# Interaction at the coffee shop - what would you have done?



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

So we were at the local coffee shop, one with the kids' play area. Two other kids there, much older than my daughter (my daughter is 21 months, they were maybe aged 4, 5?) Siblings. Anyway, the girl is playing with a little hand-held toy and my daughter tries to grab it. Before I even have chance to say anything, the mother leaps up and tells the girl "Tell her "No." Use your manners - but she needs to learn!" (Which honestly, I was not thrilled about -her tone of voice, I mean.) I tried to ensure that my daughter didn't grab anything else, and if she did, I did the whole "Maren, that little girl is playing with (whatever) and you can play with it once she's finished" and gave the toy back to whoever was playing with it. No drama.

Ten minutes later, the girl and her brother start to play with a pirate ship - that is so large that 3 or 4 kids could have played with it, comfortably. So Maren wanders over and tries to join in. Before Maren even reached out to touch it, the little boy grabs the pirate ship, moves it away from Maren and says "We want to play with this by ourselves."

My response, "This is a public coffee shop and the toys here are for all the children to share. She can play with the pirate ship if she wants to." So the boy walks off to his mother, and she says something quietly, and the boy never comes back. We have to leave 5 minutes later anyway. Not sure if that was the right reaction - but I feel that if there is a "group" toy (i.e. more than one child can play with it) then there can be no "that is mine". From the look I got, the other mother did not agree. What would you have done?


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

I tend to think those things are for sharing. If someone thinks their kids should have those things to themselves, buy them one for home. Obviously, I don't allow my daughter to grab things from other kids but if there's a train table then it is for everyone.


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

I would have redirected my child to another toy.

But my boys go to a Montessori and are encouraged to let others know (politely, of course) if they would prefer to work on (play with) something alone.

ETA: If I saw that my child wanted to play with a toy that others were already playing with, I would have modeled/assisted her in asking them if she can play and dealing with their response.


----------



## Hatteras Gal (Jun 1, 2004)

In the first case, I'd have said to the other mother, "Excuse me. My dd isn't even 2 yet. There is no need for her to learn from your kids." And I would have said to my dd something about not taking things from other kids, you'll get a turn when he's done. But I most certainly would have said something to the mom. In the second instance, I'd speak directly to the kids, "You know what? This toy is big enough for all of you to play with. You're all here to play, she has just as much a right as either of you." Unless they were playing something together and very involved, then I'd have tried to redirect my child to something else. But if I were the mom of the 2 kids playing with it, I'd have told them that the toy is for everyone and they should share with the little girl. My kids love playing with younger kids.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

This is not work, this is play in a public space. Everyone has an equal shot at group toys.


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

A large public toy or play area is, IMO for all children. It's not for 1 or 2 kids to hog for themselves. However, if a child has their own personal toy then of course they don't have to share if they don't want to.


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
This is not work, this is play in a public space. Everyone has an equal shot at group toys.

But this is not the way it works for adults at all.

It would be considered rude if two or more people were playing basketball on a public court and a stranger just randomly walked up, said nothing and started shooting baskets in the middle of the court, so why is it any different when children are playing?


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

In the first instance, I don't think there's anything you could've done unless you wanted a direct confrontation with the mom. At the same time, perhaps her child has a history of allowing others to take her toys and then getting upset. The mom may have been trying to teach her daughter to be assertive and not let your dd take the toy. It's not the way I would've gone about it, but I can see that scenario. I probably would've just figured it was handled and not worried about it.

As for the pirate ship, I don't understand that "it was big enough for 3 or 4 kids." What, exactly, was it? Something like a train table, I consider a toy that everyone needs to share. One or 2 children cannot just "claim" the table. If it were something that simply was large (idk what, maybe like those life-sized dolls or a playhouse the kids all could fit in), then I think one or two kids can play a game with those toys. Yes, they're public, but that doesn't mean your less-than-2YO dd can just jump in with 4-5YOs when they're in the middle of a game. Now, if they'd had it some enormous amount of time, then I think it's reasonable to step in and ask that they let someone else play, but I'm assuming they hadn't had it a long time.

Basically in group situations, all children should be respected and learn to play together. Sometimes that means letting others have their turn with toys. It really sounds that maybe your dd was just going up to whatever the other kids had. I completely understand that - they're big kids, after all, and look like fun - but I also get that the older children may want to play without a toddler constantly trying to insert herself into their play. They probably had something set up and didn't want her to mess it up. My own DS is like that with DD, and I do respect his right to create his own play without his sister messing it up.


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

I would have redirected my toddler away from the pirate ship. Yes, the toys are there for everyone but it sounds like there were lots of other toys and your DD didn't really have to play with that at the same time. The older kids probably had some game going on and didn't want another child joining in.

I have 3 kids, the first two are 2 years apart and the last one is 4 years younger so I have this issue a lot! And it usually is more that the youngest wants to join in with the older two rather than he really wants to do what they are doing. I know it can be frustrating for him but it is also frustrating for the older two to always have to include him on all their games.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

In the first incident, I might have assumed that the mom is trying to teach her children the appropriate way to respond to another child who takes from them. For all I know, there could have been an earlier incident where these children had to fend off someone snatching toys or bullying them, and they reacted physically. It may explain why she's on alert and intervenes before a situation develops.

In the second incident, I would have gently said to the other children something along the lines of, "Maren would like to play too. You can all have fun together. The toys are for everyone. Can you show her how to share nicely?".

If he didn't want to share, then I would have distracted my child with some of the other toys.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Yeah... I would have redirected my daughter away from the pirate ship if the other kids were playing with it, especially given the age difference. Since she'd already grabbed a toy once, I imagine that the other kids were expecting that she might do so again and were pre-emptively trying to keep their own game safe, and were doing so pretty appropriately.

If your daughter had been closer in age I might see this a little differently, but she's not going to be able to play at their level and they clearly weren't interested in playing at hers.

Our favorite coffeehouse here as board games, and if Alice and I were playing Monopoly and a little kid came up and started playing with the pieces we weren't using, I wouldn't be okay with that. Just because toys are for everyone doesn't mean everyone always gets access.


----------



## lonegirl (Oct 31, 2008)

My feeling is...that yes the toys are for everyone but the kids are well within their rights to not have to play with another kid. I would have told my child to play with a different one... and when they were done playing with it then it would be up for grabs


----------



## mata (Apr 20, 2006)

The toy is for all, but if I were in that situation and saw the mix of children wasn't overly compatible, I would tell my toddler the other children were playing with it and there were other toys to play with. I don't have high expectations of situations like that and honestly, I don't see the benefit or learning opportunity of my toddlers being in random situations like that. I always had the attitude of if it works, great-if not-no biggie! We can play at home.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
Just because toys are for everyone doesn't mean everyone always gets access.

This is the perfect way to say what I was thinking.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
In the first incident, I might have assumed that the mom is trying to teach her children the appropriate way to respond to another child who takes from them. For all I know, there could have been an earlier incident where these children had to fend off someone snatching toys or bullying them, and they reacted physically. It may explain why she's on alert and intervenes before a situation develops.

In the second incident, I would have gently said to the other children something along the lines of, "Maren would like to play too. You can all have fun together. The toys are for everyone. Can you show her how to share nicely?".

If he didn't want to share, then I would have distracted my child with some of the other toys.

ITA. Actually, the other mom didn't seem out of line to me. DS has this friend who really needed modeling in how to say "no," or "don't hit me," or "I don't liek that" instead of breaking down into a freakout screaming fit. We modeled for *her* how to speak to DS when he did something like that, and we modeled for *DS* how to trade toys, not hit, etc...

It's tough on 2-year-olds, but it IS important to model to them how to share with other kids. DS doesn't always understand, (he's 2), and he gets frustrated when he wants a toy another child is playing with, but he's also in the "mine" phase and doesn't want other kids taking "his" toys. And it goes for communal toys as well, IMO. If another kid is playing with something, there MAY be room for sharing, but I'm more likely to redirect DS to something else. Important skills all around.


----------



## PaisleyStar (May 3, 2007)

I agree with the PP's who think the older children were being appropriet. I didn't read the "she needs to learn" as directed toward you or your daughter, but rather for the older child. Who knows, they could have had a talk earlier about why littler kids are able to get away with things considered inapppropriet/rude at 4 or 5, and the mom coud have said something to the effect of, they're still very young/babies, but they will learn, or, you used to act like that when you were 1 / 2, but you had to learn etc. Or perhaps the older little girl is routinely ''bullied'' by younger kids/babies and the mom was trying to help her stand up for herself. There have been a lot of threads on here where the parent has a kid that is easily bullied and wants advice for teaching them how to stand up for themselves while still being polite, but coaching them through what to say. If this sort of thing was the case, the mom was prob expecting it to come up when she saw you and your dd approaching and was waiting to use it as a moment to model for her daughter.


----------



## JL83 (Aug 7, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
Our favorite coffeehouse here as board games, and if Alice and I were playing Monopoly and a little kid came up and started playing with the pieces we weren't using, I wouldn't be okay with that. Just because toys are for everyone doesn't mean everyone always gets access.

I think this is a really good example. If a bunch of adults were playing a board game no one would expect them to let a 2yo join in.

There is a big difference between a 2yo and a 5yo in how they play.


----------



## swd12422 (Nov 9, 2007)

I'm kind of a hypocrite when it comes to scenarios like this. If my son were the one playing with a toy that another child came up and wanted to share, I'd tell him that the toys are there for everyone to use and he should share nicely or just give the other child a turn if he didn't feel like playing together. But if my son were the one approaching older kids already playing with something and they made it clear they didn't want to share, I'd redirect my son to something else, explaining that he could have a turn when they're finished/next time/whatever. (And when he's older, he'll also get the explanation later that some people are just not that nice and are best avoided, but that he should still be nice and share anyway.)

Maybe it's a double standard, but I don't know how else to help him learn to be a generous, sharing person and still understand that in some situations he's just not welcome.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I guess it depends on the size of the pirate ship. If it was so big that they could play their game independently of her in it if she were also in it, that would be one thing, but if it only fit 3 to 4 people, then she'd really have to play actually with them, and with that age difference it wouldn't go well. I'd redirect my child to something else.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just Kate* 
I would have redirected my child to another toy.

*But my boys go to a Montessori and are encouraged to let others know (politely, of course) if they would prefer to work on (play with) something alone.*

ETA: If I saw that my child wanted to play with a toy that others were already playing with, I would have modeled/assisted her in asking them if she can play and dealing with their response.

I never knew Montessori teachings included allowing children to hog group toys in a public setting.

This is why I don't often go to the kid coffee house up the road from me. There is a giant doll house, a big play kitchen area (stove, fridge, shelves, table, etc), a train table, and a dress up station. Each play area is DESIGNED to allow several children to play at once, and naturally, some children want to monopolize it (some because of age appropriate behavior, others because they think they have the right). I think it's unfair, and in some cases, down right mean for older children to purposely exclude and disallow other (usually younger) children to play along. It smacks of bullying, and I won't put up with that.

If you come to a public play house, with public toys, where the entire point is for children to share and play together, you do not have the right, however "politely" you do it, to monopolize the toys. I don't allow my daughter to grab small hand held toys out of someone elses hand, but if she wants to step up to the play kitchen and pretend along with the other kids, she should be able to do so.

But like I said, my displeasure at having to referee play time because other parents are oblivious and or think their children can stake a claim on an entire corner of a play house is not my idea of a fun relaxing time.

If someone thought they could hog the slide structure at the park because they wanted to play on it alone, I'd tell them to pound sand (their parents, that is







).


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I think it would be different if the OP's kid was 4 or 5 and had gone up to the other kids and said, "Hey, can I be this guy? And I was drowning and you found me in the water?" or however she wanted to enter the game... because in that case, I can definitely see how it's a public setting and the toys are for sharing, and it would seem unkind to exclude her. But a one year old just isn't capable of playing the that level...


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Kids of that age wouldn't be able to include a one-year-old in their play. They'd have to stop playing theirgame, and entertain a toddler instead. If I had the toddler, and I have a babe who is just turning into a toddler and I also have an older child, I'd distract the toddler for a bit until the pirate ship was free. One one hand, public toys like that are for everyone to play with, but it's also reasonable for the older kids to want to finish their game, and I don't think it's asking too much for the toddler to be redirected for a bit so they could continue what they were doing.


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I never knew Montessori teachings included allowing children to hog group toys in a public setting.

This is why I don't often go to the kid coffee house up the road from me. There is a giant doll house, a big play kitchen area (stove, fridge, shelves, table, etc), a train table, and a dress up station. Each play area is DESIGNED to allow several children to play at once, and naturally, some children want to monopolize it (some because of age appropriate behavior, others because they think they have the right). I think it's unfair, and in some cases, down right mean for older children to purposely exclude and disallow other (usually younger) children to play along. It smacks of bullying, and I won't put up with that.

If you come to a public play house, with public toys, where the entire point is for children to share and play together, you do not have the right, however "politely" you do it, to monopolize the toys. I don't allow my daughter to grab small hand held toys out of someone elses hand, but if she wants to step up to the play kitchen and pretend along with the other kids, she should be able to do so.

But like I said, my displeasure at having to referee play time because other parents are oblivious and or think their children can stake a claim on an entire corner of a play house is not my idea of a fun relaxing time.

If someone thought they could hog the slide structure at the park because they wanted to play on it alone, I'd tell them to pound sand (their parents, that is







).

No where did I say that Montessori encourages children to be selfish toy hogs. What it does due is encourage children to realize and respect others' boundaries. I'm honestly surprised that so many feel that children have no right to their own space or to pursue their own interests without interference from others. We regularly allow adults these courtesies but for whatever reason we regularly trample all over children's boundaries in the name of being "fair."

As others have stated, just because something is in a public space doesn't mean that everyone has to have access to it whenever we want. It would be rude for an adult in a coffee shop to go sit at a table that currently has two adults conversing at it without asking first or receiving an invitation, even if the table could seat three or four people, so I'm not sure why it isn't rude for a child to interject himself into another child or group of children's play with out asking for or receiving an invitation.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just Kate* 
It would be rude for an adult in a coffee shop to go sit at a table that currently has two adults conversing at it without asking first or receiving an invitation, even if the table could seat three or four people, so I'm not sure why it isn't rude for a child to interject himself into another child or group of children's play with out asking for or receiving an invitation.

Isn't the point of these coffee house play things for children to go and play and socialize with OTHER children. I don't get the concept of taking your kid to a public play room and then being insulted that other children want to play with yours. And THEN to compare such a social setting (that is set up for children!) to adults sitting at a private table. They are apples and oranges to me.


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Isn't the point of these coffee house play things for children to go and play and socialize with OTHER children. I don't get the concept of taking your kid to a public play room and then being insulted that other children want to play with yours. And THEN to compare such a social setting (that is set up for children!) to adults sitting at a private table. They are apples and oranges to me.









I think the point of coffee house play things is to entertain children while their parents enjoy the items that they purchased









And why do you assume that if two or more children are playing together that they came together? Maybe my child is already playing with OTHER children. that doesn't mean that they should be obligated to include and accommodate everyone who walks through the door in their play.

I'm also not sure why a table in a public place magically becomes private once it is in use, but a toy remains public domain even if it is already being played with by others (well, as long as it is being used by children







), so we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

OP here. Wow, I am surprised by the number of comments! And I appreciate all of your input, and it has certainly made me think about a couple of things that I had not considered. I still do feel that my reaction was appropriate, but I can certainly see the other side of things, too.

Northof60 - I enjoyed reading your posts. You and I have a very similar viewpoint on this (and on other issues, I often think "absolutely!" when I read your posts.)

JustKate - I am sure you didn't mean it to sound this way, and perhaps I am very sensitive to any criticism of my child (aren't we all!) but my daughter was not being rude. She was being 21 months old.


----------



## alicia622 (May 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swd12422* 
I'm kind of a hypocrite when it comes to scenarios like this. If my son were the one playing with a toy that another child came up and wanted to share, I'd tell him that the toys are there for everyone to use and he should share nicely or just give the other child a turn if he didn't feel like playing together. But if my son were the one approaching older kids already playing with something and they made it clear they didn't want to share, I'd redirect my son to something else, explaining that he could have a turn when they're finished/next time/whatever. (And when he's older, he'll also get the explanation later that some people are just not that nice and are best avoided, but that he should still be nice and share anyway.)

Maybe it's a double standard, but I don't know how else to help him learn to be a generous, sharing person and still understand that in some situations he's just not welcome.

