Don't disturb my dinner with your autistic child!

[Flavus Aquila]

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.

That attitude used to be largely an American (U.S.) attitude, which I think has a basis in the notion of rights which is so central to that society. Most Commonwealth countries mainly focused on responsibilities. However, IMHO the American focus on personal rights (even in the most mundane, relatively insignificant aspects of life) has spread increasingly into other English speaking countries in about the last 15 years.

Here in Australia, you would never get children acting badly in public places, without the parents basically going to whatever lengths necessary to restore reasonable order. I think people had a very strong sense that it was their responsibility to ensure their children didn't disrupt other people's affairs. However, in the last few years it seems to me that people are more focused on their right to be in a particular place, irrespective of how it might impact on others.

Perhaps the focus on one's rights doesn't make for people making good neighbours. This meshes with my experience of Americans being the most individualistic English speaking people.

 

[j654dgj7]

Yeah, maybe don't bring your autistic child to the restaurant.

I don't know. I don't go to MTV Award Shows, I don't go to the best restaurants in the world and I don't participate in club arrangements. Because it's not something that I'm set up for. It's not something that I can "get". Ugh I'm not going to look good on this argument, fuck it.

We have some rights, and some we don't have. Everyone's allowed to say what they want and organize themselves. Not everyone's allowed to eat at a restaurant or go to Disneyland. Just like I'm not allowed to sit in a mini scooter that drives my ass around all day. Sorry. Life sucks, it's just not fair!

 

[invisible]

im with the columnist 100%.

 

[invisible]

its people who refuse to be considerate of what other people might be going through in life who have shitty, unrefined manners, not people who cant help making a little noise.

 

[muir]

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:



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

Modern society is about living in a bubble...you're own bubble

If people were living in a more organic, natural and communal way then there would be no issue with these things; disabled people would just be another member of the community with their own part to play in it

In modern society however people are all trying to cling to INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS and anything that unsettles that even if it is a mild annoyance that threatens to pop their little self isolated bubble then they will react with hostility towards that; they feel a rising tide of annoyance rising inside them to the noise or opinions of others because it threatens their bubble

People are clinging on by a thread in this system...they have little left over for other people

that's not the fault of human nature, it is just the effects of a dehumanising way of living which is alientating people

The answer is one many people don't want to hear because it means they have to pop their bubbles and commit themselves to the solution and that means changing how we live, what we prioritise, our culture, how we view things, how we behave etc and many people have found a comfortable balance in life they don't want disrupted; this is what Theroux called 'hanging on in quiet desperation'

At some point in the not too distant future this balance will become untenable

 

[j654dgj7]

its people who refuse to be considerate of what other people might be going through in life who have shitty, unrefined manners, not people who cant help making a little noise.

Isn't it selfish to push your problems on other people in public, though?

Look, I get it with handicapped people and children. I hate when people are upset at other people who can't help it. But in most cases I have no sympathy for people who didn't think about the consequences of their actions.

 

[sprinkles]

That attitude used to be largely an American (U.S.) attitude, which I think has a basis in the notion of rights which is so central to that society. Most Commonwealth countries mainly focused on responsibilities. However, IMHO the American focus on personal rights (even in the most mundane, relatively insignificant aspects of life) has spread increasingly into other English speaking countries in about the last 15 years.

Here in Australia, you would never get children acting badly in public places, without the parents basically going to whatever lengths necessary to restore reasonable order. I think people had a very strong sense that it was their responsibility to ensure their children didn't disrupt other people's affairs. However, in the last few years it seems to me that people are more focused on their right to be in a particular place, irrespective of how it might impact on others.

Perhaps the focus on one's rights doesn't make for people making good neighbours. This meshes with my experience of Americans being the most individualistic English speaking people.

I'm looking at more the nature of the complainers than the disruptors. I mean how prissy does one have to be to expect the entire world to comply to their sense of peace and order?

Isn't this just a different kind of people claiming their rights?? "I want to be able to eat in peace" well how about you sit your ass down at home then? Oh but they'd never think of that!

It's no different to expect somebody else to leave, like you own the place or something. That's still individual rights in the guise of common courtesy.

 

[Lark]

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.

Well sometimes doing something right away isnt the best idea, they may have been using some planned ignoring, I dont know because I wasnt there but I think there's a difference between some sort of strategy and thought out response to challenging behaviour which might appear like "doing nothing" and parents who're too easily over taxed or ill fitted for parenting or who're part of the great and good "cant cope, wont cope".

 

[sprinkles]

Also I hate it when people are too quiet and you hear every cough and mutter and all the mouth breathing and lip smacking and utensils clanking against plates. It's disgusting and irritating to me.

Does that give me the right to go up to somebody and say "Please stop breathing out of your mouth, it's really gross and I'm trying to eat here"? I think not.

