurant and hears a customer blowing up at management about poor treatment, how fast do you think that customer who has no idea what is happening will talk about what they heard? You'll not only possibly lose that new customer, along with everyone they tell who won't get the whole story, but also people that were there from the beginning and the people THEY tell. People will defend those parents of screaming children because they'll think it is wrong you're making them leave, even if the kid was misbehaving. Lets not even get into how much it would disrupt the other people's dining experience. It would be awesome if we could ask those people to leave, but most of the time they won't without throwing bigger fits than the children are because they don't want to be inconvenienced. They think there is nothing wrong with how their kids are acting and everyone else can just ignore them. I work at the customer service desk a lot and I learned one thing: Never underestimate how big of a fit an adult will throw to get their way from a business. Hell, the misbehaving parents would probably demand their dinner free for how horribly they're being treated.

I'm all for allowing businesses to choose. If I go to a place where I drop $150 on a tiny dish along with however much it costs for wine older than my house, I could understand if they had a no children rule. I hated going to places like that as a child. I do understand how this could get out of hand. Places like theaters shouldn't stop kids from going to a kids show. I wish they had kid sections though. How about a glassed in balcony that had chairs and the room have its own speakers to hear the movie where the kids and parents could sit, but no one else could hear the kids? If it was handled correctly the No Kids rule would be a great idea. Will it be? Probably not, things look awesome on paper until you add the human equation.

 

[Jun_Jun]

I agree with this rule in restraunts and certain rated movies, I've been to a couple of restraunts that don't allow people under the age of 18 that includes children it was one of the best dining experiences I'd ever had, although it was hella expensive. Another thing I've always done is go to restraunts a lot later at night hoping that people with children have cleared out by then. I remember when I first started dating my fiancée we went to a packed Indian restraunt, we sat right next to a family with screaming children (yeah that's what your 4 year old kids want to eat, curry!) I put up with it most of the night until the 3 year old started chucking a massive tantrum threw his plate and cutlery off the table his mum picked him up to take him outside because everyone was staring at them (rightfully so) on the way out though the woman brushed past our table with the kicking- screaming banshee in her arms the kid kicked my plates and my cutlery off the table and ruined our whole meal. I screamed out 'what the hell!?' the woman didn't even turn around or apologise, nothing just pretended she didn't notice. Seriously screw parents like that they should not be allowed in nice restraunts if they can't even control their spawn.
I think this annoys me even more because my roomate has kids once a fortnight for a weekend and does nothing to control them while they destroy our $60 dnd books, apparently it's our fault for leaving them where the kids can get to them. FFS it's my house I'll put my books on my bookshelf, it's where they belong, you should control your kids.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I've never had a problem with kids in public areas. Aside from the once-in-a-blue-moon theater crying scene.

Yeah, I'm wondering how often these events actually happen to all these people voting "Yay" on the poll. I go to restaurants, movies, etc. regularly and cannot think of the last time a loud kid annoyed me to the point where I'd say something. Partly I think I have more patience for these things as a father myself, but I also think some people need to get over themselves and remember that they were not the perfect little angels they think they were.

 

[arsenicCatnip]

*snip*

Excellent way to put it. As a person who has been threatened with the loss of my job for politely asking a customer to stop her son from running around in a bookstore cafe (after he knocked over an entire rack of bookmarks, scattered magazines all over the floor, and almost brained himself on a table), I think it'd be better all around if children under a certain age were kept out of public places such as restaurants, coffee shops, and bookstores.

In fact, I was one of those children. When I was very small, my parents did not take me with them when they went out to dinner or the movies. Until my brother and I were five and six respectively, we had a babysitter when our parents went out.

If Dad needed to go grocery shopping before that age, yes, he took us with him. However, he kept us close and disciplined us properly if we didn't behave. I learned not to scream, make messes, or run off.