That's pretty much what I do too. I have told other kids that the playground equipment is for all the kids when the bigger kids are trying to block others from playing.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just Kate* 
I think the point of coffee house play things is to entertain children while their parents enjoy the items that they purchased









And there in lies the problem.. parents are too busy enjoying their coffee to notice their kid is being a bully.

Quote:

And why do you assume that if two or more children are playing together that they came together? Maybe my child is already playing with OTHER children. that doesn't mean that they should be obligated to include and accommodate everyone who walks through the door in their play.
If it is a toy or activity that is intended for multiple children to play with at a time, yes, your kid is OBLIGATED to let others participate.

Quote:

I'm also not sure why a table in a public place magically becomes private once it is in use, but a toy remains public domain even if it is already being played with by others
Well, for starters, I think comparing adults at a private table to a public play house for children to socialize and play together is full of holes. They're not even remotely similar situations, in my mind.

I think a more appropriate comparison would be adults at a BBQ or house party, sitting around chit chatting and socializing. I think it would be MORE than appropriate for one adult to walk up and join other adults in the conversation. It is, after all, a social setting. If you wanted to have a private conversation, excuse yourself to a private room or save it for later. I think it's silly to go to a social setting and then get indignant that someone wants to be social.

(And just to be clear, when I say that children are obligated to let others participate, I'm specifically talking about toys or activities where the intended purpose is for multiple children to play. I've already said I wouldn't allow my daughter to snatch a small hand held toy out of someone elses hand, but I DO expect that she will allow other children to play at the toy kitchen or at the train table.. those are multi-children activities.)

Quote:

so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Yep.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
And there in lies the problem.. parents are too busy enjoying their coffee to notice their kid is being a bully.

It doesn't sound as if the child was a bully at all. He told the OP's dd that he and his sister were playing something. The OP then went over and told him that her child had a right to play, and the boy went and sat by his mom. If anything, the OP was the bully, not the boy. And...the original complaint is that the other children's mom was *too* involved and jumping the gun - not that she was "too busy" enjoying her cofee.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I think a more appropriate comparison would be adults at a BBQ or house party, sitting around chit chatting and socializing. I think it would be MORE than appropriate for one adult to walk up and join other adults in the conversation. It is, after all, a social setting. If you wanted to have a private conversation, excuse yourself to a private room or save it for later. I think it's silly to go to a social setting and then get indignant that someone wants to be social.

No, the more appropriate analogy is the board game one. Just because 4 people can play Monopoly doesn't mean that people who choose to play it in a coffee house have to let others join in. The game is public domain, but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. Even at the BBQ, though, I don't think it's okay just to insert yourself into any and every conversation. I know people who do it, and we generally avoid them.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Or how about a 5-year-old trying to force his/her way into a conversation with adults at a bbq? Because a 5-year-old in a conversation with adults is pretty equivalent to a 1-year-old trying to play with 5-year-olds. When adults and a child are in a conversation, the conversation is all about the child and the adult conversation is over. In the same way, 5-year-olds cant' continue their play if they're forced to include a toddler. It's all about the toddler and their game is over.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
It doesn't sound as if the child was a bully at all.

I didn't necessarily mean in this situation. But it happens A LOT at the place near us. The coffee shop is actually separate from the play house, and the play house doesn't allow beverages inside, and it's separated by a wall so the children are completely 100% unsupervised. They have staff in there to help mediate the play, but the older children are sometimes down right cruel to the youngsters, and their parents are in the other room completely oblivious, enjoying their coffee. It's a neat place in theory, but it's actually very poorly run.

Quote:

The OP then went over and told him that her child had a right to play, and the boy went and sat by his mom. *If anything, the OP was the bully, not the boy.*
Really?









Quote:

No, the more appropriate analogy is the board game one. Just because 4 people can play Monopoly doesn't mean that people who choose to play it in a coffee house have to let others join in.
I actually think having a board game in a public play house for kids is an odd activity since it's so exclusive, but if a couple of kids were already in the middle of a game, I would not allow my child to barge in. However, there is no logical reason why a kid can't join in with imaginary play at a toy kitchen, except for the kids already playing with it wanting to hog it, and that's not cool.

Quote:

Even at the BBQ, though, I don't think it's okay just to insert yourself into any and every conversation.
Being rude and interrupting? Sure. But if there's an empty chair at the picnic table or around the fire, I shouldn't sit there and be social?

But I don't think the 2 year old in question was being rude. She was being a typical toddler and wanted to play with other kids with a toy that had more than enough room to accommodate her. They wanted to purposely exclude her for no other reason than because they didn't want to play with _her_. It's not even remotely similar to playing a board game that can't be stopped/started once it's in motion. They just didn't want her to play, and I think that's mean.

Quote:

I know people who do it, and we generally avoid them.
Yes, I too generally avoid people who create little clicks and ignore me (or better yet, actually tell me I'm not wanted there.. like the children in the OP did) when I sit down in an empty chair at a BBQ.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
If anything, the OP was the bully, not the boy.









I was nothing of the sort.

And again, Northof60, I agree with everything you said!


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I

But I don't think the 2 year old in question was being rude. She was being a typical toddler and wanted to play with other kids with a toy that had more than enough room to accommodate her. They wanted to purposely exclude her for no other reason than because they didn't want to play with _her_. It's not even remotely similar to playing a board game that can't be stopped/started once it's in motion. They just didn't want her to play, and I think that's mean.

It doesn't sound mean to me at all. I'm wondering if this looks different to people have have had 4 and 5 year olds than people who haven't.

I was visiting some friends last night who have a 5 year old and a 23 month old. The 5 year old was setting up her new Littlest Pet Shop figures on tv tray. They were having a camping trip cook out, and chatting with each other. Her little brother kept coming over to her. She tried giving him some other toys to play with, which would keep him busy for a minute or so, and then he'd reach in and grab one of her toys, or knock over the campfire. Finally she gave up and squawked for mom, who took the toddler away and found him something to do.

It was really clear to me that the little one just was not developmentally capable of playing this pretend game with his sister. He just wasn't, and that's because he's one, not five. Instead, he grabbed toys from her, _just like the OP's daughter at the cafe_. That's what toddlers do. She'd already snatched a toy once - of course the older kids expect her to do it again. They very assertively made it clear to the OP that they didn't want to play with her toddler, and the OP didn't respect that and - yeah, I agree with BrandiRhoades- bullied them and forced her toddler into their space.

This isn't about inviting a latecomer to join a Monopoly game or not - the latecomer in this case isn't capable of playing the game anyway. She might want to move some pieces around, though, and maybe she'd stick with ones we weren't using and maybe she wouldn't, and maybe she'd just snatch a bunch of cards off the board and toss them... which is fine if no one is playing Monopoly at the moment - I used to pull out Risk when Rain was a toddler and I needed a 15 minute break - but not if someone is.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Wow! I started out feeling like the other mom was very rude to rush over and tell her child to tell the OP's dd No. But then I read some of the replies about mothers sometimes needing to teach their children how to communicate when others take things from them.

And then that made sense to me. And as well as the possibility that some mentioned, of a 4 or 5yo child allowing some other child to take their toy and then being upset about it, another possibility occurred to me: some children may have less impulse-control, and might even react violently in those situations.

Though I now understand better the other mom's possible reasons (besides rudeness) for doing what she did, I personally wouldn't deal with it that way.

Because when my children were at a developmental-level where they needed me to rush to intervene in a situation like this, this was a time when I pretty much kept myself within arms length. I wasn't sittting at a table drinking coffee and watching from a distance, cause injuries can happen awfully fast.

I have one child who went through a rather long phase of having little impulse-control (that's why I mentioned that second possibility for why that mother may have felt a need to intervene -- but it still makes no sense that she wouldn't have just been right there with her children, if she thought one of them might get violent with your daughter).

Now that my children have developed enough self-control and communication skill that I can sit off to the side and trust that they won't fly off-the-handle at some unsuspecting toddler that walks up and snatches their toy --

I just watch and see how my child reacts. And I'm pleased that both my girls are now pretty sweet and tolerant toward smaller children. If my child is not upset about letting the little one have a turn with the toy (and the other mother hasn't noticed and intervened), then I see it as a positive thing that my child is learning to be understanding and to make allowances for babies.

Now, if my child is upset and the other mother hasn't said anything to her baby, then I will go up and gently say, My daughter was playing with this -- can she have it back and you can have a turn next? And usually by this point the other mom has noticed and will back me up. If she didn't, I wouldn't, like, snatch the toy from the other child's hand or make a big deal, though.

With the large toy that had room for others, I found myself wondering if the older boy was following his mama's example of "teaching" your dd by telling her no.







I would probably feel annoyed -- but I think I would redirect my own child to something else.

I might tell the older child, "Okay, well please let dd know when she can have a turn, then." But I can understand kind of reacting to that mom's whole demeanor -- I would have reacted similarly until I read this thread and realized that there might actually be moms who sit off to the side before their children have developed the necessary skills to deal with other children.

And then come swooping in.

As I've said, before mine developed those skills they had a tendency to react aggressively -- so I HAD to be there with them. Sitting at a table enjoying my coffee wasn't even an option.









I also prefer to give the other mom a chance to deal with her child, rather than rushing to have my own child "teach" someone else's child about "No."







-- but I think it's a good idea to give the other mom the benefit of the doubt about her intentions.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
It doesn't sound mean to me at all. I'm wondering if this looks different to people have have had 4 and 5 year olds than people who haven't.

If you're going to a play house cafe where the children are largely playing unsupervised, and where there is a KNOWN age range, I think it's pertinent to have a conversation explaining that younger kids might try to, you know, play with you.

I don't know.. if we were to go to the cafe play house tomorrow, and if there's a bunch of little toddlers there (which I'm sure there would be), and they wanted to toddle into the pretend kitchen and play along side my almost 4 year old, I would expect that she'd be accommodating to them. I would not allow her to exclude them or push them away or tell them they're not wanted there. I think for her, at this age, I'd really drive home the fact if she didn't want to be bothered by a small toddler that she's free to go do something else, but that she can't exclude the toddler because they're allowed to be there as much as she is.

The age range for our cafe is 4 months to 7 years. There is a 12 month and under play area, and the rest are expected to share and play together. I would say that if a 5 year old wants to play alone in a public setting, the burden is on him to find a spot to be alone and not the other way around.

I think siblings playing in their own home, where they should be afforded a certain amount of personal space is, again, much different from a public social setting where the point is to allow children to play together.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I think siblings playing in their own home, where they should be afforded a certain amount of personal space is, again, much different from a public social setting where the point is to allow children to play together.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Last spring when my youngest was newly-4, she was running around on the patio right outside the playroom at a homeschoolers co-op we go to. She was having a ball just running around out there while some boys of around 6 were playing freeze tag --

But she wasn't "getting it" about needing to freeze and be still until unfrozen -- she gets it now at almost 5, but back then, for whatever reason, she just wanted to keep running around while they were playing their game, without actually following "the rules."

And a couple of the boys tried to make her go back in, and didn't feel she could be outdoors with them if she wasn't playing their way. And I just told them that the patio was for everyone to play on, and one boy's mom backed me up by saying they could just let her run around and not tag her, no big deal.

I was very glad for her support. I'm not sure about what the boat-toy was like -- but if there was room for everyone, then I don't see why the older children couldn't have played their game while she was on the boat -- kind of like in a real life ocean, you don't dictate which fish can swim in the sea, you know?

This doesn't really seem comparable to playing a board game and then being expected to share it with a toddler.


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I was very glad for her support. I'm not sure about what the boat-toy was like -- but if there was room for everyone, then I don't see why the older children couldn't have played their game while she was on the boat -- kind of like in a real life ocean, you don't dictate which fish can swim in the sea, you know?

But we're not talking about a large piece of play equipment here.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
Ten minutes later, the girl and her brother start to play with a pirate ship - that is so large that 3 or 4 kids could have played with it, comfortably. So Maren wanders over and tries to join in. Before Maren even reached out to touch it, *the little boy grabs the pirate ship, moves it away* from Maren and says "We want to play with this by ourselves."

The "large boat" was small enough that a small boy could grab and move it away.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

North_Of_60 said:


> I think for her, at this age, I'd really drive home the fact if she didn't want to be bothered by a small toddler that she's free to go do something else, but that she can't exclude the toddler because they're allowed to be there as much as she is.
> 
> I would say that if a 5 year old wants to play alone in a public setting, the burden is on him to find a spot to be alone and not the other way around.
> 
> ...


----------



## flowers (Apr 8, 2004)

My thought is, you don't have to agree with how other parents handle things--you just have to navigate your own experience through it.

She's doing what she's doing and you respond best to keep your family happy.

I personally do not think you can force kids to share. The only time I make an exception is when older kids are camping out in those towers at playgrounds and not letting younger kids by to slide and such. In a friendly tone I tell them that the playground is for everyone and anyone can pass through.

If my kids want to use something someone is using I explain that it's up to the other kids to decide if they want to share. I might say something to the other kids to model, "When you are finished playing will you let us know so we can have a turn?" You'd be surprised at how quickly that turn comes.









Even if it's a play kitchen--If there are two older kids happily playing and my toddler wants to crash in I would redirect or try to help him play along. Maybe make suggestions like: Will you serve us food? Can we cook with one of the pots?

In my experience there is not much for right and wrong and more about navigating it so everyone is feeling safe and learning about life.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I think for her, at this age, I'd really drive home the fact if she didn't want to be bothered by a small toddler that she's free to go do something else, but that she can't exclude the toddler because they're allowed to be there as much as she is.

So, if you were sitting at a table at the cafe chatting with a friend and the 5 year old's mother sat down at your table and started to talk to you, how would you feel? Do you think that because you're in a public space, you need to share your table and not exclude her, because she has as much right to be there as you have? Or is the burden then on you to move to a different table if you want to chat alone with your friend (although the other woman may follow you there)?


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just Kate* 
But we're not talking about a large piece of play equipment here. The "large boat" was small enough that a small boy could grab and move it away.

It was a cheap thing made of plastic. My toddler could probably have moved it. The salient point is that it was large enough and built in such a way that it could easily have accommodated all of the kids who wanted to play with it.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
So, if you were sitting at a table at the cafe chatting with a friend and the 5 year old's mother sat down at your table and started to talk to you, how would you feel? Do you think that because you're in a public space, you need to share your table and not exclude her, because she has as much right to be there as you have? Or is the burden then on you to move to a different table if you want to chat alone with your friend (although the other woman may follow you there)?

I really feel that this is a poor analogy. When an adult goes to a cafe and chats with a friend, there is no expectation or social norm that you need to accommodate strangers, and include them in your conversation. (Although interestingly, if you were in a cafe in mainland Europe, and it was full, it is expected that patrons share tables with others, on the very basis that "he has a right to a seat as much as I do." But I digress.)

However, in this particular coffee shop, the whole point of the children's play area is that all of the toys are available to all of the children. The expectation is that yes, if a toy is large enough that another child can join in without you having you to stop playing with the toy, it is shared. If it was a single-person toy, there would not be an expectation that someone drops the toy to hand it over to my child (as I explained in the OP, when my daughter did do this, I gave the toy right back.)

I must confess to being somewhat surprised, actually, by the responses I'm seeing. But all good food for thought!


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Really?









I say that because the OP went over and told the boy that the toys were public and therefore he was wrong (and clearly from the discussion here, that is her opinion and not a universal belief). The child went to his mother and didn't continue to play because of that. The least the OP could've done is try to convince the children to play together. I just don't think anything the boy did was wrong or mean in any way.



North_Of_60 said:


> I actually think having a board game in a public play house for kids is an odd activity since it's so exclusive, but if a couple of kids were already in the middle of a game, I would not allow my child to barge in. However, there is no logical reason why a kid can't join in with imaginary play at a toy kitchen, except for the kids already playing with it wanting to hog it, and that's not cool.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

The few times a place has been crowded and someone I didn't know asked to sit at my table, I have said yes. Mostly, I have ended up chatting. Or I've seen one person looking around for a table in a packed coffee place and offered a chair.

I don't get to live in a bubble. If a place is packed and someone needs a place to sit down and drink coffee and I have a free chair, why wouldn't I offer it or at least say yes when asked?

People NEED to remember how to deal with the rest of the world. We don't get to live in bubbles and we shouldn't.

