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

[intheweeds]

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".

This exact type of entitlement is the problem. See people who CHOSE not to have children have a right to eat in peace or hear a movie being played without your kid screaming or running around or banging into their chair. You are showing a huge entitlement by suggesting people should put up with your children because you cant find or afford a sitter. YOU CHOSE TO HAVE KIDS. Now you have the consequence. I absolutely should not be forced to endure a child because of YOUR CHOICE. I don't know you and i don't care. The mere fact you have kids does not entitle you to annoy others. You want to bring your kid to dinner, then bring them to a child friendly place. Lots of places cater to you. If you don't like the food, find a sitter.

Some people (like me) can only afford to take their girlfriend to a nice restaurant once a year. It is hugely terrible and disappointing to have that ONE night destroyed because some jerk brought a five year old to a fine dining restaurant. Also it was really expensive. You probably didn't notice anyone else problem though, over your problem finding a sitter.

You have a duty as a human being in society to be respectful of others in a public setting and a responsibility as parent to teach your kid how to act in public.

What constitutes annoying is easy to determine, btw. If anyone staff or otherwise has anything at all to say to anyone about your child's behavior then they are annoying. If someone gives you a dirty offhand look, then your kid is annoying. End of story.

P.S. I have a daughter, its not like i don't know what your talking about, it was still MY CHOICE to do that and it is now MY RESPONSIBILITY to teach her not to be an ass in public.

----------------------------
TLR - You chose to have a kid, don't put it on me now if you cant find a sitter. Your kid is not a special little snowflake, get over it and respect others nights out.

 

[crazyfills]

Don't want to sound offensive, but thats an ridiculous standpoint. If some one pays to go somewhere on the right side of the law. They just as mutch right to go to that place as you do!
You can't ban a certain age group from being on a flight because it might annoy you that is purely being ageist. Just think about it like this what if that same age group banned you from doing a specific activity would you be angry? the simple anser is Yes Doing this would be in many ways similar to what Hitler did to the jews when he stopped them going to any cinemas or riding bicycles that was done due to theire faith this would be done due to theire age seeing a similarities here?

 

[xmbts]

Okay, there's one...now how about you provide about a billion more examples and maybe that will matter.

And yeah kids have rights, because, you know, they happen to be human beings. Just because they don't enjoy many of the privileges of adulthood doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the same basic rights as you.

Honestly I don't know what's more childish, the notion that all kids are bratty noisemakers, or how big a deal you're making over having your moment spoiled because someone inadvertently irritated you by having the gall to exist in your presence.

Didn't I just prove to you that children do NOT have the same basic rights as I do? Voting's a basic right, isn't it? Choosing your own place of residence is a constitutional right in most modern societies; can a five year old pick where he wants to live? Does a pre-schooler have the right to seek gainful employment? Could you be any more obstinate?

Oh, and by the way, I realise that kids will be kids. But you know what you, as responsible parents, should do when you're in a restaurant or a movie theatre and your kid starts fucking up other people's evenings?

Apologise to the other patrons, try to get your kid to shut up PDQ, and if nothing helps, LEAVE.

What you should NOT do is defend your brat's right to show off its lack of proper manners over the rights of paying customers trying to have a nice evening after some hard work. It's called mother freaking COURTESY.

But then, the current generation of Western parents were already raised by their parents as entitled shits, so I guess that that's out of the window...

I'm not raging against kids, so you might want to pack your silly little strawman back in. I'm raging against dumb parents. You know what you are doing with your goody-two-shoes, passive-agressive spiel? Defending people's right to be rude, impolite arseholes. I'm defending the rights of people to enjoy an evening undisturbed. What's cute is that you think you're in the right.

*looks at poll numbers*

Looks like the vox populi's on my side, btw. Democracy ftw.

Children become full citizens, do you really want to show then that segregation is acceptable?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be disciplined I'm saying that actually banning them from places like this is dehumanizing.

"
*looks at poll numbers*

Looks like the vox populi's on my side, btw. Democracy ftw."

*Slow clap*

Because being the majority makes you right?

Mass ignorance is still ignorance.

 

[Adventurer2626]

I'd put it this way. And my idea is only for movies and other similar situations. Hard to kick someone off a plane. Legally. Three strike rule for the parents/guardians. First, a warning. Second tell them to step outside and get their child(ren) under control. Third, goodbye. Good luck next time. It may seem unfair at first to the parent, but it really helps the annoying child in question that they opted to care for. They will learn discipline and that if they don't behave they won't get nice things.

