Businesses saying keep the rowdy children at home.

If you encounter a noisy kid in a cafe, movie theatre or restaurant (or other partially public place without a "manager") the trick to make the screaming stop is _not_ to directly tell the parent or kid to be quite, but to adress the whole area/room to show what everyone's thinking. For example, tell the parent(s) so everyone can hear "I think I speak for all of us the screaming is annoying". Now when you got everyones attention, look (direct eye contact) at all the males in the room. Every single time I've done this almost all of the males will nod in acceptance. If you have handled this correctly, it will now be very clear to the parents what everyones thinking and the parents with the annoying kid will hopefully leave the place.

I've only done this three times though, but it always works and all three times someone thanked me afterwards.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Psionicist said:
If you encounter a noisy kid in a cafe, movie theatre or restaurant (or other partially public place without a "manager") the trick to make the screaming stop is _not_ to directly tell the parent or kid to be quite, but to adress the whole area/room to show what everyone's thinking. For example, tell the parent(s) so everyone can hear "I think I speak for all of us the screaming is annoying". Now when you got everyones attention, look (direct eye contact) at all the males in the room. Every single time I've done this almost all of the males will nod in acceptance. If you have handled this correctly, it will now be very clear to the parents what everyones thinking and the parents with the annoying kid will hopefully leave the place.

I've only done this three times though, but it always works and all three times someone thanked me afterwards.

I'm going to have to remember this one!!
 

There were two columns in Sunday's Chicago Tribune on the topic. The NY Times article seems to have garnered a lot of attention, and most of it appears to be falling on the side of the cafe owner:

John Kass said:
Mr. Belvedere would tame those brats

I can't say if Dan McCauley, a North Side restaurant owner, is America's new Mr. Belvedere, though clearly there is a Belvederian yearning in our culture these days. And McCauley may be the man for the job.

McCauley, owner of A Taste of Heaven restaurant, was fed up with shrieking, bratty kids climbing on his fixtures or flopping on the floor blocking waitresses carrying pots of hot coffee, while the parents remained relaxed and infuriatingly indifferent.

So he put up a subversive sign: "Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of Heaven."

I support him in this, and so should anyone who gives a fig for decency. When I was a kid and dared misbehave in a restaurant, my mom didn't give me a taste of heaven. She'd give me a taste of something else. But now we are fixed in the age of the bureaucrat, and pleas for common courtesy must first be written down and properly displayed.

Some moms were terribly insulted by the sign and called a boycott. And four things happened.

1) The Chicago Tribune published a story on the restaurant-angry mommy debate in September.

2) The New York Times ran a similar story in November, but much longer.

3) Talk radio hosts put angry boycotting moms on the air to tell how they're sick and tired of "those people" without kids being increasingly intolerant of little children who make noise when they're hungry. Other moms called in to severely chastise the boycotting moms, saying if they can't control their little monsters, then just keep them chained in the basement where they belong. Dads, as usual, wisely kept their mouths shut.

4) And the restaurant owner's business tripled.

"It's true," said McCauley, whose establishment is in Chicago's upscale Andersonville neighborhood.

"Our business has gone up. It's unbelievable. It's tripled. A lot of people are frustrated about this, and so here we are. Some people don't realize they have to live by the rules of the rest of the community. I was only asking for some common courtesy."

The boycott hasn't ruined you?

"No," he said. "As a matter of fact, there must be 12 to 15 kids in here now. Listen, we're getting calls from Amsterdam and New Zealand. They're all applauding this.

"All we're asking for is courtesy," McCauley said. "I really care about the breakdown in the culture. For me, it's almost a cause. And I don't like people using their cell phones, either."

He's right about the cell phones and the culture, and the decline of the West is one of my favorite topics. So if you're reading this at brunch on Sunday in a restaurant in an upscale urban neighborhood, with kids rampant, the decline of the West is best illustrated this way:

By the pain in your kidneys coming from other people's children kicking the back of your booth, and that wan "What's your problem?" look their parents offer you as their kids bounce another ice cube off your forehead.

Better not take offense. Their parents are probably lawyers. The kids will grow up to push people out of the way for everything, including Communion on Sunday. When they attain power, they'll probably turn every adult now over 30 into salty, digestible crackers, when the crude oil runs out and they're tired of subsidizing our Social Security.

Or, what's most likely, they'll grow up to be just like the rest of us.

McCauley sounds almost like the new Mr. Belvedere, to me. And every so often, America creates a new Mr. Belvedere.

Years ago, in one of the humor magazines, they created a Belvederian comic strip called "Politeness Man." He demanded proper manners from everyone, and he backed it up with an iron handkerchief that he flicked against the noggins of youthful offenders, without killing them.

But like I said, the parents of these kids are probably lawyers.