My daughter is four in two weeks. She ALWAYS wants to hit up those group toys in bookstores and coffee places and I ALWAYS remind her that everyone is allowed to play. If someone tries to take something out of her hand, I don't mind her hanging on to it or asking for it back but if someone else wants space at the table, ya make room. It's not ours, it's for everyone. I have had to remind her that a. smaller children are less sturdy on their feet so don't bump them and b. they sometimes don't understand sharing so be patient. So far, she seems to get the whole idea of public toys are for everyone, but possibly it's because that's how we've always done it.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
My daughter is four in two weeks. She ALWAYS wants to hit up those group toys in bookstores and coffee places and I ALWAYS remind her that everyone is allowed to play. If someone tries to take something out of her hand, I don't mind her hanging on to it or asking for it back but if someone else wants space at the table, ya make room. It's not ours, it's for everyone. I have had to remind her that a. smaller children are less sturdy on their feet so don't bump them and b. they sometimes don't understand sharing so be patient. So far, she seems to get the whole idea of public toys are for everyone, but possibly it's because that's how we've always done it.

We do this with train tables as well (every store here seems to have one). We explain to DC that they should share the engines and cars. There have been many times, however, when parents of toddlers (and I didn't allow this when my children were toddlers) want to drive over the other kids' trains or wreck their trains (basically make them fall off the track). My son gets really upset by that, and I don't think it's good or fair or whatever term we want to use. It's inappropriate, and it bothers me when the parents just smile as if their toddler knocking something over is part of the game. Some even say, "he's just having fun." Okay, well he's also being rude. Maybe that's coloring my perception, but that's the sort of thing I'd be thinking if my children were playing and a toddler who'd already taken one toy and had to be stopped by her mom from taking others came up to something my kids had in motion.

I've actually become much more abrupt about it. We went to a play area last weekend with hundreds of giant Lego-like toys. My DD (35 months) was building a structure, and this boy, maybe an older 1/younger 2 came over and knocked it over. He actually had to hit it twice. He dad smiled and said, "he likes to knock things over." When DD said, "he knocked over my building" with little tears coming, I said, "some people haven't learned how to play in groups. You can build it again, but watch out for him." The boy's parents seemed miffed, but ya know, it's just not cute. I'm not going to giggle at it, certainly not when my child is about to cry over it. So, yeah, I'm probably using my own experiences here, but I feel parents of older infants and younger toddlers often think behavior is okay because it's age-appropriate, but that doesn't mean what they're doing doesn't sting to the older child.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
We went to a play area last weekend with hundreds of giant Lego-like toys. My DD (35 months) was building a structure, and this boy, maybe an older 1/younger 2 came over and knocked it over. He actually had to hit it twice. He dad smiled and said, "he likes to knock things over." When DD said, "he knocked over my building" with little tears coming, I said, "some people haven't learned how to play in groups. You can build it again, but watch out for him." The boy's parents seemed miffed, but ya know, it's just not cute. I'm not going to giggle at it, certainly not when my child is about to cry over it. So, yeah, I'm probably using my own experiences here, but I feel parents of older infants and younger toddlers often think behavior is okay because it's age-appropriate, but that doesn't mean what they're doing doesn't sting to the older child.

Even though it's age appropriate, I would have been mortified if my toddler destroyed something another child was building. While there's not really much you can practically do to prevent it sometimes (toddlers are fast!) the least the parent could do is respect the CRYING CHILD'S feelings and apologize. It makes me really sad how many parents think that their child is the only person in the universe, and it's such a bad lesson for the child! If it were my toddler, it's not like I'd punish them (as I said, it is age appropriate), but I'd at least do my best to model appropriate levels of sympathy and apology.

I find this thread very interesting... if only because I've never seen a coffee house with toys in it! In playspace situations like this, I think it's great when kids play together but I don't think it's a requirement, especially with such a wide age difference. I think that it was inappropriate for OP to insist that the older children let the toddler ruin their game. I mean, a not even 2 year old doesn't even parallel play yet, let alone play _with_ other children. In order to "play with" the toddler, the older children would have had to completely stop their game and started entertaining her. That's just not their job.

I think maybe I also don't understand how big this pirate ship was. Was it something to climb on? Or just a Playmobile sort of thing on the floor?


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
I think that it was inappropriate for OP to insist that the older children let the toddler ruin their game. In order to "play with" the toddler, the older children would have had to completely stop their game and started entertaining her.

What on earth are you talking about? Did you even read my posts? My child had not even touched the pirate ship before this child pushed it away from her. I was sitting less than 3 feet away during this entire interaction - and I have already stated that I would (and did) intervene if necessary. Do you actually think that pointing out that my child can play along side means that I was "insisting that she ruin their game"? And I intended for them to stop playing in order to entertain my child?







Give me a break.


----------



## PlayaMama (Apr 1, 2007)

hmmmm.... i can see both sides.

on one hand, the boy could have been being exclusionary and rude.

on the other hand, he could have been setting an appropriate boundary and communicating his needs.

i think it really depends on the intent and manner of the child.

i would certainly allow my child to communicate his needs to another as in, "i'd really like to play with this by myself now." and i've also seen bratty older kids deliberately being jerks to younger kids because they can.








s


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
The expectation is that yes, if a toy is large enough that another child can join in without you having you to stop playing with the toy, it is shared.

I hear that that's your expectation... it doesn't sound like the other family shared it.

And it didn't seem that the play area was so crowded that there weren't any other toys for the toddler to play with... my hypothetical situation assumes open tables.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrandiRhoades* 
Maybe that's coloring my perception, but that's the sort of thing I'd be thinking if my children were playing and a toddler who'd already taken one toy and had to be stopped by her mom from taking others came up to something my kids had in motion.

Yeah, that... bigger kids (and those kids were still pretty little, really) also have the right to play undisturbed. And I think saying that a pirate ship small enough for a toddle to move around is big enough for 3 kids to play with is a matter of opinion... if we were talking about a piece of playground equipment, yeah, but this sounds like the kids would all have to be pretty close to each other.


----------



## Dandelionkid (Mar 6, 2007)

At 21 months the OP's dtr is young enough for distraction. I think that at this age the kindest action would have been distracting the 21 month old to another toy until the older two were done. If she kept toddling back I might have negotiated with the older kids but really, it probably would have used less emotional energy just to direct the toddler to another toy.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
What on earth are you talking about? Did you even read my posts? My child had not even touched the pirate ship before this child pushed it away from her. I was sitting less than 3 feet away during this entire interaction - and I have already stated that I would (and did) intervene if necessary. Do you actually think that pointing out that my child can play along side means that I was "insisting that she ruin their game"? And I intended for them to stop playing in order to entertain my child?







Give me a break.

I'm still a little unclear on how big this pirate ship was, but assuming it wasn't a large climbing structure, but was a smaller floor toy, it really isn't all that practical to think that a toddler could play side by side with older children. And as other people pointed out, your toddler had already tried to snatch a toy, so it was reasonable for the older children to assume she would do it again. That's just what toddlers do.

I guess I just disagree with you that it wouldn't have been disruptive to the older children to have a toddler playing with the same toy at the same time that they were playing with it. They, imo, had the right to want to continue playing the game they were already playing. When I am in situations where my 2yo wants to play with older kids, and they don't seem particularly receptive, I redirect to other toys.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
What on earth are you talking about? Did you even read my posts? My child had not even touched the pirate ship before this child pushed it away from her

But she'd already grabbed a toy once before, and it makes perfect sense that the boy would expect her to do it again.

And how do you imagine they all were going to play together? When 5 year olds play, they often incorporate items that they aren't actively touching - like a picnic table might be set up for dinner, or a figure might be sitting in the crow's nest being the watchman. An older child can see this and understand it - a one year old will see the toy as unused and pick it up, or push it over. What would you do, then, if your daughter picks up the watchman and the 5 year old says, "No! He has to stay there so they don't crash!"?

It sounds like a recipe for disaster... if older kids decide to include a toddler in a game like this appears to be, it does take work on their part, and these kids seemed like they just wanted to play. Yeah, it's nice when older kids want to take time to play with a little one, but they shouldn't be forced to... just like we don't force adults to chat with the toddler who wanders over to them in a public place.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
So, if you were sitting at a table at the cafe chatting with a friend and the 5 year old's mother sat down at your table and started to talk to you, how would you feel? Do you think that because you're in a public space, you need to share your table and not exclude her, because she has as much right to be there as you have? Or is the burden then on you to move to a different table if you want to chat alone with your friend (although the other woman may follow you there)?

This analogy makes no sense to me. I'm not going to a restaurant to sit with and socialize with strangers.









Isn't that the point with play houses/parks? To let kids play with other kids? It has never dawned on me to take my daughter to a place like that with the intent of letting her stake claim on A toy and exclude other children in the process. She can do that at home without ruining the social experience for other children (and when she's gone through phases of wanting solitary play, the park is the LAST place we go!).

I mean, at these play houses isn't there an assumption that there will be other children playing on and sharing the equipment? And isn't it expected at these places that children will want to make friends by attempting to play with other kids? That's a pretty kid thing to do isn't it?

Since when is it expected that strangers will sit down at my table in a restaurant?







The two don't seem comparable.

Kids want to play with other kids. Isn't that the POINT of these places?

If two children want to play with _A_ toy alone, take them to a quiet park and find a place off to the side where they can play relatively uninterrupted. It seems like taking them to a public play house where the toys are expected to be shared, and where kids will want to play with other kids, most of the times in varying age groups, is probably NOT a good idea for the type of play they want.

Why take children into a social setting if they don't want to play in a social manner? That just seems like an altercation waiting to happen.

If I ever went to an establishment where it's common for people to plop down next to strangers at the table and start chatting (though I can't really think of a place like that) I wouldn't complain if that very thing happened. I'd just leave!


----------



## Brigio (May 18, 2008)

I believe children have the right to boundaries and it is important for children to understand it is not all about them. You can not play with or take whatever you want when you want and you need to respect other children. I would have redirected my 2 year old.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Um, it was a cafe, not a play park. The OP said it was a coffee shop with a kids' play area. I went to them often with Rain when she was little. Usually it was because we were out and about, doing errands or whatever, and we wanted to take a break and have a snack and relax for a bit. We never went to go find other kids to play with. It sounded to me like this was the same sort of place - the OP didn't mention kids besides hers and the other two siblings.


----------



## noobmom (Jan 19, 2008)

Interesting thread.

In my opinion:

1) The pirate ship is a red herring. I'm guessing OP's daughter didn't actually want to play with the ship specifically so much as play with whatever the other kids were playing with and/or play with the other kids. With kids, often whatever someone else is holding is the best toy in the toy chest. As evidence, OP's DD already attempted to grab a toy out of another child's hand--a toy that she would not be use or understand.

2) The older children didn't want to play with a toddler. That's perfectly understandable and allowable. There's no rule that you have to like everyone. Taking turns on a slide is one thing, but 4 or 5 year old should not be expected to stop their fun to entertain a stranger toddler.

--> So really, I feel that the only thing OP could have done is redirect her child. The older children would not have had fun playing with her DD. Nor should they be expected to. If they had moved onto another toy, the scenario would have repeated itself ad nauseum.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

If a toy is small enough for a 5 yo to grab, it isn't an automatically shared toy.

Automatically shared toys are really big things with room to not disrupt others while playing: train tables (pretty much the smallest item I'd put in this category,) those big cubes with bead mazes and stuff sticking out on all side, most playground apparatus (though not all, at one playground near us, there are cars that though there is technically room for a few kids in, if the first kid in it wants to do his own thing it is disruptive to have other hop on it.) I've never seen a toy pirate ship that would fit into that category.


----------



## fairejour (Apr 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
It was a cheap thing made of plastic. My toddler could probably have moved it. The salient point is that it was large enough and built in such a way that it could easily have accommodated all of the kids who wanted to play with it.

So my kid must entertain your child? She doesn't have the ability to play with another child, she isn't 2 yet. They were playing a game and you allowed your child to stop all the play, so that she could have her way.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
Um, it was a cafe, not a play park. The OP said it was a coffee shop with a kids' play area. I went to them often with Rain when she was little. Usually it was because we were out and about, doing errands or whatever, and we wanted to take a break and have a snack and relax for a bit. We never went to go find other kids to play with. It sounded to me like this was the same sort of place - the OP didn't mention kids besides hers and the other two siblings.

It sounds a little different than what I'm thinking of. The place I'm thinking of is a large play house. It's not just small little kids area to keep kids entertained while you order your coffee. It's essentially and indoor park with lots and lots of toys. The coffee shop is secondary.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Isn't that the point with play houses/parks? To let kids play with other kids?

No, it isn't. I take my kids to the local playspace for a change of scenery and because I don't have to clean up. Sometimes I meet another mother there for a little playdate, but I wouldn't expect children I don't even know to entertain my toddler. My 2.5yo can't even play with other children appropriately: she's come into her parallel play developmental stage but no further. A 22 month old isn't even at parallel play yet. A 22 month old only CAN play by herself: interactions with other people are, by definition, solely on her terms.

Anyway, this wasn't even a playspace. It was a coffee shop that provided some toys. It provides those toys as a service to the parents, so they can drink their coffee while their kids are happy. If children from different families want to play together, that's great. However, if a child who isn't even old enough to play with other children is using the toys, IMO the onus is on the parent of that child to keep that child happy. The other children were playing happily, and they were entirely within their rights to not want to drop everything to entertain a child who isn't even two, which is what they would have had to do.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

Babies should not be playing alone in a play space. Period. 21mo is NOT old enough to play alone, without direct adult supervision, and that doesn't mean where an adult has to go over to another child to tell them that their child wants to play too.

Also, having a 20mo and a 4yo and a 6yo and an 8yo, when the older kids are playing, the baby generally can't play along with them- she just doesn't have the capacity to. If they are playing kitchen, she just grabs what she wants and knocks things over. If they are playing on the train table, she does the same- grabs what she wants with no regards to what they are playing. It is totally normal for her age, but not at all acceptable for when older kids are playing- especially when they aren't siblings!


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
I find this thread very interesting... if only because I've never seen a coffee house with toys in it!

We don't either and after reading this thread, I'm kind of glad!









Whenever I read threads like this, I always wonder what the response would be if the other person had posted. Saying "I was at the coffee shop with my 4 & 5 yo. They were having a great time playing. Then a woman with a toddler came in..."


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Isn't that the point with play houses/parks? To let kids play with other kids?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
No, it isn't. I take my kids to the local playspace for a change of scenery and because I don't have to clean up.

This honestly explains a lot of the behavior we've seen at our local play house then. Some parents seem defensive of the fact that Little Johnny is being expected to share a desirable toy, or to not hog the trampoline, or is being "bothered" by younger children in a place where they're allowed to be.

According to this thread it has nothing to do with socialization. NOW it makes sense.

Well, sorry. I'm of the believe that if you go to these places, where there is a varying age range, your children should be prepared for the fact that they'll have to interact with those varying age ranges. And share. And not hog the equipment. And not get bent out of shape when they're not being left alone in a room full of children. If you want the type of environment where your children can play alone undisturbed, a play house is not the right environment.

Choose your play space accordingly.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lindberg99* 
We don't either and after reading this thread, *I'm kind of glad!*









Really!







We live in a hot tropical environment where our summer is usually ridiculously hot and rainy. Unless you're at the park at 7 in the morning the equipment is usually too hot use. These places are a GREAT idea in theory - air conditioned, not out in the rain, etc. But are really a nightmare in reality. At least ours is. They have a slide that dumps kids into a foam pit, and I can't count the amount of times children dog pile the poor kid at the bottom of the pit because they don't wait for the other children to get out of the way.

Or they take a toy onto the trampoline and bounce to the point where no other children can get on.

Or they sit at the top of the blow up slide and block the stairs so their friends can play in the ball pit at the bottom undisturbed.

All while their parents sit in the coffee shop completely oblivious. And when they walk in during the middle of me saying "can you please take the ride on worm off the trampoline so my daughter can have a turn?" they give ME a dirty look.

I actually don't think I'll ever go back unless I catch wind that the way they run it has changed. It's a free-for-all at ours.


----------



## flowers (Apr 8, 2004)

The thing is that socialization doesn't mean having to play with everyone. It means navigating social situations respectfully and kindly and learning how to make your way through a society's norms and customs. You can't change how another mother parents her children. There will always be different styles. There isn't one way to do it. If her kids aren't going to share then the ball's in our court. How are we going to respond? How are we going to model respectful behavior that helps mold a safe and healthy environment. If the other parties behavior is not safe and healthy than you always have the choice to leave and can make a comment to the manager on the way out.

