Should infants/children be allowed in bars?

is the poll working? looks wonky to me. Any mod, please check. thanks.

Subject: Re: ??

BrooklynBoyyee wrote: how attractive are the infants/children in question?

no fatties.

so, I guess that makes you a "depends" answer.

If the sign says no one under 21 admitted, then no kids.

Restaurant-combo-bars are different. ...they can come in there.

P.S. Every parent hopefully thinks their kid is attractive: biased jurors.

^ I think "no one under 21 admitted" is a good rule to follow, even with infants. I know that all parents love their children to death and would like their kids to be the exception to the rule, but bars are meant for adults.

As mentioned in another thread, I'm the mom to two, and my kids are exceptional in every way, etc. etc. On the rare occasions when I go out, I don't want to see kids in a bar. I am around kids most of the time. I deserve a break, no matter how adorable and precocious your children are.

Sweat Tea - "wonky" was that I wasn't able to vote, yet I didn't see options for selecting my choice (Hell no - surprised?). Since others are voting, I guess it's working properly.

Oh, and I just went to get a slice at Pizza Plus on 7th Ave and 2 moms were there with 3 kids. One of them had coloring books and was on the floor coloring. I'm all for keeping kids amused, but the kid was on the floor in the path directly between the door and the counter. I walked in....with cane...and was unable to get around them, so I walked right out (could have said something, but didn't feel like wasting the energy).

Boygabriel wrote: If they're not crying or running into me, what do I care?

The moment your kid starts bawling though, you are morally obligated to immediately remove him/her from the room.

Seriously.

This is what I've run into far too often but nothing is done. I'm guessing part of it is that the parents are so used to their kids noises, they don't realize how crazy it is to others. That and strollers clogging up places not designed for them.

I'm with Flexi. Our new policy (after some very non-relaxing dinners at nice places) is to just leave if kids are being noisy/running around and allowed to do so.

My friend was at a bar late one night and said a free range child (under 4) actually peed into some container and still nothing was done.

Flexichick wrote: "free-range child". Ha :-)

no doubt "organically fed" as well

stacey wrote: [quote=whynot_31]Every parent hopefully thinks their kid is attractive: biased jurors.

I don't think I know!

you are always the exception....

I think it is up to the bar owners to decide the ambiance, and those of us who want to avoid getting spewed by regurgitated chic nuggets when meeting friends or dates for drinks, can simply avoid breeder friendly bars.

I mean, doesn't my decision not to, in a fit of short-sighted genetic chauvinism, spawn in an overpopulated world entitle me to certain benefits? Why should I have to get mauled in the ankle by SUV-prams and then sit and listen to their pram-spawn sucking on crap all night. Yuk. The sense of americana-style entitlement these people have is ridiculous. I would love to see them attempt this sort of behavior in Europe, (where the children are far better behaved, true story, so this is less unbearable).

As they say: discuss.

independent mind wrote: I would love to see them attempt this sort of behavior in Europe, (where the children are far better behaved, true story, so this is less unbearable).
.

In Europe it is perfectly normal to bring your kids to a bar....minus the prams, the whining and the sitting on the floor nonsense. I think if parents have well-behaved children and they are bringing the kids at an early hour then what is the harm? But parents should respect the impact their kids may have on a place and be prepared to leave if their kids act up at all.

independent mind: The weird thing is that I just moved here from Queens and the behavior of parents here in Brooklyn is shockingly different compared to there. I am both not used to the animosity of people with no children nor am I used to the terrible behavior of the children around here (which really is a reflection on the parents more than anything).

I love the park and architecture around here but we are definitely missing Queens...and I never thought those words would exit my mouth.

scarlett wrote: But if, when I want to talk to my friends and curse and make out with strangers, the dog or kid doesn't go lay down in the corner, it's annoying.

But what if the toddler also likes to curse and make out with strangers?

independent mind wrote: the strange consumerist, avaricious, loud, noisy, f-u, type bringing their kids in public, which couldn't have been better expressed than by the previous thread discussing parents who willfully bumped people out of their way when they were 'dawdling' on the sidewalks. This is truly the underbelly of american culture, the arrogant and impatient and loud side, which is getting smuggled into an issue like this by piggybacking on our sympathy for the difficulties of parenting in a nuclear family culture etc.

Just in case you were referring to me, I hope you weren't mistaking me for being 1) serious or 2) American.

StoopLady wrote: I think of it this way...why is the world the way it is...let's take kids to the casino, let's take our kids to the crack house, let's take our kids to go to the bordello. Sounds drastic, yes, but since we include them in everything else these days why not have children give birth to adults and then we can all be equal. There doesn't have to be a need for innocence or discipline or order or beauty or fantasy. Let's make sure we get real from day one.

That presupposes that the parents also go to casinos to gamble, use crack and prostitutes, and aren't into innocence or discipline or order or beauty or fantasy. You can keep it real from day one if you're setting some kind of reasonable example. Heck, I rarely touch alcohol either, so when I take my kid to a bar, it's to socialize with friends for a bit .

StoopLady wrote:
Why it could be just like the good old days when an entire family slept in one bed did everything together.

Our entire family sleeps in one bed and does just about everything together. A lot of professionals recommend co-sleeping. And doing everything together means the work of childcare is being done tax-free by family members, most likely at a higher quality, rather than paid for with after-tax dollars. Most professionals also say that what a young child needs most of all is care, love and attention, and that everything else can be sorted out or sort itself out; the most straightforward solution is the traditional one: do as much together as possible.

StoopLady wrote:
People could have prearranged marriages and women could have seven children by the time they are twenty. Men would have to be the breadwinners and take care of the world.
Oh, but they do this in Europe...look what is happening there. Good luck.

Actually, marriage rates are lower and people get married older and less often in the EU. Fertility rates have fallen so low in Europe and every other developed country apart from the US, that populations are aging and shrinking and governments are taking desperate measures like paying people bonuses to have more children and covering the cost of childcare, to soften the demographic bust. And the male-breadwinner model is peculiarly American among rich countries these days, partly because of the greater social/religious conservatism and lesser penetration of feminism than in Western Europe, partly because of GWB's married-filing-jointly tax rort that makes it relatively much cheaper for women to stay home in the US than in Europe. Male/female workforce ratios and pay-scales are closer to parity in the richer parts of the EU than in the US, and there's no big tax-bonus for married women to stay home. If we moved back to the EU, my wife would have to work full-time and we'd be getting full-time childcare, unlike here where everything is stacked against her working. And several EU governments have put in all kinds of laws and community interventions to try to prevent arranged marriages (it's a hot-button issue, a bit like abortion in the US) whereas the US government tends not to get involved in people's private lives in the same way. So I don't really see where you're coming from there.