Don't disturb my dinner with your autistic child!

[La Sagna]

Here is a letter that was printed in our local paper and the answer from the 'Ethics Columnist'

I was shocked by the number of people who left comments stating that people with children that can be disruptive should stay home at all times to make sure that dinners have a 'quiet' dinner:

After visiting our dying mother in hospital, our family went for dinner at a restaurant. A few minutes after sitting down, we heard a loud cry from the next table. A mother was trying to convince her teenage son that it was time to leave, but he wouldn’t go. Other diners were concerned and irritated. An older man went to their table and told them to keep quiet. The mother said her son was autistic, and asked for understanding. If a mother knows her kid might act out, does she have the right to bring him to a public place, where his actions might disrupt others?

At first, your letter made me sad. Then, furious.
I’m sorry your mom is dying; in such times, people sometimes say things they might otherwise think better of. I hope that’s the case here.
Your position seems to be that kids who can be disruptive should be kept at home, or in sheltered workshops and schools, where they won’t disturb “normal” people like you. “Lady, if you can’t control your kid, keep him out of sight.”

What a precious little world you must inhabit — a world where every child behaves delightfully 24 hours a day, where social skills are equitably distributed among the population, where your own troubles trump everyone else’s. In such a world, kids who are less socially adept, or less intellectually gifted, or physically “unattractive,” would never cross your path; they’d be tucked away nicely in their little, soundproof rooms, attended by doting parents who never get out for the evening but don’t mind a bit — they’re just so gosh-darned devoted and all. Meanwhile, you and your buddies have quiet dinners with fine wine and a tinkling piano, cutting a cheque once a year to the Autism Society to help those “poor people” you’ve read about in the Star.
How do you think kids on the autism spectrum, or kids who for any reason are socially less graceful than others, learn to function in society if they aren’t allowed to go to restaurants, churches, the symphony, or other places where they might “disrupt” other people? How do you think parents raising such kids will keep their sanity if they can’t go out for dinner occasionally? I hope you don’t think respite or attendant care services will provide relief for such occasions — not in this province, not in this country.
Our goddaughter is as socially adept as any kid alive. But when she was 3 months old, we went to a restaurant where we’d gone before with her. She normally slept through dinner, but for whatever reason, this particular night she was rotten. She cried through appetizers, and wailed through main course; we bolted before dessert. We tried everything, but nothing would comfort her. At a table close by, the diners glared at us, then made a big fuss with the server, then got up and left in a huff. We felt terrible (just as the mom in your story obviously did), and apologized to the server when he brought the bill.
He said, “Hey, forget about it. We’re all better off without people like them around.”

Thoughts? I'm counting on you all to re-establish my hope in humanity...

 

[Lark]

There's got to be give and take when it comes to social expectations and I kind of think its been lacking for a long time.

There's people who believe that certain choices and even certain circumstances confer rights or respect upon individuals or groups as a matter of fact that its unarguable or indisputable, simply because, and if you ever draw attention to this or question it you're dismissed and attacked one way or another as a hater. At best you're dismissed as someone not worthy of note, at worst not permitted a voice or platform.

I dont think that having children confers particular rights, I dont think it should revoke rights but it does involve obligations, special obligations, which people who do not have children do not have, that should not automatically result in a conflict or competiting rights but sometimes it does. When people complain about children and want them out of sight and out of mind I think its a consequence of being acquainted with, practically or in theory, parents who have not been meeting their obligations or dont actively acknowledge they have any at all.

For a while I was thinking about writing a satirical or sardonic article for Cracked.com about the five places your kids is going to "love" (hate) because I'd seen so many examples of bad and neglectful parenting, people going out and visiting places, like bookshops, with their often very young kids who require a lot of attention and nurturing and then just flat out ignore them, which results in the kids doing something awful for attention, then the parents look about as though they are automatically entitled to understanding from others. I can appreciate anyone who is working hard with a behaviourially challenged or disabled child, even adolescents, like the sort I've worked with as a social worker, but that isnt, I dont believe, what causes this for the most part.

