"No kids allowed!" -- Children in Restaurants

[Guest American Woman]

Parents can and do and need to be able to take children in to at least 'nicer' restaurants to teach them the manners required and to practice what they may very well have been taight at home ( I was )

Agreed. And parents who both work all day all week shouldn't be required to get a sitter in order to enjoy a nice meal out - they don't want to leave their kids home spending even more time with a sitter/caretaker - they want to spend time with them.

I do have to say, too, that in retrospect I have to wonder why it's kind of natural to think less expensive restaurants are a more appropriate venue for screaming kids. Fact is, some patrons of IHOP et al can't afford anything else, and in fact it may be more of a financial strain for them to eat at IHOP than it is for some wealthier patrons to eat at expensive restaurants. So why should it be more ok for them to have their meal/evening out ruined?

But the issue is not kids, it is parents who refuse to budge to discipline the kid who is out of control.

Again, totally agree. The banning should be done on an individual basis.

Edited August 16, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

I do have to say, too, that in retrospect I have to wonder why it's kind of natural to think less expensive restaurants are a more appropriate venue for screaming kids. Fact is, some patrons of IHOP et al can't afford anything else, and in fact it may be more of a financial strain for them to eat at IHOP than it is for some wealthier patrons to eat at expensive restaurants. So why should it be more ok for them to have their meal/evening out ruined?

It 'shouldn't" be but it is. No one, IHOP or Scaramouche 'deserves' to have a meal ruined.

We can apply that to a mess of other situations.

Why do we need to be quiet when someone is driving off the tee or putting a 2 incher, but put them on a mini-putt course and all the noise in the world doesnt matter.

The food in an IHOP et al is geared to be eaten by kids. Ergo noise will ensue.

A top end resto's food is geared more for the foodie, with prices to match.

Actually I have had more meals ruined by drunken louts than kids,at least with kids I can tune em out.

Funny my nieghbours at the cottage are always apologizing for thier kids noirse, which is silly as it is neither excessive nor uncalled for. FFS, they are playing and having fun so moise is welcome.

Now two places away they have a 12 yr old boy who cant do up his zipper without crying out "Mom" 20 times when he is on the dock. Whiny little prick, calling out to his dad to come help with the lift tin boat as it had tons of water in it after a rain. Stands there whining but even his folks ignored him. I yelled out to him, 'bail it out first ....then lift"

[Black Dog]

Au contraire ! Apart from any high end restaurant , or financial centre resto, kids are a prime target as they will need parents to pay and they make money off the meals they order , along w the booze.

You think kids' meals are money makers?

Parents can and do and need to be able to take children in to at least 'nicer' restaurants to teach them the manners required and to practice what they may very well have been taight at home ( I was )

Nope, don't buy it. Kids should be taken to restaurants when they are ready and able to behave appropriately not be taught on the job.

[guyser]

You think kids' meals are money makers?

I dont think it, I know it.

Cant get one unless a parent is with the kid, ergo, money is made.

Most kid meals consist of bare bones basic , like grilled cheese or hot dog and fries. Costs for those are under a dollar, the resto price is $3.99. They make money.

And when mom and dad buy lunch dinner and or booze and drinks, money is made all around.

Dont kid yourself, the prevelance of kids meals means they attract and make money

Nope, don't buy it. Kids should be taken to restaurants when they are ready and able to behave appropriately not be taught on the job.

Not what I said BD.

Teach at home, take them out for a trial run to a mid level resto and graduate if successful.

If not, leave fast if they become unruly.

Like I said before, it aint the kids...its dumb ass parents who ignore it.

Damn dude, are you this crusty everywhere?

[kimmy]

Yet my daughters had fine dining experiences before that and didn't shriek or cry or have tantrums either - even when *gasp* confronted with the extra fork.

Well, we learned in the "gifted" thread that everybody on MLW is gifted. And we're learning here that everybody on MLW has well behaved children as well.

However, *other* peoples kids aren't always so well behaved.

And a lot of kids know that before the age of 6, which was one of the points I was making, where lots of children haven't learned that even after 6. Another point I've made. So some kids under the age of 6 ill conduct themselves just fine, yet they and their parents are being denied the experience.

Well, as is often the case, some bad apples have ruined things for the whole bunch. But so what?

Again I have to wonder if you're being purposely obtuse. I'll repeat yet again:... it's about the parents having the right to enjoy such an atmosphere if their children do behave.

I don't believe that such a right exists in either of our countries. But I do look forward to the day that some modern-day Rosa Parks steps forward to assert that her rights have been violated because she's not allowed to take toddlers into some specific establishment. I anticipate a resulting backlash against entitled, boorish parents and their shrieking brats, which is frankly long overdue.