Parenting is really the problem here, let's be honest. If you ignore your child when she's crying, she isn't going to stop. You need to figure out what the problem is and take care of it, and if she still won't calm down then you need to take her out of there. Your child is your responsibility, and no one else's.

 

[octafish]

No. Parents have a difficult enough time trying to get out of the house already without having to find and pay for a sitter. Also, your whole annoying child only tactic doesn't seem like it could practically work, as it would be difficult to determine what constitutes as "annoying".

Thank you, it is really hard to get out of the house sometimes. My kids aren't badly behaved (in public) and my daughter loves eating out in restaurants. I can't wait for you kids to deal with your kids in public. (Oh I'm never having kids, yeah right, good one.)

 

[Harrowdown]

I voted nay based on the extent to which the article suggests the laws are being pushed. Child free holidays are fine, and age-segregated restaurants makes a fair bit of sense, assuming were talking about the sort of place that doesn't cater to families in the first place, but movie theatres? Supermarkets? Not only is it unjust to the kids, but it actively discriminates against the parents too. This whole discussion reminds me of that one simpsons episode.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

I semi agree with this rule, however, where's the line going to stop? This rule may pave the way for other discriminatory rules and laws. Obese people can't wear tight clothes or attend all you can eat buffets. People with low income can't attend certain functions due to their unsightly attire. It may lead to something like population control or socialism. You're only allowed a certain number of children. Etc

About the restaurant, I'd put up a sign in the lobby notifying that unmitigated rude or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and the offending party will be asked to leave. That way the parents will feel responsible when their child misbehaves.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

God yes. Especially on airplanes.

I don't give a jolly shit if you paid full price to go to Malibu for the weekend, take a fucking train or boat there and stop making me more jet-lagged and bad-tempered than I normally am when I airtravel.

So how the hell are people supposed to travel with kids? Can't take ur kid on vacation? And god forbid you have to move.

 

[zarguhl]

No. Bans solve nothing. What we need are better parents.

And honestly, people who find kids annoying as a general rule (as opposed to in unusual, extreme situations, just like with say, drunk/stupid/douchebag adults) really need to look more closely at what's wrong with themselves than with others.

 

[James Crook]

For me, there are two aspects to this problem: crying, and improper behavior in public.

Babies, and other individuals under the age of 2/3, shouldn't be allowed in diners, restaurants, theaters, and some other public places as a general rule, because of their incessant crying. Children of 2-8 years old are allowed, but if they start crying, out they go.
Then, for kids of the age of 8 and under, it goes under "improper behavior in public". What constitutes as "improper behavior", for me, is the same than "annoyance" for our friend, OP: when your kid starts annoying others than your own family or friends with whom you're sitting at a diner/restaurant. Same thing: three chances, then out he goes.
On public transport, it's a more difficult situation: you can't force a kid off a plane, can you? For these cases, it's the staff that is going to deal with kids: isolate him, switch him places, and just make sure he can't bother anyone anymore. And, as a general rule, forbid 2/3 year old children from boarding a plane or train on first or business class: I'm paying extra to have extra comfort, so I don't have to put up with a kid crying all the time.

To sum it up, 2/3 year olds and forbidden from going to the movies, diners, restaurants, and first or business class on planes. 2-8 year olds have three chances, then out they go if they start being annoying/crying, and get isolated if you can't actually take them outside (e.g. on planes or trains).

 

[joshuaayt]

Nay. Children already are banned from adult only areas- Not like it is impossible to avoid them. It's not their fault they are children, remember. Place child bans, and they'll miss out on a lot.

Just make it a policy to kick out *anyone* who makes too much noise. Problem solved.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

I voted yes, and then I remembered there are exceptions. SO what we need is a compromise - give the kids a chance but we need to be very strict about disruptive behaviour from children

 

[zefichan]

Sounds like another crazy American movement that everyone else in the world will laugh at to me, to be honest. Calling it a movement just makes it extra crazy. Nobody sane would agree to such a movement, honestly: It's ultimately selfish and mostly serves to keep those icky colored&poor people who can't afford babysitters out of whatever place the selfish douches want to go to. Seriously, if a single parent (like, for example, a widow) cannot bring the kids along, how are they gonna shop? But that's the purpose of the movement, really.