Mr. Belvedere was popularized in an ancient movie by the late actor Clifton Webb. Webb's Belvedere played a strict nanny to a pack of spoiled, rich brats. Through an inhuman force of will, he trained the little monsters to eat properly at the table, piercing them with withering looks if they dared slide silverware across their teeth. In no time, the children had their left hands in their laps, engaging in polite dinner conversation about literature and foreign policy and the decline of the West.

The newly nice kids loved Mr. Belvedere for teaching them right from wrong. Parents loved him too.

Naturally, he was a fictional character. If he were real, he'd be ridiculed, sued into the poorhouse for imposing his rigid ways on the rest of us. (For reasons I can't explain, our culture has created a severe Ms. Belvedere persona, currently occupied by the felon Martha Stewart, but soon to be supplanted by President Hillary Rodham Clinton.)

As a dad, I can't tell people how to raise their kids. We have massive bureaucracies in the federal, state and local governments spending billions of dollars a year doing just that, and nobody listens to them either.

But they just might listen to a Mr. Belvedere.

Eric Zorn said:
Big helping of thanks for cafe's tiny sign

In a five-minute conversation Friday morning, Andersonville cafe owner Dan McCauley put me on hold three times to accept congratulatory calls from strangers around the country, then signed off graciously because Geraldo Rivera's crew was waiting to tape an interview.

"It's been overwhelming, ridiculous," McCauley, 44, said of the huge international response to an article about him in Wednesday's New York Times. "I mean, all this over a piece of paper held up by suction cups."

The paper is a sign on the door reading "Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of Heaven." It's at kids' eye level and features four kiddie handprints.

But, as Tribune Food and Whine columnist Janet Franz reported in September, some parents in the neighborhood have bristled at the sign because it implies that their kids are hellions and they're lousy parents.

One of the mothers participating in an informal boycott of A Taste of Heaven was quoted in the Times as saying, in part, "kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

I posted a snippy response on the Tribune's Web site that said, well, glad you asked. What you're supposed to do is place proper supervision of your little curtain-climbers above personal enjoyment when you take them to a restaurant, movie theater or any other public accommodation. What you're supposed to do is be mortified when your best efforts at supervision fail. What you're supposed to do is translate this mortification to your children so they learn proper behavior in such settings. What you're supposed to do is pack up and leave immediately if your children don't obey such a simple, obvious, necessary demand as "use your inside voice."

I'm not a perfect parent nor are my children perfect children. But I've always considered it a high civic duty not to inflict our family imperfections on others any more than is absolutely necessary.

Happily, I'm not alone. Readers submitted hundreds of responses--nearly all of them supportive of McCauley's sign and my grouchy broadside:

"When you have children you lose at least some of the ability to come and go as you please," wrote Gladys C. "Your freedoms are largely in the hands of a small, unpredictable person. And because your small person is unpredictable, that means either you have control over their public behavior, or they have control over your ability to go where you wish to go."

Gil added, "There are many other places to eat and shop, so those of you who protest the establishment of behavior norms should pick up your misbehaving kids and take them to a place that will welcome you. The rest of us, who actually parent and try to teach our children how to act in public, will enjoy the relative calm created by your absence."

Read more at chicagotribune.com/changeofsubject.

On our Web site, 88 percent of more than 3,000 respondents to an unscientific click-poll said the complaining parents are off base. In a WGN-AM click poll, 81 percent said they wished more restaurants and coffee shops would post signs asking parents to keep their kids quiet. And at the Channel 5/Daily Herald site, 97 percent said they thought McCauley was right to post his sign.

Meanwhile, his story was picked up by numerous local TV news outlets, talk radio and all the major broadcast networks as well as several national cable news outlets. McCauley said Friday morning he'd already gotten more than 2,000 phone calls from as far away as China and Australia, all but three of them favorable.

It all feels, somehow, pivotal. As though maybe this tiny sign has provided the spark for a counter-indulgence revolution, a revolution that will proclaim a time-tested truth in an outdoor voice: Letting your children act out in public is not only a disservice to others, it's a disservice to them and, in the long run, to yourself.
 


There's definitely an amount of bias in this article, no doubt.

It's not really a matter of "no kids," though the article makes it out to be that way. And perhaps some of the staff at this place have taken it a bit too far, and that's unfortunate.

I'd like to think that everyone would understand that outbursts do happen, and that can't be controlled. However, it seems to me to be simply good manners that if your child starts having a tantrum or the like, you remove him from a public place until it blows over. No one should be faulted for that happening, because kids are not remote controlled robots. It just happens, it's part of child-rearing.

Basically, it seems to me that the entire thing has escalated out of control.
 

LightPhoenix said:
I'd like to think that everyone would understand that outbursts do happen, and that can't be controlled. However, it seems to me to be simply good manners that if your child starts having a tantrum or the like, you remove him from a public place until it blows over. No one should be faulted for that happening, because kids are not remote controlled robots. It just happens, it's part of child-rearing.

