Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[SlaveNoMore]

dtb
Probably a good idea in your case, given your obvious dislike of children evident in that statement. (No one sees themselves having "brats".)

I wouldn't see myself having a "brat" either. That being said, others' children should be seen and not heard, and I'm tired of doting parents constantly reminding me of how "their child" is clearly the greatest child since Mozart or Jesus.

But I find myself getting off point...

I recall the "debate" a little differently -- I think (and sorry if I'm misattributing) that paigow expressed disdain for a pregnant woman who was standing in a bar where people were smoking and criticized this woman for drinking (although paigow didn't know for sure whether the pregnant woman was drinking an alcoholic beverage or not.)

Actually, there was a pile-on and "shock and awe" for someone daring to suggest that having a drink was ok.

I don't know who you think the "mommy brigade" is...

Isn't it apparent? But let me add the "daddy brigade" to this lest I be accused of being sexist.

....but I do recall many people saying, "lay off, [paigow], what business is it of yours, and besides, one drink is really not a big deal."

I actually recall Multo and perhaps GWINK being the only people to do so.

And since when is CZJ a role model?

Oh, right, actors and actresses shoved in our faces and who use their bully pulpit to express their views are NOT role models. OK, Charles Barkley.

...but it's certainly not my place to tell her what to do in her own home on her own time.

And yes, I dig the new Bloomberg anti-smoking rules. Going out to bars is something I would consider doing now, whereas before, I really had to have a good excuse, because the stench of smoke is so off-putting.

But you WOULD purport to tell establishment owners and paying customers what they can and cannot do? I see.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I suspect that Tiger is thoroughly enjoying his "Jordan" status, meaning that as far as most white people are concerned, he is such a huge star that he is no longer seen as a color. People who otherwise wouldn't associate with or would be a-feared of black people view Jordan and probably Tiger as a phenomenon. It's okay for their kids to idolize him, okay for their wives to lust after him, okay to want to be like him. He is on another level. And he has quite consciously followed in Jordan's image conscious footsteps, avoiding all controversial topics and basically having no opinion on anything to achieve this status, which I think we can agree, helps sell product.

In short, Tiger may have seen racism in the past, but he most likely doesn't see it (much) anymore.

TM

And the folks who criticize Tiger for being aloof in his refusal to address race issues have shit for brains. Tiger's and Jordan's wise decision to simply eliminate race from the equation makes race a non-issue. Racist whites and race-card playing non-whites can only affect their negative goals if people address their firebrand comments.

I understand that the race issue can never really go away, but there has to be someone who says "It ain't relevant" at some point, otherwise the emphasis on racial differences, which is counterproductive, will persist.

Of course, I recognize that Tiger and MJ could only play this issue so coyly due to the luxury of their supremely elevated status. Most other folks are forced to deal with race. Nevertheless, TIger and MJ's lead is a refreshing start in the right direction.

S(I also appreciate Barkley's no-nonsense "Race persists because dumbasses insist on bringing it up" comments)D

[evenodds]

Caped Crusader Saves the Day in English Town

LONDON (Reuters) - A masked and caped do-gooder has been sweeping through an English town, performing good deeds and scattering terrified bad guys, a local newspaper reported.

The Kent and Sussex Courier said Friday it had received letters from "stunned residents" of the town of Tunbridge Wells, southeast of London, who saw the man in a brown mask and cape scare off hooligans and return a woman's dropped purse.

Full text: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/crusader_dc

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think the objection is to kids per se, but rather to parents who make no effort. I don't have kids, and I don't like crying on the airplane, but I realize there's not much that can be done. I also don't like the kid behind me kicking my seat throughout the flight. But that's not behavior I should be expected to put up with. The parent should stop such conduct immediately, or at least quickly, rather than letting it go. Obviously this extends to conduct elsewhere -- if a kid tears up a tree, do something about it, don't just say "I guess he's just not a Johnny Appleseed." That's what people are objecting to.

I don't have kids either. But I'm intelligent enough to realize that kids have short attention spans, and that parents can temper such situations by making sure they have on hand plenty of toys, crayons and a cookie in an attempt to keep the brats preoccupied.

not7yS

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by infinitytrack
The thing I love is that most of the people voicing the strongest opinions about child rearing here appear not to have children of their own.

I can tell you that I was one of the people who used to say "strangle those monster kids" on airplanes and in restaurants. And I occasionally still do.

Then I had kids of my own and realized how hard it can be to corral a two or three year old, and even harder to corral multiple kids. We have left restaurants of our own accord, mid meal, when the kids were bad. We have also pleaded with them to settle down so that we could finish a meal. Yeah, I know we simply should have beaten them senseless in public, but you tend to receive just as much social approbation for disciplining a child severely as you do for letting them run around.

Basically, we muddle through, like most parents. Remarkably though, they are getting better as they get older.

It's amazing to me how suddenly children aren't annoying after people have them and become used to shrill screaming. Taking turns taking the kid out of the dining area is an appreciated response of parents with children who behave inappropriately for a restaurant. I certainly don't expect you to "beat them senseless" but just because you have become inured to the noise doesn't mean everyone else is.