I personally think the OP was being an interactive, thoughtful parent and conscientious enough to come and try and talk it out here to gain some perspective.

I also think, the other kids don't have to share if they don't want to. Sure you can *force* them too, but what fun is that--what does that even accomplish? It's not supporting any kind of learning environment. What you could do is model creative problem solving.

"Gee, Lila really wants to play with that pirate ship. It's so cool and you guys are such big kids. She really looks up to you. How could we make this work?" State the problem: One pirate ship at a coffee ship that all the kids want to play with at the same time. Ask them for their solution. If they still don't want to participate or budge let it go.

I have a 5 year old and a two year old and it is a challenging age difference. I usually have to be directly involved to have the two year old participate and help the five year old adjust to the different type of play.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
This honestly explains a lot of the behavior we've seen at our local play house then. Some parents seem defensive of the fact that Little Johnny is being expected to share a desirable toy, or to not hog the trampoline, or is being "bothered" by younger children in a place where they're allowed to be.

According to this thread it has nothing to do with socialization. NOW it makes sense.

I have a 2.5 year who who can not, I repeat CAN NOT play appropriately with older children. She is not developmentally ready to. She is a totally normal, perfectly bright toddler. It is not appropriate to take her places and expect her to be an important lesson in socialization. I take her places to amuse her. Period. It is not in her ability to "socialize" with 4 and 5 year olds, and it is not their responsibility to "socialize" her.

It IS the older children's responsibility to treat a toddler respectfully, not hurt them, push them, taunt them, or be mean to them. The other children were behaving perfectly well towards the toddler. That is all that they are required to do in this situation.

FWIW, I don't think you can have it both ways, with the other mother telling OP's child no AND expecting the other children to take responsibility for the toddler. It either takes a village, or it doesn't. I personally believe that it does take a village, but that it's not a 5 year old's responsibility to take care of some random toddler that they've never met before.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

If the OP had another 5-year-old, it would be fine to expect the kids there to involve that child in play, IMO. But you can't expect them to involve a toddler, because you don't involve a toddler in play, you entertain a toddler, and it isn't fair to drop your toddler off on kids who are having fun expecting them to stop what they're doing to entertain your toddler.


----------



## darcytrue (Jan 23, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Latte Mama* 
A large public toy or play area is, IMO for all children. It's not for 1 or 2 kids to hog for themselves. However, if a child has their own personal toy then of course they don't have to share if they don't want to.

I agree with this. However, those children (and mom) were rude.


----------



## moaningminny (Dec 31, 2007)

I definitely would have redirected, if it were my 20-21month old. I also have an almost 5 year old and the difference in play between the two age groups is huge. Although I wouldn't expect my 4 year old to play with the toddler, I may have said to her that she could have a few more minutes with the ship and then it was the little girls turn.

If I were the mother of the toddler I would have redirected her to something else and wouldn't have expected the 5 year old to play with her.


----------



## JL83 (Aug 7, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
This analogy makes no sense to me. I'm not going to a restaurant to sit with and socialize with strangers.









Isn't that the point with play houses/parks? To let kids play with other kids? It has never dawned on me to take my daughter to a place like that with the intent of letting her stake claim on A toy and exclude other children in the process. She can do that at home without ruining the social experience for other children (and when she's gone through phases of wanting solitary play, the park is the LAST place we go!).


Actually. The point of play areas in coffee shops is to give kids something to do while their caregiver drinks some coffee. They work much better at making everyone happy than just letting kids try to entertain themselves in coffee shops.

Personally, I choose not to use these areas because I dislike having to parent my child and keep an eye on the other kids who aren't being parented.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
but that it's not a 5 year old's responsibility to take care of some random toddler that they've never met before.

I never expected older children to entertain my daughter as a toddler. The sticking point, for me, is that I think it's an unreasonable expectation in a place where there are varying age levels for a couple of kids to want to play _alone_, undisturbed by curious toddlers.

The older kids snatched the toy away and declared they wanted to play alone before the toddler even did anything. It sounds like they reacted that way at her approach.

Personally, at that point I probably would have redirected my daughter, because who wants to hang out where they're not wanted, right? But I think expecting to be able to play alone and not be _approached_ by toddlers is a bit unreasonable in such a place. And when they ARE approached by toddlers, snatching a toy away and declaring to be left alone is pretty rude. I think they could have handled being "bothered" by the approaching toddler a little nicer.

If it were me with the 5 year old, I wouldn't allow her to treat a 21 month old that way. The 21 month is curious, just wants to play, and means no malice by trying to reach out to the toy.

If my daughter snatched a toy away and declared she wants to be left alone, that wouldn't be how I'd advocate for her to handle the situation. I try to encourage her to be patient with the littles and their age appropriate behavior. I don't think the 21 month old did anything _wrong_. I do think the 5 year olds were rude. I wouldn't want MY daughter to treat a 21 month old that way, however entitled she is to play imaginative-5 year-old-play without having to "entertain" a toddler.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JL83* 
Actually. The point of play areas in coffee shops is to give kids something to do while their caregiver drinks some coffee. They work much better at making everyone happy than just letting kids try to entertain themselves in coffee shops.

I think we're thinking of two different kind of places. I know of coffee shops that have a small play area. However, the one I'm thinking of, which is essentially an indoor play ground with tons of toys, is primarily for kids to play and socialize. They happen to have a small coffee bar and some tables, but the highlight is in the play house.

You have to sign a waiver acknowledging the rules, among them that your child will be well behaved and will share, won't abuse the equipment, etc. If not, your child will be asked to leave the play area.

It's quite different than the play areas in the back of a coffee shop. It's 4000 square feet of play space.

Quote:

Personally, I choose not to use these areas because I dislike having to parent my child and keep an eye on the other kids who aren't being parented.
Precisely why we don't go anymore.


----------



## fairejour (Apr 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I never expected older children to entertain my daughter as a toddler. The sticking point, for me, is that I think it's an unreasonable expectation in a place where there are varying age levels for a couple of kids to want to play _alone_, undisturbed by curious toddlers.

The older kids snatched the toy away and declared they wanted to play alone before the toddler even did anything. It sounds like they reacted that way at her approach.

Personally, at that point I probably would have redirected my daughter, because who wants to hang out where they're not wanted, right? But I think expecting to be able to play alone and not be _approached_ by toddlers is a bit unreasonable in such a place. And when they ARE approached by toddlers, snatching a toy away and declaring to be left alone is pretty rude. I think they could have handled being "bothered" by the approaching toddler a little nicer.

If it were me with the 5 year old, I wouldn't allow her to treat a 21 month old that way. The 21 month is curious, just wants to play, and means no malice by trying to reach out to the toy.

If my daughter snatched a toy away and declared she wants to be left alone, that wouldn't be how I'd advocate for her to handle the situation. I try to encourage her to be patient with the littles and their age appropriate behavior. I don't think the 21 month old did anything _wrong_. I do think the 5 year olds were rude. I wouldn't want MY daughter to treat a 21 month old that way, however entitled she is to play imaginative-5 year-old-play without having to "entertain" a toddler.

But the 21 month old can NOT play (as defined by a 5 year old)! All she can do is grab stuff, dump stuff, and generally ruin everything (again, as defined by a 5 year old). How on earth can they possibly include her?


----------



## fairejour (Apr 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
*I think we're thinking of two different kind of places.* I know of coffee shops that have a small play area. However, the one I'm thinking of, which is essentially an indoor play ground with tons of toys, is primarily for kids to play and socialize. They happen to have a small coffee bar and some tables, but the highlight is in the play house.

You have to sign a waiver acknowledging the rules, among them that your child will be well behaved and will share, won't abuse the equipment, etc. If not, your child will be asked to leave the play area.

It's quite different than the play areas in the back of a coffee shop. It's 4000 square feet of play space.

Precisely why we don't go anymore.

I think this is key too.

If we are talking about a big play area vs. a box of toys laid out, there is a difference.

At a local mall we have an indoor play area. It has slides and big, almost playground toys. I do not think that is what the OP is talking about. She discussed hand held toys and a pirate ship (I'm thinking Lego or Playmobile sized). Yes, three kids _could_ fit around that (especially if you have a very young child and no experience with older children and how they play) but it isn't like a ball pit or a jungle gym, where we all share. It is a toy for pretend play, which a baby can NOT do, and it was already beig used, so wait your turn!


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
The older kids snatched the toy away and declared they wanted to play alone before the toddler even did anything. It sounds like they reacted that way at her approach.....And when they ARE approached by toddlers, snatching a toy away and declaring to be left alone is pretty rude. I think they could have handled being "bothered" by the approaching toddler a little nicer.

All he did was move the toy and say they wanted to play alone. That's not rude and not poorly handled. It was the truth being stated as a 5 year old would state it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_of_60*
I don't think the 21 month old did anything _wrong_. I do think the 5 year olds were rude.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_of_60*
But I don't think the 2 year old in question was being rude. She was being a typical toddler....

I don't get why you're saying it's okay for the toddler to be a toddler and it's not okay for the 4 and 5 year old kids to be 4 and 5 year old kids.

4 and 5 year olds DO NOT want to play with babies, because to them, babies wreck the play. And they do. They don't understand that kind of play yet. It was perfectly within the bigger kids' age expectations that they reacted in this way. They aren't _adults_, for goodness sake.









ETA: And you know, this whole "public toy" thing works at home too. All the toys in our home are for use by ALL my kids. Still, they have to take turns.

In no way would I ever think it acceptable to let my one year old venture in to play Playmobil with my almost 4 and 5 year old kids, because that would really mean Baby was ruining everything they'd set up. That would frustrate the bigger kids and make them feel like their play was being disrespected.

If I wouldn't let my OWN babies do this to their siblings, why would I think it would be okay to let my baby do it to someone else?


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

This, is the largest toy pirate ship I can find on Amazon with out it being a ride on or furniture. It is too big for a 5 yo to just grab away. Notice that the picture shows just 2 children playing on it (both considerably older than 2 yo.) This isn't like a ball pit, bouncer, train table, etc.


----------



## hollytheteacher (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flowers* 
My thought is, you don't have to agree with how other parents handle things--you just have to navigate your own experience through it.

She's doing what she's doing and you respond best to keep your family happy.

I personally do not think you can force kids to share. The only time I make an exception is when older kids are camping out in those towers at playgrounds and not letting younger kids by to slide and such. In a friendly tone I tell them that the playground is for everyone and anyone can pass through.
just wnated to apologize for all the spelling errors...i'm NAK and tyring to get ds to nap lol
If my kids want to use something someone is using I explain that it's up to the other kids to decide if they want to share. I might say something to the other kids to model, "When you are finished playing will you let us know so we can have a turn?" You'd be surprised at how quickly that turn comes.









Even if it's a play kitchen--If there are two older kids happily playing and my toddler wants to crash in I would redirect or try to help him play along. Maybe make suggestions like: Will you serve us food? Can we cook with one of the pots?

In my experience there is not much for right and wrong and more about navigating it so everyone is feeling safe and learning about life.









I totally agree with this. It is really hard to nit pick a past experience like this (involing sharing...what should or shouldn't have happend, etc) because we are all different and we all weren't there. I take every case like this (involving my ds and sharing/turn taking etc.) one at a time and naviagate it in the way that seems the most fair/reasonlable. You can't be there every second when one kid drops something and another grabs it. "they were done with it it is on the ground!" "No I wasn't I just accidentally dropped it" etc. I work with young children so I see it all day long. We take it case by case and do what seems best in the situation. It doesn't do a whole lot of good for the OP to point fingers at this other mom...I see that she felt slighted by the situation, but the mom was probably navigating the situation the way she saw fit.


----------



## ambersrose (Mar 20, 2007)

I have not read all the responses but I wanted to reply.

I think when our children are involved we tend to be overly sensitive. This is the nature of being a mother. We dont want our children taken advantage of. I have a five year old and a just turned two year old. They rarely can play together at this age. Toddlers are grabby and want to play with whatever the other kid has. This is normal for a toddler. Older preschoolers (4/5 yr olds) have learned that it is not acceptable to take things from other children and they have to wait their turn. They dont understand that it is normal for a toddler so they become angry and annoyed with the toddler just as we as adults do around people being rude by not following societal rules. Your child is learning from every situation she encounters. She is learning how to be a person and act according to the rules of our society. When she does something not appropriate the other children telling her "no" is teaching her that it is not okay to do what she did. This is the best way for kids to learn all things but if you disagree with the "rule" your child is being taught then it is totally in your right to interfere.
This being said, I love the play area in my local coffee shop. It allows me to sit with my girlfriends and chat while the kids are entertained. I keep and eye and an ear out at all times but I only interfere when absolutely necessary because conflict resolution is wonderful skill which is learned by children in these places too


----------



## a-sorta-fairytale (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't understand this concept of the older kids being forced to entertain a younger child. I have a 21 month old and an almost 6 year old. He isnt super fun to play with because his range just isnt great yet. He can play side by side with dd with a dollhouse for maybe 5 minutes before he wanders away. He can pretend to be the puppy when they play house. That is about the total of his abilities.

When we go to playgroup the kids range in age from 20mths to 8 years old. The older kids dont usually exclude the youngers unless they are playing something that the little ones can wreck like legos. If they try to exclude them just because we tell them they have to let the littles be in the same room (again, unless it is legos which are only played with in one room where the door can be closed.)

We dont say "hey, keep them entertained - you have to let them be a princess too!" but we expect them not to kick the babies out and to give them some dress up clothes as well. It works most the time and if one of the babies is getting rough or ruining the play we remove them. Most the time though the toddlers just follow along with the bigger kids and imitate some sort of the play.

It is just weird to me that letting a toddler play with the same items or be near the older kids equals forcing of the older kids to entertain the toddlers.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

The differing viewpoints in this thread are fascinating. The view that all children must be willing to play together is particularly interesting. I don't know many adults who would comply with that rule. If I'm in a room with other adults, particularly strangers, I may exchange some pleasantries with them - or I may ignore them completely. Likewise, I wouldn't expect unknown adults to socialize with me. I may or may not decide to share my space, delve into deeper conversation, invite them into a closer relationship. Or I may, as nicely as possible, make it clear that I prefer my own society for a while. Since that's an acceptable standard for adults, it's the same standard that I use for children.

Children are not being mean if they simply don't want to play with an unknown child. If they snatched toys away, or bullied and intimidated the other child, or if it's a mutual social situation (e.g. group playdate, birthday party) and one child was excluded by the other children, it would be different. The original scenario, as described in the first post, is not an example of "mean".


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lindberg99* 

Whenever I read threads like this, I always wonder what the response would be if the other person had posted. Saying "I was at the coffee shop with my 4 & 5 yo. They were having a great time playing. Then a woman with a toddler came in..."

LOL!! I wondered the exact same thing. I'm pretty sure the responses would start..."Your children are still so young..."


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
If the OP had another 5-year-old, it would be fine to expect the kids there to involve that child in play, IMO. But you can't expect them to involve a toddler, because you don't involve a toddler in play, you entertain a toddler, and it isn't fair to drop your toddler off on kids who are having fun expecting them to stop what they're doing to entertain your toddler.

Exactly. If I had a 5 year old who wasn't being allowed to play with other 5 year olds, I would expect the mother to intervene. But not-even-2 year olds and 5 year olds are completely different species.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
This, is the largest toy pirate ship I can find on Amazon with out it being a ride on or furniture. It is too big for a 5 yo to just grab away. Notice that the picture shows just 2 children playing on it (both considerably older than 2 yo.) This isn't like a ball pit, bouncer, train table, etc.

That's kind of what I was picturing too, and OP hasn't explained otherwise. While technically a third child could fit alongside it, I think it would be very hard for that third child to play an entirely separate game using it. Particularly when that third child is 22 months old.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *a-sorta-fairytale* 
It is just weird to me that letting a toddler play with the same items or be near the older kids equals forcing of the older kids to entertain the toddlers.

Because a 22 month old can't play WITH other children. It's a developmental impossibility. To paraphrase someone else on this thread, you don't play with an almost 2-year old: you entertain them. A toddler can play by himself, but his behavior is not socially acceptable in the 5 year old universe: it will involve grabbing (which OP's child already did), knocking over, poor language skills, short attention span, and inability to keep a linear storyline going. By foisting a 22mo on a 5yo and expecting them to play "together," really the only possible expectation is for the 5 year old to stop playing at his level, and start playing at the 22mo's level. Which is, in effect, entertaining the 22mo.

