Personal DVD player in the Dining room?

[kryos]

Yes I agree there are plenty of inconsiderate parents out there who will just do what they want and to hell with others. But i think in this case the OP really was just asking advice on a solution she truly thought would be the best all around for them, their child, AND fellow pax in the dining room.

I think how parents react when their children are crying ... say in a restaurant ... depends upon the venue more than the manners of the parents. If a parent is dining with their children in McDonald's and the baby starts crying and will not be comforted, mom or dad will usually just let the baby cry. They will not leave the restaurant, but will rather just finish their meal and let the baby cry him/herself out. But, if parents are dining at a nice restaurant with their children, and the baby gets fussy, often one or the other will pick up the baby and go for a walk ... hoping to calm the child down enough to be able to return to the table. Parents will often take turns walking the baby so that everyone can finish their meal.

 

So, I don't think it is necessarily a matter of "to hell with others" when a parent lets a baby scream in a restaurant. If the restaurant is a "family style" place, then if you go there you should know that there is a good chance that there could be several babies crying at any one time ... and several parents trying to finish their meals ... because there may be other children dining with them too ... and maybe those kids are starting to get antsy. "Let the baby cry while we all finish our dinner, so that we can get the h*ll out of here before all the kids are bouncing off the walls." But I would be shocked to see this sort of behavior at a more upscale restaurant. If you know your kid can't handle it, then you should leave him/her home with a babysitter if you want to dine in those kinds of surroundings. But when you go to a "family style" place, chances are you're dining with lots of others who have babies with them ... and odds are your child won't be the only one crying during dinner. I can well understand just letting the baby cry in a place like that ... in the interest of getting everyone else in the family fed and on their way.

 

I laugh when I remember what I did to my poor dad once. The guy is 93 and he darned near went nuts, thanks to me. I took him to a local Denny's for dinner. We've been there lots of times, but never on a Saturday afternoon before. What I didn't know was that on Tuesdays and Saturdays, kids eat free with their parents. Well, there must have been a 100 kids in that restaurant, several of them babies. I think at one point there must have been five or six babies absolutely howling. Mom and dad and the rest of the family just went along finishing their meals. I guess no one was about to let their food get cold while walking a baby around outside. Dad and I couldn't wait to get out of there, and we both had headaches by the time we got back to the car. Never again a Saturday night at Denny's. :)

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[bplazo]

Why should it matter if it is a Denny's or a nicer restraunt. I do not want to hear screaming children where every I am at.

 

I alway stay away from places that children eat free. That is a good reason that I am glad that most ships do not have a "kids stay free" special.

[babyher]

Rita

 

I understand what you are saying , and agree I tend to saty away from those "geared to children" "Kids eat free" kind of places too, because like you sai What do you expect in there?

 

I remember once standing in line at the DMV. At the time, at our DMV you had to stand in the loooooooooooong line until you got to the window. (a few years ago they built a new one and now you take a number and sit until your Number is called.

 

This woman was in line with about 20 people in front of her and about 30 more behind her , and this baby would not stop sreaming. She honestly did everything she could to stop him, all the things I mentiond in my post and then some, but he just wouldn't stop.

 

What could she do? She got out of that line she would have lost her place, maybe she was pressed for time, and couldn't afford to have to wait all over again, or had taken a day off especially to get this business done and couldn't come back another day ,and didn't have a baby sitter. You don't know this womans story.

 

She did the best she could with what she had. She kept apologizeing to the people around her. Most people were very nice, some even tried to coochie coo the baby to make him smile. What can you do its a baby?

 

Yes I am sure there were more than a few people annoyed , but no one was too vocal about it.

 

Now granted the DMV isn't a fancy restaurant or cruise ship dining room, but still a public place full of people who have to be subjected to one babies very loud screams.

[kryos]

Why should it matter if it is a Denny's or a nicer restraunt. I do not want to hear screaming children where every I am at.