 

[the]

As a society we put disruptive people away in prisons and other institutions. Why is it surprising that when a person pays for a nice dinner that they would expect no disruptions?

believe me I can see both sides of the issue but ultimately if i go to the Dorsia I expect no disruption and the closer I get to mcdonalds the more disruptions I expect.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] is making an important point.

Our social gatherings are not monochrome. There is a spectrum of types of social settings. A balance must be made between allowing people to enjoy different types of social experiences, which may favour a more restricted expectation of interaction, and allowing as broad a participation as possible.

If, for example, one hosts a discussion group on theoretical physics, it would seem reasonable to exclude all who did not have at least a master's degree in the field. However, exception may be made for those who have a thorough knowledge, but no degree. Would it be unreasonable to exclude people who could have no coherent input? (A discussion group may have an audience, but limitations may mean that an audience is not possible).

In respect of quiet, or romantic dinners - is the only venue to be private houses? Some restaurants offer private rooms. But can a quiet dinner ever be part of a broader social experience than just those sitting at the table? Surely this is not something we want to suppress in people's lives - so there must be balance between making such experiences available to people; and making particular eating places accessible to all, including people who cannot interact quietly. Some restaurants offer a section for groups with children (or those who are as boisterous). But sometimes parents resent having to eat in the designated areas. What would a REASONABLE compromise look like?

The same goes for areas on an airplane, libraries, etc.

 

[Lark]

I think @Lark is making an important point.

Our social gatherings are not monochrome. There is a spectrum of types of social settings. A balance must be made between allowing people to enjoy different types of social experiences, which may favour a more restricted expectation of interaction, and allowing as broad a participation as possible.

If, for example, one hosts a discussion group on theoretical physics, it would seem reasonable to exclude all who did not have at least a master's degree in the field. However, exception may be made for those who have a thorough knowledge, but no degree. Would it be unreasonable to exclude people who could have no coherent input? (A discussion group may have an audience, but limitations may mean that an audience is not possible).

In respect of quiet, or romantic dinners - is the only venue to be private houses? Some restaurants offer private rooms. But can a quiet dinner ever be part of a broader social experience than just those sitting at the table? Surely this is not something we want to suppress in people's lives - so there must be balance between making such experiences available to people; and making particular eating places accessible to all, including people who cannot interact quietly. Some restaurants offer a section for groups with children (or those who are as boisterous). But sometimes parents resent having to eat in the designated areas. What would a REASONABLE compromise look like?

The same goes for areas on an airplane, libraries, etc.

Reasonableness is the key thing for me but a lot of the time its really abscent from any discussion when someone or some group is attempting to assert itself.

I had a mate who when we were all out in the reception bar of a hotel once watched while some kids were running around the place, climbing over chairs and furniture, doing their nut basically, and all pretty unmistakeably for their parents attention, who were flat out ignoring their children, now the parents had given one of them a portable dvd player to try and shut them up and they managed to drop it or whack it off a chair and break it into two pieces, my mate said loudly "Ha! Ha! Now they've broken their thing, that'll learn them". I wouldnt do that sort of thing and with the wrong people it'll result in or easily escalate into some aggression, I dont think that my mate would respond the same way now, he has a child himself now and was going through a lot back then but he was pretty clear that he didnt even blame the kids for behaving crazy but the parents for ignoring them.

He's a very attentive parent, if he and the spouse and the children are heading out some place they are all going to child friendly surroundings, often their kids are the most well behaved out of everyone there, especially other children, if there's even a remote possibility of it not being child friendly they dont go or they wait and have a date night or a night out while someone is baby sitting the kids. That's just it. It happens when you have children, its the paramouncy of the child principle, its enshrined in UK law and the point of most or all childrens social services and a lot of other services besides and any good parent is reconciled to it.

The problem, I believe, is that there's a lot of people who arent good parents, who've not worked out their shit or got their shit together before they've become parents or became parents for all the damn wrong reasons, or no reason at all, and they and their offspring often set the tone unfortunately.

