Amen!

What a good idea.

FINALLY!! A restaurant I would enjoy going to!!

Yay! Let the child bashing begin! Wait, looks like three dips have already started...

A restaurant can do what it wants to do. I personally think that well-behaved kids can be better than some unsupervised adults, but if McDain's believes that banning the under-6 set is necessary to maintain their "fine, casual dining" experience, so be it. Of course, it is a restaurant attached to a golf course in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, so I'm not too sure how many kids are beating down the doors.

http://mcdains.com/index.html

It's easy to effectively ban seniors, just don't serve dinner before 5:30 and/or lock the restrooms and force patrons to track down a key.

I think a better way to go about this would be a policy that stated, "If you choose to bring children under six into the restaurant, you understand that should your child become disruptive, your entire party will be asked to leave."

That would actually give people with kids they can't/can't afford to leave at home incentive to keep their kids quiet or remove them before they become disruptive - like any polite human being would do.

@7 - the problem with that is that almost no manager alive who is not a complete dick-wad would ever actually enforce the policy and ask someone to leave. additionally, asking an entire party to leave once service has begun but before it is completed is EXTREMELY disruptive to the server, the kitchen, and even the whole rhythm of a restaurant. much, much better to refuse service in the first place.

also, @5, i'd wager there aren't any fewer kids at mcdain's than at applebee's. the only difference is that they're probably a bit better dressed, but almost certainly not better behaved (a screaming child is a screaming child, whether it's due to over-indulgent parenting or unattentive parenting).

@4, poor old Matt from Denver. No nuance. No wiggle room. Just immediately takes offense and decides anyone who doesn't want to sit next to shrieking children at a restaurant hates children.

It's okay to have restaurants, TV shows, movies, resorts, and other things that are for adults only, or perhaps "child-inappropriate". Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with babies. There's nothing wrong with dolphins, either, but they don't belong in an upscale restaurant. The chairs don't fit.

A bakery/restaurant in Chicago did this years ago. Has helped business a lot.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2971…

Aw, look at that old thread - almost two hundred comments. Hi, dear Canuck, wherever you are!

Fantastic idea - I would patronize this restaurant as much as I possibly could. BRAVO !

@13 It being a bar may have something to do with it.

@13 If it's a bar then they can't allow anybody in under 21.

I have a 7 week old. I love her more than I ever thought I could love another human being. But if I'm going to a nice restaurant (and I have no idea if this is one of those) , the last thing I want to do is bring her along. And until she's old enough to behave herself in public that will apply. If we need to eat somewhere while we're out and she's disruptive, I or her mother will take her outside. No point in ruining things for the other patrons. That's just plain wrong. Ask the waitstaff to wrap your food to go. And I have no problem picking a different place if the one I'm going to decides they don't want children there.

@13. There is no divider between the bar and the restaurant at Browers. they would have to put an iron bar through the entire first floor in an L shape for your one time brunch. There are also about 30 other places to eat within a 3 minute walk as well.

Hey CF, long time no see!

@7: "I think a better way to go about this would be a policy that stated, "If you choose to bring children under six into the restaurant, you understand that should your child become disruptive, your entire party will be asked to leave.""

That's not a better way to go about this.

@13--That's a matter of WA state law.

...and why I tend to take my meals in bars.

@13 Dude, it's a bar. It isn't their policy, it's a law that an overly uppity WSLCB agent could SHUT THEM DOWN FOR VIOLATING. PLUS! A lot of grown ups like going to eat at bars because they don't have to listen to your precious little wuggums throw a tantrum for an hour and a half.

@13 You brought a child to an upscale beer dungeon? That place is awesome, but I would never dream of bringing a child there, what is wrong with you?

@13, please tell me you are not an architect. please. please.

Ah, that was a good thread - and this one isn't going to come anywhere close to it, if, apparently, only URC's are going to take the "AH GOTS A RAWT TA' TAKE MAH SCREAMIN' LIL' PRAYSHUSS BAHBEE EVERYWHERE!" position...

@ 10, I've been around SLOG long enough to know that that's almost always the case.

