(This is the Tantrum, in which Dadwagon’s writers debate one question over the course of a week. For previous Tantrums, click here.)
Bloomberg News recently ran an article on what sort of accommodations New York’s fanciest restaurants make for children. What was discovered was outrageous and a threat to Western Civilization as we know it.
Think I’m exaggerating? Consider this: “not one of 24 of the city’s top restaurants…has a special children’s menu. Less than half of them offer high chairs.”
Oh my god!
The article then goes on to give a brief run-down of the actual kid’s policies at some of New York’s flagship dining establishments:
- Daniel allows kids but has no high chairs and no kid’s menu.
- The Spotted Pig likes children. Full stop. But that’s just their labor policy.
- Aldea has no kid policy, because kids, they state, are “human beings” (clearly they have no kids; kids are not human beings; they are wild animals with portable DVD players).
- Craft has high chairs but no kid’s menu.
- Masa allows kids older than eight but they get the same sushi as everyone else–and they pay the same $400.
- Le Bernardin says no kids under 12 (and they do it with a snooty French accent).
- Eleven Madison Park doesn’t outlaw kids outright, but they do point out that dinner takes two to three hours and doesn’t include pizza.
At the risk of being a hypocrite, I don’t think kids under, say, 30, should be taken to any of these places. I know, I know, Dadwagon’s unofficial policy is that all children are welcome in all establishments at all times, particularly if they sell alcohol, and definitely if there are strippers involved. This is who we are. Perhaps we will pay for it one day, perhaps not.
But the article provoked a Tantrum-worthy thought. This was not whether these restaurants should do what it takes to keep the crotchfruit happy while we devour comestibles organic, locally-sourced, and delicately plated. No, what I wanted to confront was whether it was right to bring those kids to these places at all.
I’m going to be in the no camp, for a variety of reasons.
First, in my specific case, fancy food is lost on JP. Second, any meal in which he has to remain seated for longer than fifteen minutes is fourteen minutes too long. Third, why would I pay good money for food that he is mostly going to be wearing? Fourth, if I go to a good restaurant I want to be able to enjoy it—this won’t happen if my child is there, at least not at this age.
Yes, yes, I know it’s a good thing to expose children to all kinds of new experiences; and yes, when will he ever learn to behave if I don’t teach him; and no, I know there’s no real difference in foisting him onto people in a restaurant than a bar; blah, blah, blah.
Listen carefully:
- Bar: fun for me; limited to no impact on child; who cares what anyone else thinks?
- Restaurant: no fun for me; limited to no benefit for child; expensive; who cares what anyone else thinks?
Curious to see what my colleagues have to say on the matter, and please, Dadwagon readers, let us know how you feel.
Though my experience in the NYC restaurant world is limited, I actually took our one-year-old to Craft. It was that or don’t go, and I really wanted to go. So I was happy that the staff was happy to see us, even if other diners shot us dirty looks. And I was happy they had a child seat.
That said, I would never expect special food, and I spent more than half the meal outside with the baby because it was Craft, and you do not let the baby scream in a place like that.
So, I guess I say, they should be ready for the odd kid but not be expected to cater to them.
Nathan–but the real question is did you have a good time? Would you do it again?–Theodore
I agree. Has to be fun for me and the kid. If it is, who cares what anyone else thinks? That said, our corner brewery is a very, very far cry from the restaurants mentioned.
Our rule is if there is no crayons, no crotchfruits. We enjoy fine dining when we have a sitter. It would ruin the experience of a four star restaurant if I was worried about where I could change a dirty diaper. They probably wouldn’t even have mac n’ cheese anyway.
On a trip to NYC with our then 3 yo, We went to Mesa Grill at the earliest seating possible. They had a high-chair and were very accommodating, but no special meals for children. That was fine for us, and about as high-end as we could go on the trip.
I agree, certain restaurants are no place for children. By all means, teach children how to behave in public and put those lessons into practice, but a leisurely fine-dining meal is a bit much to expect from wee lad or lass.
I recently saw a tweet from a childless foodie decrying “kid food” and presumably the horrible parents that rely on it. Lady, I’m just as disgusted by the shit my kid throws down his gullet as you are. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, the kid likes crap. I can’t spend all my time cultivating his appreciation of cheese like Neal Pollack.
Bizarro–“No crayons, no crotchfruit. Words to live by, indeed. –Theodore.
Scott–I agree. I wish my son ate a wider array of stuff. At the very least, it would make it easier to cook, knowing he’d eat the same foods that I’m having. Fact is, to date that ain’t happening. Neal Pollack is a twit…and I’m being nice here. –Theodore.
Last year in June I was 8 months pregnant in Paris at Ladurée watching a 6 month old sit in a beautiful highchair and happily eat a selection from his parent’s plate. There was also a table with four kids between 5-9 nearby, and all of those kids ate off the menu without difficulty: it looked like Dad ordered for them.
A few years previously I saw two small children (I’d estimate 6 and 8) at Les Bouquinistes (a Guy Savoy restaurant in Paris) for the 9 o’oclock service.
All these kids were perfectly well behaved.
My 7 month old’s current favorite food is hummus and the way to bribe her into eating carrots is to add pepper and garlic. I suspect that by the time she is 6 she would also appreciate Les Bouquinistes. Of course this may have something to do with her father being a chef.
I guess my point is that while your kid may not enjoy fine food or be able to sit through a meal without crayons, there may be some children who do and can. They may all be French of course.
Grr … that smilely face was not intended, the paragraph should read:
A few years previously I saw two small children (I’d estimate 6 and 8 )at Les Bouquinistes (a Guy Savoy restaurant in Paris) for the 9 o’oclock service.