 

[Lark]

As a society we put disruptive people away in prisons and other institutions. Why is it surprising that when a person pays for a nice dinner that they would expect no disruptions?

believe me I can see both sides of the issue but ultimately if i go to the Dorsia I expect no disruption and the closer I get to mcdonalds the more disruptions I expect.

I try to see most arguments from all sides, the only thing I'd say about that is that effectively, when you're trying to use the price mechanism to deliver on those sorts of expectations then they become equated with privilege and I'm not sure that should be the case, it is, I'm not denying that and I'm no misty eyed idealist about it but I dont think its right simply because it is.

Accepting that in that respect means you'll accept it in a greater or wider respect which more or less amounts to saying that if you got money you can have the good life.

 

[the]

I'm no misty eyed idealist

are you sure?

Accepting that in that respect means you'll accept it in a greater or wider respect which more or less amounts to saying that if you got money you can have the good life.

That is the premise behind money.

 

[Lark]

are you sure?



That is the premise behind money.

I'm 100%

I'm not sure its the premise of money, it depends whether you think money should have intrinsic value or exchange value, anyway, that's another topic and sort of boring to most of the people I've met. Most of its biggest fans didnt see it resulting in the new fuedalism that it is resulting in.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Ah... Everyone has a right to be in public places. However I do admit I grow agitated when people bring their kids along, the kids start shouting screaming etc... and the parent makes no attempt to stop it.

I remember once on a plane flight this kid in the seat behind me was screaming, kicking the seat and the woman he was with just sat there and did nothing. So I put ear plugs in that hurt like hell and dealt with it. I think there's something in some religions that says a woman cannot correct a man child. So I just assumed she was of that religion and patted myself on the back for being culturally tolerant.

Unfortunately the public arena is just that. I would prefer things to be one way, most of the time it is so I can tolerate the few times its not.

 

[sprinkles]

I think people who expect everything to be perfect every time are just asking for too much.

This stuff is going to happen once in a while if you don't live in a padded bubble. Suck it up and hope for better luck next time.

 

[say what]

This has nothing to do with where the child was- they could have been at McDonald's for all we know. The author is upset that the child was presenting with unruly behaviour...however, this behaviour could happen from anyone - do you know how many drunk and rude people I've seen get kicked out of a place? Are we going to stop letting people who drink not go out?

I am 100% for inclusion- as often social interactions is beneficial for both the individual and for others/society...However, I do not think it's fair to the individual to take them to a place they are going to be unhappy with. I wouldn't take a 3 year old to a 6 course tasting menu - that would be terrible for everyone involved. I think leisure and social events have to chosen that suits the individual - regardless of having an intellectual disability, mental health issue, age, sex, etc.

 

[sprinkles]

I think [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] is making an important point.

Our social gatherings are not monochrome. There is a spectrum of types of social settings. A balance must be made between allowing people to enjoy different types of social experiences, which may favour a more restricted expectation of interaction, and allowing as broad a participation as possible.

If, for example, one hosts a discussion group on theoretical physics, it would seem reasonable to exclude all who did not have at least a master's degree in the field. However, exception may be made for those who have a thorough knowledge, but no degree. Would it be unreasonable to exclude people who could have no coherent input? (A discussion group may have an audience, but limitations may mean that an audience is not possible).

In respect of quiet, or romantic dinners - is the only venue to be private houses? Some restaurants offer private rooms. But can a quiet dinner ever be part of a broader social experience than just those sitting at the table? Surely this is not something we want to suppress in people's lives - so there must be balance between making such experiences available to people; and making particular eating places accessible to all, including people who cannot interact quietly. Some restaurants offer a section for groups with children (or those who are as boisterous). But sometimes parents resent having to eat in the designated areas. What would a REASONABLE compromise look like?

The same goes for areas on an airplane, libraries, etc.

Well to an extent the more refined or specialized something is, the more this takes care of itself.

For example with a physics conference, you probably won't have to bother excluding people. Relevant people will know how to get there, or will be invited, and most others will probably not want to be there anyway.

Considering that, if a disruptive person does get in, then it's just bad luck.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm 100%

I'm not sure its the premise of money, it depends whether you think money should have intrinsic value or exchange value, anyway, that's another topic and sort of boring to most of the people I've met. Most of its biggest fans didnt see it resulting in the new fuedalism that it is resulting in.

