NY Times on kids in coffeeshops

[bandregg]

The issue I have the biggest problem with as presented by the story is summed up by

"Laura Brauer, 40, who has stopped visiting A Taste of Heaven with her two children. "I think that the mothers who allow their kids to run around and scream, that's wrong, but kids scream and there is nothing you can do about it. What are we supposed to do, not enjoy ourselves at a cafe?"

She sees her enjoyment of the cafe as more important than the enjoyment of others. That's not a problem with her kids, that's a problem with her. That's just rude and unrespectful of other people.

[ianeccleston]

I think a more important question is...what's a coffee shop, exactly?

Starbucks?

Diner?

Cafe?

←

I think we're talking more about a Starbucks-type, coffehouse/cafe environment - one that caters to people there mostly to sit and drink coffee, but may also serve light food. Much more that than a restaurant or diner setting. As someone pointed out above, these environments are more likely to experience these sorts of issues, due to their generally less structured nature (armchairs facing out instead of tables where chairs face in, and so on).

"Coffee shop," to me, connotes more of a diner atmosphere.

BTW - this particular 'coffee shop' is half-way between a restaurant and a coffee shop. It's partly a high-end pastry/dessert bar and it's pretty small - only 8 tight tables or so. But there is a decent number of 'coffee to go' types as well, usually with some sort of line to the door.

[ianeccleston]

Commentary from a Chicago Tribune columnist Edited November 10, 2005 by ianeccleston (log)

[kiliki]

Holy cow! The Tribune poll shows that 88% of participants support the cafe owner's position.

[Tess]

Holy cow! The Tribune poll shows that 88% of participants support the cafe owner's position.

←

I think the level of support is kind of surprising. I really don't think the sign is a good idea.

[*Deborah*]

I don't think the wording on the sign is particulary nice (let alone smooth), but I think most people have been annoyed by badly-behaved children in places where badly-behaved children really shouldn't be (e.g., a restaurant or coffee shop that has people walking with hot liquids )...and the sort of parent who will ignore rather than discipline his or her child.

I don't think anyone wants to condemn the "good" kids or ban kids altogether, do they? they just support appropriate behaviour.

*shrug*

[KatieLoeb]

She sees her enjoyment of the cafe as more important than the enjoyment of others. That's not a problem with her kids, that's a problem with her. That's just rude and unrespectful of other people.

The Think Bubble says "Bravo - Nailed it!"

[Megan Blocker]

Holy cow! The Tribune poll shows that 88% of participants support the cafe owner's position.

←

I think the level of support is kind of surprising. I really don't think the sign is a good idea.

←

Tess, can I ask why? Is it the idea of the sign, its wording? I'm just curious!

ETA: Oops, just read upthread and saw your original post re: cell phone users, etc. I agree - they can be just as obnoxious, if not more so. I wonder if this cafe has problems with them, too? If so, yes, it would be a bit hypocritical not to call them out as well.

That said, I think the "children of all ages" thing is supposed to be a coy way of asking even loud cellphone talkers to keep it down...

Edited November 11, 2005 by Megan Blocker (log)

[Tess]

Megan, I'm not sure but I think it's a bit of both. I find putting up a sign in (I guess in this case, outside of) a restaurant to be a dodgy idea, but not an absolute no-no below the level of fine dining. People who put up signs like "no substitutions" in sandwich shops know they're being gruff but it's worth it to them for the saving of time and aggro. Signs in stores saying "please keep your children with you at all times" seem like an OK idea too. (When I had a retail store I used to just ask people to watch out for their kids when needed but they may have felt they were being singled out, and maybe they would not had there been a sign.) But in a restaurant setting there's an idea of hospitality that I think is violated by having a sign telling people what to do and not do. Communicating with signs rather than talking to people creates more of an institutional atmosphere. Also, it gives every customer a first impression of "someone's got a problem here." It reminds me of a bed and breakfast we stayed in where there was a bloody sign on everything. A lot of the stuff they were telling you not to do was along the lines of "Who would ever think to do that anyway?" It seemed like they were going out of their way to imagine problems and thus possibly creating them.