You wouldn't care, though, if you had a tableful of kids in there too ... and maybe the baby was crying. You'd be just glad you were in a place where a crying baby is not necessarily that big a deal. If I decide to eat at McDonalds or Denny's and I happen to have the bad luck to be in the dining room when there are several babies at other tables, I'm not gonna get too upset if one or more of them are crying. In many cases, a mom or a dad may be in there by themselves with the kids. Maybe the other parent is working, or whatever. The one parent is not gonna leave the other kids in order to take a crying baby outside to calm down ... and frankly, I don't blame them. McDonald's and Denny's ... and other restaurants of that ilk ... are just the sort of places that I would almost expect to encounter a crying child or two. Doesn't even have to be a baby. Just tell that toddler she can't have an extra toy with her Happy Meal and she's likely to start screaming too.

 

If crying children bother you that much, perhaps you should dine somewhere that doesn't cater so much to families (such as Denny's Kids Eat Free Saturdays). Then you shouldn't have that sort of a problem.

 

At least that's the way I handle things when I don't want to be surrounded by a bunch of screaming kids.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

She did the best she could with what she had. She kept apologizeing to the people around her. Most people were very nice, some even tried to coochie coo the baby to make him smile. What can you do its a baby?

 

Yes I am sure there were more than a few people annoyed , but no one was too vocal about it.

If anyone had been vocal about it, and I were this lady ... I'd have told them to feel free to help me calm the baby. Maybe they would have better luck. And if they weren't interested in helping me out in that way, well then I'd just tell them to shut up and deal with it. :)

 

Sometimes a parent has no choice but to bring the baby along ... maybe there are older kids out with mom too ... and she promised them lunch at McDonald's if they behaved. Well, guess what? The baby has to get dragged along for that lunch too ... and might not be too happy about it.

 

There are just certain places where others should be understanding of the fact that children and babies will be plentiful. And, when those youngsters ... especially the babies ... don't want to cooperate with the day's plan, the other adults in the place have to understand that there will be some crying. There is nothing wrong with this, in my opinion, at the Denny's or the Mickey Dee's ... or a restaurant of that nature. I can understand, especially if there is only one parent there with the brood of kids, that the parent is not likely to leave the table, and the other kids, in order to take a screaming baby outside ... not at a Denny's or a McDonald's ... no way. Now ... a nicer, more adult place ... yes, I would expect the parent to remove a screaming child out of consideration for the other diners. I would expect the same onboard ship ... in the dining room.

 

So, if those screaming children bother someone, my advice to them would be to stay away from those "family style" restaurants where you are likely to encounter them. That's generally what I do.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

Why should it matter if it is a Denny's or a nicer restraunt. I do not want to hear screaming children where every I am at.

Then my advice to you is not to dine at those places ... since they appeal most particularly to families with kids ... and at any given time you could see dozens of kids at the tables.

 

I alway stay away from places that children eat free. That is a good reason that I am glad that most ships do not have a "kids stay free" special.

Better not sail Costa line then. From what I understand, they offer loads of specials for kids sharing a cabin with their parents ... in some cases with absolutely no extra charge for the kids. You can bet those sailings are absolutely packed with youngsters of all ages. Not my cup of tea either.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[michmike]

I think there's a big difference between the DMV situation and being subjected to a screaming/crying etc kid in a restaurant. Typically I'm by myself at the DMV and not trying to have a conversation with anyone. In that case I can grin and bear it.

 

Just 2 weeks ago my son and his wife came to visit. We took them out to a very nice upscale restaurant for lunch and were subjected to two 3-4 yr old twins bouncing off the booth behind us, screeching and fighting and Mom (who was by herself) did nothing at all to control the situation, short of shushing them. Nor did the management intervene. I feel it is appropriate in a case like that for the mgmt to ask her to either control the kids or to leave.

 

I had all I could do to restrain myself from turning around and telling her she ought to get out of there and take the kids to McDonalds. They ruined our lunch.

 

Part of the problem is that you have to have references and undergo a background check to adopt a dog or a cat at the humane society and yet anyone capable of procreating can have a kid.

 

***Arghhhhh****

 

We were brought up to behave in public or get yanked out to the car or off to the bathroom or some place where we Mom or Dad explained the fallacy of our actions and let us know exactly what would happen if they continued.

 

When our son was too young to understand those conversations and was acting out , one of us simply took him outside or to another part of the building or someplace where he was not disturbing everyone else.

 

Is it asking too much to expect this current generation of parents to follow suit?

