Warning: Proximity to me causes adventures. ([info]karnythia) wrote in [info]cf_debate,
@ 2007-07-23 15:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Public's responsibility to kids
This is sparked by a post elsewhere. Someone goes to a popular chain restaurant on a Sunday afternoon wearing an outfit that displays their NSFW tattoo of a naked woman. By their own account the tattoo is suggestive (though not overtly sexual) and due to seating arrangements they wound up with their body art facing a family with children. They were seated close enough that they could hear the parents discussing the body art and asking the waiter to move the family to a different table. When the waiter informed the parents that no other tables were available the parents asked the waiter to help them rearrange things so that the kids were not facing the body art. It does not not seem the parents were overly loud, and at no point did they ask that the other party be made to cover up or move. Were the parents rude? Overly entitled? Or simply trying to ensure that their dining experience was a comfortable one?



(Post a new comment)


[info]kikayume
2007-07-23 08:18 pm UTC (link)
I don't know that they were overly rude, but I think they'd be better served to teach their kids how to deal with things they deem inappropriate rather than just turning their heads from it. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karnythia
2007-07-23 08:19 pm UTC (link)
What other way is there to deal with something as personal as body art?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kikayume, 2007-07-23 08:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]femmefrets, 2007-07-23 08:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]luna_hoshino, 2007-07-24 07:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kikayume, 2007-07-23 09:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ehartsay, 2007-08-07 09:38 pm UTC

[info]curlyjo1
2007-07-23 08:37 pm UTC (link)
It might also depend on the age of the kids. The kids may be too young to properly explain it to them at this time, so the parents deal as best they can. Hard to say without knowing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 08:58 pm UTC

[info]scorpi084
2007-07-24 07:45 pm UTC (link)
Isn't turning your head "dealing with it" though?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kikayume, 2007-07-24 07:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-24 07:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kikayume, 2007-07-24 07:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-24 08:01 pm UTC

[info]curlyjo1
2007-07-23 08:34 pm UTC (link)
I think that sounds perfectly reasonable. It wasn't as if they were loudly going on about "That awful person with that filthy tattoo!!" or asking the waiter to kick the tattooed person out. They simply didn't want their kids to see the tattoo.

(Reply to this)

tattoo woes
[info]wight1984
2007-07-23 08:53 pm UTC (link)
Doesn't sound to bad, although I don't really approve of 'shielding' children from life. Seeing that tattoo wasn't going to turn them into dysfunctional deviants.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: tattoo woes
[info]karnythia
2007-07-23 08:56 pm UTC (link)
I don't see it as being any different from a number of other parenting choices. Might not be what you (in the general sense) would do, but that doesn't make it automatically wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:00 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:04 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:07 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:08 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:11 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:12 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:15 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:16 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]claudiag, 2007-07-23 08:57 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:00 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:02 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:05 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:08 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:10 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:11 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:13 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:15 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]claudiag, 2007-07-23 09:05 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:09 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]claudiag, 2007-07-23 09:13 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:14 pm UTC
Re: tattoo woes - [info]kyra, 2007-07-24 07:47 pm UTC

[info]clairespawprint
2007-07-23 08:56 pm UTC (link)
I think if they want their kids that sheltered, they should take them out of the restaurant. A simple instruction not to stare or an explanation of how some people have different tastes and different standards, etc would be a better idea than asking to be moved, etc.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karnythia
2007-07-23 08:57 pm UTC (link)
Why? Just as the poster had a right to their art, the family has a right not to look at it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:02 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:04 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:07 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:17 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:31 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:33 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:38 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:44 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 09:52 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:56 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 10:12 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 10:14 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 10:18 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 10:19 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 10:21 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 10:23 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 10:29 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 10:32 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 10:41 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-23 10:20 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 10:20 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 10:24 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-23 10:26 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 10:30 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-23 10:58 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 11:05 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-23 11:17 pm UTC
1) Definitions - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 11:37 pm UTC
Re: 1) Definitions - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-24 12:36 am UTC
Re: 1) Definitions - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-24 12:41 am UTC
Re: 1) Definitions - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-24 08:35 pm UTC
Re: 1) Definitions - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-24 08:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 03:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 03:48 pm UTC
LJ moved it around... - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 04:39 pm UTC
2) Politics - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-23 11:38 pm UTC
Re: 2) Politics - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-24 12:41 am UTC
Re: 2) Politics - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-24 12:43 am UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]ehartsay, 2007-08-07 10:17 pm UTC
Re: I disagree - [info]wight1984, 2007-08-07 10:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]clairespawprint, 2007-07-23 09:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]firiels_cat, 2007-07-26 02:11 pm UTC

[info]june15
2007-07-23 09:10 pm UTC (link)
The parents making a deal about the tattoo sound like my father. One time he stalked a female employee in AE because she had a tattoo on her lower back, it was embarassing.