Parents who bring children to restaurants that are too immature/undisciplined to behave properly are basically limiting the dining options of all parents by provoking policies like this one. There's a self-awareness aspect to this - as a smaller child, my parents would bring me with them to a place like Denny's or Burgermaster (where having your kids with you was common), but they did not take me with them to fine dining restaurants until I was older, which I think was 100% the right call.

Bringing a newborn to a restaurant is the *worst*. At least with children, even under six, they can be taught how to behave in public and not bother everyone else. Babies simply cannot control their crying, which they are almost guaranteed to do in a noisy restaurant, making everyone uncomfortable. I encountered this recently at a Thai place in Ballard: the waitstaff had to squeeze by the gigantic stroller at the end of the table, the poor, tiny baby looked terribly uncomfortable and started wailing, the grandmother-looking person had to stand around holding him/her and the other patrons had to go on with dinner trying to ignore the unhappy wailing. Why subject yourself and everyone around you to this, unless you're an over-privileged choad?

a) If you have enough money to go to a nice restaurant, you have enough money to hire a !%#@? babysitter and go to a nice restaurant. I had no vote in your decision to reproduce, so don't be surprised when I'm pissed that I have to be subjected to its consequences.

b) When do we get to ban children under 6 on overnight flights (on the entire airplane, not just the princesses in first class)?

One of the things I considered before deciding to become pregnant was that going out to eat would get rarer and more difficult. And that's OK. Is "where will our nation's toddlers get their cheap steaks and uninspired chicken-pasta dishes?" really a pressing culinary concern?

@ 10, see @ 29 for a good example.

Here's a good rule of thumb: if a high chair would look out of place at the table, it's not a good restaurant for little kids. Take them somewhere where they have the infrastructure and small children are welcome.

And as annoying as a crying baby can be, I'll take that over parents that let their kids run around like wild beasts. Ever since my daughters were toddlers, we taught them going to restaurants was a special privilege and if they ever wanted to get to go again they had to be on their best behavior. They've become delightful dining companions because they know they better be if they want to go out.

I hate child haters.

A blanket policy is stupid. Not all children are bad in restaurants as a rule, and even the same child can be good on some days and bad on others. I do think parents should do the right thing and leave if their kid keeps up bad behavior--I've done this myself on a couple of occasions. But a parent that is too rude to do this is no more annoying than plenty of the adults who act poorly in restaurants.

#31 Just curious - do you/have you brought small children to adult restaurants?

#34 a blanket policy is a great idea because how is a restaurant owner supposed to know if your small child is well behaved or not? And what is the restaurant staff supposed to do if the parents aren't like you and don't get up and leave if the kid starts acting up?

I very much support this. And I don't hate children, I just hate the attitude that everything in the world has to be for them.

I don't have children either. It's the parents that are the problem.

Children's rights is the next great frontier of the civil rights movement. It's time they stop showing such vile, hateful prejudice against those who are differently aged! Nobody chooses to be a baby- nobody should be discriminated against because of it!

Oops I meant I don't *hate* children -- but it's true that I don't *have* any, as well.

@34,

But a parent that is too rude to do this is no more annoying than plenty of the adults who act poorly in restaurants.

The parent isn't, but the child decidedly is more annoying. When was the last time you saw adults running in circles in a restaurant and/or screaming at the top of their lungs?

Oh noes! I guess Octomom can't take her kids there for dinner.

Maybe she could just drop them off at Matt's for the duration.

As far as airlines are concerned, I think they should be allowed to have child free flights (not all of them, but at least one a day per route). With restaurants, age six seems a bit extreme, but I NEVER went out to eat with my kids when they were younger than three. Also, first crying sound it's our duty as parents to immediately take them outside (not the case on airplanes).

I take my kids with me most places, since they'll need to learn how to navigate this world. If they are disruptive during a mealtime, we change the behavior or we leave. (of course, when my children have misbehaved, I will usually, as I'm shuffling them out the door, apologize to the people around me and have gotten smiles and kind responses, since most people have had a lot of interaction with the younger members of our world and know that everyone needs training in the nuances of their particular society.)

