Sea Wasp
12-19-2007, 08:18 AM
philospher77@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:58:47 -0500, Sea Wasp
> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>philospher77@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well... it's partly the fact that many parents seem to think that the
>>>universe should revolve around them and their kids, and anything less
>>>is simply unacceptable. Back when the Dilbert website had a section
>>>where people proposed ideas that they thought were good/interesting,
>>>but weren't too interested in actually bringing to fruition, one
>>>person proposed that restaurants that have "kids eat free" nights
>>>(which, it seems quite obvious, means that people without kids are
>>>subsidizing those meals since they don't raise the prices of the
>>>adult's meals) should also have a "no kids" night, so that people who
>>>wanted a quiet night out at dinner would know what night to go to that
>>>restaurant. Well, the reaction from most of the parents was "giving
>>>kids free meals is just good marketing, but a "no kids" night is
>>>down-right un-American, because I have a right to take my kids
>>>anywhere I want whenever I want, and you will just have to put up with
>>>it." And that attitude seems to be pretty prevalent with parents. Or
>>>perhaps it's just that parents with that attitude tend to be loud and
>>>obnoxious about what they want.
>>
>> Actually, my reaction is that it's not an isomorphic case. In the one
>>case, I'm encouraging people with kids to come, but anyone can come,
>>they just don't get free food.
>>
>> In the other case, I'm excluding an entire class of people from the
>>restaurant, and also a large chunk of a second class of people.
>>
>> These two cases are not at all the same thing. The child-free people
>>CAN eat at the restaurant on the Kids Eat Free day. Nothing will stop
>>them. But in order to have a "no kids" day, you must of necessity
>>exclude kids -- and in many cases, their parents -- from the restaurant.
>>
>
> Well, the attitude of many of the parents during the discussion was
> "if the people without kids don't want to deal with noisy kids and
> families, they should just stay away from the restaurant, especially
> on Kids Eat Free day. But asking me to stay away from the restaurant
> on one day a week, when I probably wouldn't go on that day anyway
> because I would have to pay for the kids, is just wrong." It was the
> attitude that childless people should be willing to rearrange their
> lives in order to benefit the parents (who even get a bonus on their
> day!), but that the parents should not be required to show similar
> courtesy, that seemed to get the board riled up. And that seems to be
> the crux of the issue: one side feels like it is being asked to
> accommodate the other, without any reciprocation from the other side.
> And that does then tend to start feeling like "the most insignificant
> thing I can do with my kid is much more important than the most
> important thing you can do in your free time."
>
There is something of an Us versus Them attitude at times, true. It
is alas not one-sided. When I became a parent, an entire division of
"friends" fairly quickly faded out of the picture, and a large number
of formerly common activities became rare-to-impossible to indulge in.
If you happen to be the first, or one of only a few, parents in your
group, you may find yourself quickly isolated because your life REALLY
DOES end up revolving around the kid.
Kids are a necessary part of a living society, but they demand a
price from the society -- not just the parents; they shift the entire
economics and social behaviors of (at a minimum) two other adults, and
most likely cause a considerable amount of shift in the behaviors of
quite a few others who are directly associated with the parents in one
way or another.
Little wonder that the parents (especially new parents) often feel
that they are embattled, isolated, and needing all the help and breaks
they can get, and also little wonder that those without kids view them
and their parents as incredible disruptive time and resource hogs.
>
>> It is also accurate to say that the one case is good marketing, the
>>other case likely to cost you serious money and probably send you down
>>the tubes. Unless there IS a specific, very strong, niche market for
>>No-Kid dining, in which case you would be well-advised to set that up
>>as your default and market only to that niche.
>
>
> Totally true. This was, after all, a spot where you posted things
> that would probably never be marketable. The other really hot-button
> topic I remember was the one about a periscope to let drivers see over
> SUVs.