Yeah chances are you WOULD want to allow children, and thats why most restaurants do. Hell... lots of them even openly advertise their family friendliness.

Sure, lots of restaurants have a "kids menu" and boast about being family friendly. Some of them even have deals like a free kids meal with each adult entree. So?

I didn't see a kids' menu last time I went to The Keg or Moxie's. I never see kids in their TV ads either. I'm not actually sure I even recall seeing booster seats in those places. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing toddlers in those restaurants either.

The last thing any businessman wants to do is shink his potentional customer demographic by banning people who havent caused any problems. Especially since not one shred of data has been introduced here.

What "data" need be produced? Does a restaurant owner need to produce "data" to introduce a "no kids" policy?

The only data that is relevant here is: (1) he did it, (2) other businesses have begun offering similar no-kids experiences for customers, and (3) he says business has improved by 20%.

If you go jumping to conclusions like this then chances are any business you own wont last a year.

BTW! If you ban all your customers youre guaranteed to have a very quiet and undisruptive environment.

Here's a thought: perhaps he hasn't shrunk his potential customer demographic at all. Perhaps he's expanded it.

Perhaps subtracting the boors who'd bring toddlers to an adult dining environment, then adding customers who've stopped going to restaurants because they were sick of shrieking kids has resulted in a net gain.

Parents can and do and need to be able to take children in to at least 'nicer' restaurants to teach them the manners required and to practice what they may very well have been taight at home

B.S.

Agreed. And parents who both work all day all week shouldn't be required to get a sitter in order to enjoy a nice meal out - they don't want to leave their kids home spending even more time with a sitter/caretaker - they want to spend time with them.

And there's lots of restaurants that'll be happy to have them.

I do have to say, too, that in retrospect I have to wonder why it's kind of natural to think less expensive restaurants are a more appropriate venue for screaming kids. Fact is, some patrons of IHOP et al can't afford anything else, and in fact it may be more of a financial strain for them to eat at IHOP than it is for some wealthier patrons to eat at expensive restaurants. So why should it be more ok for them to have their meal/evening out ruined?

It's not that "less expensive" restaurants are a more appropriate venue for screaming kids. It's that "family" restaurants are a more appropriate venue for screaming kids. However, it's not a coincidence that "family" and "less expensive" tend to go hand in hand.

But no need to worry! People who can't afford to eat at an upscale "no kids" restaurant can dine with you and Guyser and Dre at the magical restaurant at the end of the rainbow where screaming toddlers are hardly ever a problem and when unruly patrons disrupt the dining environment the staff politely but firmly take deal with the situation post-haste.

You guys are telling me people are wrong to think that there's a problem here, yet you want me to feel sorry for people who can't afford to eat someplace relaxing? haha.

Poor parents would like to dine in a relaxing environment. I'd like to own a lakefront home. I guess we will all have to keep saving our pennies.

-k

Edited August 17, 2011 by kimmy

[RB]

I have never had trouble with kids "brawling" in restaurants. There are choices of restaurants to choose if you are desirous of polite cultured kids...at a price.

Having said that isn't it discriminatory for a restaurant that provides service to the public to size up a group of people of a certain age and put rules of "No Kids" condition because they are loud and boisterous whereas adults can also be boisterous, brawling (as in fights)and grabbing things. What I meant is that because kids might disturb other patrons is not a good reason and justification to ban kids as the rule ultimately also affect others. In this instance the rule is set to dissuades families (adult) from accessing a service which seems like the intent of the restaurant.

I understand children running around however a more justifiable rule can be "every one remain seated while being served" OR

Some restaurants have kids Tuesdays which encourages families to use the service

those sort of solutions seem to me to be more "bona fide" reasons for restaurants "policies" otherwise find another business

[dre]

Well, we learned in the "gifted" thread that everybody on MLW is gifted. And we're learning here that everybody on MLW has well behaved children as well.

However, *other* peoples kids aren't always so well behaved.

Well, as is often the case, some bad apples have ruined things for the whole bunch. But so what?

I don't believe that such a right exists in either of our countries. But I do look forward to the day that some modern-day Rosa Parks steps forward to assert that her rights have been violated because she's not allowed to take toddlers into some specific establishment. I anticipate a resulting backlash against entitled, boorish parents and their shrieking brats, which is frankly long overdue.

Sure, lots of restaurants have a "kids menu" and boast about being family friendly. Some of them even have deals like a free kids meal with each adult entree. So?

I didn't see a kids' menu last time I went to The Keg or Moxie's. I never see kids in their TV ads either. I'm not actually sure I even recall seeing booster seats in those places. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing toddlers in those restaurants either.