I'd be against outright bans of any kind except to repeat offenders and to leave it up to the company in question.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

Hell yes i'm in favour though personally i'm of the opinion that kids should be locked away somewhere until they can hold a decent conversation!

 

[Kieran Moore]

Legislation is not the answer. If a privately owned establishment wants to ban kids, more power too them. If the think that the profit they gain from families using their establishments is suitably offset by the profit they may lose having little sh*ts running wild, It's a good business decision.

 

[Kieran Moore]

Legislation is not the answer. If a privately owned establishment wants to ban kids, more power too them. If the think that the profit they gain from families using their establishments is suitably offset by the profit they may lose having little s***s running wild, It's a good business decision.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

I would support this in a few cases.

- Five star restaurants where people are expected to dress up and keep the peaceful atmosphere; full time ban of very young kids or removal of families who won't take Junior out of the dining area until they calm down.

- Other non-fast food restaurants who aren't entirely catering to a family restaurant; kid-free days for individuals who want to unwind someplace nice without fussy kids causing a scene.

- Movie theaters; occasional adult-only showing of movies adults would like to see in peace (Captain America or even the Deathly Hallows) but kid-oriented movies (Pretty much anything Disney or Pixar) you should expect a couple kidlets to be there.

- Airlines or other first-class places in rapid transit; maybe not an outright ban on kids, but I'd support having noisy kids moved to somewhere that it wouldn't disturb passengers until they can calm down or people are being told to get to their seats.

These are really the only times I'd hope to see solid support for kid restrictions, or at least expectations of parents to calm their children down or take them someplace else for a couple of minutes to cool off. Or, as was said before, simply get a babysitter or drop them off at a friend's place as the situation calls for.

 

[dvd_72]

I'm a bit eh, but mostly I don't agree. Some of my earliest and fondest memories are of going out with my grandparents and parents. My Grandparents in particular used to take me to this restaurant that had children's meals that had containers shaped like policeman-dogs and cat-burglars, and so every lunchtime my granddad would tell me stories using these lunches. If I knew that someone was trying to or had managed to deprive me or another child of those sorts of memories (my grandparents died before I was ten, some of these memories are literally all I remember of them) then I would be so far beyond pissed at those people.

But then again, even at age five or six (and my parents insist even younger than that) I was apparently a quiet and polite child who understood that a restaurant was for your indoor voice, and not running around in either. I think that the problem here is not the children, but parents who can't control or haven't taught their children properly, and I don't think it's fair to deny children the chance to understand what it means to be an adult, and to 'feel grown-up,' as my parents used to say, just because some idiot parents don't understand about proper child rearing.

SO in short, no, I don't agree, and I think that the only people who genuinely agree with this are actually the selfish ones in this equation.

You may be right, but you have to admit that children ruining the mood (be it resteraunt, movie, or any sutch public place) ruines alot of -other- peoples memories of the place. While the fault may be of the parents, it's going to be extremely difficult to fix that without forcing them into some kind of class or some equally difficult thing to do.

This is just an easy way out. A way out I support, though not wholeheartedly. Perhaps a better idea would be for the establishments to reserve the right to remove a family from the premise if thier children are disturbing other customers?

 

[Epona]

If parents weren't afraid of being accused of child abuse for spanking their kids then you wouldn't see this as often. The mother wiggling her finger and apologizing might rather take the kid to the restroom for an attitude adjustment but feels that it's too risky.

Just my opinion.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, like you said, it really depends on the location you're trying to ban kids from going to. A porn cinema? yes. A camp site in the English countryside? No.

By the way, it's not just the kids who are annoying. Chances are you don't live in Amsterdam, but if you happen to be there in the nearby future, don't go to the cinema. Everyone is on there cellphone, having loud arguments, listening to the radio (without headphones) and I could go on for a while like this. I don't even know what it is, it's not like the movies aren't interesting. Fro example, you already whether or not you like Transformers 3.

Maybe we should just ban annoying people from going to places, ruther then just kids.

 

[Stephanos132]

Nay, nay, thrice nay. If anything needs to be banned, it's the joyless lackwits who propose that anything they don't like or approve of should be banned, even if it's legal.

Christ, to be a parent or a child now must be hellish. Parents can barely act to raise their children effectively without interference by some nosey do-gooder (who, invariably, do no-one any good). Between them and you telling them they can't be here, the kids can't run around and be children. No wonder so many are fat, hyperactive or otherwise maladjusted.