That said, it's fine that a restaurant would set this restriction. Not all restaurants will do this, because kids bring a lot of money in (that more than pays for the extra napkins and forks often required). And a restaurant that makes this policy is setting their place as a not-family restaurant. What's the problem with that?

And the people who resent children for their very existences can choose to reward this restaurant with their business and families can reward family-oriented restaurants with their business. Capitalism can be good for some things.

I love kids and don't mind taking care of my friends', even the sub-two year olds that scream until my teeth rattle down to my skull.

I don't think it's THAT much to ask that parents restrict (SLIGHTLY, EVEN) their choices of where they go with kid in tow for the first two or so years of the kid's life.

Obviously, that's "hate". Right.

Yes, and there are undoubtedly people under the age of 21 who can drink responsibly. Yet we still ban them from drinking because evaluating everybody on a case by case basis isn't feasible.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting an age limit in a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT. It's a polite way of letting families know they might be comfortable somewhere else. It's not like y'all are starving for choice.

@33 thanks. I liked the German model too when i lived there. Dogs and babies ok in the bar, as long as they were behaved. Then again in 3 years I never saw a baby in a bar, though I did see plenty of 8 year olds.

I have three kids, and when they were young, loud or rude behavior simply wasn't tolerated in places like this. I told them that if they acted that way, we'd go sit in the car until everyone else finished. Never had to do it.

I support this restaurant's decision, though, because some parents simply don't teach their kids to respect others.

@45

If a "sub two-year old" in your care is screaming, it has a problem you're not addressing. It ain't the kid, it's you.

@ 35, define "adult restaurant."

@49 That's a point that I think more people need to understand. My kids were easiest in a restaurant when they were under about 14 months (latest child excluded), if their needs are met, young, non=mobile children are delightful, I have found. After they're mobile and beginning to be adventurous, simply walking around with them in the lobby will keep them (usually) happy.
The two-through-four set seems to be the most difficult in a restaurant, I think. After that, the parent knows the child's temperament and can plan accordingly (not going out to eat without a nap, for instance).

Children are great, but they are not allowed in certain movies. They are not allowed to gamble, smoke, or drink. They can't vote, or sign contracts either. Children are not the same as adults. Children don't have the understanding, and experience that adults have, and they don't get the same rights. It's not hate; it's common sense. There are some places and situations that are not appropriate for children.

@33

You're a dumbass. I'm glad they banned you and your spawn from such an awesome place. I'm going to frequent Brouwers MORE for having banned you. Knowing that I'll never have to deal with an obnoxious baby OR a parent attempting to discipline their muppethead while I'm relaxing is a place where I want to spend my money.

@34

I hate YOU. The last thing anyone wants to deal with while they're having a beer relaxing is multiple scenes of parents' "disciplining" their child. (*grabbing son's arm*) "If you do that one more time, junior, we're leaving! I'm SERIOUS this time!"

Take it to Chucky Cheese where you belong. You made your choice, now live with it.

@53

It should also be noted they are not paying customers, so anybody approaching this scenario from an angle of 'this restaurant is banning certain customers!' must know some remarkably capable toddlers.

@51 - An 'adult restaurant' is any restaurant where the owner only wishes to serve adults.

Clear now?

I think the first step would have been to clearly state what @7 said; if you bring children and they are too loud, we will put your food in a doggy bag and ask you to leave. It's absolutely their right.

People don't have a lot of extra money to go out and so when they do, they should enjoy it.

I say this as the parent of two grown sons. I remember taking my first son, as a baby, to a restaurant with a visiting relative and my husband. My son would not calm down and I first sat in the car for a half an hour and then my husband so each of us could eat our dinner and not annoy other people.

We were also careful in our choices of what restaurants we picked so that we didn't bother other people. We NEVER allowed our kids to run around. I have no idea why other people do this because there really is no need for that to happen. We also used to bring an activity book or book so the boys had something to do while waiting.

It's not rocket science; it's simple courtesy to others.

@48, my parents used to say exactly the same thing. And they never had to do it. One of my mom's favorite stories is about how, when I was very small, we were in a restaurant and some parents were letting their kids run all around the dining room, almost tripping the waitress once. I said, very loudly, "If those kids can't behave, they should be made to go sit in the car!" The family with brats left in a huff, and the owner came out and thanked us.

