periodic commentary -- "kid free events"

[quietann]

I've realized recently that some of my LJ entires are commentary on the larger Susboid community and its norms. This one definitely falls in that category.

I've heard a lot of grumbling recently about ill-behaved children at social events. or just too many children in general (when one gets the "mob effect" among even normally well-behaved children). I recently commented in someone's journal that Ben and I will host a child-free clothing swap when our house is in better shape (along with a kid-full party, craftnites, friends for dinner, etc.). I've had a lot of very good response, especially after the debacle at the last clothing swap, where the kids turned the piles of clothing into a "toy." Apparently no parents thought that this was inappropriate enough to try to stop them. I wasn't there, and I am really glad that I wasn't. There are also people who just don't feel comfortable undressing in front of a bunch of kids.

What it comes down to is that the non-parents among us are usually the ones who have to Just Deal. I am tired of Just Dealing, as much as I like children. Just Dealing in my case often means not attending events, or not going until late, when most of the kids are gone. I don't think it's fair that those of us who don't have children are the ones who are always expected to Just Deal. I would like to see people who really just don't want kids at their parties feel free to say so without feeling like Bad People. Or putting age restrictions on which kids allowed to attend -- even though some kids who are quite mature for their age will be excluded. If I allow kids at my events, I want to feel comfortable enough to be able to walk up to a parent and tell them they have X minutes to get their kid in line, or I'll ask them to leave.

I think the parents should take a turn at Just Dealing. That could mean getting a babysitter, or missing events when one can't be gotten. It could even mean something as simple as *supervising* ones' children at events, even if it means not being able to flirt and talk with as many people. Or leaving the *moment* a child starts acting up. If you don't believe in babysitters, that is NOT my problem. If you don't believe in disciplining your children, that is NOT my problem. If you let your kids run wild, that is NOT my problem. Your children may be the center of YOUR universe, but they are not the center of MY universe.

Edit later: "If you don't believe in babysitters, that is NOT my problem. If you don't believe in disciplining your children, that is NOT my problem. If you let your kids run wild, that is NOT my problem. If you make it my problem, be assured that I will call you on it, loudly and publicly."

(The odd thing is that most of the parents who read my LJ are pretty good about all this... sigh.)

Comments

[donnad.livejournal.com]

It took a lot of courage to write this and I have to say I agree with you 100%. Maybe that means we wont be invited to many kid friendly gatherings in the future, but considering we consider not going because of the children anyway, is that such a bad thing?

Don't get me wrong, I do like most of my friends children. In small doses, most of them are very well behaved, but when you get the huge group of them together it is quite overwhelming and I just can't deal.

Thank you for putting this into words.

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

I think one solution might be for kid-friendly parties to have kid hours and grownup hours, and all kids to be out by 9:30, say. That way the kids and parents get to go to the party and socialize, but the non-parents can either show up later or at least be able to look forward to the chaos level dwindling at some point. Dunno if this would work, especially since I haven't bene to a real elboid party in years, but it's a thought.

And saying this does not mean that I think you shouldn't have parties where children expressly are not invited. Heck, even parents need kid-free time. (Or maybe, especially parents, and the ones who don't acknowlege that are the ones who need it the most desperately.)

same as it ever was

[cthulhia]

reread this part:

Just Dealing in my case often means not attending events, or not going until late, when most of the kids are gone.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

There are a few people who are doing just that. Kids under a certain age are welcome until some arbitrary time, and after that they are not. I have never heard anyone complain about such an arrangement.

On your second comment -- yes, there are certain people among my friends who *never* spend time apart from their kids as a couple. If this is the choice they make, fine, but they should keep in mind that their kids won't be welcome everywhere. (I personally cannot imagine not getting away from one's kids periodically. But I've had susboids say that it was "abusive" of my parents to go on vacation and leave me with relatives or a professional sitter, starting when I was a (weaned) baby.)

[chhotii.livejournal.com]

...I've had susboids say that it was "abusive" of my parents to go on vacation...

Oh good grief! Arrrrgh! I don't think parenthood should be 18 years of confinement. As long as the kid is left with someone trustworthy, what's the harm of taking a break now and then? Who thinks like this? My parents had vacations and I'm fine.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

oh yeah. it's called Attachment Parenting Overdone, or something like that.

I trust that you and your Sweetie will be more sensible about your bambina, once she arrives :)

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

I agree, that's fucked up. "Abusive"? Get over yourselves, people, whoever you are. I loved staying with my grandparents and going to summer sleepaway camp and all that. And my parents needed breaks, too. Sheesh.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

It was because I was a baby (though the person who thought my parents were abusive is one of those who doesn't believe in babysitters, ever....) Ironically enough, if they'd taken me along on one of those trips, I probably would have been killed. (My mom fell asleep while driving and rolled the car. Luckily she and my dad were wearing their seatbelts, but this was back in the days before child seats, and when they took me on a car trip, they just stuck me in a portable crib in the back seat of the car...)