[jhannah]

Is it asking too much to expect this current generation of parents to follow suit?

In far too many instances, it seems to be. :rolleyes: It's sad that social graces seem to have dropped from the radar.

[kryos]

IJust 2 weeks ago my son and his wife came to visit. We took them out to a very nice upscale restaurant for lunch and were subjected to two 3-4 yr old twins bouncing off the booth behind us, screeching and fighting and Mom (who was by herself) did nothing at all to control the situation, short of shushing them. Nor did the management intervene. I feel it is appropriate in a case like that for the mgmt to ask her to either control the kids or to leave.

I agree wholeheartedly with you ... and in fact, I probably would have said something quite rude to mom. That was, as you say, an "upscale" restaurant. If mom didn't think she could control her kids' behavior in such a venue, she shouldn't have brought them there. Rather, she should have taken them to Mickey Dee's where their antics likely wouldn't have bothered anyone else.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[DMRick]

 

I had all I could do to restrain myself from turning around and telling her she ought to get out of there and take the kids to McDonalds. They ruined our lunch.

 

I bet you would have been happy, if that mom brought a DVD for her kids to watch.

[DMRick]

 

We were brought up to behave in public or get yanked out to the car or off to the bathroom or some place where we Mom or Dad explained the fallacy of our actions and let us know exactly what would happen if they continued.

 

When our son was too young to understand those conversations and was acting out , one of us simply took him outside or to another part of the building or someplace where he was not disturbing everyone else.

 

Is it asking too much to expect this current generation of parents to follow suit?

 

Yanking a kid out to the car, or acting on whatever whould have happened to you if you didn't behave, is pretty much frowned on nowadays. Again, there are some instances when DVD players (with headphones) may be a workable situation. In the original OP's situation, it may just be they wanted a night out, had no sitter (I wouldn't leave my children that young with a sitter I didn't know) and this would assure everyone would get to enjoy their dinner. Who knows, maybe she wouldn't even had needed to use it..but preferred it over having to keep threatening the child.

My pet peeve is the person who sits behing me, telling the child what will happen to them if they don't behave (taken outside, never going out with them again, a spanking, etc). The the parents count to 5 (at the end the child is supposed to behave, or something bad will happen)..do you know how many times a parent can count 1...2....3...4..etc, and how agravating it can get LOL? Oh sure, they get to stop at 4..but they do the counting thing 10-15 times.

[RuthC]

I just want to be sure I'm reading you right here, Rita. You're advocating for a kind of "situational manners"? You're saying that whether or not parents should be considerate of other diners should be based on how much those other diners are paying for their meal? Or whether or not it meets some definition of "family" restaurant?

That if the others are paying "enough" (based on what criteria?) then they should be able to eat in peace, and parents should remove disruptive children. But if the other patrons are not paying "enough" (again, whose criteria?) then it's all right to be oblivious to what their children are doing?

Have I got that right?

[peaches from georgia]

Yanking a kid out to the car, or acting on whatever whould have happened to you if you didn't behave, is pretty much frowned on nowadays....

Just wondering why and by whom? When did this start? Do they think teaching children to behave in public is going to psychologically scar them for life or do they just not give a 'dam about anyone but themselves? My grandchildren, aged 1 to 15, never are allowed to be disruptive in a restaurant or public place and they seem perfectly well adjusted to me (and a pleasure to be around).

[bplazo]

I just want to be sure I'm reading you right here, Rita. You're advocating for a kind of "situational manners"? You're saying that whether or not parents should be considerate of other diners should be based on how much those other diners are paying for their meal? Or whether or not it meets some definition of "family" restaurant?

That if the others are paying "enough" (based on what criteria?) then they should be able to eat in peace, and parents should remove disruptive children. But if the other patrons are not paying "enough" (again, whose criteria?) then it's all right to be oblivious to what their children are doing?

Have I got that right?

Ruth, I was thinking the same thing. It is sending mixed signals to the child on how to behave in public. It shouldnt matter if it is McDonalds or a five star restraunt.

[kryos]

I just want to be sure I'm reading you right here, Rita. You're advocating for a kind of "situational manners"? You're saying that whether or not parents should be considerate of other diners should be based on how much those other diners are paying for their meal? Or whether or not it meets some definition of "family" restaurant?