I can't blame a restaurant for having a blanket policy like this; there are too many parents who think their little brats can do no wrong and we should all have to put up with it.

I live in Pittsburgh and may have to go to this place now.

Putting a kid in a situation which will cause frustration to the kid is unfair and silly. Lots of places allow and welcome kids. Infants and most toddlers simply are not wired to be able to control themselves once they get tired or cranky. I don't know why you'd deliberately put your kid in a situation that is only going to upset him or her.

@ 56, in that case the answer is No. But you didn't ask the question, now did you?

@50: "I think that part of the reason that "hate" keeps getting brought into it is that some of the arguments to justify the ban have historically been used by bigots to justify discriminating against those they hate"

Disliking screaming babies is exactly the same as hating someone because they're black.

My god you're a stupid individual.

Babies are not a protected class of citizens under the law, thankfully.

Only kids age six years and up? That's way more generous than I'd be if I ran an "adults only" restaurant. You'd have to flash ID if I were manning the door.

So there are plenty of restaurants and BARS (and by bars, I mean places that serve alcohol and fried food...not dinner and cocktails) around my way that have tried the "less aggressive" approaches to keeping screaming brats out of the dining/drinking experience. They have posted signs warning that they do not have high-chairs and/or that the menu is geared toward adult tastes (and really stuck to that...at one place in particular the closest thing they have to a kid-friendly meal is a gruyère grilled cheese on artisan sourdough...and it's $11! without sides!), they have banned strollers, they have placed messages on their menus stating that anyone disrupting other diners' experiences will be asked to leave and followed through on these threats. And, yet, people continue to bring their kids to these places and let them behave badly. I have seen parties kicked out over screaming/unruly kids, and seen the same screaming/unruly kids back at that establishment within a few weeks. Subtlety is clearly not working, so maybe this brut approach is necessary.

The best evidence of this, IMO, is in planning for my commitment ceremony reception. We were planning to disallow children to begin with (it's a black-tie affair...NOT appropriate for kids), but felt that we especially lucked out when the reception space we rented did not allow guests under 21, carding at the door strictly enforced. So, we put a polite statement on our invitations that "due to reception hall policies, all guests must be 21 years of age or older" and ALSO that "due to space limitations, only invited guests will be accepted." I cannot begin to tell you the number of RSVPs we've gotten with an added +1 or more with the explanation that they'll be bringing their kids. I'm so incredibly sick of making phone calls to these people explaining that "no guests under 21" meant NO ONE under 21, regardless of whether they're 6 months or 16 years, regardless of whether they're accompanied by their parents or not, and "invited guests only" meant the people named on the front of the envelope (and even more sick of getting their rude responses about how incredibly shallow we're being by not allowing their kids to run wild at our party...'cause I'm sure the kids will love the pâté and oyster shooters). Yes, these people are a minority, but they're a minority that sucking enough of my time up calling them to tell them they don't understand basic English that I'm now tempted to let any additional +kids reservations folks get turned away at the door by the bouncers. And, yes, the hall has confirmed that they WILL turn away ANYONE under 21, even if they can't walk under their own power.

Americans are funny.

I don't have a view on restaurants permitting/not permitting children. But we're the only country I've personally visited or lived in that thinks it is or should be possible for adult life to take place entirely without contact with A) children, and B) noise.

Spend a year in Latin America. I guarantee, by the time you're through, the sound of crying babes won't set you off the same way.

Why does it ruin your dinner for a child to cry? Hell- it bugs me if the couple at the next table is arguing...so I ignore'em and get on with enjoying my dinner.

Try it-

me

The disruptive ones at my stores were teens. I should have banned those little fuckers.

@66:

Cultural norms vary from place to place. What may be considered perfectly "normal" in Latin America, could be considered downright offensive somewhere else; just try eating with your left hand in almost any Middle Eastern, African or Asian country you visit sometime, if you don't understand what I mean.