Enchridion–fair enough, and I suppose if my kid displayed such angelic behavior I would–after first checking to make sure I had the right boy with me–make my reservations for Per Se. That doesn’t reckon with the expense, though, and these places don’t come cheap. This might be one of the few instances where a babysitter does make economic sense. At a bar with my child, I’m not there that long and I don’t drink that much. The babysitter is likely to cost more than the outing. Not so at the restaurant. I suppose we’ll have to check back with you in a few years. Word of caution: at seven months, JP ate just about everything. Around 2, things went dramatically the other way. –Theodore.
As much as I adore the line “no crayons, no crotchfruit” – as a recovering longtime restaurant employee, it doesn’t matter how nice/expensive the establishment is: if your kids can’t keep their ass in the seat for the duration of the meal they shouldn’t be there. I don’t care if it’s McDonalds or the fancy food establishment du jour. Why would anyone want to waste money on an eating experience no one was enjoying? In my opinion, that is why God invented take-out, bedtimes and babysitters.
It also seems evident that well behaved kids should be allowed anywhere, bars or bistros, that their parents wish to take them. I don’t think most kids can possibly actually appreciate a $400 meal any more than a Happy Meal but hey, it’s your money.
When they are toddlers like mine It really is not for them but you, and it is really not worth it to you. You just can’t enjoy yourself, esp given what you would have to spend.
When we had only one child under the age of two, we definitely were more adventurous as to where we dined out. At that age and only one child it was easy to be a great parent. They eat what you put in front of them and are easily entertained. Now that I have three kids under the age of five, parenting is a juggling act. My kids are well behaved in restaurants. That behavior is a result of my constant attention. On the handful of times they’ve acted up, we removed them from the restaurant.
Teaching my children how to properly behave does not make it an enjoyable and relaxed dining experience for me. If I’m going to a highly rated restaurant in NYC, it’s for my enjoyment.
This decision is a factor of the environment of the restaurant/bar. If more than one table of people will be inordinately bothered if your child has a minor freakout session or makes an inevitable mess on the floor/table, then I wouldn’t do it.
Non-smoking bars that don’t have music blaring too loudly are actually great places to eat w/ a kiddo. They’re more fun for everyone, no one there cares who else is there, it’s loud enough to mask kid noises, and just messy enough to mask inevitable kid messes.
My wife and I just aren’t adventurous enough to deal with taking the baby to a restaurant with us. It wouldn’t be fun for us so it’s not really worth the energy.
Heh, Theodore, she may well become fussy. My comparison class is children who would never eat anything with any flavour from day one, so we are being hopeful. One small bright spot is that she will not eat anything. Baby cereal for example has been spat out consistently, as has anything bland. But it is really early days you are right.
Eating out at reasonably nice restaurants is a major aspect of our extended family life, and the adult to child ratio is often three to one. That makes for a much different experience. Still I imagine there will be a big stretch of time between age one and five where we will choose destinations with care.
I think the biggest problem parents have taking their kids out to restaurants is that they forget to include them. They don’t change the way they eat their meal. If you go in with the same expectations as if you were dining without them, it’s going to be a complete failure. If you want to go on a date, hire a sitter.
But if you tailor the experience to their attention span and age level, it’s fun. Taking a child to a three hour dinner is stupid and unfair. Taking a child only to fast food restaurants is also unfair – they are missing one the best things about living in a great eating city! But there are a lot of places in the middle that are more than appropriate for little diners.
No argument here, Candace. Curious, though–what do you mean by include them? Most of the time in restaurants with my son, I’m so busy trying to keep him calm and get him to eat that I don’t have the opportunity to think about involving him. –Theodore
My kid goes to bed pretty early, it would be embarrassing to be in even a relatively family-friendly restaurant at *his* dinner hour.
Accidents–I think you’ve hit on the perfect solution–bring the kid while he/she’s asleep! –Theodore.
What I mean by “including them” is making them a part of dinner. I have a very active 14 month old boy. He is NOT a sit and be quiet kind of kid. Ex: When my mom’s group meets at the park, all the other moms are watching their kid contained in the sandbox- I’m the crazy woman chasing her son as he goes from swings to see-saw etc…
He’s like that though because, everything fascinates him. What I’ve found with dining out is that I had to totally change my perception of a meal. For a while, I still had in the back of my mind a peaceful glass of wine and chatter with my husband. So even though I knew that wasn’t going to happen I would find myself getting frustrated with entertaining my little guy and he would feel my frustration and mirror it back to me. (The way his babbling turns to yells in the backseat when I react to someone cutting me off – it all seems to escalate) So instead of trying to “keep him calm” or get him to adjust to my pace, I engage with him non-stop. I talk to him throughout the entire meal, I point out things in the restaurant, we play games with the ice. I give him limes to suck on (weird I know, but he likes it and I only give it to him when we’re out). I make a big deal out of his food. Actually, I think it’s easier to enjoy a meal with my son when it’s just the two of us. Then he doesn’t get pissed that I’m talking to someone else. And of course, we eat fast and we don’t linger at the table. I wrote a post on my blog if you want to check out my other ramblings on restaurant rules. I reserve the right to that this all back as my son gets older and likely more, um, “energetic.” 🙂
http://mamaundercover.com/2010/03/11/the-rules/
Pingback: Michael Jackson Porn Video | DADWAGON
Pingback: A Week on the Wagon | DADWAGON
Pingback: The Tantrum: Should You Bring Your Kids to Fancy Restaurants? Part IV | DADWAGON