This sometimes works out very well: it's happened more than once that an older child will kind of adopt my daughter on the playground, and show her around and help her dig in the sandbox. I think that's adorable when it happens. But I certainly don't expect it to happen. There is no way that a toddler would be able to play with the pirate ship linked to above at the same time as a 5 year old in a way that lets the 5 year old finish his game.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fairejour* 
But the 21 month old can NOT play (as defined by a 5 year old)! All she can do is grab stuff, dump stuff, and generally ruin everything (again, as defined by a 5 year old). How on earth can they possibly include her?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *a-sorta-fairytale* 
I don't understand this concept of the older kids being forced to entertain a younger child.

I don't think it's the expectation that older kids should "entertain" babies, but the expectation that a group of kids should be left alone in a public space with public toys at the APPROACH of a toddler.

The 21 month old hadn't even _touched_ the pirate ship when the other kid took it away and declared that they wanted to play alone. I understand older kids not wanting a baby to come in and crash their set up, but I still don't understand why their reaction is condoned.

I just think that in a public space, with public toys, it's unrealistic to expect curious toddlers to not approach your kids. If that is a problem, find a place to play where curious toddlers won't walk over to your kids.


----------



## fairejour (Apr 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *a-sorta-fairytale* 
I don't understand this concept of the older kids being forced to entertain a younger child. I have a 21 month old and an almost 6 year old. He isnt super fun to play with because his range just isnt great yet. He can play side by side with dd with a dollhouse for maybe 5 minutes before he wanders away. He can pretend to be the puppy when they play house. That is about the total of his abilities.

When we go to playgroup the kids range in age from 20mths to 8 years old. The older kids dont usually exclude the youngers unless they are playing something that the little ones can wreck like legos. If they try to exclude them just because we tell them they have to let the littles be in the same room (again, unless it is legos which are only played with in one room where the door can be closed.)

We dont say "hey, keep them entertained - you have to let them be a princess too!" but we expect them not to kick the babies out and to give them some dress up clothes as well. It works most the time and if one of the babies is getting rough or ruining the play we remove them. Most the time though the toddlers just follow along with the bigger kids and imitate some sort of the play.

It is just weird to me that letting a toddler play with the same items or be near the older kids equals forcing of the older kids to entertain the toddlers.

I just don't understand what the OP expected the children to do. Her child does not have the developmental capacity to play with other children. What was she going to do with the pirate ship other than bang on it?


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
The older kids snatched the toy away and declared they wanted to play alone before the toddler even did anything. It sounds like they reacted that way at her approach.

From the OP, it really sounds as if that's because the toddler had repeatedly come to try to grab whatever they had. There was the original incident with the grabbing. Then the OP said she tried to be there whenever her dd went after another toy. Then this pirate ship issue, which was only 10 minutes later. Given that chain of events, the preschoolers' reactions just don't seem out of line.

Going to a place to play doesn't mean it's necessary to play with anyone and everyone. Some choice is still involved. We've actually been to places where older children decided to play tag and told the younger kids they *had* to play. So then all of the parents of the youngers are explaining that you can just go on your way; you don't have to play with those children if you don't want to. I personally take my children to these areas to play. If they find other children to play with them, that's great, but sometimes they don't mesh with anyone else there. That's okay, too. The goal is to give my children a different setting for playing, not to force them to play with anyone who comes along.

Like others, I don't actually think this pirate ship was very big. The OP said her 21MO could've moved it, so how big could it be? I think in reality it simply wasn't something that could be shared by two groups of children (assuming, of course, that the preschoolers and toddler would've been playing different games with it). In that case, it's not all that different from a hand-held toy that one child has.


----------



## fairejour (Apr 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I don't think it's the expectation that older kids should "entertain" babies, but the expectation that a group of kids should be left alone in a public space with public toys at the APPROACH of a toddler.

The 21 month old hadn't even _touched_ the pirate ship when the other kid took it away and declared that they wanted to play alone. I understand older kids not wanting a baby to come in and crash their set up, but I still don't understand why their reaction is condoned.

I just think that in a public space, with public toys, it's unrealistic to expect curious toddlers to not approach your kids. If that is a problem, find a place to play where curious toddlers won't walk over to your kids.

But the child had already tried to grab a toy from them (developmentally appropriate but to a 5 year old, a crime!) and was coming back to mess with their stuff again. They didn't push the baby or yell, but simply used appropriate language to express their desire to use this toy right now.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

My response would be different depending if I were the parent of the 4/5 yo or the parent of the 1 yo.

I would expect my 4/5 yo to "be kind to the baby. Show the baby what to do." (and my 4/5 yo would have been happy to do so). I'd redirect my dc if she were having a very difficult time doing so.

I would redirect 1 yo in this situation. I can't understand attempting to force 4/5 yo children who don't know my 1 yo to share a toy/game with him, no matter how public the space.

I guess my pov is, I can only parent my own dc, _and_ I would rather focus on helping my dc deal with an imperfect situation in a flexible, positive way.


----------



## Lolagirl (Jan 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
Because a 22 month old can't play WITH other children. It's a developmental impossibility. To paraphrase someone else on this thread, you don't play with an almost 2-year old: you entertain them. A toddler can play by himself, but his behavior is not socially acceptable in the 5 year old universe: it will involve grabbing (which OP's child already did), knocking over, poor language skills, short attention span, and inability to keep a linear storyline going. By foisting a 22mo on a 5yo and expecting them to play "together," really the only possible expectation is for the 5 year old to stop playing at his level, and start playing at the 22mo's level. Which is, in effect, entertaining the 22mo.

I'm jumping into this discussion because I don't agree that this is a hard and fast rule. As a general matter, sure, a 2 year old can't play interactively and imaginatively at the same level of a 5 year old, but that doesn't mean that the 2yo is always and only limited to grabby baby play either.

I used to take my twins to a large indoor play space regularly from the time they could walk. There was always a pretty big age range (from crawling babies to probably 6yos) and the rules required that all kids share the space with one another as amicably as possible. My kids may not have been able to play at the same sophisticated level of the 5 or 6yos when they were really little, but they were more than capable of parallel play along side those kids when it came to things like train tables, playhouses or play kitchens. Rarely was it the case that they crashed into older kid play and ruined or interfered in it, and I simply don't understand this idea that toddlers aren't capable of playing nicely and cooperatively alongside others and even with others on a limited basis.

Perhaps Slylives needs to clarify for us a bit what this play space was really like, but assuming it was anything like the place to which I used to take my kids I would agree that the older kids were not being realistic in assuming that they should have been able to play in a completely isolated and undisturbed manner free from the distractions of other, smaller children. The whole point is that it isn't an extension of one's personal playroom, it's a space that must be shared with others and that contains toys that must be shared with others (not necessarily sharing in the sense of more than one kid playing with the same toy at the same time, but at the very least that every one is expected to fairly take turns with all the toys.) If kids aren't prepared to deal with the reality of other kids of varying ages also being present and possibly having to interact/share/take turns then they simply shouldn't be there.

I also disagree with the comparisons being made to adults being forced to share a table with strangers at a cafe or to converse with strangers. A better analogy would be if an adult walked into a bookstore or library and then tried to bar all other patrons from entering the non-fiction area so that she could have it all to herself.

I also wanted to point out that just because a 5 or 6yo may be able to play at a fairly complicated and sophisticated level doesn't mean that they yet understand how to interact with peers or younger kids at a correspondingly sophisticated level. I think it likely goes without saying that they still very much need their parents help and guidance in negotiating that sort of thing.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lolagirl* 

I also disagree with the comparisons being made to adults being forced to share a table with strangers at a cafe or to converse with strangers. A better analogy would be if an adult walked into a bookstore or library and then tried to bar all other patrons from entering the non-fiction area so that she could have it all to herself.


Well no, because the older children weren't trying to bar the toddler from the playspace in the coffee shop, they just wanted to play with one of the toys. An adult walks into a bookstore or library and tries to take a book out of someone's hands or read over someone's shoulder - that would be the analogy.

In fact, some coffee shops offer newspapers and magazines for their patrons. If I was reading a section of the newspaper, I'd think it very odd if someone asked me if they could have it instead.


----------



## fairejour (Apr 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
Well no, because the older children weren't trying to bar the toddler from the playspace in the coffee shop, they just wanted to play with one of the toys. An adult walks into a bookstore or library and tries to take a book out of someone's hands or read over someone's shoulder - that would be the analogy.

In fact, some coffee shops offer newspapers and magazines for their patrons. If I was reading a section of the newspaper, I'd think it very odd if someone asked me if they could have it instead.

No, first they grab a book out of their hand, and then give it back. Then the patron finds something else to read and the guy follows him around. When the patron sits down to read again, the guy wonders over again and wants to read the magazine too.

That is what happened!


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Yeah, a train table or a play kitchen wouldn't be the same thing because different groups can play their own games at the same time. But to play with the same toy is a completely different issue. It would be fine for a toddler to use a kitchen at the same time, and from what I've seen kids that age have that expectation for large play centers like that. But they do not have that expectation for a toy like it sounds like was being used in the OP, a toy too small for more than one group to use simutaneously.

In 5-year-old etiquette, in a situation like this the 5-year-old approaches the other group, and from a short distance asks, "Can I play with you?" and is given an answer. That's what 5-year-olds expect in their interactions. Obviously, toddlers don't do that, or do about anything else in the same way as 5-year-olds. We understand that toddlers aren't able to behave like 5-year-olds, but we also need to understand that 5-year-olds aren't able to behave like adults. We here might have worded things differently, but we aren't 5.


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lolagirl* 
that doesn't mean that the 2yo is always and only limited to grabby baby play either.

The child isn't 2. She's still very much in the realm of 1.

Quote:

I would agree that the older kids were not being realistic in assuming that they should have been able to play in a completely isolated and undisturbed manner free from the distractions of other, smaller children.
I don't think the kids were assuming they could play in an isolated and undisturbed manner free from distractions. They just wanted to play with the *one* thing they had, and play _alone_, already having experienced the OP's grabby (and appropriately so) toddler.

And come on, they are FOUR and FIVE. Again, these are children too. Why is it that the toddler is A-OK acting like a toddler and the older kids are NOT allowed to act like older *kids*?

Quote:

The whole point is that it isn't an extension of one's personal playroom, it's a space that must be shared with others and that contains toys that must be shared with others (*not necessarily sharing in the sense of more than one kid playing with the same toy at the same time, but at the very least that every one is expected to fairly take turns with all the toys*.)
You just said it - yes, it's a public playspace. As in, the toys are available for public use. *But not all at one time!!!* They can take turns, and it was the older kids' turn until the OP ruined it for them.

Quote:

If kids aren't prepared to deal with the reality of other kids of varying ages also being present and possibly having to interact/share/take turns then they simply shouldn't be there.
That's just silly. These kids were interacting (they told her they wanted to play alone), and they were taking turns by using the toy first (I assume when they were done they would've found something else to play with, thus freeing up the toy for the OP's child).

Quote:

A better analogy would be if an adult walked into a bookstore or library and then tried to bar all other patrons from entering the non-fiction area so that she could have it all to herself.
No, it's not similar at all. The kids weren't telling the toddler she couldn't play in an AREA, but with only one TOY.

Quote:

just because a 5 or 6yo may be able to play at a fairly complicated and sophisticated level doesn't mean that they yet understand how to interact with peers or younger kids at a correspondingly sophisticated level. I think it likely goes without saying that they still very much need their parents help and guidance in negotiating that sort of thing.








And that's what their mom did the first time.
The second time, it was the OP's child who needed help and guidance from her mother, to redirect her to something else.

Just my 2 cents, of course.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Oh, the analogies...


----------



## MtBikeLover (Jun 30, 2005)

I have a 5 and 7 year old and if they were happily playing with a pirate ship (and I am imagining the one they have at home - a plastic structure that is about 1.5 feet long) I would be pretty ticked off if a mom of a toddler came up and told them they had to share. In fact, after my kids came to me upset, I would have probably said to the mom "My kids were playing with that and they would like to play alone. Can your DD play with something else until they are finished?"

I have been to coffee shops with toys in them and I would never expect that my kids could just jump in and play with something that some other kids were already playing with. I teach them to ask before they join in someone else's play and if they are told no, I explain that they need to respect that child's desire to play alone.

Then i would have redirected them to something else.


----------



## Lolagirl (Jan 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anastasiya* 
The child isn't 2. She's still very much in the realm of 1.

I don't think the kids were assuming they could play in an isolated and undisturbed manner free from distractions. They just wanted to play with the *one* thing they had, and play _alone_, already having experienced the OP's grabby (and appropriately so) toddler.

And come on, they are FOUR and FIVE. Again, these are children too. Why is it that the toddler is A-OK acting like a toddler and the older kids are NOT allowed to act like older *kids*?

You just said it - yes, it's a public playspace. As in, the toys are available for public use. *But not all at one time!!!* They can take turns, and it was the older kids' turn until the OP ruined it for them.

That's just silly. These kids were interacting (they told her they wanted to play alone), and they were taking turns by using the toy first (I assume when they were done they would've found something else to play with, thus freeing up the toy for the OP's child).

With all due respect, these two older kids were only interacting with each other to the exclusion of the one other child also present in the play space at that time. And how on earth is another child walking over to them also trying to play going to ruin it for them? One instance of grabbiness on the part of the OP's daughter does not need to color the remainder of the interaction for the negative (and she was not 1yo, I believe the OP clarified her daughter was around 22 mos, so a mere 2 months shy of being a 2yo.)

Sure, all parties need to understand what is age appropriate for all of the kids involved here. Slylives already indicated that she stepped in and dealt with her daughter trying to grab a toy from the other kids, because even though it was "age appropriate" doesn't mean it should have gone ignored by her. Likewise the older kids mother should have stepped in and helped her kids deal with their age appropriate yet still unfair dislike of having a younger kid around trying to play with or near them.

Quote:

No, it's not similar at all. The kids weren't telling the toddler she couldn't play in an AREA, but with only one TOY.

And that's what their mom did the first time.
The second time, it was the OP's child who needed help and guidance from her mother, to redirect her to something else.

Just my 2 cents, of course.
Hmm this line of logic seems to be straddling both sides of the fence, on the one hand the older kids are sharing the space and interacting appropriately with others while still wanting to play alone and unencumbered by other kids? I get that some here are more inclined to sympathize with the older kids or the younger kids in this discussion, what I think Slylives was hoping for was some sympathy and further discussion of how to reconcile the two competing and at time contradictory interests when in a public space like the one in her OP.

Quote:

"We want to play with this by ourselves."
Those were the exact words the older kids used with Slylives daughter, and at that point it would have been appropriate (and arguably necessary) for the older kids mother to jump in and clarify that they would let Marin have a turn with that toy in short order so that it wouldn't be monopolized. Sorry, but if one doesn't care to monitor and even police one's children in a common play space like this that she and her children should simply stay home.


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lolagirl* 
With all due respect, these two older kids were only interacting with each other to the exclusion of the one other child also present in the play space at that time.

I'm sorry, but why should the kids care? They were siblings. Why should they have to care that there was another child there too? Especially one SO young in comparison? I'm not getting this. Furthermore, if she was the only other child there, then the entire playspace was free for her to use while the bigger kids enjoyed their pirate game.

Quote:

And how on earth is another child walking over to them also trying to play going to ruin it for them?
Because she wasn't just walking over, she was about to join in. IN other words, they saw she was going to play too, she wasn't just walking their way.

Quote:

One instance of grabbiness on the part of the OP's daughter does not need to color the remainder of the interaction for the negative
But it does color things for young children. After one or two grabs from our baby, my kids don't want him around their big kid toys - because he keeps grabbing, knocking over, and messing things up.

Quote:

(and she was not 1yo, I believe the OP clarified her daughter was around 22 mos, so a mere 2 months shy of being a 2yo.)
21 months - so she's still one. Two years and beyond is really a huge time for growth and development and social interaction. By calling her already 2, it sounds like she's anywhere between 24 months and 35 months.

Quote:

Likewise the older kids mother should have stepped in and helped her kids deal with their age appropriate yet still unfair dislike of having a younger kid around trying to play with or near them.
So kids cannot _dislike_ being forced to play with other kids they don't want to play with? It's not okay to dislike something? And I don't think it was unfair. The kids weren't rude. They stated a fact and moved on till the OP barged in. No one said "Get her out of here!" or "I don't like her!" or "Leave us alone - you ruin everything!" They just said, "We want to play by ourselves."

