I am not a TOH customer. I grew up in restaurants, though, and I've known from an early age the difficulty of dealing with the public from customers bringing in their own food to customers refusing to pay for their meals. Most restaurant owners try to resolve these issues in a non-humiliating way. I would think having children behaving the way described in this article is dangerous not only to themselves but to other customers and to the employees. BTW, Eric Zorn is blogging about this at http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2005/11/moms_out_to_lun.html.

This thread has gotten me thinking of a sign that hung at my local library for years:

To err is human,
To forgive is not libary(sic) policy.

stevez wrote:

Mike G wrote:In any case, I don't know why people are trying to convince me of the justice of A Taste of Heaven's anti-child policies, or their own hostile attitudes on display here.

Again, Mike, I will point out that as a reasonable parent with relatively well behaved children, the LTOH policies shouldn't make any difference to you whatsoever. It's aimed at a totally different type of parent/child. Quit yer bitchin'

Since I gave birth to Mike G's relatively well-behaved children, I thought I would weigh in:

My younger one is going to shriek once or drop his spoon once or spill his milk once. I am also one of those people whose parents would not tolerate any kind of loud behavior in a restaurant, but I'm sure that at a young age I occasionally dropped a spoon or shrieked, and my parents told me to be quiet and/or took my outside but didn't ever expect that someone else in the restaurant would reprimand them for not doing so quickly enough or for bringing their kids out into public in the first place. That is what that sign at ATOH tells patrons they have the right to do to me (with my relatively well-behaved children) as well as to the trixies and chads who are letting their kids run amok.

Mike G wrote:The willingness of total strangers to interfere with parents and their children, oblivious to their own behavior which might be considered equally offensive by a parent with small children (...), is nearly boundless.

So the market forces at work will bring more business to ATOH from persons who don't find the sign offensive and want peace and quiet and less business from Mike G and me. That is all.

I don't think he is anti-child as much as he is anti-selfish parent. Even a notorious child hater like myself can tell the difference between a parent trying to deal with a difficult situation and a clueless parent.

Like a good Jewish New Yorker of a certain age, Barry's mother moved to Florida a few years ago. Orlando specifically...oy! Talk about screamfests and stressed out parents, I'd pay double for a kid free flight to Orlando!

Anyway, if anyone is interested, Dan the owner will be on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC tonight, Friday November 11th...they covered the story last night from the outraged mother's viewpoint and tonight is the opposite side.

PS...been in DC for the past two weeks and forgot my camera

I would tend to substitute "occasionally" for "relatively" in any description of my children as "well-behaved."

One thing about all this-- it seems to be predicated on some idea that us parents can keep our children out of any place where any person could possibly be offended by them until they reach some magic age of proper deportment-- at which point we spring them on the world and watch them behave perfectly.

Needless to say, nothing in raising children works like that. They will not know how to behave at 7 or 10 if they've never been in a restaurant before. So, we try different kinds of places, with different norms, and we work on making them behave better, and we frequently fail. Needless to say, we're not going to practice at Les Nomades or Japonais any time soon, but a muffin place on Saturday morning hardly seems, offhand, like the sort of place where children should be an intrusion.

I don't think he is anti-child as much as he is anti-selfish parent.

And no one disagrees with the idea that such parents exist and such situations take place. I can only say that being a member of any group singled out for "open season" by an owner with signage is not a situation I ever care to put myself in.

I think that what is offensive about signs like these is that they should be common sense. These notions shouldn't have to be made into signage. It should be understood that parents are going to execute sound judgement on whether or not their kids are well behaved enough to dine at a particular establishment. Even though this is not always the case, the fact that a business owner has to put a sign up on the wall, is off putting and condescending.

It's like a guy putting up a sign that says: "Make sure that you've bathed before entering our restaurant, stanky customers will be asked to leave." Or perhaps a more universal message is more appropriate, "Don't be stupid." Stupidity in any form will not be tolerated at this coffee shop of distinction."

trixie

I have a 12 month old baby. I was very quick to figure out that if the place has high-chairs and is not crowded, (and if they have toys! bonus!) it's aok. That's why I go to Bialy's instead of Flo. I'm sure that Flo may be ok on some days, but ususally there is a wait and it's crowded. Bialy's is great. Never crowded, and the waitresses dote on my baby. It's a decision I make for my own sanity and out of respect for the baby.

Atomix is also ok when not crowded. They are a "kinda sorta ok with kids" place-- they only have one high-chair, and it is rusty and vintage. I am the sort of parent who is ok with that, but I know that a certain type of parent (grown-up cheerleaders?) would not be. So we frequent Atomix when it is not crowded, otherwise we get our coffee to-go. Down the street is another coffee house ("Barista" coffee house)- redundant and uncreative name, but hey, they have a "toy corner". And Bleeding Heart Bakery's owner has a kid that hangs out in a pack-n-play at times. So we go to those places sometimes too.

I guess my point is, do your research and you can pretty much figure out what places are ok with kids. Ive also found that most places are NOT ok when they reach the saturation point of 3+ kids.. someone should make a graceful exit.

I still don't know where you people are getting the impression that kids are not welcome there. The NY Times article was accompanied by a photo of a toddler walking down the aisle. I've pointed out how many times I've seen Dan stop what he was doing to admire and play with someone's youngster. I have to figure folks are using this as an excuse to vent about other issues they've got with the place. Which they can have, but be honest.

Bob S. wrote:I still don't know where you people are getting the impression that kids are not welcome there. The NY Times article was accompanied by a photo of a toddler walking down the aisle. I've pointed out how many times I've seen Dan stop what he was doing to admire and play with someone's youngster. I have to figure folks are using this as an excuse to vent about other issues they've got with the place. Which they can have, but be honest.

In my opinion, it is perfectly possible to get that impression (or at least the impression that he considers kids very problematic) quite honestly from the sign, which is open to a number of interpretations owing, I believe, to less than ideal wording.

As for the photo, my (again honest) interpretation was that it was meant to illustrate the problem they've got with children wandering around-- despite the sign. (The caption supports this interpretation, I think.)

As for what actually goes on the coffee shop-- well, he chose to put the sign where you can see it from outside. If you know what his actual practice is, fine, but if you put a sign up where it's the first thing people see, that's going to be their first impression.

I saw the sign a while back (summer?). My toddler and I went in there looking for ice cream, and they were out of all but a flavor or two I wasn't interested in. I don't think we got anything.

When I see an unsual sign like this, it always makes me think, "God, what happened to prompt putting something like this up?" It gives an impression that the regular clientele of a business need to be admonished about a problem that other businesses don't have or take for granted. For example, my husband was in downtown Dallas on business in September and saw handwritten signs in his hotel elevator that basically said children weren't allowed to be running around the hotel unsupervised or their whole group would be thrown out. The nearby CVS had handwritten signs saying that they didn't sell single cigarettes, and not to open cases of beer because they didn't sell individual cans. To me, this didn't reflect positively on the masses of hurricane evacuees who had filled all the hotels in the area.

So the sign at A Taste of Heaven made me think "out-of-control screaming brats and rude adults come here" rather than "kids are not welcome here". That said, I'd rather take my toddler and baby (who are expected to behave properly in restaurants or are removed if unable/unwilling to do so) to a place such as Angel Food Bakery, where there is a kids' table and chairs with books and toys. The presence of the sign and the kids' area may both be placed with the same intent, i.e., that children do not get cranky and loud and annoy others, but the sign implies "we've had some problems with kids, so keep them in line" while the little table and chairs implies "we expect children here and want them to be happy."

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all the comments here and in Eric Zorn's blog. Rules, etiquette, the common good--all archaic terms now discarded by those who know it's all about them. That's all that's important, isn't it?

My children are 7 and 13. I'm in my mid 40's. We frequently receive comments about how well behaved our kids are in public. Our kids understand the rules, the boundaries of behavior in private and in public. When our older son was little, if he acted inappropriately, one parent pulled him out of the restaurant and took him outside, while the other boxed up the food and settled the bill. Our 7 year old has been schooled--by us and her older brother--about what is acceptable. We travel with an art kit, and eat out at off times when there is less likely to be a wait. Does she ever have tantrums? Sure, but they're at our own kitchen table, and then she gets sent to her room to cool down. Actions. Consequences. Neither child would dare try this kind of behavior in public.

Civility. Lack of it is evident in the loud cell phone conversations everywhere infinitum. Blowing red lights and stop signs. Out of control toddlers. Political correctness run amok to the point where everyone is afraid to say anything to anyone for fear of being reprimanded. Personal freedom and entitlement rules, to the detriment of the whole.

The owner of Taste of Heaven must have been pushed to the edge to post that sign. I bet he'd tried every which way before he felt he had to do so. What he didn't understand was that his customers with "kids gone wild" don't think the little darlings are doing anything wrong. As one of the teachers in Zorn's blog wrote, this kind of behavior is evident in all classrooms today. It's time for parents to buckle down and start parenting. Our job is to teach our children proper behavior. This means that our kids won't always like us or the guidelines we impose. I can't believe what parents let their kids get away with at Jewel, Blockbuster, the library, the movies, restaurants, etc. I've turned into my mother, shushing, cajoling, reprimanding, and giving the evil eye. It takes a village, doesn't it? Anna

trixie-pea wrote:Or perhaps a more universal message is more appropriate, "Don't be stupid."

trixie

I think this sign should be required in any and all establishments of any kind anywhere.

stevez wrote:

trixie-pea wrote:Or perhaps a more universal message is more appropriate, "Don't be stupid."

trixie

I think this sign should be required in any and all establishments of any kind anywhere.

Where do you think I got the idea? Steve, I really liked the fact that you took the time to embroider your sign. Hanging it on your front door was a nice touch.

trixie-pea wrote:stanky

I think it is important to mention that "stanky" (sometimes pronounced "stank-eh") refers to something 4 times more odiferous than stinky.

Thank you.

Look, I'm all for kids, I'm a teacher for peter's sake. It's not the kids that are offensive. It's the parents. Not all parents. Some parents. Many parents? Can't say.

Much of my single life took place in Roscoe Village/West Lakeview.
There was a time when the coffee shops and restaurants there were actually filled with more childless people-- less parents, children, strollers, dogs and cars(big ones).

It was kind of depressing watching my fun, hip neighborhood turn into the high-end, homogeneous place it has become. I missed the edge and diversity it once had.

If I go now it will be with those strollers. And, no, that is not bad, but it's not my style. If I walk into the Starbucks and it's filled with kids I don't want to stay in there. I'm childless currently. But, I'm also competing with ignorant cell phone users and people (parents with strollers and children included) who park their a#$ there for hours and are just plain oblivious and ignorant to anyone else.

Things change. Some for the good. Some for the bad. There are certain places, mainly some restaurants, around I would say where kids just don't belong, yet people bring them.

Is TOH that place? I think if the people(with or without children) would order, pay, eat and leave in a non-obnoxious manner there wouldn't be a problem.

I just hate it when a parent ignores a screaming child without removing them. In the public library where I sometimes work it is crazy how parents let there children wander, run, and scream. I can't really tell a screaming, running two year old to "Shhh."

At the same time, the cell phones ringing, one after another, all day long are ridiculous. Maybe it would be better if they all had the same tone, but I doubt it.

Is anyone reading this anymore?

You know, it's funny to see someone complain that Roscoe Village was ruined, homogenized, whatever by parents moving in and destroying the hip singles character of the neighborhood.

Somehow I doubt the Latino families with kids who were here in the 90s when the singles started moving in and pricing them out would see it quite the same way. (Besides, I don't know which part you're thinking of, but my block has been overwhelmingly couples moving in, not singles, for 15 years; the only difference is that, like us, they no longer move OUT of the city the instant they have kids. Far from being two opposing factions, there is in fact a surprising correlation between singles meeting other singles and children a few years later....)

The fact is that anywhere there's a "scene" there's an earlier neighborhood character that that scene is in the process of destroying. Sometimes that's no great loss, sometimes it is a great loss but inevitable-- nothing is going to save the German character of north Lincoln Ave. in the absence of ongoing immigration from Germany, you just have to enjoy the streetfests and so on while you can. What's ironic about hearing people complain about any of these neighborhoods being changed is that we're talking about one group of yuppies (singles, gays, whatever) being bothered by another group of yuppies (parents) while never even taking into account the previous groups-- such as the Swedes and later middle-easterners of Andersonville-- who had been there far, far longer and may have reacted to them just as negatively a very short time ago. But they didn't know how to get publicity in The New York Times for their complaints.

(By the way, there was a very good French comedy on sort of this theme-- twentysomethings moving into a transitional Parisian neighborhood and not even seeing the real character of the place they're changing until one of them loses a cat and actually has to talk to the old folks, shopkeepers, etc. In America it's called, inevitably, When the Cat's Away.)

I don't think I was complaining. I was priced out of the neighborhood as well. Missing what was fun about the neighborhood isn't complaining. It was more diverse. I preferred that. I still miss the original bar EXIT across from the Second City. Now, that was place was diverse.

Currently, my students are studying the neighborhoods of Chicago. It is my goal for them to know where people live in this city and who lives where and why. We all move somewhere throughout childhood and adulthood. It's important for them to think about what makes someone live where they do and where they might want to go. I'm currently living where I am because I can afford it and it has some diversity.

The schools around the areas where the demographics are changing to include more young families with more expendable incomes are closing due to lack of enrollment.

What is happening at TOH might have a lot to do with the changes in the neighborhood and the owner not being too happy with it. What I think is interesting is that it wasn't a problem at the old location which was out of the way somewhat.

Yipes,
Someone who is normally good about nipping things in the bud may need a time out!

Any of you out there with kids, turn your computer off and enjoy them for christ sake!!!

Yes, I know, I thought about blowing the whistle halfway through my own post.

To the extent that there's a serious point, it's that the city is always changing, and just by being here you're part of the reason why. So enjoy what there is at any moment, with a sense of its permanent impermanence.

Food Nut wrote:Is anyone reading this anymore?

Yes; I'm finding this fascinating. Zorn's blog and the NYTimes board is filled to overflowing with talk about this article. It's a revealing peek into the mores and zeitgeist of early 21st century America, as I see it.

Yeah, King's Thursday was reading Zorn's blog. This is but a tiny fraction of the torrent unleashed there.

I think the bottom line is that it is sad that there is a need to post a sign like that. THe fact that it is such a huge story tells me one thing....people need to RELAX! If this is the most important topic of the day, God bless America, because our lives are so nice that we have to discuss this stuff. Instead of standing in a mile long line for bread, like people I know who grew up in Communist Poland.

I have a one year old daughter, and honestly, we don't go to restaurants too much becasue it is a MAJOR pain in the ass. The whole time I am afraid that she will melt down and we'll have to leave.
That's my 2 cents! Have a nice day!

kids are just a product of thier upbringing..if you see a kid in a restaurant acting up just look at the parents..nine times out of ten Dad is sitting there with his ballcap on chewing with his mouth open while Mom is chatting on a cell phone..how can anyone without table manners of thier own possbly teach thier kids proper table manners? Why limit it to just kids?

I don't remember seeing this linked -- some of the replies Eric Zorn received came from mothers mentioned in the story. Good additional perspective.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_co ... _coun.html

It is interesting that this story has such legs.

To me, one interesting point about the sign is that in order to enforce what should be common sense rules of public behavior, you first have to post a sign to put people on notice as to what those rules are. That may be the saddest commentary of all.

As a 50-ish non-parent but former child, I would say the problem of inappropriate public behavior is hardly limited to children. I have had several incidents recently at concerts in which people sitting near us were practically screaming so they could carry on conversations and be heard over the music, and they were, of course, shocked and appalled when I asked them to keep it down and, equally predictably, other people sitting nearby thanked me. I find this increasingly common.

With kids, I think there are a couple of things going on. One is simply an honest difference in standards. The kids are getting on my nerves but the parents think they are being pretty well behaved. Though I am not a parent, I know many develop selective deafness and blindness as a form of self-protection. I acknowledge that parenting is difficult, but that doesn't make it heroic. They know what causes it now and it is easily prevented, so if you take it on it's your responsibility, not mine. Yes, "it takes a village," but you have no right to complain if some of the villagers choose to opt out. Yes, your kids are an extension of you so, yes, if I suggest their behavior is wanting I'm suggesting yours is too. There it is. At the same time, kids are kids and even the best parents can't prevent every screaming fit. The line between tolerance and intervention has to be drawn by each individual and intervention carries its own risks. Such is life in the modern world.

Part of the modern zeitgeist seems to be an inability of some people to distinguish between public and private behavior, which I believe is symbolized by cell phones, SUVs and other examples of "mobile" zones of personal space.

I would love someone to do an etiquette article on how people behave on public transportation and no the red article was not enough. Please control your children on the train and also we don't care to hear about your wild weekend or your more #$@# coworker while your taking to whoever on your cellphone. Grrrr... this is such a pet peeve of mine

While I know I could write at least a page long post on my opinions on this matter, I will say only one thing on the substance of it. I think there is quite a bit of equal and opposite sensibilities of entitlement on both sides - that a coffee shop should be as quiet as Ambria or that a child should be able to belly flop into a bakery case without any correction.

What I will point to is my disappointment in the New York Times. Having grown up on Long Island, this was my paper, one to which I have continued to subscribe for 13 years. Clearly, the "paper of record" needs to do some soul searching, this article being a miniscule part of the problems it faces. From the plagiarism scandal a few years back to the Judy Miller/W.M.D. issues today, the NYT editorial staff should do some critical thinking about its place in the journalistic world.

I think this was a damaging article. Not just to the women who seem to have been quoted out of context now to receive harassing phone calls, by the "etiquette police." How sadly ironic, that people who feel that they can criticize a small child for a shriek can in turn attack mothers with such profane vitriol. But also for Women and Children First, whose store was defamed by this article. As we all know, the corrections don't get equal billing. Shame on the fact checker.

And shame on the New York Times for its failure to give equal time to opposing viewpoints or to those seeking to present sensible solutions. If you read the letters to the editor printed the day after the article ran, they seem to all support Mr. McCauley's position. However, as we've seen from this thread there are articulate voices who have criticized him. There are also those of us who seek a solution. No surprise, but my letter:

"As a mother of a two year old in Chicago, I read with great interest “At the Center of a Clash . . . . ” While I definitely can empathize with the child-free patrons, having been one recently, I also don’t want to eat only at restaurants where the kids menu is more extensive than the wine list. To address this dilemma, a group of us here in Chicago founded a non-profit organization called Purple Asparagus. Our goal is to educate families and children about good eating, not just about the principles of good nutrition, but also about how to behave in restaurants, both fine and casual. To accomplish the latter objective, we host quarterly dinners for families at some of Chicago’s nicer restaurants so that families can enjoy good food and good company without the fear of disapproving looks from other customers."

was not published. One can only assume from reading this thread and Zorn's blog that the paper was likely deluged with letters on this subject. Nevertheless, not a single one that was published offered any realistic solutions to the problem. My esteem of the NYT has been on the decline, this article and the paper's response to the aftermath did nothing to halt that.

One last comment, it was suggested to me yesterday by another of Purple Asparagus' board members that what Mr. McCauley did with his sign is not that far off from the mission of Purple Asparagus. I'm certain that Mr. McCauley has more to read these days than this forum and certainly this post, however, if he does come across it and he is serious about helping parents teach their children how to act in restaurants, we will more than welcome his assistance. It might be more effective than a sign.

For those interested in more information about Purple Asparagus, you can visit www.purpleasparagus.com or you can pick up the Nov. 10-17, 2005 issue of Time Out and turn to page 87.

Get Your Brat Out Of My Face! @ advicegoddess.com

E.M.

Thanks for posting that, we hadn't heard from the hyperentitled child-hating contingent yet.

It is real simple.... you or your kids right to make noise, or to be disruptive, ends where my right not to hear or see you begins.

We are both paying the same price for our meal/coffee,etc, but my enjoyment is reduced by your action or in-action, why should I have to put up with it?

Yes I am a father, who took his kid to dinner, in nice places, but when she was younger, we would be the first people into the restaurant. Just in case, she got a case of the terrible two's. Even then we would have to leave once and a while.

Anyone been to a wedding or watched the video of the ceremony, and rather than hearing the vows being exchanged, all you hear is a kid crying or screaming?