Well when it comes to money... In the US, restaurants are considered part of interstate commerce and the fair right to use them is constitutionally protected. It's under the enumerated powers of Congress to ensure that interstate commerce is not impeded in any way, for example by segregation.

There are of course some limits, we can't very well have people destroying the whole restaurant or something. But in a general sense, tolerance is expected.

 

[the]

This has nothing to do with where the child was- they could have been at McDonald's for all we know. The author is upset that the child was presenting with unruly behaviour...however, this behaviour could happen from anyone - do you know how many drunk and rude people I've seen get kicked out of a place? Are we going to stop letting people who drink not go out?

I am 100% for inclusion- as often social interactions is beneficial for both the individual and for others/society...However, I do not think it's fair to the individual to take them to a place they are going to be unhappy with. I wouldn't take a 3 year old to a 6 course tasting menu - that would be terrible for everyone involved. I think leisure and social events have to chosen that suits the individual - regardless of having an intellectual disability, mental health issue, age, sex, etc.

so we can ask a disruptive adult to leave, but not a disruptive autistic child? Or are you saying that disruptive adults should be allowed to stay just like autistic children?

 

[say what]

so we can ask a disruptive adult to leave, but not a disruptive autistic child? Or are you saying that disruptive adults should be allowed to stay just like autistic children?

heh....that's a good point.

I don't know.

 

[sprinkles]

so we can ask a disruptive adult to leave, but not a disruptive autistic child? Or are you saying that disruptive adults should be allowed to stay just like autistic children?

Depends on how disruptive they are and why.

I've been kicked out of a few places. You should try it some time, it's fun.

 

[the]

Depends on how disruptive they are and why.

I've been kicked out of a few places. You should try it some time, it's fun.

I feel like everyone is agreeing here: it's all a shade of grey along a shifting scale from kick em out to let em stay.

 

[sprinkles]

I feel like everyone is agreeing here: it's all a shade of grey along a shifting scale from kick em out to let em stay.

Well yeah.

One time I was a little too drunk and was playing pool, and I thought I gently dropped the pool cue onto the table (which I shouldn't have anyway) but actually I had kind of chucked it and it bounced funny and shot off the table and almost hit my friend. I got tossed, I probably deserved that one.

Another time though in a different place I was playing an arcade game, which was slightly broken and I didn't know it. The whole joystick console wasn't even screwed onto the machine, it was sitting there, and I pulled down a little hard on the stick and the whole thing popped up, I was surprised and I dropped it again which made a loud noise that sounded like I was abusing the machine. I was tossed even though it really wasn't my fault and they weren't having any excuses. I didn't really deserve that one.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

Did not read (yet).
Children being a public disturbance has been something people didn't like before autism was widely known.
How disturbances should be handled, is another debate. I don't have kids, so I won't be participating. But I don't think autism, nor any disability should be part of that argument.
I think the U.S. is far too touchy and "politically correct" for there to be a fair conversation about these matters.

 

[cvp12gh5]

I have a 5 yr old, and my husband and I will not bring him to restaurants because he can be difficult to handle at times. I don't think it's fair for other restaurant patrons to have to deal with my child when he's having a bad day. And when we do bring him and he starts to act up, we will leave. I don't have any tolerance for bad behavior when we are out.

I know that I'm not going to have a stress free dinner with a 5yr old acting up, so why would I want to bring him out and have him stress other people out also? It's an avoidable situation (we don't bring him out to restaurants).

That being said, I don't think that people shouldn't bring their children with them to restaurants; well behaved or not. Do I think it's in poor taste to put yourself and your child in a situation that probably won't turn out well? Sure. But it's no ones place to say what you should or should not do.

I have been in nice restaurants where people have brought horribly behaved children, and it annoyed me, but it's nothing I would ever complain about.

As for the child being autistic, o_q makes a great point. It really shouldn't even be a part of the argument. But I do think it's sad that this person felt the need to write to a local paper about it. That's just pretentious, imo.