Is that not worth our respect, too?

Quote:

Hmm this line of logic seems to be straddling both sides of the fence, on the one hand the older kids are sharing the space and interacting appropriately with others while still wanting to play alone and unencumbered by other kids?
Yes. That can happen simultaneously. It happens at daycares and schools across the country. It's a public playspace, but sometimes one or two toys cannot be used by everyone at once. That would be chaos and disrespectful of the others who had it first.

Quote:

I get that some here are more inclined to sympathize with the older kids or the younger kids in this discussion,
I have both age groups (5, 3, 2, and baby) and I sympathize with both children. I do not sympathize with slylives' reaction however.

Quote:

what I think Slylives was hoping for was some sympathy and further discussion of how to reconcile the two competing and at time contradictory interests when in a public space like the one in her OP.
Then I'd say: In the future, saying something like "The bigger kids are using that toy now, when they are done we'll play with it," then redirect her to something else.

Quote:

Sorry, but if one doesn't care to monitor and even police one's children in a common play space like this that she and her children should simply stay home.
Why does a child need to be POLICED when he and his sister are playing with *a single toy* and he says something as honest and simple as "We want to play by ourselves" ????


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lolagirl* 
Those were the exact words the older kids used with Slylives daughter, and at that point it would have been appropriate (and arguably necessary) for the older kids mother to jump in and clarify that they would let Marin have a turn with that toy in short order so that it wouldn't be monopolized. Sorry, but if one doesn't care to monitor and even police one's children in a common play space like this that she and her children should simply stay home.

First, I don't helicopter parent. If my 4YO said that he'd like to play alone with one single toy, I wouldn't feel any need to intervene. Why should I? Now, once the other mom stepped in like OP, I probably would've said something to her along the lines of "they just started playing with this toy. Couldn't your daughter play with it once they're done?" Without the OP's intervention, no other parenting is needed.

Second, the other mom *did* parent her children at first, and the OP was ticked off about *that* because she didn't like how the other mom parenting. I mean, sheesh, at what point can someone just not win?


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lolagirl* 
Those were the exact words the older kids used with Slylives daughter, and at that point it would have been appropriate (and arguably necessary) for the older kids mother to jump in and clarify that they would let Marin have a turn with that toy in short order so that it wouldn't be monopolized.

Why is it necessary for the other mom to jump in and say that? It would have been just as easy and appropriate for the OP to say something along the lines of "Okay, they are playing with the ship right now, lets find something else to play with right now and you can have a turn when they are finished."

And why would the children be obligated to finish their turn in short order? There is no reason that the OP's child needs to have her desire to play with the boat gratified within a certain time frame, or even at all, so long as the other children are legitimately occupied with the toy and not just keeping her from playing with it out of spite. Its not like the boat was the only toy in the room. I mean, I'd love to sit at my favourite table by the window every time I go to the coffee shop, but it would be completely unthinkable for me to tell the person currently using the chair to hurry up so I can sit there next or for me to tell the lady reading one of the shop's magazines to finish up quickly because I want to read it too.

Its part of life that you can't always have exactly what you want and I don't trample (or encourage my children) to trample over other children to protect my kids from that fact.

ETA: I have a 3.75 year old and a 26 month old, so I have experienced both sides of this situation, and had the toddler in question been my 26 month old, I would not have chosen to handle the situation the way the OP did. I would have directed him to another toy and let him know that _if_ the other children finished with the boat before we left, that he could play with it then.


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Also, Lolagirl, if the brother and sister were truly the only other ones in the coffee shop with the OP's daughter, then naturally the toddler would tend to follow them around to whatever thing they did. Are they supposed to keep giving her everything she wants just because she's a baby? They play with the pirate ship and Maren wants to play too - but because she's 1.5 she can't really "play" with them - so in order to "play" with her they essentially sacrifice the toy to her. Then they move on to something else. She follows them, lather, rinse, repeat.

In the end, it's the brother and sister who have to cater to and entertain the toddler, and don't get to enjoy anything by themselves, at all. That's not right either.


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
This, is the largest toy pirate ship I can find on Amazon with out it being a ride on or furniture. It is too big for a 5 yo to just grab away. Notice that the picture shows just 2 children playing on it (both considerably older than 2 yo.) This isn't like a ball pit, bouncer, train table, etc.

I think I completely misunderstood the size of the toy in the OP. I thought it something like a play structure. If it is something like this picture on Amazon then I understand the older kids not wanting the toddler to play. I also don't ever thing that kids should be FORCED to play together. I DO think that if a play structure is large enough for multiple kids to use at once, no one should hog it. That doesn't mean the children necessarily have to use it together in play if that makes sense.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

With a toddler, whatever those two kids were playing with would have been what the toddler wanted to play with. So if they moved from the ship to some blocks, the toddler would immediately want to play with the blocks. And then if htey were made to give up the blocks and went back to the ship, the toddler would again want the ship. Toddlers are pretty easily distracted. "Oh, look at these blocks!" would have been a good start.

And toddlers simply are grabby. There's nothing wrong with toddlers being grabby, but to say, "Oh maybe it was just that one instance of grabbiness" is pretty silly when your'e talking about a 21-month-old.

I have an older kid and a baby/toddler, so I see both sides of this. I absolutely would have redirected the toddler.

Also, 5-year-olds are very literal. If they wanted to exclude and be mean, they would have said, "We don't want to play with you." "We want to play with this toy by ourselves" means that specifically and only that. They saw how a toddler plays, and probably know from experience how toddlers play, and they wanted to use that toy for the game they were playing that a toddler would not be able to play, by themselves. There is no way to simutaneously use a toy (not a play center like a kitchen or train table, but a toy) in a 5-year-old imaginary play way and a toddler grab-hit-roll-around way at the same time. It was reasonable for them to want to continue what they were doing. It was not reasonable to expect them to stop playing their game and entertain the toddler.


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Oh, the analogies...









I know!







Sorry but I think it makes little sense to compare adult/children behavior.
Children are people but they are not little adults.


----------



## a-sorta-fairytale (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 

Because a 22 month old can't play WITH other children. It's a developmental impossibility. To paraphrase someone else on this thread, you don't play with an almost 2-year old: you entertain them. A toddler can play by himself, but his behavior is not socially acceptable in the 5 year old universe: it will involve grabbing (which OP's child already did), knocking over, poor language skills, short attention span, and inability to keep a linear storyline going. By foisting a 22mo on a 5yo and expecting them to play "together," really the only possible expectation is for the 5 year old to stop playing at his level, and start playing at the 22mo's level. Which is, in effect, entertaining the 22mo.

This sometimes works out very well: it's happened more than once that an older child will kind of adopt my daughter on the playground, and show her around and help her dig in the sandbox. I think that's adorable when it happens. But I certainly don't expect it to happen. There is no way that a toddler would be able to play with the pirate ship linked to above at the same time as a 5 year old in a way that lets the 5 year old finish his game.

But it isnt a "developmental impossibility" my degree is in Early Childhood so I am aware of the developmental ability ranges of this age group as 2-5 is my focus area.

My son is by no means super gifted and neither are the other 2 21 month olds in our playgroup but they play alongside the older kids. *Like i said in the rest of my pp* he will be the dog when they play house and if they are playing princess well, the 4-6 year olds toss them some dresses and shoes and the babies join as they can.

The girls in our group certainly dont have to change their play to accomodate the littles and they for sure dont entertain them. The 21 month olds didnt disrupt the "rock star" game the 4-6 year old girls were playing last week they just kinda followed along singing and dancing and left when they were bored.

I *have* asked my 5y/o dd to entertain her little brother but that is a totally different situation.


----------



## a-sorta-fairytale (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fairejour* 
I just don't understand what the OP expected the children to do. Her child does not have the developmental capacity to play with other children. What was she going to do with the pirate ship other than bang on it?

What is the issue if he did bang on the ship? Would that RUIN the play of the other kids? I should hope not.

Maybe the kids we play with are just awesome but if a baby was banging on a ship they would either ignore it or use imaginative play and say "argh! an octopus!" or something similar.

Now if the baby starts grabbing the wheel or pushing them yes, the mom should intervene but a baby playing near another child is not a catastrophy.

People in public places wear smelly perfume, they talk loud, they sit too close and do other things that i dont particularly like but that is a part of being in public and getting used to other people.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

I think that the 2 sides of this are picturing 2 different things. People who are advocating letting the baby play seem to be picturing a structure you get into, pretend to sail etc . . . Maybe something like this:

http://www.nextag.com/Kid-Kraft-Kidk...479028154FD9B1

People who are arguing not to let the baby play seem to be picturing something more like this:

http://compare.ebay.com/like/2504286...PriceItemTypes

There's a big difference in these 2 things. The first, in my opinion, is a toy designed to be shared. It's like those toy fire trucks and trains they have at the park or the sandbox or a play kitchen -- definitely made for parallel play.

The second, on the other hand, while 3 or 4 kids certainly could play with it together, requires a degree of coordination that a 1 year old just isn't capable of. Kids play with these things by setting up scenarios -- this guy goes here, that guy goes there, and a child banging on it knocks them down. A child grabbing a figure really does interfere with the flow of the play.

I'm assuming it was the latter, given that the OP described the other child as moving the ship itself, but I'd love to see some clarification.


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *a-sorta-fairytale* 
What is the issue if he did bang on the ship? Would that RUIN the play of the other kids?

Yes. It would probably knock over all the figures in the ship and the kids would have had to set everything back up again.

Quote:

People in public places wear smelly perfume, they talk loud, they sit too close and do other things that i dont particularly like but that is a part of being in public and getting used to other people.
Yes, and I try to remove myself from situations where that happens....just like the boy did when he made his comment and moved the ship.


----------



## a-sorta-fairytale (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anastasiya* 
Yes. It would probably knock over all the figures in the ship and the kids would have had to set everything back up again.

Yes, and I try to remove myself from situations where that happens....just like the boy did when he made his comment and moved the ship.










hmmmm, maybe we are thinking of 2 diff things - i am imagining a play ship that the kids can get inside and pretend pirates in where someone banging wouldnt ruin anything. i am seeing the one posted like this http://www.nextag.com/Kid-Kraft-Kidk...479028154FD9B1

see, and at the movies i wouldnt say "gross! you cant sit near me - you are eating a pickle!" and then move away. I would move quietly or just deal with it. I dont go to many movies while pg because i am really smell sensitive and being stuck with someone eating smelly things would make me puke. I wouldnt go to a public play area with my kids if i wanted them to play undisturbed. My dd gets that in public you are surrounded with the public and it isnt always perfect.


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

a-sorta-fairytale said:


> hmmmm, maybe we are thinking of 2 diff things - i am imagining a play ship that the kids can get inside and pretend pirates in where someone banging wouldnt ruin anything. i am seeing the one posted like this http://www.nextag.com/Kid-Kraft-Kidk...479028154FD9B1
> 
> *Then the OP needs to clarify, like a PP said. We are thinking of two different things.* I agree, in a big thing like that, the kids couldn't "hog" it for themselves.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *a-sorta-fairytale* 
hmmmm, maybe we are thinking of 2 diff things - i am imagining a play ship that the kids can get inside and pretend pirates in where someone banging wouldnt ruin anything. i am seeing the one posted like this http://www.nextag.com/Kid-Kraft-Kidk...479028154FD9B1

In the OP, it said the boy moved the ship out of her reach, which to me sounded like he was holding it in his hands. At the very least, he could move it very easily, so it wasn't a play structure.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I think it's clear from the OP's posts that this is a smallish play ship, not a playground-type boat that kids play in. This is a coffee shop with a kids' play area, not an elaborate play house.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
Ten minutes later, the girl and her brother start to play with a pirate ship - that is so large that 3 or 4 kids could have played with it, comfortably. So Maren wanders over and tries to join in. Before Maren even reached out to touch it, the little boy grabs the pirate ship, moves it away from Maren and says "We want to play with this by ourselves."

So, they're playing _with_ the ship, not in it, and the ship was small enough for the 4 or 5 year old boy to grab and move away. There's no way this is a ship they're in.

The OP adds clarifies later:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
It was a cheap thing made of plastic. My toddler could probably have moved it.

So, something small enough for a one year old to move. I'm picturing playmobil-type ship. I think the word "large" is confusing people - it's larger than a toy ship that fits in the palm of your hand, and three 5 year old could probably sit on different sides and play together, but it's small enough for a toddler to move around....


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Or maybe it's something like this?
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Tikes-P.../dp/B00005BPPC

or this?
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...uct_id=2553325

or this?
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCH4965.jpg

Plastic, big enough for 3-4 kids, and moveable.

In my mind, though, I'm thinking this: http://besttoysguide.com/wp-content/...pirateship.jpg


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
What on earth are you talking about? Did you even read my posts? My child had not even touched the pirate ship before this child pushed it away from her. I was sitting less than 3 feet away during this entire interaction - and I have already stated that I would (and did) intervene if necessary. Do you actually think that pointing out that my child can play along side means that I was "insisting that she ruin their game"? And I intended for them to stop playing in order to entertain my child?







Give me a break.

The thing is, a toddler 'joining in' a game often wil ruin the older children's game. The toddler cannot play at the same level, and in this case is a total stranger. My older children would at that age most likely just have ended their game if a toddler came up like this, and then probably ask to go home. They are not mean kids, they are not bullies, but they were just not the type of 4 & 5 year olds who could cope with a toddler moving in on them. (They have always been great with their own younger sibling, but not with strangers like that.)

I personally don't see why you ever felt it was a big deal. A one year old can easily be distracted to another toy. Then, when the older kids are done with the ship, she could have had a turn. Which would most likely have lasted twenty seconds anyway! Is it really worth all this dissecting of someone else's parenting when all it takes is a little understanding that all kids are different, and that your toddler can be expected not to mess up an older kids' game at a coffee shop?

Your 1yo may grow up to be a 5 yo who can easily cope with a toddler moving in on her game, and happily change the game to accomodate. Or she may grow up to be a 5 yo who tells the toddler quite emphatically that she is not welcome. Or worse. You have no idea until you get there. Much of it is not in your hands, it is this simple little thing called personality.

My youngest child is one who could easily accomodate a toddler moving in. My older two couldn't. They have been parented the same, but I do not expect the same from them. With my older kids, the toddler may well end the game, and your interjection would have ended the trip to boot. Bear in mind that many kids appear normal, but have special needs and simply cannot cope with other children crowding their space. There are no hard and fast rules in parenting, all that is needed is a little sensitivity and empathy, and acceptance that kids are kids, and all kids are different. I don't think you can set rules in your mind for each and every social experience, you need to use sensitive judgment when you encounter other children, and live and let live.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I don't think it's the expectation that older kids should "entertain" babies, but the expectation that a group of kids should be left alone in a public space with public toys at the APPROACH of a toddler.

The 21 month old hadn't even _touched_ the pirate ship when the other kid took it away and declared that they wanted to play alone. I understand older kids not wanting a baby to come in and crash their set up, but I still don't understand why their reaction is condoned.

I just think that in a public space, with public toys, it's unrealistic to expect curious toddlers to not approach your kids. If that is a problem, find a place to play where curious toddlers won't walk over to your kids.

The older children had already experienced how the toddler 'played'. She grabbed. They would know how a toddle behaves, and they are applying that knowledge to this situation. They didn't want the ship grabbed and their game ruined. Children are literal, and often very honest. They didn't hit the toddler, they didn't push her or scream at her. They verbally told her mother their desire to play alone. I think that this in itself shows some very good social skills for young children. I know many 4 or 5 yos who may well have walloped the toddler instead of verbalizing their wishes.

I think the mother of the toddler should then respond and take their wishes seriously. If she felt that they could have expressed it more politely, maybe paraphrasing, such as, "Oh, you'd prefer to play with it on your own?" would make you feel that you'd turned it into a more positive experience all round, followed by something to the toddler like, "OK, honey, these kids want to finish up their game, so let's play with the blocks over here until they are done."

I have had a zillion interactions like this in my time with young children, and see nothing but positive in it, a learning experience for everyone. Later, when the older kids give up on the ship, you can thank them and model good manners again. Which is so very different to giving them a rule, which is by no means a univerally understood one, that they _had_ to let a toddler move in on their game.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

OP here. Wow - 110 responses! I thought I'd get 7 or 8 and then quickly fall onto page 2.