Again, if you are at a restaurant that is clearly "family friendly" other people shouldn't expect the kids to be seen and not heard. They assumed the risk. But if the behavior is really unreasonable, someone should take the kid outside.

Airports and airplanes (etc.) I figure I've assumed the risk. I hate it when there's a screaming baby on board, but if I wanted to insulate myself from screaming children I should charter a plane or something. Misbehaving kid with parent making no effort to correct it is a different story.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

"Again, you're always right and I'm always wrong."

This was the one-line email from SO. You women are sneaky. Especially when right/wrong wasn't the issue.

If I agree, then I'm an asshole.

If I disagree, then I strenously agree.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by evenodds
Caped Crusader Saves the Day in English Town

LONDON (Reuters) - A masked and caped do-gooder has been sweeping through an English town, performing good deeds and scattering terrified bad guys, a local newspaper reported.

The Kent and Sussex Courier said Friday it had received letters from "stunned residents" of the town of Tunbridge Wells, southeast of London, who saw the man in a brown mask and cape scare off hooligans and return a woman's dropped purse.

Full text: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/crusader_dc

Townshend got community-controlled sanctions, eh?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by carp
I took my two sons (5 years and 15 months) for breakfast to a very casual restaurant. We have been there many times before and have become friendly with the family that owns/runs the restaurant. One morning, after breakfast, I was reading the paper and my eldest son was running around as he and other children had done in the past. The owners are very family-oriented, know the kids names, give them treats, etc. A man dining by himself approached me and angrily told me to calm my child. I had never seen him at the restaurant. As I had implicit approval from the owners and this guy was acting like an asshole, I told him not to worry about it and go back and eat his breakfast. After muttering unintelligibles, he retreated back to reading his paper. I immediately thought the better course of action was not to comment to him, but tell him to take it up with management. Interestingly, as I was paying my bill, I found out that, before approaching me, he did complain to management only to be offered a table in the next room which old bastard declined. After thinking about it, it seems to me that he must have a burr under his saddle about something else than my child. I would be interested in alternative responses especially given the fact that my child had acted similarly in the past and chastising him for his actions would give him mixed signals.

P.S. posted here since children's actions were being discussed despite the fact that its not the lawyers w/ kids board.

Actually, I think you should have controlled your kid. And I think the management should probably have asked you to do it when they first had a complaint from another patron; if one's complaining, others are probably thinking it. Though the guy was an idiot for refusing a quiet table (unless it was in a back room or something), I have sympathy for the view that patrons who aren't disturbing anybody shouldn't be the ones making concessions.

It's a general rule of good manners. Intrusive practices in the presence of others are OK only if everyone consents, but once you are intruding on someone who isn't a willing participant, the person preferring the non-intrusive option (quiet, no smoke, no running, etc.) always takes precedence. Unless, as someone said, the nature of the place itself meant he assumed the risk. Patons of very casual restaurants can reasonably expect to eat in peace, too. While they can surely expect to encounter parents still actively trying to teach their kids manners and control, it is reasonable to expect those parents to be actively trying to keep the kids under control or from disturbing others. The only restaurant in which someone assumes the risk of children actually running around freely or playing in the aisles or screaming is Chuck-E-Cheeze & the like.

So unless the awning advertised "kids run free!" or "kid friendly!" or something, he was, frankly, acting appropriately to ask the management and then you to prevent the disruption. But after the management refused to do anything he found acceptable, he really should have simply said "this is unacceptable" and just left refusing to pay. The management is obviously willing to lose customers over this, so that would have satisfied everyone.

Regarding the mixed signals thing, though - either the kid needs to get consistent signals that running around disturbing strangers is not OK, or the kid needs to GET mixed signals so he can start to learn about context. The same behavior isn't appropriate every place - what is bad about the kid being made aware of that? Just as it is not appropriate for the kid to run around in a restaurant, it is not appropriate for him to sit in Chuck-E-Cheeze quietly using a knife and fork on his pizza. Learn the phrase and love it: "There is a time and a place for that sort of thing, young man."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Sebby, you quoted my post, but you missed my point. Had I been the crotchety old man, I would have moved. And I never meant to suggest that his rudeness to carp was justified.

And I'm with junkie on the point that management totally botched it -- they should never have let it get to where two customers had a confrontation. That wasn't the right way to treat the man or carp.

RP,

I didn't mean to imply that you agree - I only responded to your post because it was the most recent.

I hope other parents get the hint that when their kid comes over and starts playing with a toy in front of me or addresses me while I'm wearing sunglasses and reading the NYTimes on Sat morning in shorts, flip flops and a T-shirt, I'm obviously hurting from the previous evening and do not think you kid is cute. Perhaps later, when I'm feeling better, I could find your kid cute, but not early on Sat morn. Parents should recall that we kidless folks have the luxury of being able to stay out late and indulge and might be feeling a wee bit under the wind. They should assume that when we are clearly struggling to keep our food down and are wearing a hat pulled down over our eyes with our head down that we will not find bleating children amusing. So PLEASE, mom and dad, if your bundle of joy is jumping all over a table where a younger looking person is minding his/her business, don't hesitate to remove the kid ASAP. We may smile back at you to be polite or even pretend to be interested in your kid, but we're really just looking for private time alone to ponder what the hell we did last night.