But anyways......I am not sure how to answer that question, but if the parents make a big deal about it, their children would be more "tempted" to look at the tattoo. I know I'd be when someone makes a big deal and tell me not to look at whatever that person is making a big deal about, and I also was the kid in that situation many time a long time ago.

I'd say that the parents were overly dramatic about the tattoo thing. I know I strongly dislike body modifications, but I don't care if the others want to have them.

It depends on how they worded their words while they asked the waiter to put them in a different table because if they were like: "You know what? Those stupid people with tattoos are distracting me and my children, and they are disgusting because they have tattoos! I demand my family to be placed at a different table!" Then I'd classify them as rude; however, if they word it in a nice way, then I don't call them rude.

As for being overly entitled? I am not sure, I'd have to be there to see it before I could say that.

(Reply to this)


[info]cottonmanifesto
2007-07-23 09:15 pm UTC (link)
i dunno, that's silly.

what if they were riding the bus and there was a middle aged woman with a bodice ripper type book across the aisle from them and it was a packed bus?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karnythia
2007-07-23 09:18 pm UTC (link)
Big difference between a low cut top and full nudity in a suggestive position.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cottonmanifesto, 2007-07-23 09:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cottonmanifesto, 2007-07-23 09:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cottonmanifesto, 2007-07-23 09:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cottonmanifesto, 2007-07-23 09:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 09:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cottonmanifesto, 2007-07-23 11:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lump_of_clay, 2007-07-24 09:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-24 12:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faecat, 2007-07-24 03:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-24 04:50 pm UTC

[info]hipmama979
2007-07-23 09:16 pm UTC (link)
To each his own. The family wasn't being rude about it. Depending on the age of the kids perhaps that wasn't a topic that they really cared to discuss with the kids.
My husband has full sleeves on both arms and I have a full back piece and chest piece and we aware that not all places are really appropriate to show our tattoos.

(Reply to this)


[info]scorpi084
2007-07-23 10:30 pm UTC (link)
Were the parents rude? Overly entitled?

Not really either. I find it to be ridiculous to be all OMG NAKED, myself, but they didn't say anything to her, and unless they were speaking loudly in that way people do when they're trying to passive-aggressively shame you, it's really not their fault the OP has good ears.

Or simply trying to ensure that their dining experience was a comfortable one?

It's more than that, but to each his own.

I'm still trying to visualize how everyone was seated so that anyone could see the tattoo SO WELL that it was a problem in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karnythia
2007-07-23 10:33 pm UTC (link)
I'm guessing they were at two small tables put together, and depending upon the way the OP's table was oriented their view could easily have been solely of her back or a wall.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-23 10:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-23 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-23 11:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-24 12:51 pm UTC

[info]neonprincess
2007-07-23 10:58 pm UTC (link)
I think the parents were just trying to have a comfortable dining experience. They didn't kick up a stink. They didn't ask the OP to be removed. The parents didn't believe it appropriate for their kids to see that type of image, and that's thier right. But they also recognised the right of the OP to have that image on their body, and to not have to cover up and hide it from others. I don't see a problem with the parents' behaviour.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ehartsay
2007-08-07 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Exactly

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]almostwhitemeat
2007-07-23 11:16 pm UTC (link)
I don't think the parents were rude or overly entitled. This is coming from someone who is quite heavily tattooed also. I've had people say lots of rude things to me even though my tattoos are not offensive at all, but I've never got my feelings hurt or felt opressed just because someone didn't want to look at them or me!

(Reply to this)


[info]saucydiva
2007-07-24 05:26 am UTC (link)
Assuming the story relayed was accurate, the parents don't sound too rude, but maybe a little paranoid. It doesn't sound as if the kids cared at all.

