The question of parents with young children in public

forza rovers wrote: »

so why do they have childrens section in library's then. you obviously dont have children and seem to have a hatred towards them

Because it is important that children develop strong reading skills. In most situations, children who are old enough to read are old enough to be socialised - I am talking about very young children, as I said in my OP, particularly those in prams and buggies. Except for when there are reading groups/ children's meetings, even children in libraries are asked to uphold quietness.

mattjack wrote: »

have you any children yourself..?...........

I have a problem with this question, to be honest.

Firstly, this is the internet, and ideally we ought to debate on a logical level. This isn't a children collecting competition, and I don't see how that can count for much anyway. You don't win a debate by having children. This is the same argument that says 'no vagina, no opinion' in relation to abortion.

No, mattjack, as I have already said, I do not have children. I said I do understand that being a parent is a difficult role. Nevertheless it is not everybody else's job to accomodate young children in places that were not designed for baby's enjoyment.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Firstly can you provide evidence you never engaged in such behaviour at any time in your life?

What do you want me to do, put my Mother on the telephone????

I'm sure I did. But my parents didn't take me out to dinner or to exhibitions until I was old enough to learn to behave myself, and I knew that if I was loud or obnoxious, there would be consequences.

secondly, were the audio exhibits in the imma overwhelmed by the crying children?

No, but watching, understanding, and enjoying can demand a certain level of concentration to appreciate the technique or theme being employed.

The same goes for libraries and museums, and that is why these are usually rather quiet places, it's hard to concentrate when young children are agitated and crying, as of course they can so easily be when they do not feel stimulated.

I can't understand the OP wondering why people known to children die or need to be buried or want to go to a religious ceremony cause any issues to any onmipotent or omnicient magic faerie like a god?

I'm talking about babies at funerals. Particularly babies who don't know what's happening. Or, as another poster said, she would leave the funeral if her baby started crying, and obviously that sort of intervention would be welcomed by the other mourners, and it is a very considerate position to take.

snyper wrote: »

Resturant - you cant hear your sandwich

No. My problem with small babies in restaurants is that it can be hard to have a conversation when the baby (or babies) are crying. Whatever about galleries, which are either cheap or free of charge, this is one I find particularly hard to understand. If you can afford to eat in a nice restaurant, can you not also afford a babysitter?

I would also find this annoying if I were a parent who did make the effort to get a babysitter and enjoy a night out, and then found myself near to a screaming child.

The Park - you cant hear the birds chirp..hey..i got a tip..take off your fcuking ipod when u jog

The seaside - blocks the sun, leaving only the hole in the ozone for you to enjoy + they make noise

Nobody said anything about babies not being allowed in the park, or at the seaside, as far as I have read. You appear to be inventing this.

So in essance, rather than the usual ol load of bollox, just admit if you can that you hate children. Thats the first step.

But I do like children. I want to be a Dad. It isn't a case of either believing that small children should be allowed anywhere 'or else you must hate children'. I just don't see what small babies need from galleries, restaurants and religious ceremonies.

It will be those children that will be paying for your generation to have their arses wiped and nappies changed when you are too old to do it

No, it will be my pension doing that - for which I am already paying heavily in terms of social contributions voluntary deductions. And it is childless adult's taxes which indiscriminately goes towards things like infrastructure, education, and childrens' allowance.

and .. and you dont have family of your own because ... you hated children for too long and then when you wantwed them you were too old to have them

I'm 24, I would consider myself too young for children, and again I don't hate children, I actually enjoy their energy and curiosity.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yes but the OP and other posters are saying the kids should not be out anywhere public

No, I am not saying that. I am talking about adult environments.

edit: by the way I want to reiterate that I am not anti-children at all, and it is encouraging to see there are so many parents on here who feel the same way about loud young children in adult environments. In such situations, I can imagine that even the parents stop having fun and get as irritated as the child and the other adults, so nobody ends up winning.

Unfortunately, there will always be a more militant few who insist that children must be allowed almost anywhere they go, and that everyone else should just put up with any distraction that occurs.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Best edit your thread title so.

It should have become pretty clear pretty fast in the original post, and other posters' responses. Ideally, we're expected to read more than just the thread title before responding.

robbie7730 wrote: »

You might become more "militant" yourself when you have a child. Most parents do want to bring young babies anywhere they go.

I'm not convinced. I have a niece and a nephew who only leave the house to play with their friends or go where they need to go. I think most reasonable parents, if given the choice, will not subject their very young children to art galleries, restaurants and coffee houses (for example); both for the childrens' sake and for the sake of the grown ups present. These are basic manners.

There will always be some parents who genuinely cannot find an alternative or cannot afford a babysitter, but there will also be those parents who just don't care about manners and see it as reasonable that everyone else accomodate or defer to their screaming child. It is that latter group who are the subject of the thread.

it cant happen to you at the moment, or at anytime up to now. But you can judge others it does happen to at the moment.

Just because I'm not a parent (a) does not mean I have no experience of children, and (b) does not make my views any less valid. I am willing to take on board the difficulties of parents, but it seems that many parents are unwilling to consider the challenge their children pose to grown ups engaging in an adult space or an adult pursuit.

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

To all those giving out about badly behaved children, has it ever occured to you that the child may have a medical condition or developmental disorder. I have an autistic newphew, which is not obvious when you see him. His mam told me about the comments she had to put up with when out shopping and eating out etc., which of course upset her terribly.

Try, for a moment, to see that from a stranger's perspective.

It would be unreasonable for a stranger to assume that every crying child, or every child throwing a tantrum, has an autistic spectrum disorder.

Very often the difference between an autistic episode and a typical tantrum is very apparent, it often doesn't sound like a normal irritation. I heard Victoria White on the radio talking about this very issue recently, and really, unless the tantrum is particularly wild, I'm not sure how any passer by should reasonably presume that what is happening is the manifestation of a disability.