My parents were married for 7 years before I was born. They had a lot of activities where including babies just would not have worked, like skiing. They *did* scale back on these activities, but I think they were right not to sacrifice them completely to my brother and me. It gave me the perspective that parents are *people* first, and parents second. Maybe this is why it bugs me so much when parents forget that they are anything other than parents...

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

Well, that goes a long way towards explaining the "Tied to Mom's Apron Strings" people we've all met.

You raise a kid to have no sense of independence and they'll be dependant for the rest of their lives.

Great way to guarantee sons marry a version of their mothers and the daughters marry a version of their fathers.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

The thing is, the people who are doing this are really doing it with the best of intentions. They've rightly perceived that a generation of kids who "raised themselves" because their parents were too busy with careers, "finding themselves" or whatever wasn't a good thing, and swung the pendulum the other way. In this they were aided by Dr. David Sears and other "attachment parenting" gurus (and they seem not to notice that he's an evangelical Christian with 7 kids and some *very* traditional notions about gender roles...)

I'm already hearing, WRT pregnant friends of mine who plan to return to work when their children are babies, a great deal of criticism from the "stay at home mom" crowd (and it's almost always mom, because of breastfeeding issues and the fact that most husbands earn more money than their wives... I know several sets of parents where the dad would clearly be a better full-time parent, but economic realities dictate otherwise.) Never mind that the singularly *most* well-adjusted set of children I know were in daycare at a young age...

Now, my own mother was a stay at home mom, although not a particularly happy one (and my brother and I had sitters and nursery school when we were young, so she could get time for herself and her interests). She quite simply would have gone nuts without an occasionaly kid-free vacation with my dad. Our family life got *much* better when she started working outside the home again, when I was about 12 and my brother was 8.

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

My mother is a stay at home mom, and even with her youngest at age 12, she has no plans to return to work. She's been out of the regular work force for close to 30 years now, with the exception of a few weeks at Wal-Mark a couple years ago.

It's a role that was clearly miserable for her, and her only social activities have involved either Church or the parents' groups at schools.

She's forgotten how to interact with people as adults, and her social life has, for years, been centered on events where the kids are doing something. When the youngest leaves home, she'll be without friends or anything to do during the day. It's very disturbing to see, especially how she's starting to take on some aspects of attachment parenting with the youngest.

You don't want a Latchkey kid, but attachment parenting is going to cause a child to be as messed up socially as a latchkey situation. Instead of having significant difficulty forming relationships, they'll have trouble being alone and acting without a parent figure. Yes, this is a gross oversimplification.

You have to strike a median. Despite my mother's lack of a life outside of her children, we were all raised with a decent balance of independence and care.

Why does the human race so love overdoing the reaction to a problem? Instead of trying to find the right balance when confronted by kids being raised without any real supervision, something as absurd and stifling a "Attachment Parenting" comes up. Dear LORD what a lunatic idea.

OK, I'm o the verge of a rant, and I think I should do some reading research before I get into one, so said rant can be better informed.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

There is a plethora of web resources, both for and against the AP approach.

Done right, AP is great for kids (if you know hawkegirl or candlelight you know what I mean). One of the benefits is that mutual respect between kids and parents develops, and gets generalized to other people. But it requires a lot of parental self-sacrifice... which is why *I* personally would never try it if I had kids.

Done wrong, AP makes spoiled little monsters, who can be quite angry because they don't have a parent enforcing limits on them, which makes them terribly insecure about their place in the world.

Flame War Prevention Program

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

Not to all:

My mini-rant applies to the second category quietann mentions(the "spoiled little monsters"), and not the first.

So, hawkegirl and candlelight can safely discard my rant.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

pesky; I actually wanted for my brother and wife to go away and give me my nephew for a week. I see nothing abusive in that - in point, I anticipate inviting him to my place for a weekend once he's a little older (right now, he's all of 2 and a half, and not terribly portable across the province; but I hope to have him visit once or twice a year when he's older, able to travel the 3 hours across Ontario with a little supervision, and able to sleep on the futon readily). It's less likely to happen since mike and amy are getting divorced. But I always ythought it was heaps of fun to go somewhere else when my parents disappeared for some couple-time.