Not to mention the whole other layer of crazy that this "movement" is: Because a few children are annoying, all children should be banned. There's no logic there, nor is it a proper response at all.

 

[conflictofinterests]

I'm on the side of parents here. Their lives already conform around the wants and needs of their children. You don't have to boot them out of a god-forsaken MOVIE THEATER for the one time they get out of the house for recreational purposes a MONTH.

 

[ultrachicken]

So, because you've had experiences with screaming children, ALL children should be excluded from pretty much any public place?

Seems logical.

I think it makes sense for restaurants and movie theaters to have policies where screaming and crying children have to be temporarily ejected until they calm down, but when it comes to planes, that's just ridiculous.

 

[Xan Krieger]

They banned smoking in restaurants because it's bad for people's lungs.
They should ban kids from restaurants because it's bad for people's blood pressure.
I'm completely serious.

 

[A Distant Star]

Are there places kids shouldn't be? Absolutely. And generally they already aren't aloud in those places. Saying that you cant bring kids into a restaurant or onto a plane is absolutely ludicrous. If the restaurant in question wants to make that call, that's fine that's there call, but it is completely inappropriate to ask for some sort of government legislation saying kids cant go to restaurants. That means that if you had kids, and you where celebrating your mothers birthday at Olive Garden she wouldn't be able to see her grand kids, and how the hell is that fair? As for planes? Could planes find a better way to manage children during a flight? I would like to think yes, but banning them is just down right discriminatory. Do you seriously expect a family who is moving from one country to another to leave there children behind or take the boat because you're a whiny little ***** who cant take a little bit of discomfort? If its such a problem how about offer a real solution.

I dont have kids, but it always seems to me that the people who have problem children are the real problem. I work in retail and I see kids of varying ages in my day to day job. Most of them are whiny, and ill behaved because quite frankly they couldn't care less what colour of hard wood floor there living room is. But why should they? They're kids. And what am I going to do? Turn down a customer because there kids bored? That's not only discrimination, its just plane bad business. My work place is how ever very dangerous if you dont watch out, we have forklifts driving around, and working saws, and other hazards, and if you are letting your child run around unsupervised, I am probably going to kick you out, because I dont want to see your kid get hurt and really I would rather not deal with that inevitable law suit. If your kid is disrupting my other clients I am probably going to ask you to leave. If you leave your child in the supervision of an associate and then a complete stranger when the associate refuses to baby site, I am probably going to call child services... but no, there is no way I am going to refuse a parent with a reasonably well behaved child because of some stupid discriminatory principle. Because 90% of the children that come through my door are reasonably well behaved. And you know who are most likely to spend 3000$ on nice new hard wood floors? New parents. You know who spends the least amount of money in my store? Single men. And I work in a hardware store... so think about how that reverberates across other industries. I cant for a second imagine that any business would willfully ban one of the highest spending demographics because one of the lowest spending demographics (Except in consumer electronics single men love consumer electronics) gets there panties in a knot every time they see some kid do something they find objectionable.

In short, if you have a problem with kids sharing a restaurant with you, I think you should grow up and stop being such a whinny little baby.

 

[draxious]

In my opinion the Guide-lines for the ban should be made more clear, which is another reason I'm saying Nay, but my main reason to say Nay is if we don't let kids learn from their mistakes and with humiliation (Lets face it My mom telling me no in public and having to take me somewhere else to let everyone else enjoy there day was the day I realized I didn't wanna be annoying to people) Kids learn much faster with experience they can relate too instead of experiences they were told about, but the parents need to help us out, seriously an annoying kid is a problem but is neccesary but don't just not do anything!