A lot of people annoy me. Most people I know do something that really aggravates me. But I tolerate it because if I kept pointing it out everywhere it would take over my entire life and I'd be doing nothing but complaining about people.

If it takes a loud kid in a restaurant to annoy you, then just be lucky that you aren't me.

 

[Sriracha]

Disruptive children (and autistic) do not bother me. Part of parenting is exposing your kids to social settings where they are expected to behave appropriately. I don't think I have ever encountered a situation where the child was behaving horribly and the parent was not trying to do something about it (at least not that I can remember.)

 

[invisible]

Isn't it selfish to push your problems on other people in public, though?

Look, I get it with handicapped people and children. I hate when people are upset at other people who can't help it. But in most cases I have no sympathy for people who didn't think about the consequences of their actions.

they arent pushing their problems on other people. the experience of their problems is clearly unimaginably worse than what any spoiled whining pig would have to endure by listening to a bit of noise in a restaurant. what these people with problems are in fact doing is participating in society to the best of their ability. the idea that they are pushing their problems on people by simply claiming a public existence is totally warped. they have as much of a right to leave their houses and participate in public society as anyone else does. if people want to shut themselves away from any faintest reminder of the problems that other people experience in this world, they have a perfect right to do that in the privacy of their own homes. they have no right to expect others to shut themselves away in order that public life should exist only for the convenience of perfect people. that is not only cruel heartless, its megalomania. these people are subhuman and they are wreckers of free and open society.

 

[Lark]

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?

What about autistic adults? What about OCD adults?

Remember that movie As Good As It Gets? I read a great news article after that by someone who said it managed to make it look awesome to be someone like Nicholson's character, maybe like what Forrest Gump managed to do for learning disability, when in reality its more likely to be a merry hell for the sufferer and their family.

 

[Lark]

its people who refuse to be considerate of what other people might be going through in life who have shitty, unrefined manners, not people who cant help making a little noise.

Its all to easy to engage in a bit of "underdoggery" or shame people for not having a social conscience when this sort of issue or story comes up, its also a bit cliche and oversimplified in my opinion, we're not living that much of a mean and selfish society that people are totally unsympathetic to others but I think they're just tired, increasingly so since the jury is in and the evidence is plainer now than ever, that there's people taking advantage of that natural sympathy to excuse the fact they dont give a fuck. There's an entire industry built up on that mentality too.

There's another forum I visited at a time and they'd got such an attack on for so called "judgementalism" that they even had demonised the Judging cognitive function set (particularly in conjunction with sensing, which sort of created problems for them when STJ was judged by so many in the media to be Sherlock Holmes type). I think its alright to be judgemental, I think there should be much more of it, its very possible to be sympathetic and supportive but still remain judgemental.

Its maybe just working as a social worker but for most of my life before I even was a social worker I thought there should be a lot less shrinking from the realpolitik of any situation, facing up to it, seeing it for what it is, no denying it, no deflecting from it, no distractions, minimisation, trivialisation, shirking etc. but equally no stopping at or finishing with some kind of "put down", instead see things as they really are and make a change if they're shite.

 

[Lark]

Disruptive children (and autistic) do not bother me. Part of parenting is exposing your kids to social settings where they are expected to behave appropriately. I don't think I have ever encountered a situation where the child was behaving horribly and the parent was not trying to do something about it (at least not that I can remember.)

I like to hear that, it means that things are better than here or better than in my experience.

I've seen lots of parents who dont give a shite. They get angry when anyone draws attention to it and I think in part its because they know it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm looking at more the nature of the complainers than the disruptors. I mean how prissy does one have to be to expect the entire world to comply to their sense of peace and order? Isn't this just a different kind of people claiming their rights?? "I want to be able to eat in peace" well how about you sit your ass down at home then? Oh but they'd never think of that! It's no different to expect somebody else to leave, like you own the place or something. That's still individual rights in the guise of common courtesy.

I see what you mean about the claim to rights being equally applicable to those who want a quiet meal. However, the experience of my youth and early adult years here in Australia was not that people expected to have quiet areas/times in social situations (ie. it wasn't a sense of entitlement), but rather, people had a sense of their responsibility to observe the appropriate decorum in certain situations. When people would break with decorum - like someone talking loudly in the library - you would not have self-appointed silence police shushing them; rather people would feel ill at ease, or embarrassed for the noisy person and move away. On the more severe end of things, people would shun, or avoid irresponsible people/families altogether. I don't know if the responsibility/duty system is superior than the rights system; but it certainly was more effective in terms of avoiding conflict - and it kind of promoted a conscientious sense of trying to be a good neighbour to others. You still get this kind of thing here, but it's mostly in the over 30's.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I have a really bubbly, active(normal) three year old. She loves dancing wherever there's music playing and squiggles and squirms and climbs shit and jumps up and down and goes in circles. I try to get her to "behave" in public as much as I can reasonably expect, but without being an overly controlling parent there isn't much I can do except encourage good behavior and respect for others. In time she'll come to understand. She will learn. People's reactions to her vary. Some find her funny, cute, and adorable. She's super social too, so that helps her. Others have that accusatory look toward my wife and I. Those people are extremely hard to please and because of this I really don't care what they think. They're in public with the rest of us and will have to be accommodating to other personalities as well.