That if the others are paying "enough" (based on what criteria?) then they should be able to eat in peace, and parents should remove disruptive children. But if the other patrons are not paying "enough" (again, whose criteria?) then it's all right to be oblivious to what their children are doing?

Have I got that right?

Not so much how much they are paying for the meal ... but rather the type of restaurant.

 

I think if I were a parent, my conditions for proper behavior for the young ones would be a bit different if I were in Chuck E Cheese as opposed to an Outback Steakhouse. At the Chuck E Cheese, I might not be concerned if the kids were jumping up and down from the table to go play a video game ... but at the Outback, I would require they remain seated through the meal.

 

And remember ... in the OP's case, we're talking a baby here. You can't reason with children that young. You can't expect to "teach" them proper manners when they are of an age where they honestly can't understand. So, I would imagine that as a parent you have to be discerning ... know what type of place you can risk bringing a baby or very young children, and what type of establishment you are better off staying away from. The rude parent ... especially if he/she is dining with the kids by themselves ... is the one who doesn't use good judgment and then lets his/her kids wreck havoc in the restaurant with their screaming, crying, etc.

 

But, no ... the price of what diners are paying for a meal is not the sole determiner of whether you should let your kids remain at the table crying ... but it certainly does have something to do with the "ambience" of the place ... i.e., whether there are others in there also with babies and young children who may be crying ... or whether there are mostly adults who just want a peaceful meal and will take exception to all the noise.

 

As I said ... at a Mickey D's, I wouldn't be all too concerned about crying kids, but at the Outback I would. At Mickey D's, the noise level would generally be higher ... not just from babies but from perhaps teens and other younger children laughing and enjoying their meals. There even could be a birthday party going on ... which always results in more noise and excitement. But, at Mickey D's you can have options. If the noise bothers you, you can always get your meal to go ... enjoy it in the car or when you get home. Also, your meal at Mickey D's doesn't take as long to eat. I can enjoy my burger and fries and be out of there in 15 minutes, but at the Outback a meal takes longer to consume ... and you are therefore stuck in an unpleasant environment if there is a screaming baby at the next table.

 

So, yes ... I think there is a definite difference. Don't you?

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

Just wondering why and by whom? When did this start? Do they think teaching children to behave in public is going to psychologically scar them for life or do they just not give a 'dam about anyone but themselves? My grandchildren, aged 1 to 15, never are allowed to be disruptive in a restaurant or public place and they seem perfectly well adjusted to me (and a pleasure to be around).

I think DMRick is referring to how disciplining a child in the "old days" used to be like. Taking them out to the car for a couple of good swats before bringing them back to the restaurant ... much better behaved. Back in "the day" ... that was considered good parenting ... you know, "spare the rod, spoil the child" sort of attitude. But today that would be considered child abuse and could get a parent in very, very big trouble.

 

We had a big scandal a few years back around my neck of the woods. A child was "acting out" at a store, forcing mom to get out of line and abandon her purchases. She took the kid out to the car ... a van, I believe ... and was swatting the kid ... not beating the crap out of her ... but just a couple of good smacks. Her actions were picked up by the shopping mall surveillance cameras, and she got into quite a bit of trouble. I believe she was arrested and convicted of child abuse ... and the film was even aired on TV for all her neighbors to see. The parent was made out to be a monster ... not the kid. I think a judge made her go for anger management and effective parenting classes as part of her sentence ... and it was clearly this parent who was made out to be totally incompetent. Never mind that the child's behavior may have warrented such discipline.

 

Back in the day when I was growing up, giving a child a couple of good swats for bad behavior in public was considered simply good parenting and not a word would have been said by anybody about it. But, today? Watch out. We're a more "progressive" generation. :)

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

Ruth, I was thinking the same thing. It is sending mixed signals to the child on how to behave in public. It shouldnt matter if it is McDonalds or a five star restraunt.

LOL ... we're talking a baby. How do you send any kind of signal to someone that young, let alone mixed ones?