I think it boils down to how much you believe that tattoos are art (and by extention, what art is). I don't know what the tattoo in question looked like, but nudity can be found all over art museums, and kids go there for field trips. Maybe the parents didn't want to have the discussion then, but it will come up eventually.

I am a nudist at heart, though, so I think the whole thing is silly.

(Reply to this)


[info]fireez
2007-07-24 06:41 am UTC (link)
I don't think they were rude or overly entitled. That would've only been the case had they loudly talked about how omg offensive that tattoo was, and demanded that either they be seated somewhere else or the tattooed guy get thrown out.

Had I been in the same situation, I would've just not mentioned the tat to my kids, and if they did ask about it, I would've explained that some people think of tattoos like that as art, just like the paintings of naked men and women in museums. Case closed. I think it's counterproductive to make a big deal out of nudity. But then, I come from Europe, where that kind of attitude is prevalent ;).

(Reply to this)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-24 08:55 am UTC (link)
Were the parents rude?

No ruder than the CF person asking to be seated at another location because the family next to them has loud/rambunctious kids. As long as it was done quietly and without fanfare, I cannot see how it could possibly be construed as rude.

Overly entitled?

While I'll second the WTF on why it wasn't possible to play musical chairs, I'd say no, not really. Whether I think the attitude is a bit silly has nothing to do with how they want to raise their kids. They have the right to shelter them however they wish, whatever anyone else may think of their methods.

And, thinking about it, as you've said that reasoning would only work well with one of the children, asking for help may well have just been for the musical chairs. If they had to rearrange highchairs and/or booster seats, a helping hand so as not to inconvenience other diners and/or waitstaff unduly sounds reasonable to me.

Simply trying to ensure that their dining experience was a comfortable one?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Seriously, they have the right not to look and to do their best not to expose their children to influences they don't find appropriate. As long as they're not putting people to excessive trouble I think they've got the right to do it. It sounds from your description that they were actually quite polite about the whole thing. They weren't asking the world to conform to their views, merely to be allowed to filter it a bit for the benefit of their kids... 10-to-1 if they'd been without their kids they would simply have faced away on their own without bothering anyone.

Whatever I may think of their attempt to whitewash reality, it actually sounds like a fairly classy way to try and do it, given the description provided.

And face it, whatever I may think of the beliefs of other people (silly, dangerous, idiotic, or OMG!Perfect!) everyone has the right to eat out once in a while if they want to and the right to ask for small things that will make the experience enjoyable to them. I may believe that some venues are grossly inappropriate for small children, or children with behavioral issues, but hell, I think there are venues that aren't appropriate for adults (with or without behavioral issues).

(Reply to this)


[info]gwenhyffar
2007-07-24 09:54 am UTC (link)
From what I've read, they tried to move, couldn't, so did the next best thing. Not rude, just accommodating everyone.

(Reply to this)


[info]griza
2007-07-24 12:31 pm UTC (link)
If they were that civil about it then fine but it's just a bit silly and stupid really in my opinion. You are probably going to be darn busy all the time if you want to keeo the little precious away from something like that when you enter the real world*shrugs*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karnythia
2007-07-24 12:49 pm UTC (link)
Or you just don't want them looking at something verging on sexually explicit over lunch. It's no different to me, than the practice of covering nude pics on the cover of magazines like Playboy with that little plastic wrapper.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]griza, 2007-07-24 01:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-24 01:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]griza, 2007-07-24 01:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-24 01:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]griza, 2007-07-24 01:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]karnythia, 2007-07-24 01:44 pm UTC

[info]firiels_cat
2007-07-24 02:12 pm UTC (link)
If I found myself at a place where my kids were looking at a suggestive picture of a naked woman that I deemed inapporpriate, I would leave. I would not be rude or make a fuss, but I would have left if the waiter could not find another place for my family. Parents have the right to decide when, where and how their kids will be exposed to certain things. There is a point where my right to self expression conflicts with the rights of others to have a reasonably enjoyable experience at a restaurant. If it were a biker bar or something, that would be different. I would expect such tattoos there and would not go and certainly not let my kids go there. (Not that all bikers are crude or whatever, just that such tattoos would not be out of place.) But a restaurant that caters to families is different.