[donnad.livejournal.com]

The problem with having a party be child free after 9:30PM is that some adults have to get up early in the mornings or really aren't night people and arriving at a party AFTER 9:30PM is not worth bothering to go at all. I personally go to bed every night between 10 and 11 PM, I get up in the morning between 5 and 7AM
Now that I am working, staying any later at a party than 10PM is just not an option. It means I just don't bother to go to parties if I don't feel like dealing with the kids.

Like I said earlier, I don't mind most kids, but put them all together, they get that mob mentality amongst them, and I, like Ann, just don't want deal with it.

[iamlisabee.livejournal.com]

I definitely think that people should throw child-free events. Even parents. Kids are fun (for me, at least), and I enjoy socializing with them. On the otherhand, the dynamics of a child-free space are very different from those with children.

I also think that everyone needs to take some sort of responsibility for creating a social space that they will enjoy.

In your case, Ann, I think that inviting people to your place (without their kids!) would be a very good thing for you to do. As the hostess, you've got the right to set guidelines for your event, and it's totally valid to make it child-free.

If people don't want kids (or any other group of people) at their social events, then yes, they absolutely must say so. And yes, then the rest of us Must Deal. It's not OUR party. And if we don't like the way someone else's party is going, we can always throw our own damned party!

[quietann.livejournal.com]

part of the frustration for me is that until our house is in better order (when the remodeling is done, and we've had a big clean-up party!), I *can't* invite anyone over. That *might* happen by March if everything goes well.

I think most of the time having kids over would be fine. But I'd probably post a tongue-in-cheek summary of the hazards of this house, along the following lines:

"WARNING: this house contains many things that are hazardous to people of all ages, and some that are specific hazards for children. For example: lead paint, occasional loose nails in the hardwood floors, glass, animals (all of which will bite if annoyed), three staircases, a dirt-floor, dank, basement, unprotected electrical outlets, possibly poisonous plants, toys that can break, bookshelves that could come crashing down if there is an earthquake, books, hot water, dust, mice, algae, mold, spiders, small toys which can be swallowed, piles of Stuff, 2 toilets, two bathtubs, one occupied by rats, several rocking chairs, the Internet, cans of paint, cleaning supplies, a stove, old televisions, computers, medical devices (including syringes), breakable glass objects, sharp pointy tools, foods to which some people are allergic, medicines, alcohol, caffeine, car parts, car oil, cars, gasoline, and many other things but we are too tired by now to catalog them all. Oh, not to mention Other People, who may be as dangerous as anything else in this house, especially en masse.

"In other words, this is a normal American household which is reasonably safe for people who possess minimal Clue. While visiting our house, it is up to YOU to enforce Clue upon members of your household who are too young or otherwise impaired to have their own Clue."

[ceo]

Speaking as a soon-to-be parent, it's perfectly legitimate to have kid-free parties; it is, after all, your party and your house. We'll like you just as much even if we decide not to attend, I promise. :-)

It is also perfectly OK to tell someone to Deal With Their Child, just as it's OK to say something to an adult who is behaving poorly; gosling has certainly talked to someone about their child at Baitcon.

I'm not sure a kid curfew is a good solution, however; I think it'll end up being the kind of compromise that annoys everyone. The people who don't want to deal with kids will still have to, and I personally would find it much more annoying to have to leave a party just as it was getting really fun than to not be able to go at all. (It might be annoying for the non-parents too to have a lot of their friends have to leave early.) And I think people are going to be happier getting a babysitter for a no-kids party than having to leave early regardless of how their child is behaving (or is even awake).

I suspect, also, that the more considerate parents (whose kids are likely to be well-behaved anyway) will leave at the designated time, and the parents who are less considerate will be less likely to leave on time, and then it turns into an icky enforcement issue.

I have some thoughts on appropriate levels of discipline, but since I'm not a parent yet I should probably keep my fool mouth shut on that score. :-)

This has probably been the biggest change in our community in the time I've been in it; it used to be that almost nobody had kids, and now it's a significant percentage (possibly a majority, depending who you count).

[chhotii.livejournal.com]

I have some thoughts on appropriate levels of discipline, but since I'm not a parent yet I should probably keep my fool mouth shut on that score. :-)

yeah, me too...

[thespian.livejournal.com]

The people who don't want to deal with kids will still have to

Except that they won't; if, as mentioned, a 9:30 'curfew' was installed, they *could* show up after it, without having to wait until insane hours (I've known parents, but especially Suspboids to stay until 11-12 with spawn throwing tantrums because they're freaking *tired*, the poor kids). 9:30 isn't too late, isn't too early.