I don't think the wording of that particular sign helps at all if I understand its purpose. It really does sound like it's about kids (that's how most people are taking it, too) and the "of all ages" is more or less a dodge. He's got problems with kids specifically. Is there a way to say that that doesn't sound like you're a little bit prejudiced? I don't know. I'm trying to think of alternatives, but things like "We welcome well-behaved children," albeit less coercive, sound about as phony to me as the original sign.

I'd be interested to learn whether or not signs like that are effective. Maybe he just wants to drive a certain group of people out and maybe it will work. Then again, it may be that the people who are the real problem-- those people who really refuse to take responsibility for their kids-- are so thick-skinned and/or determined to to have their coffee break while the public babysit their children for them, that a sign isn't going to deter them at all. If they even notice it, they'll just think you have some kind of chip on your shoulder and that you've got this problem with all kids and you deserve to be ignored. It might be better to go up to those people and ask them individually to take charge of their kids, or go up to the kids and ask where their parents are. Some people do get bent out of shape if you talk to their kids, but if they are not anywhere near there kids, that's their problem in my view.

Edited to add: Megan, our posts crossed but I see that our interpretations of "of all ages" differ. You may well be right, but I think if he really just wanted to ban loud and obnoxious behavior, period, there wouldn't have to be any language about children at all. But I think the sign probably wasn't that deeply thought out so it's not worth pressing it with the interpretations.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Tess (log)

[loiosh]

Heh. I had to babysit a stranger's child while waiting for a coffee at the farmer's market a couple weeks ago. He was trying to eat the used sugar packets and almost pulled everything off a low table by yanking vigorously on a tablecloth. I'm no good with kids before my first coffee of the day.

There's a big difference between a sooky little guy who's just having a bad moment, and kids racing up and down in a restaurant, or beating arhythmically on the framed pictures on the wall, etc. If nothing else, it's rough on the servers, who have to watch out for little ones crawling on the floor or moving chaotically and quite fast.

As for signs, one would *think* that common sense would be enough, but it seems to be a rare quantity these days.

I was surprised to find parents chatting at table recently while their kids actually left the restaurant and wandered around outside unsupervised. (At least they weren't swinging on the door like before.) Aren't they worried that, I don't know, a dingo will eat them?

Having said that, one of my favourite dining companions is my (three?) year old nephew. He has learnt to eat fried rice with chopsticks. He does get sooky when he's tired or has a low-blood-sugar moment, but then, so do I.

[*Deborah*]

I was surprised to find parents chatting at table recently while their kids actually left the restaurant and wandered around outside unsupervised.  (At least they weren't swinging on the door like before.)  Aren't they worried that, I don't know, a dingo will eat them?

←

Post of the Day.

[Carrot Top]

I was surprised to find parents chatting at table recently while their kids actually left the restaurant and wandered around outside unsupervised.  (At least they weren't swinging on the door like before.)  Aren't they worried that, I don't know, a dingo will eat them?

←

Don't say it too loud.

We don't have dingos here *yet*.

You might put some ideas into those busy little coffee-drinking parental heads.

[M.X.Hassett]

Sorry I can not help but think of the Seinfeld episode were Elaine says something along the line of "A dingo ate your baby". I also recently saw a sign that said "All unsupervised children will be sold to the highest bidder"

[Carrot Top]

[*Deborah*]

Sorry I can not help but think of the Seinfeld episode were Elaine says something along the line of "A dingo ate your baby". I also recently saw a sign that said "All unsupervised children will be sold to the highest bidder"

←

Now that's a smooth way to say it!

Reminds me of the place where they say "if we see you smoking we will assume you are on fire and douse you with water accordingly."

[Osnav]

This is why I hang out at bars!