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

I remember adult only showings at cinemas

I miss these

There SHOULD be enforceable and enforced options and times for people to avoid other peoples screaming brats and enjoy a meal a film a drink a show whatever...

Yes a lot of children are lovely well behaved, but you know what I'll make do without there company to avoid the rest that are not

 

[GenericAmerican]

No, forcing the parents to hire a expensive sitter, or forcing one to stay home at all times isn't right. (and isn't fun)

How about we force them to raise their children right?

 

[haloman13]

This is an infringement on the freedom of both children and parents, you can't just demand people you don't like stay out of your favourite places, if I could do that there wouldn't be any furfags on the internet but you dont hear me bitching that they should have their internet connection severed........ scratch that I actually think that might work out great.

 

[Sylveria]

No. Parents have a difficult enough time trying to get out of the house already without having to find and pay for a sitter. .

If they can't afford it a sitter, then they sure can't afford to go out and probably can't afford their kids in the first place. No reason the rest of us should suffer for their poor life or financial choices.

Hell no, this is beyond stupid. If they cause a distraction, then deal with it. If they don't then you just lost money. Good job. You failed as a private corporation at a very fundamental level.

Basically, this is punishing people for being young. Which is bullshit.

Who should deal with it? The business owner/employees? Cause the parents sure aren't doing it. Imagine how well received "Ma'am your child is disturbing the other customers, please get it under control or leave," is going to be received? If the parents make a scene, and they probably will, that's just another layer of disruption and poor atmosphere created by an uncontrolled kid and an irresponsible parent. I think a lot of people would be far more inclined to go places and maybe even pay a little bit more for an experience that will be child-free.

There's very few places that a disruptive child belongs. There's very few places a young child belongs period. 1 crying kid in a public place can ruin it for everyone. Get a sitter or stay the hell home. Yeah this may punish young kids and the parents of very young kids, but you know who benefits? Everyone else. Needs of the many, needs of the many.

In fact maybe this will serve as a further encouragement for people to be responsible with their DNA slinging if they know it will even further impede their social life.

 

[DanielDeFig]

No.

As the OP made perfectly clear (but doesn't seem to realize), that it's not the childeren's fault: It's the parents. Instead of banning children from places, we should make changes to ensure that all parents get some basic education on how to handle their children in public areas, and at home (so to avoid the kids acting obnoxiously in the first place.)

 

[Kilyle]

I'm in favor of letting businesses do whatever they think will bring in more customers. If that's keeping kids out, or letting smoke in, I say it's their business, and customers will decide which businesses to bring their money to.

We're not like some countries that have only one restaurant or one grocery store to choose from. If you don't like Safeway, go to Fred Meyer. I would not like to see all the movie theatres in the county exclude my niece and nephews, but then again, it's their decision. I must say I like what someone up there posted, about a clear policy of eviction on the wall ("If your kids start annoying the other customers, you'll have to leave" makes sense).

On the other hand, my family (my mom wrt my brothers and I, and me wrt taking my nephews around town) have always been pretty good about not letting them act up in public. In the tradition my mother laid before me, I tell them that I'm willing to take a kid and go sit in the car rather than let them act up in the store. Lo and behold, they don't act up! (Mostly.) My mom used to take a tantrum as the cue to put everything back and leave the store, and we didn't have to learn that lesson more than once.

It pains me to see a toddler, or even older kid, start throwing a fit in public and have the parent "pay" him by giving him a treat. Do you not understand how rewards WORK? What's worse, when my nephew's mom went through CPS problems, she got "taught" by the nice PCIT ladies that you should just stand aside and let him cry it out, instead of, say, dragging him out of the store (I've drug my nephew out of church once) or giving him a quick swat on the butt to tell him to knock it off. When they won't listen to reason, you change to something they WILL listen to.

ETA: Someone commenting on the article said that an age ban discriminates against parents who've actually raised their kids well, which is why I support the eviction policy mentioned above. Also, someone pointed out that if a large portion of the businesses are closed to kids during certain hours, a parent with limited hours to get chores done might find that unreasonably difficult. Things to think about.

 

[PixelKing]

No, because I'm a child.
I have rights same as anyone else.

 

[Rekrul]

Get over it kids will be kids, wheres the line at annoying, screaming kids or kids acting up really don't bother me, I think its entertaining. I work with kids and we always mess around, are loud when we go on trips and you know what, like the kids, I couldn't care less.