, and I personally would find it much more annoying to have to leave a party just as it was getting really fun than to not be able to go at all.

that doesn't make a lot of sense - you'd rather be unable to attend a party at all than be able to attend but leave early. I get that. But It's not like anyone is *forcing* you to attend the party. Offering the option 'attend with kids but leave at 9:30' doesn't interfere with your option to simply not attend. Perhaps it's what you were actually saying, but it's not really logical to respond to 'please leave at a decent hour with your kids if you bring them' with 'I'd rather not be invited at all in that case'; which definitely sounds like some suspects' response, doesn't sound very much like Chip. am I misreading it?

[ceo]

Here's what I was trying to get at, poorly articulated: If the party is no-kids, I'll skip it or get a sitter. If the party has a kid-curfew, it's harder to justify the expense and aggravation of getting a sitter, but I'll have to leave early, which is equally aggravating.

See below for more on this.

[dancingdeer.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear. And, well, everyone who knows me knows my pov on loud kids, anyway, and nobody at all has taken me to task on it. There are parties nowadays that I won't go to because of who I know will be present, and I skipped this last clothing swap because I knew there'd be kids running around.
Well said, too.

for everyone

[bridgetminerva.livejournal.com]

We have left parties and events when Aileen was distruptive. ( the one exception was when I was meeting someone at desiel's.) This was our choice to have kids. We shall pay the price/reap the rewards. Right now that means missing alot. It also means being aware of our children's inability to deal and our friends not feeling comfotable with not dealing with her not dealing. If you ever feel like Aileen too much, tell me. I will never think you are wrong.

Re: for everyone

[quietann.livejournal.com]

like I said, most of the parents who read my journal are pretty clueful about stuff like this :)

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Your children may be the center of YOUR universe, but they are not the center of MY universe.

That sums it up pretty well. I have a very low tolerance for kid-interrupts to adult events. To be fair, most of the time I'm getting annoyed it's obvious that the parent is also annoyed, except they're obligated to deal. The clue they're missing though is that that doesn't obligate everyone around them to deal too, and I've gotten pretty snippy about that on several occasions. Your kid, your problem.

While that clue seems pretty widespread, it seems to break down most when there is some critical mass of children and parents present. Maybe there is some assumption of "oh, they're parents too, they'll help", or "they'll understand" is at work, I don't know. But to my eye, "Your kid, your problem" is *always* in effect.

So sure, with that in mind, declaring an event kidfree is the easiest if not the most diplomatic way of avoiding all that. Bravo.

[ceo]

Having thought about it more, my main objection to a kid curfew is that it reinforces an already-existing divide in the community. For no-kid events, the parents generally make arrangements. If people start instituting kid curfews, what you'll have is a situation where all the parents have to leave at 9:30 just as (if the usual pattern holds) a lot more people are showing up, and it'll in effect become two separate crowds coming to the same events. In mundane circles, people-with-kids and people-without-kids are often seen as different species, without very much in common, and I really don't want to see that start happening in our community.

All that said, I would like to see the parents among us develop better standards for appropriate kid behavior at parties. Easy for me to say now, of course.

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

Personally, I have nothing against the idea of saying an event is "Kid Friendly" or "Kid Free" in the invite. I think it's a good idea. I'm not too keen on the idea of a Kid Curfew either, for the same reasons you state.

That said, we might want to consider a third category.

1. Kid Friendly
2. Kid Free
3. The only Kids permitted will be newborns that the previously kid free couples want to show off.

First of all, said couples will be leaving fairly early anyway. There's only so much trouble a newborn can cause, as opposed to a child who is independently mobile, and parties of the third category can incorporate a small "cray Safe" zone when necessary.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

Babes in arms ride free.

you said BUNNIE full

[bridgetminerva.livejournal.com]

that is what I had to day.

Re: you said BUNNIE full

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

When did I say that?

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Actually it sounds like in this case the house is big enough to handle kids in a separate space, which could be another compromise. I've been to a number of parties where the host has children, and the children all tend to congregate in one part of the basement, rather than always mixing in with the rest.

I've also noticed that I rarely see kids around much past 9:30 (unless they're babies), as that's about when they tend to get cranky enough to leave anyway.

I have one friend (parent) who will have parties where she'll start at 2, go way past midnight, and declare a certain part of the day to be kid friendly. After a certain hour the majority of the children will dissappear to the basement playroom.

An excerpt from one of her party invites (she's got a sunken family room off the kitchen, so people will wander in there for movies or stay in kitchen/dining room for talking):

Anyhow... My party is ...... As is standard for my parties, it begins at 2:00 PM.

From 2 - 8 PM it is family time. Videos are more child appropriate and there are usually lots of kids around.
From 8 PM on it is adult time. (You teenagers can experiment with whether you are adults or kids.) younger kids are flung down into my basement, adults stay upstairs, movies often run to an R rating.