 

[invisible]

Its all to easy to engage in a bit of "underdoggery" or shame people for not having a social conscience when this sort of issue or story comes up, its also a bit cliche and oversimplified in my opinion, we're not living that much of a mean and selfish society that people are totally unsympathetic to others but I think they're just tired, increasingly so since the jury is in and the evidence is plainer now than ever, that there's people taking advantage of that natural sympathy to excuse the fact they dont give a fuck. There's an entire industry built up on that mentality too.

There's another forum I visited at a time and they'd got such an attack on for so called "judgementalism" that they even had demonised the Judging cognitive function set (particularly in conjunction with sensing, which sort of created problems for them when STJ was judged by so many in the media to be Sherlock Holmes type). I think its alright to be judgemental, I think there should be much more of it, its very possible to be sympathetic and supportive but still remain judgemental.

Its maybe just working as a social worker but for most of my life before I even was a social worker I thought there should be a lot less shrinking from the realpolitik of any situation, facing up to it, seeing it for what it is, no denying it, no deflecting from it, no distractions, minimisation, trivialisation, shirking etc. but equally no stopping at or finishing with some kind of "put down", instead see things as they really are and make a change if they're shite.

im sorry but i dont think what you wrote has anything to do with the reality of the situation presented in the OP.

 

[invisible]

i dont care if theyre tired. they arent as tired as the person they are picking on and telling to shut themselves away. they should be grateful for what they have.

 

[the]

i dont care if theyre tired. they arent as tired as the person they are picking on and telling to shut themselves away. they should be grateful for what they have.

How do you know this, and why do you care about some and not others?

 

[La Sagna]

There is a movie called 'Music Within' from 2007 about a man named Richard Pimental who was pivotal in passing the Americans with Disability Act, which protects against discriminatory hiring practices for individuals with a disability.

In the movie Richard becomes friends with Art who has severe Cerebral Palsy. Art would like to go to a Pancake House for his birthday. Below is a description of what happened and a link to a small clip of the movie. I didn't find the whole clip.

It’s after college that a pivotal event takes place. Art calls Richard to take him to an almost-completely inaccessible pancake house at 3 a.m. As they make their way through the tables, both men can feel the stares from diners and employees at the restaurant.
After they find a table, a waitress tells Art and Richard, “My manager told me that we can’t serve you.”
Richard asks, quizzically, “You can’t serve pancakes?”
The waitress replies: “I think you two need to leave; you’re making the other customers very uncomfortable.”
Richard said, “Oh, why?”
“Hey, we can refuse to serve whomever we want to here,” the waitress replied.
Richard incredulously said, “You’ve got to be kidding me. It’s my friend’s birthday and all he wants is pancakes.”
After Art makes a sarcastic comment about wanting to take the waitress out for a date, the conversation takes a cruel turn.
“You are the ugliest most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen,” she tells the men. “I thought people like you died at birth. How do you expect people around here to eat? People shouldn’t even have to look at you.”
Then, the waitress threatens to call the police. Eventually, both Richard and Art were arrested under a group of provisions called “ugly laws” which made it illegal for people who were deformed or maimed to appear in public.

http://www.traileraddict.com/music-within/richard-pancake-house

If you are lucky enough to not have a disability or a loved one with a disability you should not feel that you need to be shielded from those people who don't fit into your category of what is appropriate for you to have to witness in case it might disturb your perfect little world and your perfect little dinner.

I would rather have dinner with a group of autistic kids or a group of little kids who might act out than with a bunch of sanctimonious people who think they have a right to dictate which 'other people' are 'allowed' to have the same rights as they do.

In the case of the letter writer I will excuse her for being in a self-centred mood since she was dealing with her mother dying but she does not know what is going on in the life of the woman who is out to dinner with her autistic son. Perhaps this woman had to come into town to deal with something important and didn't have somebody to look after her son (people who have autistic kids can also have dying parents, or can get cancer or have to deal with legal matters...any difficult situation that 'normal' people deal with but with the extra burden of being responsible for somebody who needs more help than the average kid). Perhaps it's a long drive home and they need to eat before getting home. Should they eat their dinner in the car just in case they might bother other people? What if they came by bus, should they eat on the bench in the park? oh but they could bother somebody there as well. What if it's winter where should they eat then? What if eating at McDonalds with all the little kids 'acting up' causes this young man to act up but quiet restaurants are usually ok? What if the young man acted up because one of the 'sanctimonious people who don't think he should be there gave him a look that upset him?

This woman and her son had as much right to eat in that restaurant as the letter writer did.