Anyway, to clarify in response to a couple of points (whose, I cannot remember)

1 - I am still rather baffled that having a toddler play next to a young child amounts to leaving them to "entertain" or even "look after" her. I was sitting three feet away during the entire incident and was ready to intervene if necessary. I had not abdicated my parenting responsibilities.

2 - My daughter had not been continually grabbing - she grabbed at one toy and I gave it back.

3 - I have not been here bitching about the other mother's parenting, if you re-read my OP you will see that I stated that I did not care for her tone of voice when she stated that my child "needs to learn". I suspect many people here would have been similarly irritated.

4 - For greater discussion of my other thoughts, see Northof60, sortla-like-a fairy and a couple of others! Thanks for the great discussion - I was going to post a long reponse earlier but you raised all the points for me!

5 - My husband and I had something of a giggle at the posts describing me as a bully, someone who barged in and insisted my child ruin the experiences of the two kids there. And perhaps ruin their entire lives to come. Who knows.

6 - Why am I making such a "big deal" about this? I merely asked a question on a discussion board. As you will see from the OP, I said "I'm not sure if I handled this the best way. What would you have done." And seeing as this garnered over 100 responses, I would suggest that other people also see this as a big enough deal to comment upon.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Since so many MDC mamas tend to be thoughtful, respectful people, I think the only conclusion we can draw from this thread is that even thoughtful, respectful people have differing opinions on this issue. Therefore, no one described in the OP was a bully/rude/mean/etc. -- they all just did what they thought was appropriate, and really, there wasn't even a dramatic altercation.

I agree with the poster upthread who winkingly mentioned being a hypocrit -- I'm the same way in that my reaction would differ depending on whether I was the parent of the older kids or the younger kid. As the parent of the older kids, I would have told them that the toys are for everyone. As the parent of the younger kid, I would have redirected. Both parents in the OP reacted differently than I would have -- ah well, it happens. No one's an awful person for it.


----------



## fairejour (Apr 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
OP here. Wow - 110 responses! I thought I'd get 7 or 8 and then quickly fall onto page 2.

Anyway, to clarify in response to a couple of points (whose, I cannot remember)

1 - I am still rather baffled that having a toddler play next to a young child amounts to leaving them to "entertain" or even "look after" her. I was sitting three feet away during the entire incident and was ready to intervene if necessary. I had not abdicated my parenting responsibilities.

2 - My daughter had not been continually grabbing - she grabbed at one toy and I gave it back.

3 - I have not been here bitching about the other mother's parenting, if you re-read my OP you will see that I stated that I did not care for her tone of voice when she stated that my child "needs to learn". I suspect many people here would have been similarly irritated.

4 - For greater discussion of my other thoughts, see Northof60, sortla-like-a fairy and a couple of others! Thanks for the great discussion - I was going to post a long reponse earlier but you raised all the points for me!

5 - My husband and I had something of a giggle at the posts describing me as a bully, someone who barged in and insisted my child ruin the experiences of the two kids there. And perhaps ruin their entire lives to come. Who knows.

6 - Why am I making such a "big deal" about this? I merely asked a question on a discussion board. As you will see from the OP, I said "I'm not sure if I handled this the best way. What would you have done." And seeing as this garnered over 100 responses, I would suggest that other people also see where my quandry lay.

So, which of the many supplied photos did the boat look like?

For me, it boils down to: A baby/toddler can not play WITH anyone else. If she joins the game, the game is over for the older kids. The baby can not pretend, doesn't have the capacity to follow "rules", can not communicate or understand "instructions", and doesn't have the patience or manual dexterity to play the way older kids do.

I think that the 5 year old was being reasonable.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fairejour* 
So, which of the many supplied photos did the boat look like?

IMO this is the most important question. Would you mind describing it further?

I'm sorry that some people didn't post what you wanted to hear. I think that, for the most part, conversation has been pretty civil. No one is calling you a bad parent, many people are just saying that we would have handled the situation differently, and giving our reasons why we don't think it would be appropriate to insist that someone else's 5yo entertain our 1yo. If you've read all of the comments, you'll see why that is the only way a 5yo and a 1yo can play together explained a few times by a few different people.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

It's not a case of not hearing what I wanted to hear. Again, my question was "what would you have done?" I just thought that some of the responses were rather silly, quite honestly. (Mainly the ones with "OP insists she ruin/bully/toddlers shouldn't be left to play alone" etc.)

As for the ship - I didn't see the photos, but it is about 3 feet long by 2 feet wide. Not something that you would play on, as such. A rather cheap thing that was not very sturdy and made of plastic. The fact that this kid could move it - and again, my toddler could probably have moved it - doesn't mean that it was akin to a hand-held toy. Which, as I have already stated, I would not have let my toddler remove from another child. And - sitting three feet away, I was ready to intervene if that were to happen again.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
It's not a case of not hearing what I wanted to hear. Again, my question was "what would you have done?" I just thought that some of the responses were rather silly, quite honestly. (Mainly the ones with "OP insists she ruin/bully/toddlers shouldn't be left to play alone" etc.)

I bet when your kid is 5 and playing in a play area (maybe even the same one) and you can see she has set up an elaborate imaginative game and a lumbering toddler is about to disrupt the fairy prince in the midst of the dragon invasion...you will think back to this post and laugh.


----------



## Tigeresse (Nov 19, 2001)

Hmmmm. Interesting thread. I can't say honestly that either side was in the wrong here at all. There are valid points going both ways. If I was the mom to the toddler, I would have redirected her. I would not have confronted the 5yo unless he was downright mean, which it doesn't sound like he was. However, if I was mom to the 5yo, I would have said something to him about the toys being for everyone and perhaps he could find something else for the baby since it will be very hard for her to watch while only the older kids can use the ship. He may not do it, but at least the seed is planted for a more compassionate response later on. I think this situation would have worked out better as a collaborative effort on the part of both moms. To expect mom of toddler to keep her completely out of what the older kids are doing is unrealistic. To expect 4 and 5 yo.s to have to share everything they are doing with toddlers is also unrealistic.


----------



## PaisleyStar (May 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Britishmum* 
The older children had already experienced how the toddler 'played'. She grabbed. They would know how a toddle behaves, and they are applying that knowledge to this situation. They didn't want the ship grabbed and their game ruined. Children are literal, and often very honest. They didn't hit the toddler, they didn't push her or scream at her. They verbally told her mother their desire to play alone. I think that this in itself shows some very good social skills for young children. I know many 4 or 5 yos who may well have walloped the toddler instead of verbalizing their wishes.

I think the mother of the toddler should then respond and take their wishes seriously. If she felt that they could have expressed it more politely, maybe paraphrasing, such as, "Oh, you'd prefer to play with it on your own?" would make you feel that you'd turned it into a more positive experience all round, followed by something to the toddler like, "OK, honey, these kids want to finish up their game, so let's play with the blocks over here until they are done."

I have had a zillion interactions like this in my time with young children, and see nothing but positive in it, a learning experience for everyone. Later, when the older kids give up on the ship, you can thank them and model good manners again. Which is so very different to giving them a rule, which is by no means a univerally understood one, that they _had_ to let a toddler move in on their game.










I like this reply.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I bet when your kid is 5 and playing in a play area (maybe even the same one) and you can see she has set up an elaborate imaginative game and a lumbering toddler is about to disrupt the fairy prince in the midst of the dragon invasion...you will think back to this post and laugh.









Yes, you're probably right!


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
Since so many MDC mamas tend to be thoughtful, respectful people, I think the only conclusion we can draw from this thread is that even thoughtful, respectful people have differing opinions on this issue. Therefore, no one described in the OP was a bully/rude/mean/etc. -- they all just did what they thought was appropriate, and really, there wasn't even a dramatic altercation.

This is so very true. Regardless of the differing opinions, I'm sure we'd all navigate our way through this politely without a peep. Sometimes it's nice to hash it out like this.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
My husband and I had something of a giggle at the posts describing me as a bully, someone who barged in and insisted my child ruin the experiences of the two kids there. And perhaps ruin their entire lives to come. Who knows.

So did me and my husband! LOL Try not let the comments get to you. Tomorrow it will be another thread.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I bet when your kid is 5 and playing in a play area (maybe even the same one) and you can see she has set up an elaborate imaginative game and a lumbering toddler is about to disrupt the fairy prince in the midst of the dragon invasion...you will think back to this post and laugh.









Or, she'll be ready to jump in and remind them they're in a coffee shop and that babies are clumsy and knock stuff over and to not over react. It's all good.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I bet when your kid is 5 and playing in a play area (maybe even the same one) and you can see she has set up an elaborate imaginative game and a lumbering toddler is about to disrupt the fairy prince in the midst of the dragon invasion...you will think back to this post and laugh.









Oh how true! What we think as parents of toddlers goes right out the window once our kids reach a different developmental age and we start to understand the issues of a 3, 4 or 5 yo.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Britishmum* 
Oh how true! What we think as parents of toddlers goes right out the window once our kids reach a different developmental age and we start to understand the issues of a 3, 4 or 5 yo.









That is true. Yesterday I took the kids to play at McDonald's, and there was a mom of a baby (maybe 8 months old, not crawling yet) there, in the 3-and-under play area. There were a few other kids playing in there -- my 20-month-old, a couple of 2-year-olds, and one girl who was maybe 4. The kids were all playing really well, but of course would get excited from time to time and jump or whatever, but nothing that was even remotely over-boisterous IMO. But I could tell the mom of the baby was kind of irritated by the "wild" activity, and a couple of times she said, "Careful, there's a baby" as a 2-year-old wobbled past her. It made me chuckle, thinking how huge our kids must have looked to her compared to her teensy babe. I so remember feeling that way.


----------



## plunky (Aug 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I bet when your kid is 5 and playing in a play area (maybe even the same one) and you can see she has set up an elaborate imaginative game and a lumbering toddler is about to disrupt the fairy prince in the midst of the dragon invasion...you will think back to this post and laugh.









As a parent of a toddler, I found this thread very interesting. Now I'll be more aware of when my DD intrudes on older kids.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
That is true. Yesterday I took the kids to play at McDonald's, and there was a mom of a baby (maybe 8 months old, not crawling yet) there, in the 3-and-under play area. There were a few other kids playing in there -- my 20-month-old, a couple of 2-year-olds, and one girl who was maybe 4. The kids were all playing really well, but of course would get excited from time to time and jump or whatever, but nothing that was even remotely over-boisterous IMO. But I could tell the mom of the baby was kind of irritated by the "wild" activity, and a couple of times she said, "Careful, there's a baby" as a 2-year-old wobbled past her. It made me chuckle, thinking how huge our kids must have looked to her compared to her teensy babe. I so remember feeling that way.

It's kind of funny that she would even stay in there with the baby, if she was anxious about her getting hurt. I mean, even when my oldest was a baby, I had an understanding that toddlers need to move around. So I would've moved my baby if I was worried, rather than staying and expecting toddlers to not be toddlers.

After all, a baby who's not even crawling can enjoy sitting ANYWHERE and just playing with the contents of Mom's purse -- whereas toddlers need a little more action!

Still, I guess if a mom of an infant wants to stay in there and be irritated, that's her call and not mine. So long as her irritation doesn't affect my child!


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Isn't the point of these coffee house play things for children to go and play and socialize with OTHER children. I don't get the concept of taking your kid to a public play room and then being insulted that other children want to play with yours. And THEN to compare such a social setting (that is set up for children!) to adults sitting at a private table. They are apples and oranges to me.









I think the point of these toys is to give the children something to do while the parents relax. and I think kids using a toy is exactly the same as people using a table.

I don't think the other customers were out of line at all in either situation.

In the first situation the mom was telling the dd to use her words. She may have been acting so quickly because she knows how quickly things can break down when a toddler snatches a toy from a 4/5 year old. She was encouraging her dd to stand up for herself politely by speaking up. I actually think that is quite a good thing to teach a 4 or 5 year old. If the baby takes your toy, remain calm and say "no, I was playing with that".

in the second scenario, children that age do not want to be bothered with a baby. They politely made it clear that they were playing alone and did not want the baby wrecking ttheir game. And I think that is fine. I know if my kids were playing pirates and a baby came up and started messing with the toys it would be ruined for them. They WOULD NOT play WITH her. they would ask her to leave and if she did not they would leave. and it is not just babies. They just may not want to be intruded upon by strangers. It is not because they are hogging the toys (good grief, the kids had one play set, not every toy in the play area) or because they are antisocial but because they are in the middle of something. they are in the middle of their game with their rules and scenarios and ideas. and the way kids that age play with things like pirate ships or doll houses is complicated and has rules and babies do not get that and other kids don't always get that. I actually think it was pretty rude that you let your baby barge in on their play. Just because it is big enough does not mean that your dd is invited. Toddlers are not fun for 4 and 5 year olds to play with. Tolerate maybe but as a general rule, unless it is their idea to play with a baby the baby is not considered a welcome guest into their detailed imaginative play games.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Hey, havent read all the responses yet, but form what you have said, i think i would have done exactly the same thing in your shoes. First, kids your child's age (similar to my ds2) are always doing exactly those kind of things, and its no big deal. You just intervene etc. As for the big toy, i will take what you said at your word, ie that the toy was big enough for a few children to play with. In that situation, then those toys are for sharing, whether the big kids like it or not. I also have a big kid (only 4) but he could monoloplise a toy in the same way, doesnt make it ok. have seen that happen, and let it slide (when an older child monopolised a toy that my younger ds 21m, wanted to play with), but i think the parent should not have let her child do that.(didnt really have the energy at the time to even bother mentioning it)

In sum, i like how you handled the situation, and i would have done the same.
Maya


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
I really feel that this is a poor analogy. When an adult goes to a cafe and chats with a friend, there is no expectation or social norm that you need to accommodate strangers, and include them in your conversation. (Although interestingly, if you were in a cafe in mainland Europe, and it was full, it is expected that patrons share tables with others, on the very basis that "he has a right to a seat as much as I do." But I digress.)

However, in this particular coffee shop, the whole point of the children's play area is that all of the toys are available to all of the children. The expectation is that yes, if a toy is large enough that another child can join in without you having you to stop playing with the toy, it is shared. If it was a single-person toy, there would not be an expectation that someone drops the toy to hand it over to my child (as I explained in the OP, when my daughter did do this, I gave the toy right back.)

I must confess to being somewhat surprised, actually, by the responses I'm seeing. But all good food for thought!


I have to say, i give you my vote again here as well. Toys in a public place a for sharing.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

I always wonder why its the younger one that has to be redirected. The toddler has as much right to be interested in the boat, and the big kids to their own play. Its not a matter of not respecting the big kids' right to their own game without the toddler, but there's a conflict. So you go back to the basics, 'public toys are for sharing', thats how you resolve the dilemma.....


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

"So you go back to the basics, 'public toys are for sharing', thats how you resolve the dilemma....."

But it is clear from this discussion that random adults are not going to all agree on this 'rule', so it's not a rule. It might be for you and your kids, but it most likely won't be for others in the public place, so all it is is your arbitary judgment of a situation, not a commonly agreed 'rule'.

The way I see it, you have a choice in your outlook. You can either see it as a matter of a rule (which is created by adults) that 'toys in any public place are for sharing', and try to enforce it, bearing in mind that others in the public place may well not share the same 'rule'.

Or, you can see the situation in terms of child development and help children navigate and learn according to their personal stage of development.

For me, trying to enforce an adult-created rule such as 'these toys are for sharing' creates a hassle and often a power battle that is, quite honestly, totally unnecessary and teaches children nothing in the long run. (The sharing rule is far more appropriately and effectively taught in different situations and at other ages, such as at home, with friends, and with people you actually know, not with total strangers in a random coffee shop.)

The alternative, where you guide the toddler to a different toy, and support the older children in verbalizing their wishes appropriately, is teaching the older kids something, and not hurting the toddler in the slightest.

I guess I'm just not a big fan of arbitary rules invented by adults for situations like this, that can so much more easily and effectively be handled by guiding a toddler to a different toy and allowing other children to play happily. I don't see the value, except to make adults feel that they are controlling a situation and instilling some fact in kids' brains about a rule that simply does not need to apply, except to make some of the adults feel good. A toddler can be made to feel good by excitedly banging on a drum or grabbing a nearby doll and acting like it is the most exciting toy in the world - for twenty seconds, anyway.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
I always wonder why its the younger one that has to be redirected. The toddler has as much right to be interested in the boat, and the big kids to their own play. Its not a matter of not respecting the big kids' right to their own game without the toddler, but there's a conflict. So you go back to the basics, 'public toys are for sharing', thats how you resolve the dilemma.....