Look, some restaurants and places of business have dress codes. Some places don't allow kids. Show off your body art in a non-kid place. I actually would have had no problem with the manager of the place lending the tattooed patron a sweater. Just as I would have no problem with a manager asking a rowdy group to quiet down (regardless of the ages of the patrons.)

(Reply to this)


[info]visionari
2007-07-24 02:55 pm UTC (link)
I'm not seeing a problem here. The parents didn't confront the tattooed individual, didn't ask that s/he cover the offensive tat, didn't demand that the server move or eject him/her from the restaurant. They simply... disapproved and wanted to be seated away from the tattoo in question.

It amazes me how few people understand that rights work both ways. The tattooed individual has a right to his/her body art, the people who are offended by said body art have the right to change their own situation in such a way that they don't have to look at it.

True, nobody has the right to not be offended in public; that does not negate their right to be offended.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]frawggy
2007-07-24 07:05 pm UTC (link)
And here I thought I had to come up with my own comment. Summed up my feelings perfectly. The only thing I can add is the number of people that feel the need to comment on how "prudish" the other family is being. Society trains our children to be obsessed with nudity. I can understand not wanting to hear all about that tattoo during dinner. I can also understand not wanting to see my kids stare at it all night like it was the Second Coming of Christ, as I have seen kids do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Sorry, had to trim up some of your parts so LJ would let me post
[info]scorpi084
2007-07-25 04:32 pm UTC (link)
And of course they can be... In the case of sexism against men, it's not even reactionary... we live in a sexist culture that cuts both ways (naturally, women are wounded the most).

I'm not going to buy into all that prejudice + power = ism rubbish if that's what you're thinking. Not only do I think it's intellectually dishonest about what the word 'racism' actually means in the English language, I think it's ...counter-productive politically.


I don't believe you can have racism, sexism, or classism without a bit of power to back it up. Without the power, you've just got a prejudice (which is problematic, but nowhere near the problem that racism or sexism cause).

What about it is intellectually dishonest? Words have very fluid meanings, and we change them all the time. As there is already a word for hating someone because they have X trait, I don't see what the problem is in having a word that expresses the connotations of that hate being backed up by the power to do something, politically, about it.

People don't like it when words are co-opted to stop legitimate problems being an issue. Whilst the odd non-white person being racist against white people, perhaps to the point of violence, is not a major issue for society at large (and may largely be caused as a reaction to more mainstream racism anyway), it's certainly not a non-issue for the victims, and trying to strip away the term 'racism' from the issue will not impress people.

What words are being co-opted to stop a legitimate issue? I'm not trying to pretend that black people never assault white people, or that women never assult men, or that poor people never assault rich ones. We all know they have, do, and will continue to, so that would just be stupid. Assigning a word to a specific set of circumstances (the circumstances that most people, I believe, typically think of when hearing the word) is not co-opting the word. I would argue, actually, that white people are the ones co-opting racism when we like to complain about how horrible it is that minorities get affirmative action, and how that's so racist.

It most definitely is a problem when people feel they're entitled to work out their rage on someone else's person, and we should work to put a stop to that. But it's not racism. A problem that a privilege person has does (and should) not have to be called an -ism for it to be taken care of.

I'm not trying to impress people, especially not people who have privilege and want to use a word that is widely considered to apply to things like lynchings and cross-burnings, to describe the downsides (people not liking them, to varying degrees) of their privilege.

Plus it tends to give people an intellectual sound argument to there being double-standards in society.

There ARE double standards in society. Denying that is just silly. Double standards are not something that will be corrected by taking words that have meaning to the oppressed in society and applying them to people who have a hand in doing the oppressing.

I'm always trying to convince people that the idea that minorities are now being treated better than the majority is false, which is true, but one of the sticking points is that 'racism contains double-standards'.

People make stupid, untrue arguments all the time. Whether they're looking at things in a simplistic manner or not, people who want to complain about how good minorities have it will just MAKE IT UP if there is nowhere for them to point to. It is not intellectually honest or sound to claim that people who have been oppressed for millenia - and who are still feeling the burden of that oppression to this day - have it better than people who have been treated pretty damn well by their societies. So no, it doesn't give them an intellectually sound argument. It gives them a stupid and simplistic argument.

What does you talking about middle and lower class culture have anything to do with "showing" how poor people hate rich people, too? That's what I'm asking. Perhaps I'm missing something from your anecdote that you could fill me in on, because I didn't see any mention of "poor people hate rich people" until I asked for clarification.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]scorpi084
2007-07-25 04:35 pm UTC (link)
WTF LJ. This belongs further up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

racism = prejudice + power - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 06:05 pm UTC
Re: racism = prejudice + power - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 06:21 pm UTC
Re: racism = prejudice + power - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 06:38 pm UTC
Re: racism = prejudice + power - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 06:52 pm UTC
Re: racism = prejudice + power - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 07:08 pm UTC
co-opting words - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 06:07 pm UTC
Re: co-opting words - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 06:31 pm UTC
Re: co-opting words - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 06:46 pm UTC
Backing up assertions is fun! - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 07:00 pm UTC
Re: Backing up assertions is fun! - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 07:14 pm UTC
Priviledge - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 06:08 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 06:39 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 06:50 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 07:08 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]luna_hoshino, 2007-07-25 07:05 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 07:16 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]luna_hoshino, 2007-07-25 07:38 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 07:47 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]luna_hoshino, 2007-07-25 08:25 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 08:56 pm UTC
Re: Priviledge - [info]luna_hoshino, 2007-07-25 11:38 pm UTC
Dealing with the casual racist - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 06:08 pm UTC
Re: Dealing with the casual racist - [info]scorpi084, 2007-07-25 06:45 pm UTC
Re: Dealing with the casual racist - [info]wight1984, 2007-07-25 07:01 pm UTC

[info]snatchbeast
2007-07-25 07:47 pm UTC (link)
Changing the seating arrangements would be far too difficult. Why move the children, or even talk to the bearer of the offensive tattoo, when you can be a passive aggressive asshole and complain to the waiter?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karnythia
2007-07-25 07:58 pm UTC (link)
How was that passive aggressive or assholish? They asked the waiter to move them all (presumably they didn't feel the need to see the tattoo either) and then took other steps to rearrange their seats.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]commanderd
2007-07-25 08:21 pm UTC (link)
They politely asked to be moved, they didn't cause a stink and didn't demand that the person with the tattoo get removed because OMG THE KIDS MIGHT SEE IT.

So, seeing as it didn't actually affect that tattoed person at all, I'm fine with it.

Same as I'm fine with asking to move if I find I've been seated next to a couple with a baby or loud kids.

I have been asked in the street to cover up my arms because someone thought that my tattoos being visible would encourage their kids to get them, but I just laughed it off. As I laugh off anyone who asks me to be more kid-friendly really.

So no, they were not rude. It was probably a good opportunity to talk to the kids later on (the parents that is) about how some people like different things and how there are things you will see out in the world that are for adults-only. That sorta thing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vasaris
2007-07-27 02:52 am UTC (link)
I have been asked in the street to cover up my arms because someone thought that my tattoos being visible would encourage their kids to get them, but I just laughed it off. As I laugh off anyone who asks me to be more kid-friendly really.

...bzuh?

Okay, that's... special. I suppose that wearing my hair in a thick braid down my back will encourage others with long hair to do the same? Goddess knows I wish the wearing of my numerous Curves t-shirts worked well to encourage other people to get the hell out of their houses and exercise for 30-minutes a day at a gym or their preference for physical activity.

*rolls eyes*

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]pink_porcupette
2007-07-26 04:41 am UTC (link)
I don't think there is anything wrong with asking to be moved. I do think that it is rude to be discussing a person's appearance where they can hear you talking about them. I don't know what was said, if one of the parents said in a discreet tone to the other that they didn't want to children to be looking at what they thought of as an offensive picture, and then called a waiter over to politely ask to be moved, that doesn't strike me as rude.
What do you think? And would the same apply to someone asking to be moved because of something like the race or age of the person at the next table?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]karnythia
2007-07-26 10:35 am UTC (link)
I think race takes into a whole different place, but age? Hell, if the toddler is screaming (or the older sports guys are swearing) usually isn't something thatbothers me, I think the OP was rude for going into a family restaurant on a Sunday afternoon with that on display. As far as I can tell from her post (eonce you filter through the butthurt) they tried to be discreet, she just happened to be able to hear them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pink_porcupette, 2007-07-27 04:47 am UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…