What "data" need be produced? Does a restaurant owner need to produce "data" to introduce a "no kids" policy?

The only data that is relevant here is: (1) he did it, (2) other businesses have begun offering similar no-kids experiences for customers, and (3) he says business has improved by 20%.

Here's a thought: perhaps he hasn't shrunk his potential customer demographic at all. Perhaps he's expanded it.

Perhaps subtracting the boors who'd bring toddlers to an adult dining environment, then adding customers who've stopped going to restaurants because they were sick of shrieking kids has resulted in a net gain.

B.S.

And there's lots of restaurants that'll be happy to have them.

It's not that "less expensive" restaurants are a more appropriate venue for screaming kids. It's that "family" restaurants are a more appropriate venue for screaming kids. However, it's not a coincidence that "family" and "less expensive" tend to go hand in hand.

But no need to worry! People who can't afford to eat at an upscale "no kids" restaurant can dine with you and Guyser and Dre at the magical restaurant at the end of the rainbow where screaming toddlers are hardly ever a problem and when unruly patrons disrupt the dining environment the staff politely but firmly take deal with the situation post-haste.

You guys are telling me people are wrong to think that there's a problem here, yet you want me to feel sorry for people who can't afford to eat someplace relaxing? haha.

Poor parents would like to dine in a relaxing environment. I'd like to own a lakefront home. I guess we will all have to keep saving our pennies.

-k

Moxies is barely a step above fast food. And the Keg isnt stupid enough to ban children.

[kimmy]

otherwise find another business

The only part of your message that made any sense, but it's important.

Moxies is barely a step above fast food.

Are we talking about the same place? I've only been to a Moxie's once, but found it to be a very pleasant adult dining environment with excellent food.

And the Keg isnt stupid enough to ban children.

They don't ban them, but they certainly don't do anything to invite them either. And from what I've seen, most people take the hint.

BTW, you didn't explain what "data" you think need be presented to justify such a policy. And you didn't explain why, if this sort of policy is so dumb, why more businesses seem to be following Mr Vuich's example. Are all these businesses just not as smart as you are? Personally, between an "internet expert" and a guy who's running the business, I'd take the opinion of the guy whose livelihood is actually riding on the results.

-k

Edited August 17, 2011 by kimmy

[dre]

The only part of your message that made any sense, but it's important.

Are we talking about the same place? I've only been to a Moxie's once, but found it to be a very pleasant adult dining environment with excellent food.

They don't ban them, but they certainly don't do anything to invite them either. And from what I've seen, most people take the hint.

BTW, you didn't explain what "data" you think need be presented to justify such a policy. And you didn't explain why, if this sort of policy is so dumb, why more businesses seem to be following Mr Vuich's example. Are all these businesses just not as smart as you are? Personally, between an "internet expert" and a guy who's running the business, I'd take the opinion of the guy whose livelihood is actually riding on the results.

-k

Are we talking about the same place? I've only been to a Moxie's once, but found it to be a very pleasant adult dining environment with excellent food.

I eat there quite a bit. But like I said its a bottom end of the middle type restaurant. Its also a noisy place when its busy, and theres usually tons of kids there.

They don't ban them, but they certainly don't do anything to invite them either. And from what I've seen, most people take the hint.

Actually both the kegs I go to advertise themselves as family restaurants and I see children there all the time. The waitresses at the one in Nanaimo sung happy birthday to my twins and gave them free desert.

BTW, you didn't explain what "data" you think need be presented to justify such a policy. And you didn't explain why, if this sort of policy is so dumb, why more businesses seem to be following Mr Vuich's example. Are all these businesses just not as smart as you are? Personally, between an "internet expert" and a guy who's running the business, I'd take the opinion of the guy whose livelihood is actually riding on the results.

I thought it was obvious. Data on how much of a problem kids really are compared to teenagers (who are in my experience the loudest tables at any restaurant), and drunk adults. And nobody has to justify any policy... restaurant owners can do as they choose.

Personally, between an "internet expert" and a guy who's running the business,

I never claimed to be an expert any more than you or anyone else in this thread.

I'd take the opinion of the guy whose livelihood is actually riding on the results.

Ok. Ill take the the opinion of the 99.9 percent of restaurant owners that welcome children, and reserve the right to get rid of ANY unruly customers.

Are all these businesses just not as smart as you are?

I dunno! Are the vast majority of restaurant owners that accomodate children not as smart as you?