@66

Um, have you BEEN around American children before? There are NO other children in the world (and I've traveled the whole thing) who are as obnoxious, loud, fussy, and demanding as AMERICAN children. And I *have* spent a year in Latin America. If you didn't notice the difference between the two types of kids, then you're weren't paying attention.

@66 "Spend a year in Latin America."

No thanks.

I actually live in Monroeville (home of the Zombies), so watching this story blow up has been very entertaining. Some friends praise it, others want to storm McDain’s with torches and pitchforks. And as you can imagine, the reactions are drawn along lines of those with and without children.

For goodness sake, it’s a restaurant at a driving range…in Monroeville. There are plenty of other options you can go to. Heck, walk across the street and get an MTO at Sheetz. I highly recommend the mint chocolate smoothie thing.

@ 71, I don't buy that explanation. @ 56 was closer to what I would accept, namely, a restaurant that explicitly makes it clear that children aren't welcome. Madame K's used to do that, but I think they were licensed as a bar that were legally required to ban those under 21 (but I'm sure they sought out that status so they could use that as their excuse - it really didn't have the atmosphere of a bar).

Still, @ 35 brought it up and I want to read that person's definition of adult restaurant. He or she asked me if I ever brought small children to one, and I can't answer if I don't know what they mean. As you (71) show, it's probably something that's only in the eye of the beholder.

@6 I LOL'd, thanks.

It would have been more tactful for the restaurant to do what another eatery in Florida did: They stopped offering high chairs and kids' meals. They didn't ban children; they just stopped catering to them.

An adult restaurant is one that doesn't have a kid's menu.

@73: " I want to read that person's definition of adult restaurant. He or she asked me if I ever brought small children to one, and I can't answer if I don't know what they mean."

If you don't understand the difference between "family restaurant" and "adult restaurant", do you take your dates to applebees?

@13: I would love nothing more than to refuse entry to you and your shitty kid and extended family.

Later, when my extended group of adult friends and I are at Brouwer's, I plan to raise a glass in celebration of your absence.

@ 77, in that case it's possible that that's happened once or twice. Nobody refused service, however, or gave us the stink eye. That usually only happens at restaurants frequented by the kind of folks who populate Capitol Hill (so-called creative types, scenesters/hipsters, whatever they're called), even if the joint does have a kid's menu.

@ 79, Applebees is a "chain" restaurant. Is that your idea of "family" restaurant? If so, you'd be surprised to learn that Cafe Flora is one, too.

#81 If you're getting the stink eye, it's probably because your kids are acting up or crying or whatever, and ruining other people's experience. People should be able to enjoy their meal in peace at a restaurant. It's not cheap to go out to eat.

@81: "Applebees is a "chain" restaurant. Is that your idea of "family" restaurant?"

No. Applebees is a cheap place to go where you can be cheap and kids are encouraged and the atmosphere is decidedly gaudy. The Melting Pot is a chain, but the atmosphere is much more date-y and intimate. Think of a "family" restaurant as one with knick-knacks on the walls and fruity drinks so the parents can get shitfaced while their kids run around bothering other customers.

If you can't tell the difference between Applebees and a higher-class joint, you really need to re-think your taste or enjoy your HFCS chipotle crispitos forever.

@ 82, it looks to me like #81 said, "Nobody . . . gave us the stink eye." Without re-reading the whole thread, sounds like Matt fD does not take undisciplined children out to eat.

@82: Seriously, people hate Matt's parenting, not his kids.

"Without re-reading the whole thread, sounds like Matt fD does not take undisciplined children out to eat."

So ultimately he agrees with us 100% but is choosing the snottiest, smuggest possible way to do so?

@ 82, whoa, you're a presumptive asshole, aren't you? My girls are complimented for their behavior and manners all the time.

No, the only time I get the stink eye is because some dope hates kids - something that's endemic to the stratum of society I just described. (One of which you're a proud member, judging from your reaction.)

@ 84 is right. Restaurants have every right to serve, and not serve, anyone they choose. The market can decide if these business are making the right decision. I'm only piping up because these threads are always Two Minute Hate sessions against children. (BTW, if you read this restauranteur's justification, it's just dripping with kid hate, which is why he's getting Nagasaki up his ass for it.)