S(And new parent friends - don't ask a 32 year old male to hold your newborn - I'm scared shitless of dropping the kid and don't want him spitting on me... If I wanted one, I'd have one - take the hint)D

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
"Again, you're always right and I'm always wrong."

Oh, you are well and truly fucked. This line is always a show-stopper, because it twists a lawyer's brain into a pretzel. Of course I'm always right! Would I intentionally choose the wrong position? And if I were to discover I was wrong, I would immediately change my position and become right again, with no hard feelings! What the fuck to women want us to do, persist in holding a mistaken belief long enough for them to score points by showing us that it was wrong, and only then conform our beliefs to that which is right?

Criminy.

Good luck to you, Coltrane.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
. . . but we're really just looking for private time alone to ponder what the hell we did last night.

Just to give you some good feeling about it all - revenge is it's own best reward, after all - consider the plight of the normal first-time new parent who is still not used to the idea that three bottles of scotch on a Friday night might now be excessive, who has made it to bed at 2:30 am, and then has to stumble back out of bed with the massive overhang with the pounding head, dry mouth, and queasy rolling stomach at five to change a really smelly diaper on a kid whose last meal was strained carrots, peas, and mashed roast beef.

With that picture in mind, you can just look at the parents and laugh.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's amazing to me how suddenly children aren't annoying after people have them and become used to shrill screaming. Taking turns taking the kid out of the dining area is an appreciated response of parents with children who behave inappropriately for a restaurant. I certainly don't expect you to "beat them senseless" but just because you have become inured to the noise doesn't mean everyone else is.

...

Airports and airplanes (etc.) I figure I've assumed the risk. I hate it when there's a screaming baby on board, but if I wanted to insulate myself from screaming children I should charter a plane or something. Misbehaving kid with parent making no effort to correct it is a different story.

I think you've taken me out of context. I just think I have become more sympathetic to how difficult it can be to "make children behave." Children do not automatically come into this world knowing appropriate behavior, and parents cannot teach it overnight. I don't automatically blame parents anymore for being awful parents when their kids are misbehaving. And I don't automatically view every child as a brat until proven otherwise, as it seems many here do. Clearly, I don't bring my kids into Le Cirque, but there are occasions where we hit the Mexican Restaurant down the street, or bring them on planes, or even into fairly nice stores (with nothing breakable at toddler height of course.) Some people are increasingly intolerant of kids though -- and surprisingly, it is the 20 to 30 somethings as often as the old folks. In fact, many older folks love seeing little kids around.

I'm not sure whether you expect them to suddenly emerge from their homes at age 18, fully formed and ready to have tea with the queen. They have to learn behavior, and the only way to do so is to get out in the world with adults.

That being said, all good parents, ourselves included, should have a low tolearnce for children that repeatedly annoy others or interfere with other people's enjoyment of a meal, flight, etc.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
Younger man from a nearby table walks up to me to suggest that kids shouldn't be in restaurant, that he doesn't feel like he should have to watch his behavior when he goes out

This guy was saying your kids shouldn't be there so he didn't have to watch HIS OWN behavior? So he's obviously an idiot, just as a parent implying that a quiet normal patron shouldn't be there so his kids can freely run wild is an idiot. (If it wasn't a titty-bar or a stockbroker hang-out or something. Those who go into expensive steakhouses take their chances.)

I guess it's sort of nice that he'd be concerned for corrupting the youth, in a weird way. I'd just go ahead and swear like a sailor.

But, more and more, I see people getting annoyed simply because of the presence of kids - not the actions of the kids - like, the kids being there is taking away from their right to act like shits in public. Well, tough beans.

I agree, tough beans.

I suspect that I would get greatly annoyed at the level of disruption that you are probably describing - I'm probably arguing apples to your oranges - but a good rant never depends upon a perfectly rational foundation. )

I suspect we are, and I always love a good rant.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I hope other parents get the hint that ... I'm obviously hurting from the previous evening and do not think your kid is cute. ... Parents should recall that we kidless folks have the luxury of being able to stay out late and indulge and might be feeling a wee bit under the wind. ... We're really just looking for private time alone to ponder what the hell we did last night.

If I ever have a child I will be sure to send the little cutie over to your table. "Honey, go say hi to that nice couple, they look hungover and could probably use some cheering up." Then my hubby and I would laugh and laugh at our little revenge ... and then the laughter would fade as we wistfully looked forward to our next carefree bender -- 14-16 years hence.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
This guy was saying your kids shouldn't be there so he didn't have to watch HIS OWN behavior? So he's obviously an idiot,

He was in the Kirby Pucket memorial restaurant, after all. Bilmore, was he seated anywhere near the restroom?