[wyly]

Personally, between an "internet expert" and a guy who's running the business, I'd take the opinion of the guy whose livelihood is actually riding on the results.

at the rate that restaurants go bankrupt most owners have no clue...only 20% of restaurants are still in business after 2 years...and only half of the 2 year survivors will be around in 5 years...

[wyly]

I eat there quite a bit. But like I said its a bottom end of the middle type restaurant. Its also a noisy place when its busy, and theres usually tons of kids there.

Actually both the kegs I go to advertise themselves as family restaurants and I see children there all the time. The waitresses at the one in Nanaimo sung happy birthday to my twins and gave them free desert.

I thought it was obvious. Data on how much of a problem kids really are compared to teenagers (who are in my experience the loudest tables at any restaurant), and drunk adults. And nobody has to justify any policy... restaurant owners can do as they choose.

I never claimed to be an expert any more than you or anyone else in this thread.

Ok. Ill take the the opinion of the 99.9 percent of restaurant owners that welcome children, and reserve the right to get rid of ANY unruly customers.

I dunno! Are the vast majority of restaurant owners that accomodate children not as smart as you?

best way to avoid kids is by price/better quality food and no kids menu, my kids were always(most of the time ) well behaved but I'd never take them to a place with no kids menu or expensive menu ...agree moxies isn't fine dinning...

[dre]

best way to avoid kids is by price/better quality food and no kids menu, my kids were always(most of the time ) well behaved but I'd never take them to a place with no kids menu or expensive menu ...agree moxies isn't fine dinning...

Iv been to a few restaurants that accomodate both nicely. Theres common areas with lots of tables, but also some quiet corners etc.

I think the problem is some people are just uptight. I dont panic when I hear people make noise. Most people are pretty laid back and dont let this kind of thing bother them but you get the odd person that obsesses over the behavior of others. Like the neighbor that calls the cops when you have one loud party every couple of years even though youve been quite for 1000 days in a row.

I guess those people need somewhere to eat too.

"Leave your family at home and shut the fuck up!... at Kimmys!"

[wyly]

Iv been to a few restaurants that accomodate both nicely. Theres common areas with lots of tables, but also some quiet corners etc.

I think the problem is some people are just uptight. I dont panic when I hear people make noise. Most people are pretty laid back and dont let this kind of thing bother them but you get the odd person that obsesses over the behavior of others. Like the neighbor that calls the cops when you have one loud party every couple of years even though youve been quite for 1000 days in a row.

I guess those people need somewhere to eat too.

"Leave your family at home and shut the fuck up!... at Kimmys!"

I suppose ...my biggest gripe is with the parents of unruly kids...how can they not know their kids are disturbing others, it would embarrass the crap out of me if my kids behaved badly and I'd haul them out of there, and I can only recall ever having to do that once...

[Black Dog]

I dont think it, I know it.

Cant get one unless a parent is with the kid, ergo, money is made.

Most kid meals consist of bare bones basic , like grilled cheese or hot dog and fries. Costs for those are under a dollar, the resto price is $3.99. They make money.

And when mom and dad buy lunch dinner and or booze and drinks, money is made all around.

Dont kid yourself, the prevelance of kids meals means they attract and make money

As I said: there's plenty of successful restaurants that do just fine without catering to kids, so not having a kid's menu is not the make-or-break proposition you imply. In fact the only eateries I see with kid's menus are chains.

Damn dude, are you this crusty everywhere?

Unfortunately, yes.

[Oleg Bach]

Children and adult human beingss first...dogs second. The other day I was on a crowded street car - it was standing room only. There was an elderly woman standing in the isle - beside her sitting in comfort was a lounging dog ...on a seat that the belonged to the old person - There was a couple who belonged to the dog sitting close by - I felt like giving them a cuff up side the head and the dog a gentle boot in the fury ass. People are out of order - loyality and care for your own species first - thank you very much!

[Black Dog]

I thought it was obvious. Data on how much of a problem kids really are compared to teenagers (who are in my experience the loudest tables at any restaurant), and drunk adults. And nobody has to justify any policy... restaurant owners can do as they choose.

Of course no such "data" exists (I doubt StatsCan has a team on it anyway).

But since we're all relying on anecdotes...I have never, not once in my 20-odd years of real dining, been disturbed by the "obnoxious drunk" that seems to dog the pro-child faction here so frequently.

Ok. Ill take the the opinion of the 99.9 percent of restaurant owners that welcome children, and reserve the right to get rid of ANY unruly customers.

Is that real data? If so, how about a source?

"Leave your family at home and shut the fuck up!... at Kimmys!"

I'd eat there. Hell, are they hiring?

[Oleg Bach]

If you have a kid that is satan personified - kick em out. Normal noise and young activity is tolerable and interesting...when a kid is nasty and getting a kick out of raising hell...send the little bastard and his parents on their way.