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[peaches from georgia]

I think DMRick is referring to how disciplining a child in the "old days" used to be like. Taking them out to the car for a couple of good swats before bringing them back to the restaurant ... much better behaved. Back in "the day" ... that was considered good parenting ... you know, "spare the rod, spoil the child" sort of attitude. But today that would be considered child abuse and could get a parent in very, very big trouble.

 

--rita

Hitting a child has never been 'good parenting'. The problem today is that parents are afraid of their children and bribe/reward them to behave rather than teach them.

[RuthC]

So, yes ... I think there is a definite difference. Don't you?

Not at all.

LOL ... we're talking a baby. How do you send any kind of signal to someone that young, let alone mixed ones?

You see, you are focusing on the child; I am focusing on the parent(s). It is the parents' responsibility to ensure that the child(ren) do(es) not negatively impact on those around them. The parent(s) may choose to do this by keeping the child(ren) away from the situation in the first place, by settling them down when they get rambuncious, or by removing the child(ren) when they must.

Many a parent has to miss a hot meal to live up to their responsibilities. It is not those who are disturbed who should be forced to leave; it is the unruly party.

 

[hammybee]

There was a 20 year period when I used to spend an inordinate amount of time in airplanes and hotel rooms. Nothing quite like crossing the pond with many screaming babies on board.

 

Somewhere between ages 1-2, my dd went off, during a flight. There was nothing that would console her. You know you are fighting a loosing battle when a baby goes into the "arched back" routine. At one point, she bit me and drew blood. I ended up spending a lot of time in the toilet hoping the sound was muffled. We were both in tears, at a few points of this flight.

 

What I learned from this is that it makes no sense to take a baby some place where the baby is apt to disrupt others and those that do are putting themselves, their wants before the baby as well as those who are forced to endure it.

[LemonZest]

What I learned from this is that it makes no sense to take a baby some place where the baby is apt to disrupt others and those that do are putting themselves, their wants before the baby as well as those who are forced to endure it.

 

Very well said, Hammybee. Thank you.

 

LZ, who is of the *opinion* that no children should be on cruise ships other than Disney.

[DMRick]

You said yanking..did I read that wrong? Maybe it's just up here in NYS that yanking a child around isn't permissable. And I wonder..just what was mom and dad going to do to you if you didn't behave as they thought you should?

 

My grandchildren too are well behaved in restaurants without threats and yanking (and neither their parents or we have had to bring in a DVD, but I wouldn't fault another parent who decides that is what would work for her child).

 

Just wondering why and by whom? When did this start? Do they think teaching children to behave in public is going to psychologically scar them for life or do they just not give a 'dam about anyone but themselves? My grandchildren, aged 1 to 15, never are allowed to be disruptive in a restaurant or public place and they seem perfectly well adjusted to me (and a pleasure to be around).

[DMRick]

Very well said, Hammybee. Thank you.

 

LZ, who is of the *opinion* that no children should be on cruise ships other than Disney.

Interesting.

Wow, this thread sure reads different from the other thread of the ship we went on our first cruise on. I sure hope I didn't make a mistake booking with HAL. This may be our first and last Hal cruise.

[jhannah]

"LZ" does not speak for everyone in this forum, I assure you.

[kryos]

Hitting a child has never been 'good parenting'.

LOL ... you obviously didn't grow up with a strict Eyetalian father then. :) Don't get me wrong, I wasn't batted around as a child ... didn't have to be. Just knowing that my father wouldn't hesitate to swat my backside was enough. So, all it really took was "the look" to get me back in line. :)

 

And it was the same way with all my friends and their parents.

 

I guess we were just raised in a different age. Things are more "progressive" today ... and the kids much wilder. Today it seems many kids are showered with whatever their hearts desire. Not when I was growing up. Today, parents don't want to deny their kids much because budgets are tight. So they simply whip out the credit cards and make sure their kids have everything that their friends have. When I was growing up, however, there was no shame in telling a kid no if they wanted some new toy or gadget that mom and dad really couldn't afford. There was nothing to be embarrassed about for a parent to simply say "we can't afford it." Today, that seems almost something to be ashamed of. Maybe that's why so many folks are so heavily in debt. I have friends literally buried in credit card debt because they simply can't bear to tell their children no.

 

Wish my dad had a problem with that word when I was growing up. :)

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita