It takes a village.
Posted on 08/15/2006 6:24:16 AM PDT by steve-b
For Cindy Nooney's 3-year-old twin boys, playing with the Thomas the Train set at their local bookstore in Southern California is a major thrill. Jack and Sam push Thomas, Arthur and friends down the track, they run around the table, jump up and down — and, of course, they squeeeaal.
Nooney expects as much in the children's section of the store. But on a recent afternoon, she was surprised by an employee who confronted her, calling her darling Jack a tyrant.
"He was a little loud but this is a children's section," says Nooney. "They run a noisy, cavernous bookstore but they don’t want kids to make any noise? It just seems ridiculous and leads me to believe that they don't want kids, they want silent kids."
The bookstore is not the only place that likes quiet, controlled children — and isn't afraid to say so. Across the nation, there are signs of a low-burning uprising against children supposedly behaving badly in public.
Eateries from California to Massachusetts have posted signs on doors and menus saying "We love children, especially when they are tucked in chairs and well behaved" or "Kids must use indoor voices." In North Carolina an online petition was started last year to establish child-free restaurants — the petition loosely compared dining with children to dining with cigarette smoke....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
My fiance and I avoid restaurants that tend toward families, as we've heard far too many screaming kids that the parents don't control. I've yet to understand how parents can sit there and calmly eat while their kid screams. I know I didn't put up with it from my kids.
When our kids told us they were expecting, I gave them a list of things I was expecting..from the kids! One of those things was no "Hook in the ass syndrome", which means no sitting on your duff while your little darling does whatever they want, none of this counting crap (I'm gonna count to 10, so you'll know I really mean it? I don't think so!) and no "chances". We've all, family-wide, adopted the "1 time" rule, which means I tell you to do something once. If you don't do it, I raise my index finger, say "1 time!" in my patented "Great and Terrible Oz" voice and then...you do it. It's the voice that gets them, we've all practiced that voice on each other! Poor little darlings don't stand a chance!
Good behavior in public is rewarded with a treat, bad is likewise rewarded, but not in public- and no, that doesn't include spankings. I can't stand brats, and I won't tolerate bullies. Bullies hear from me also.
Hmmmm. 'Destroy another foetus now, We don't like children anyhow' -- Leonard Cohen. Much as I'd like for all children to behave in public places, the fact is that, even with the best of parenting, they won't, and that screaming children are just part of life's rich tapestry. And as for those who refer to parents as 'breeders', well...
One paragraph mentions "breeders"--the rest IS about UNRULY children, not children in general. And unruly children are the ones that irritate me. I know when I was that age, I'd have experienced a serious spanking and other punishment once home, if I'd done what I've seen done. Allowing them to behave this way does them no favors, it only means they'll grow up to be obnoxious adults.
First, my kid never ever pulled such a stunt. But if she did, I'd just walk away........
I go to the local McDonalds for coffee. There is a bunch of blue haired "ROMEO"s (retired old men eating out). Each and every one of 'em must be deaf as a board. None of them talk in a normal tone of voice. They spend their time drinking coffee and yelling at each other about the day's events. Just as bad as kids...
Nope.
Eateries from California to Massachusetts have posted signs on doors and menus saying "We love children, especially when they are tucked in chairs and well behaved"
# Proverbs 22:6
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.......
It takes a village.
The rest of the story is homosexuals looking for an issue to attack marriage on a PR level.
"Breeders" is a homosexual insult to normal people. The author is a homosexual. It must seem homosexuals are threatened by ability to reproduce.
It just further proves homosexuals have no purpose in society.
Even that paragraph, in context, clearly indicates that "breeders" refers to (biological) adults who are capable of creating children, but evidently incapable of rearing them.
I think I shopped there once. ;) At least once.
My experience of such women, and of their kids (and it's fairly extensive) is that the women are relieved to have kids at all, and consider them to be so precious that they must always be handled very gently.
The result is as one would expect -- kids who generally don't behave well.
This is not always the case: I also know older women whose kids are absolute gems. It all boils down to the mother (and the father, if he's around).
Well, all I have to say about that is my grandchildren are models of exquisite perfection, and whenever we enter a restaurant or a mall people stop whatever they are doing in order to admire their stunning beauty and their impeccable manners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.