@ 83, the Melting Pot near me advertises "kids eat free" nights. And sorry, but you got me mixed up with your own projections.

#87 talk about presumptive! so these people who allegedly are giving you the "stink eye", they come over and tell you it's because they hate kids, do they? i know plenty of people with kids who don't feel people are scowling at them all the time. maybe it's you, matt from denver? cause if there is a hater here it's you. from you first comment, it's pretty clear what you've been thinking: HOW DARE ANYONE NOT LOVE MY PERFECT CHILDREN! YOU ASSHOLES!

There you go again, avocado. I didn't say "all the time" - it's happened only twice that I can recall.

Maybe you have a plausible alternative explanation for why an unobtrusive, quiet family would get cartoon arrows from frowning faces upon entering an establishment. I doubt it.

@87 "My girls are complimented for their behavior and manners all the time."

Oh god

@91 See, that's the thing. Rarely to people actually come up to you and say "Hey, you, your kid is a brat and totally ruined my experience here." Threads like this bring out the whole I brought my kid places and he/she behaves well. Good for you. Either this is true, in which case you are doing well and should also be aware that many things in society aren't taken on a case by case basis (as was said upthread); or you just don't realize that a meal with little preshus isn't rainbows and butterflies for everyone else. And you should know that. You're biased, and that's ok, you should be, they're your kid, you're their parent and their advocate, but you can't expect everyone else to be that.

Holy crap. I have three kids. I take them to greasy spoons and chains and pizza places when I take them out. I don't take them to Serafina or Matt's. That said, who the hell goes to dinner at a nice restaurant before most kids' bedtime?

@88: " the Melting Pot near me advertises "kids eat free" nights. "

Eh, international chain restaurants aren't generally "nice" restaurants because they don't care to discriminate about clientele. Smaller local restaurants do slightly more, because they have to stand out somehow. Their reputation is based on the experience, which doesn't involve disruptive elements.

What about parents who don't want to dine with other people's children? I don't have children but my best friend and I celebrate our birthdays every year at a fancy restaurant. When her children were younger her request was always "I don't care where we go as long as they don't allow children". She's an awesome stay home mom but on her night out she doesn't want to listen to the same crap that she hears all day whether it be whining or just yapping kid noise. If she wanted to, we'd be at a Chucky Cheese with her kids.
As for airplanes I've always felt sorry for parents with screaming children and they always seem apologetic. I also have headphones.

Much like christians and pitbulls, it's the bad parents that ruin things for the good parents. Perhaps Matt's children are well parented. Good for him.

It doesn't mean that the rest of society cant draw lines where children are not acceptable as a result of the bad parent's behavior. I suggest good parents work very hard to help raise the level of parenting in the US, then you can come to nice restaurants with your children. Until then, there are family friendly places you can eat where the bad parenting results can run amok without disturbing other customers.

I do not hate children. I do not have to tolerate poorly parented children in my vicinity if it is in my power to do so.

Matt's smug presumptions about people who don't want to deal with his bratty screaming children are highly amusing.

@ 97, I've made zero presumptions, smug or otherwise, on this thread. Now, everyone who's taken issue with my statements, on the other hand...

" I've made zero presumptions, smug or otherwise, on this thread"

You've been a smug idiot from the beginning of the thread, onward.

"Let the child bashing begin! Wait, looks like three dips have already started".

My two best friends and I eat at what we consider to be a "fine dining" establishment a couple times of year when we all end up in our hometown at the same time. We don't have kids, and the other two in the group don't even really like them. We're not foodies, but we handle this dinner with a certain amount of gravity and jump through hoops to fit it into our schedules and budgets. We're there specifically to enjoy an evening of well-executed food and intelligent conversation. We bring a bottle of wine, order appetizers, entrees and dessert and discuss each course. Last time we went, there was an older couple with their baby grandchild - this kid was maybe two months old. Nothing worse than your pricey, quiet dinner being shattered by the earsplitting shrieks of a small infant. They took the baby outside each time, but we're talking about multiple interruptions to the meal. I like kids, and I'm not overly picky about details when I eat out, but I just thought it was a really inappropriate place to bring a kid who was one step from a newborn.