NickCooley said:
Implying all parents have access to sitters at all times of day and night, or the cash to pay for them or the inclination to leave their child/children with a stranger who often isn't that much more than a child themselves (I've never seen a babysitter any older than 16). No lets force all parents to stash their children away to satiate your petty grudge against all things below puberty.
Or you could man up, grow a pair and stop getting so stroppy at these minor incoveniences at worst.
And after the checking the poll. Maker preserve me I never knew the Escapist was full of such bitter old grouches.
I speak as a married thirty something with a ten year old stepson, who is looking at having another child in the near future.
Parents made a decision, now they need to live with the fallout of that decision. For generations parents have understood that, once they have kids, their ability to socialise with other adults tends to be limited to places their children need to go (playschool, kindy, whatever) and when they can get a sitter. As the child gets older, it can be taken more places.. and should be to ensure that it knows how to behave when in public.. however, part of that is ensuring they behave themselves and do not disturb people around them.
When it comes to babies, there is a simple biological fact... a baby's cries are hard wired into the human brain to annoy and distress.
The problem these days is twofold.. one, that parents seem to think they can live the same lives they did before they had children without any changes... and two, they refuse to properly discipline their children in public, although that is partly society's fault not theirs.
I support places of business having a choice to exclude elements of society they feel would be disruptive.. be this small children, loud twenty somethings, or large groups of elderly people blocking the aisles. When it comes to children, when other parents return to a "seen and not heard" attitude in public then I will be more accepting.
