Children in Public

I assume we have all had that unique joy of putting up with an annoying child in public. A baby that won't stop screaming at the table next to you while you're having dinner. A preteen who talks too loud in the theater. Toddlers on an airplane.

Yet children are a part of our society. We recognize, both legally and socially, that they will behave in ways that would be unacceptable for an adult. So how far does that go?

What places should accept what? Should restaurants have a "child-free" zone? Should children simply be banned from theaters? How much tolerance should we extend to children and the adults who bring them around?

edited 16th Feb '12 5:27:37 PM by BestOf

Part of childhood is being trained for how to act in public. If you have shameful memories of being dragged out of a symphony bawling your head off, well, you learn from that.

Of course, nowadays this often requires usher intervention. I don't think that would have quite the same impact.

Are we really doing it that wrong now?

I've had my share of grabbing theater employees to deal with problem teenagers in the movie. They always act so uppity, as if I shouldn't have found them talking on their phone for a half hour while the movie's going on annoying in the least. Both the employees and the teens.

I wouldn't mind there being more "no children" options available to me, but I don't want it to ever become a normal thing. I hear being a parent is hard enough without it becoming a reason to segregate.

edited 16th Feb '12 5:51:56 PM by Bur

@The Bat Pencil: I don't know. When I was on the long leg of my trip back from Germany, toddlers were allowed to run around my section of the airplane screaming their heads off. The trip was about eight hours, and there was literally one hour with enough peace for me to be able to doze off...after having stayed up all night. With earplugs. That is not an exaggeration in any sense of the word. I was exhausted and tired the entire trip, but they were so disruptive that only 1 hour out of the eight was I able to sleep.

I'd say in that case, we were doing it wrong.

Well, "no children" option as the norm is bad anyway since we'll end up with kids with no idea how to behave in public growing up to adults with no idea how to behave in public.

I'd say that we should be asking the parents to discipline their kids when they're out of control in public.

Some theater chain is already banning children

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/are-movie-theaters-fading-ctd.html

I think the problem is solving itself. Single people would like to visit restaurant liked by other singles, while parents would like to visit restaurant visited by other parents. every people have their own standard of "children disturbance" and each theater / restaurant would eventually develop standard that acceptable to their own client base. even church treatment on this varied, some church if the baby cry, you leave the mass, on other it is just accepted.

Segregation of children isn't bad. I'm waiting for the little growth pods myself.

Yeah, trouble is they won't learn how to behave in public. So they end up growing up into adults that behave like kids.

This is why parents need to actually, you know, parent. For example, whenever my sister or I made noise in church, my dad would take us to the vestibule until we stopped making noise. If we acted out in a public place, we'd be taken home, and you can bet our parents told us what we did wrong and how you should act in public.

The problem isn't with kids but with their poor parenting.

edited 16th Feb '12 7:17:43 PM by Firebert

I'm going to pretend like Deboss isn't proposing institutionalized child abuse and ignore him.

Anyhow, I would oppose trying to take children out of public because of what Bur noted: it would make the lives of parents even harder than they already are.

My one rule is this. I have no problems with Children in public so long as their parents are willing to be responsible for their actions. I want parents to drop this attitude their children are angels and can do no wrong and can not fail.

Yeah, parents shouldn't put shock collars on their children, but they shouldn't let their children run rampant without discipline either.

But their high pitched squeeky voices are so grating.

How much control do you think a parent has over their baby or toddler in the OP's examples? I'm sure if they were able to control their children perfectly, they would, because they aren't going to get any more sleep than you are. Bur's right when she says that making child-free zones will be extremely troublesome for parents, particularly lower-income earners. You can't leave a young child at home while you do the shopping, or go to a restaurant, or any number of other activities. If you can't afford a baby-sitter, what can you do?

Sound proofed rooms at the stores come to mind.

How exactly would that work?

I wouldn't like child-free zones for the reasons I've mention, but I'd like to see more parents actually disciplining kids when they're not behaving in public. Babies crying I can accept, but parents just letting their kids running around and letting them to get into danger (for example, in restaurants when people are holding hot food and liquids) is just wrong.

edited 16th Feb '12 7:41:43 PM by IraTheSquire

This. Parenting is a large responsibility, and it seems like a lot of parents today don't feel like taking that responsibility seriously.

@Firebert: Actually, one of the stores around here offers a low-cost daycare of sorts for shoppers. You sign them in, and do your shopping, then pick them up. It's per-hour, and I think that leaving them there for less than half an hour is free or something.

Of course, nobody ever uses it, so it's kinda a moot point anyways.

I don't mean to say parents shouldn't discipline their children - they certainly have that responsibility - merely that bringing up a child is difficult work, and sometimes it's impossible to get them to behave in public. I've looked after many kids myself, and I can tell you that's it's equally embarrassing, frustrating and irritating for the carer of the child as for the people surrounding you.

I can see how you would feel that way, that's probably part of why my parents removed me from the premises when I acted up.

A "one shriek and you're gone" policy would be nice to see.

edited 16th Feb '12 7:58:48 PM by Deboss

Sometimes it's a real dilemma when it comes to discipline. Let's say your toddler's acting up in a restaurant, and is constantly screaming her head off because she doesn't want to eat food. You want to train your child to eat lots of different, nutritious food, as a good parent. To someone outside your family, it might look like you're trying to force-feed your child food she doesn't want - bad parenting. The child is screaming, probably making a mess, and kicking - bad parenting. If you give in, however, and let your child eat what she wants, then that's also bad parenting because you're letting her know that making a scene will let her get her way, thereby reinforcing bad behaviour and leading to similar situations later on. If you leave, then you've basically let them ruin what could have been a nice dinner with friends and family.

Ideally, you should discipline your children at home until they behave, but children will be children. Every child acts up and has bad days, most of them don't react well to strange new environments, and most parents will need to take them along at some point. It's annoying as hell, but sometimes it can't be helped. That's child-raising for you.

I completely agree that children ought to be disciplined more nowadays, though.