I don't think any of us (well, at least, most of us) are debating that, LightPhoenix. Kids get grumpy, kids don't always behave...and I think we all get that, and aren't suggesting otherwise. What you propose is what any intelligent, courteous parent would do.

The reason for the sign at the cafe, and the reason for many of the posts here, is that we've all seen too many situations in which a child is carrying on / misbehaving / out of control, and the parents do nothing about it, being unwilling to sacrifice their own enjoyment in order to take care of their responsibilities as parents.
 

kenobi65 said:
The reason for the sign at the cafe, and the reason for many of the posts here, is that we've all seen too many situations in which a child is carrying on / misbehaving / out of control, and the parents do nothing about it, being unwilling to sacrifice their own enjoyment in order to take care of their responsibilities as parents.
Exactly.

There is a real problem in society, of parents who let their kids do whatever they want, and are utterly afraid of saying "No" to them, ever. Like the parents in those articles who were utterly indignant that somebody would tell them to not have their children running around, screaming and crying, climbing over things and rolling around all the time, in a little coffeehouse.

Too many times I've gone into a restaraunt and there was a screaming, crying child there, throwing a tantrum, with the parents just sitting there ignoring him (or worse, giving him whatever he wants, he wants dessert, his parents say no, he cries and throws a fit, then gets a dessert). Not trying to silence him, not removing him from the room, just ignoring the little brat who is filling the entire dining room with loud screams for minutes. Or you will go into a store where kids are rolling around in the aisles, playing tag or running around. The problem is kids that act like every place they go is a playground, screaming, running around, climbing on everything, and their parents never try and stop them or discipline them. If you're taking offense to polite signs asking that children use inside voices and behave, ask yourself if your children how they are acting and how other people would feel about that. Do you really think your kids are best off never being told "no" and acting however they want?

When I go to a resturaunt, I always request a table away from any disorderly children. I know that kids are kids, and they've got to run and play, and they'll act up, so don't take infants to nice resturaunts and movie theaters (sorry, you've got kids now, get a babysitter or wait a few years), and if they act up, remove them from the area if they remain disorderly and discipline them if neccesary. I don't get upset until I see that the parents aren't doing anything to deal with the situation other than ignore it (or worse, encourage them).

Kids who find out that they can act however they want in public, especially those who find that their whining and crying can get them somewhere, grow up into people with no sense of decorum who are used to using whining and griping as ways of getting what they want.
 


Kahuna Burger said:
I like how everyone is focusing on the bad kids and ignoring the people harrassed or made to feel unwelcome because their kids *gasp* made noise.


If you want your perfect child free environment, stay home. Out in the world, there are these other people, some have kids, some kids make noise, or move or otherwise make their existance known. Once in a long while, you run into someone who is truely rude, but most of this fuss is just people who can't stand to share.


But if parents would take the time to raise their kids properly, then we wouldn't have this. Too many seem to not care about how their kids act in public. We had some woman with 2 kids running around the store. I made a comment about the "zoo out there" and she gave me a dirty look, for which I just stared back at her. If you can't control behavior like that, then the zoo should stay at home. Sure kids are gonna yell some but I don't care for them running around, making a nuisance out of themselves. That just shows poor discipline, IMO. People just don't seem to care enough to take time to actually take care of their children. And it shows. With all the unsupervised brats running around, parents looking the other way while they do so, not caring about the inconvenience of the other patrons who have to deal with their unruly brats. If you can't take care of your kids, DON'T HAVE THEM!! :]
 

Teflon Billy said:
Uh, no. Why should I stay home rather than those making the disturbance.

Check this out

This guy has staked his business on the notion that he is providing a service that people would like to patronize. One thatinvolves not having children around.

None of these parents or their supporters seems to be denying that kids can be pains in the ass. What they do seem to be denying is that they are not responsible for it in ay way

If a business owner doesn't want children around because his clients (or he) finds them annoying, then I see it as nothing different than banning smoking, banning ghetto blasters, or banning cell phones. If he is willing to take an economic hit (or just target his market elsewhere) then more power to him

It's his business. If the "Entitled Moms" don't wish to patronize his business anymore, then more power to them...it seems like a meeting of minds: they aren't welcome at his placeof business and they don't want to be there. Agreement.

But to say somehting like "..If you want your perfect child free environment, stay home. Out in the world, there are these other people, some have kids, some kids make noise, or move or otherwise make their existance known..."

Well, that's just ignorant. If you feel that it's somehow your right to inflct your difficult choices on the unwitting public (childrearing) then you are really, truly the selfish person in this equation.

There are amillion "Family restaurants" in North America.

Patronize those.

What's scary is that I agree with TB on this. :)
 

Remove ads

Top