I never understood this whining about SUVs, either. They aren't
significantly bigger in profile than a standard van used to be, and
compared to any truck they're puny little things.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:58:47 -0500, Sea Wasp
> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>philospher77@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well... it's partly the fact that many parents seem to think that the
>>>universe should revolve around them and their kids, and anything less
>>>is simply unacceptable. Back when the Dilbert website had a section
>>>where people proposed ideas that they thought were good/interesting,
>>>but weren't too interested in actually bringing to fruition, one
>>>person proposed that restaurants that have "kids eat free" nights
>>>(which, it seems quite obvious, means that people without kids are
>>>subsidizing those meals since they don't raise the prices of the
>>>adult's meals) should also have a "no kids" night, so that people who
>>>wanted a quiet night out at dinner would know what night to go to that
>>>restaurant. Well, the reaction from most of the parents was "giving
>>>kids free meals is just good marketing, but a "no kids" night is
>>>down-right un-American, because I have a right to take my kids
>>>anywhere I want whenever I want, and you will just have to put up with
>>>it." And that attitude seems to be pretty prevalent with parents. Or
>>>perhaps it's just that parents with that attitude tend to be loud and
>>>obnoxious about what they want.
>>
>> Actually, my reaction is that it's not an isomorphic case. In the one
>>case, I'm encouraging people with kids to come, but anyone can come,
>>they just don't get free food.
>>
>> In the other case, I'm excluding an entire class of people from the
>>restaurant, and also a large chunk of a second class of people.
>>
>> These two cases are not at all the same thing. The child-free people
>>CAN eat at the restaurant on the Kids Eat Free day. Nothing will stop
>>them. But in order to have a "no kids" day, you must of necessity
>>exclude kids -- and in many cases, their parents -- from the restaurant.
>>
>
> Well, the attitude of many of the parents during the discussion was
> "if the people without kids don't want to deal with noisy kids and
> families, they should just stay away from the restaurant, especially
> on Kids Eat Free day. But asking me to stay away from the restaurant
> on one day a week, when I probably wouldn't go on that day anyway
> because I would have to pay for the kids, is just wrong." It was the
> attitude that childless people should be willing to rearrange their
> lives in order to benefit the parents (who even get a bonus on their
> day!), but that the parents should not be required to show similar
> courtesy, that seemed to get the board riled up. And that seems to be
> the crux of the issue: one side feels like it is being asked to
> accommodate the other, without any reciprocation from the other side.
> And that does then tend to start feeling like "the most insignificant
> thing I can do with my kid is much more important than the most
> important thing you can do in your free time."
>
There is something of an Us versus Them attitude at times, true. It
is alas not one-sided. When I became a parent, an entire division of
"friends" fairly quickly faded out of the picture, and a large number
of formerly common activities became rare-to-impossible to indulge in.
If you happen to be the first, or one of only a few, parents in your
group, you may find yourself quickly isolated because your life REALLY
DOES end up revolving around the kid.
Kids are a necessary part of a living society, but they demand a
price from the society -- not just the parents; they shift the entire
economics and social behaviors of (at a minimum) two other adults, and
most likely cause a considerable amount of shift in the behaviors of
quite a few others who are directly associated with the parents in one
way or another.
Little wonder that the parents (especially new parents) often feel
that they are embattled, isolated, and needing all the help and breaks
they can get, and also little wonder that those without kids view them
and their parents as incredible disruptive time and resource hogs.
>
>> It is also accurate to say that the one case is good marketing, the
>>other case likely to cost you serious money and probably send you down
>>the tubes. Unless there IS a specific, very strong, niche market for
>>No-Kid dining, in which case you would be well-advised to set that up
>>as your default and market only to that niche.
>
>
> Totally true. This was, after all, a spot where you posted things
> that would probably never be marketable. The other really hot-button
> topic I remember was the one about a periscope to let drivers see over
> SUVs.
I never understood this whining about SUVs, either. They aren't
significantly bigger in profile than a standard van used to be, and
compared to any truck they're puny little things.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com