[Black Dog]

Normal noise and young activity is tolerable and interesting...

It's really not.

[Oleg Bach]

It's really not.

Have a child or two and you will love them and tolerate them. You will also find that if you hate kids - they are usually those that belong to strangers - it's natural. Kind of like not wanting to eat food prepared in someone elses home - it might have germs on it that are not yours.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, we learned in the "gifted" thread that everybody on MLW is gifted. And we're learning here that everybody on MLW has well behaved children as well.

Actually, I didn't jump on that bandwagon, so it's nice to know that you recognize my superior intellect even as I didn't shout it out.

However, *other* peoples kids aren't always so well behaved.

I've noticed that as well, hence my comments. I've never once indicated that I think all kids behave wonderfully in restaurants and have never once indicated that I think people should have to put up with unruly children.

Well, as is often the case, some bad apples have ruined things for the whole bunch. But so what?

Not sure what you're getting at here. The "so what" is what we've been discussing. You asked "what do you think?" and we've been stating what we think; and what some of us think is that perhaps restaurants could deal with the issue on an individual basis, as called for, rather than ban the whole bunch. The "so what" is that people with well behaved kids are denied the right to dine there.

I don't believe that such a right exists in either of our countries. But I do look forward to the day that some modern-day Rosa Parks steps forward to assert that her rights have been violated because she's not allowed to take toddlers into some specific establishment.

Yes, of course - because when I speak of losing the right to dine at certain establishments, I'm referring to "the constitutional right." Let me clarify: by "the right to dine there" I mean the opportunity to dine there, but I'm referring to it as "the right" because these people with well behaved kids have done nothing to warrant being banned from dining with their children.

I anticipate a resulting backlash against entitled, boorish parents and their shrieking brats, which is frankly long overdue.

Tell us how you really feel. Interesting that earlier in this thread you said it was normal behavior for three year olds to "shriek" - that they weren't misbehaving, but just acting like a normal three year old. Now they're "shrieking brats?"

I think that says a lot. That and Black Dog's "I hate kids." I think some people don't want kids around them because they simply don't like kids.

Edited August 17, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

But no need to worry! People who can't afford to eat at an upscale "no kids" restaurant can dine with you and Guyser and Dre at the magical restaurant at the end of the rainbow where screaming toddlers are hardly ever a problem and when unruly patrons disrupt the dining environment the staff politely but firmly take deal with the situation post-haste.

.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

When children are running rampant in any resto, I said it is the parents who need to step up and deal with it.

[Guest American Woman]

.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

When children are running rampant in any resto, I said it is the parents who need to step up and deal with it.

I've said the same thing, but I've also said that I think management should step in and ask the parents to control their kids or leave if the parents don't step up and deal with it - as they too often don't.

It's the same principle as in a hotel - if someone complains that the people in the room next door are making an inordinate amount of noise, management steps in and deals with it.

Evidently expecting management to deal with such a problem is beyond the realm of possibilities in Kimmy's mind.........

Edited August 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Tell us how you really feel. Interesting that earlier in this thread you said it was normal behavior for three year olds to "shriek" - that they weren't misbehaving, but just acting like a normal three year old. Now they're "shrieking brats?"

I think that says a lot. That and Black Dog's "I hate kids." I think some people don't want kids around them because they simply don't like kids.

And so what if that's the case?

Evidently expecting management to deal with such a problem is beyond the realm of possibilities in Kimmy's mind.........

Banning kids is dealing with the problem. Just preemptively. I don't see why management and other patrons must be compelled to be put out before they take action.

[guyser]

And so what if that's the case?

Nothing at all. I have a friend who hates kids too. I dont understand it, but at least she is upfront about it, as you are.

Banning kids is dealing with the problem. Just preemptively. I don't see why management and other patrons must be compelled to be put out before they take action.

It is dealing with the problem, no question there.

But every kid is not a nail, thus the hammer need not come out.

Lunch I can eat anywhere in any resto, dinnertime I have morals and eat at resto's that are not generally populated by kids. They are there often times, but not a problem.

On the other hand, more meals have been ruined by lousy surly wait staff (which one can show non-appreciation for-ie tip) and boorish adult diners than by kids. Means nothing for this thread but thats my experience.

For the record, parenting skills are the problem. Not kids.

[Black Dog]

For the record, parenting skills are the problem. Not kids.

I don't think that's necessarily in dispute. But it hardly matters to those who've had their dinner experience sullied by a child anymore than some London shopkeeper could find consolation in the thought that the people who smashed and looted his business were just acting out of poverty and hopelessness.