In this case, it's because the older kids were already playing with it. And the basic would be, "They're playing with that now. You can have a turn when they're done."


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Britishmum, i see what you are saying, but what if toddler doesnt want to be redirected? I see it as forcing toddler to do something else, because its easier. But that isnt fair on the toddler.
Im not sure how you define arbitrary rule either. I guess you could ask the coffee shop owners why they put the toys there, and odds are, they were hoping kids would play with them,... that they were for public use...so its follows thatthey are for sharing. Not arbitrary, just logical.

Im faced with this kind of situation alot because i have 2 kids of similar ages (21m, 4) and just get tired of always redirecting toddler, kwim? There's a reason toddler is interested in older children's activities, that is how they learn. Older children have their developmental reasons for not wanting to play with toddler, again, we have a conflict.....


----------



## JL83 (Aug 7, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
I always wonder why its the younger one that has to be redirected. The toddler has as much right to be interested in the boat, and the big kids to their own play. Its not a matter of not respecting the big kids' right to their own game without the toddler, but there's a conflict. So you go back to the basics, 'public toys are for sharing', thats how you resolve the dilemma.....

In this case, the older kids were playing with the boat first. So the toddler needs to wait for their turn.

If the toddler had the toy first - the older kids would have been redirected.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
I always wonder why its the younger one that has to be redirected. The toddler has as much right to be interested in the boat, and the big kids to their own play. Its not a matter of not respecting the big kids' right to their own game without the toddler, but there's a conflict. So you go back to the basics, 'public toys are for sharing', thats how you resolve the dilemma.....

yes the toddler did have a right to be interested in it but it was already being played with in a way that was not conducive to a toddler playing along.

I do not agree that public toys are for sharing. A coffee shop I go to has games and puzzles. geared towards adults and children. if my friend and I set up a game to play no one would dream of pulling up a chair and plunking their peice on the board just because there was room for one more and it was a game owned by the coffee shop. they may ask and may or may not say yes but whatever I am said would most likely be respected. I feel like a toy boat is the same way. anyone can play with it but once it is being used it is up to the person using it weather or not they want to share that game with a stranger. who may or may not want to play by the rules (but most likely would like to make up their own rules)

It doesn't always have to be the toddler that gets redirected. if the baby had been playing with the boat first and the big kids did not want to play with her they would have had to find something else to do until the baby was done playing with the boat. the thing is, older children are usually better at redirecting themselves....they see the boat and think "i would sure like to play with that boat" and then they do one of a few things. try to lure the baby away from the boat with something shiney, come whine to me "mmmmoooommmmm...how long is that baby going to play with that boooooaaaaaaat.....??" (and I would answer "as long as she good and well wants too, now go find something else to amuse yourself with, my friend and I are trying to have a conversation" because I'm a crappy mom like that) or they would just accept it and move on to something else.

sharing toys - play with one for a while and then let spomeone else use it when you are done. it doesn't necessarily mean you have to play with someone you do not with to play with. No one should be forced to play with someone else and no one is obligated to play with our children. no matte rhow sweet or charming or perfect they are to us. in a public place people have a right to grab a game or a paper or whatever and use it and return it to for others to use when they are done without being harrassed by others who want to use it too. everyone will get a turn eventually.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

twins.....


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
Britishmum, i see what you are saying, but what if toddler doesnt want to be redirected? I see it as forcing toddler to do something else, because its easier. But that isnt fair on the toddler.
Im not sure how you define arbitrary rule either. I guess you could ask the coffee shop owners why they put the toys there, and odds are, they were hoping kids would play with them,... that they were for public use...so its follows thatthey are for sharing. Not arbitrary, just logical.

Im faced with this kind of situation alot because i have 2 kids of similar ages (21m, 4) and just get tired of always redirecting toddler, kwim? There's a reason toddler is interested in older children's activities, that is how they learn. Older children have their developmental reasons for not wanting to play with toddler, again, we have a conflict.....

If the toddler comes to the toy after other people have it, she needs redirecting. If an older child comes to a toy after a toddler has it, he/she is asked to wait, if the toddler prefers not to share it. Although the fact is, toddlers have a far shorter attention span and ability to plan and sustain play, so yes, it is often easier to redirect a toddler than require a group of older children to alter their play.

The toys are for sharing. Sharing sometimes means waiting for your turn. It does not mean that everyone can play with the same thing at the same time, whether or not all the kids agree. That is the part of this 'rule' that I don't think is logical.

ITA that children learn through interacting with others of different ages and in different groups. But that doesn't mean that they have to have this experience every time they approach other children. They will not fail to gain social skills if sometimes in a public place they are redirected from a group of older children, who, after all, are also learning from their game. It's all a question of balance and common sense, and in this case, I really can't see why the OP's toddler should have been allowed to muscle in on a toy that other children were playing with. As it worked out, the older children had to stop their game, and the OP's child did not get to interact, so there you go. You can't force children to play together, and if it's not going to happen, it's better to help the older kids maintain their game while occupying the toddler elsewhere for a while.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I bet when your kid is 5 and playing in a play area (maybe even the same one) and you can see she has set up an elaborate imaginative game and a lumbering toddler is about to disrupt the fairy prince in the midst of the dragon invasion...you will think back to this post and laugh.









I was thinking the same thing. I have a four-year-old who just got a big box of tiny Polly Pocket dolls for Christmas, and a ten-month-old who likes everything his sister has. With one errant swipe of his hand he can wipe out the whole prison full of unjustly persecuted princesses.


----------



## New_Natural_Mom (Dec 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar* 
It doesn't sound mean to me at all. I'm wondering if this looks different to people have have had 4 and 5 year olds than people who haven't.

I was visiting some friends last night who have a 5 year old and a 23 month old. The 5 year old was setting up her new Littlest Pet Shop figures on tv tray. They were having a camping trip cook out, and chatting with each other. Her little brother kept coming over to her. She tried giving him some other toys to play with, which would keep him busy for a minute or so, and then he'd reach in and grab one of her toys, or knock over the campfire. Finally she gave up and squawked for mom, who took the toddler away and found him something to do.

It was really clear to me that the little one just was not developmentally capable of playing this pretend game with his sister. He just wasn't, and that's because he's one, not five. Instead, he grabbed toys from her, _just like the OP's daughter at the cafe_. That's what toddlers do. She'd already snatched a toy once - of course the older kids expect her to do it again. They very assertively made it clear to the OP that they didn't want to play with her toddler, and the OP didn't respect that and - yeah, I agree with BrandiRhoades- bullied them and forced her toddler into their space.

This isn't about inviting a latecomer to join a Monopoly game or not - the latecomer in this case isn't capable of playing the game anyway. She might want to move some pieces around, though, and maybe she'd stick with ones we weren't using and maybe she wouldn't, and maybe she'd just snatch a bunch of cards off the board and toss them... which is fine if no one is playing Monopoly at the moment - I used to pull out Risk when Rain was a toddler and I needed a 15 minute break - but not if someone is.

This. I originally agreed with the OP, but this POV makes a lot of sense to me. I never would have thought of it on my own though b/c my DS is 21 mos and I have no other children.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
I think the point of these toys is to give the children something to do while the parents relax. and I think kids using a toy is exactly the same as people using a table.

I think we established way back that the "point" of the place varies in what they offer in terms of play areas. The one I'm thinking of has a 4 THOUSAND square foot play area. It is basically an indoor park, with several large play structures (along with the toys). The point is to let kids play. The coffee is an after thought. It's much different than a coffee shop with a few toys in the back corner. I was thinking of a similar situation, but agree it's a little different when there is only one or two toys.

And I still disagree that toys are tables.


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
I always wonder why its the younger one that has to be redirected. The toddler has as much right to be interested in the boat, and the big kids to their own play. Its not a matter of not respecting the big kids' right to their own game without the toddler, but there's a conflict. So you go back to the basics, 'public toys are for sharing', thats how you resolve the dilemma.....

Whoever interrupts needs to be redirected, regardless of age. Age was secondary in this scenario.


----------



## Calee (May 10, 2008)

My son is 23 months, and in the situation described I would have definitely re-directed him.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Its probably all been said, but wanted to offer my perspective again here, because I have 2 kids of similar age difference, and&#8230;. prior to having kids I spent alot of time in cafes. (very very little since)

In general-small table is for one person.(and friend)
Large table is for sharing, even with strangers.
Sometimes in large crowds, you could ask a stranger to share a small table, but they are within their rights to refuse. (unless you're in Vienna or Tokyo, where it is expected, but not in Paris. Sometimes its ok in New York)
Large sofa, you share with strangers.
Large chair intended for one person, you dont.

So, if a table is intended for one person (or a couple) then they have the right to that. If its large, then you are expected to share.

Easy to apply the same principle to toys. If its a large toy (large enough for 3 or 4), then, so be it. If its a small toy,intended for 1, then someone else has to wait their turn. Its simple. (not like a chess board, which is a game intended for 2, or a game in which participants are expected to interact with each other) If the boat was large enough for 3 or 4, then interaction is not a requirement.

As for not forcing to share, i agree with that ( i also think that its not right to force a 21 month old to do something else, there's only so much redirection you can use without it being disrepectful imo)

But its not about forcing to share, its about functioning within a social setting which requires respecting certain codes of behviour. I dont just go up to someone and start drinking from their coffee cup (why not?)
By the same principle, i dont hog a table intended for several people, and tell them noone else can sit there. (or large plastic boat intended for 3 or 4)

As for the barbecue, i would welcome a small child into the conversation because its a party, and they are at it. If that requires some tolerance, then i consider tolerance a virtue. What if the person were say, handicapped in a way that impeded conversation with initial person? Or lets say, didnt speak the language well? I would, by the same principle, welcome them into the conversation. If this was frustrating, and i wanted to continue my conversation with other person, i would eventually find away to do that. It might mean, i would have to go somewhere private.
Im not a believer in excluding children from conversations.

Oh, and i am taking OP's word that boat was large enough for 3 or 4. Some pp's seem to be doubting her word on that, and using this as the basis for their arguments against what she did. But since only the OP was there, then i think the only thing you can do, is take her word for it.
There's also an assumption that toddler wanted to play with big kids. Maybe yes, maybe no. If toddler tried to play with them, then you could say, 'they are playing their own game'. But toddler still has right to be in boat.
Oh, and as for redirection of toddler, that was definitely and option. OP, you could have done that, but
i dont think there was any obligation. Equally, said mother could have come over and explained to her older kids that toy was intended for 3 or 4, please move over and make room.

Maybe the best scenario-mother comes over, and says to kids, this toy is for sharing, , but, and ask OP and toddler, do you think they could play by themselves for a little while? (looking little toddler in the eyes, and showing some respect)(instead of walking off in a mumbling huff&#8230;course, just assuming, maybe they were about to go anyway)

I spend all day every day doing this kind of thing with my 2 kids with this age difference.

I see it like this, no matter what the age, we have the right to do certain things, and be who we are,and that's not wrong.5yo's or 21m olds. Sometimes there are competing interests, so you go back to whats fair, or the social standard (like not drinking from someone else coffee cup&#8230

.....i think a large toy that is big enough for sharing, in a public space, is just that.....


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I think you were right in your response. I also think the mother was correct to guide her child quickly to stand up for herself. It sounds like the kind of thing you do when you know that your preschool child may react very angrily towards another child grabbing their toy. My dd is just now starting to realize that younger kids are different in their sharing abilities and she still has absolutely no patience for them.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Britishmum* 
If the toddler comes to the toy after other people have it, she needs redirecting. If an older child comes to a toy after a toddler has it, he/she is asked to wait, if the toddler prefers not to share it. Although the fact is, toddlers have a far shorter attention span and ability to plan and sustain play, so yes, it is often easier to redirect a toddler than require a group of older children to alter their play.

The toys are for sharing. Sharing sometimes means waiting for your turn. It does not mean that everyone can play with the same thing at the same time, whether or not all the kids agree. That is the part of this 'rule' that I don't think is logical.

ITA that children learn through interacting with others of different ages and in different groups. But that doesn't mean that they have to have this experience every time they approach other children. They will not fail to gain social skills if sometimes in a public place they are redirected from a group of older children, who, after all, are also learning from their game. It's all a question of balance and common sense, and in this case, I really can't see why the OP's toddler should have been allowed to muscle in on a toy that other children were playing with. As it worked out, the older children had to stop their game, and the OP's child did not get to interact, so there you go. You can't force children to play together, and if it's not going to happen, it's better to help the older kids maintain their game while occupying the toddler elsewhere for a while.









All of this is true. I suppose i am thinking of a toy, that is large, and intended for sharing, because it is for '3-4'. Could be any toy. In my experience, when a 4yo hogged a toy, and i kindly (but did not think i was obligated to) redirected my toddler, the toy was a large tunnel, that was definitely intended for many children. It was not a matter of waiting for a turn, Some toys are meant for several kids to play with at once. Thats what im thinking of, when OP says 'large boat'

I dont think anyone did anything wrong in this scenario, OP included. And when i experienced something similar, i redirected my toddler...still think i could have asked big kid to share, but i didnt bother.


----------



## brownskinchinee (Dec 27, 2009)

the 2yr old was being a 2 yr old yes but the 4 and 5yr olds were also acting their age imo. my dd is 7 and while most ties she has no priblem playing with younger kids, sometimes she just doesn't want to and I don't see why she should. In this case I don't think either of the parents were wrong to be honest.
I think the OP itdentifies and knows the behaviour of her kids age group cuz that's what she accustomed to. Her kid isn't yet 4 or 5 so she doesn't really know what's normal behaviour for that age....they don't always want to play with younger kids. Yes it was a public setting but if they were playing a specific game with the pirate ship they were well within their right to say "we just want to play with this by ourselves for now".
The OP should've just redirected her kid saying something like, "you'll get to play wih it in a few mins when they're done" loud enough for the other parent to hear so she gets the point.
I think sometimes we make the whole "kids playing together" thing too much of a big deal. 9 times out of 10 if you let kids playon their own they figure out their differences and find a way to play.


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
As for not forcing to share, i agree with that ( i also think that its not right to force a 21 month old to do something else, there's only so much redirection you can use without it being disrepectful imo)

But it's okay to disrespect the older kids who do not want to play with the toddler and who had the toy first?

Quote:

As for the barbecue, i would welcome a small child into the conversation because its a party, and they are at it. If that requires some tolerance, then i consider tolerance a virtue. What if the person were say, handicapped in a way that impeded conversation with initial person? Or lets say, didnt speak the language well? I would, by the same principle, welcome them into the conversation.
You are an adult. A lot more is expected and understood by adults than by children 4 and 5 years old.

Quote:

Oh, and i am taking OP's word that boat was large enough for 3 or 4. _Some pp's seem to be doubting her word on that, and using this as the basis for their arguments against what she did._
No one was doubting her word - we were trying to determine if it was a play IN structure or a play WITH toy. There is a difference. (And I'm personally still not clear as to what it was)


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Also keep in mind, how many kids could play happily and freely with the pirate ship is just an opinion. How many kids can fit around a toy happily with room to play is different if it is their friend from if it is a stranger. it makes a difference how coordinated the kids are, how big they are, what kinds of movements are involved. it also matters how many pirates, guns, cannons, treasure chests etc were available. my neighbors barbie house was easily big enough for six kids to fit around but it would have changed how they played. and she did not want a four year old (me specifically) messing with her dream house, interupting her and her friends play and there was not a barbie for me. and I was four. fine motor skills were not my strong suit. It may have been big enough for six best friends to play with but not enough room for a four year old who had never played with a barbie before. Size is relative.


----------



## waldorfknitmama (Sep 16, 2007)

By any chance were you at the Riverview cafe? I'm there all the time and I see scenes like that played out all the time. I would have done the same thing if I felt fit, and not worry about it later.


----------



## peaceful_mama (May 27, 2005)

I would've redirected my child/children. Partly because it's rude for them to just barge into whatever's already going on between the first two (yes I get it that a under-2 doesn't know that, but it doesn't make it less true and if I allow/excuse it now, really, when do you stop?) And partly because after watching the mom react to my child that way, I wouldn't want my kid playing with hers anyway. There's a way to handle the situation of your little child coming and taking a toy from hers, that was not it.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Hey, this thread is still around! For those who seem to suggest that all children must play together willingly, can you explain to me why you believe this? If you believe it's different for children, as opposed to adults, with respect to public space and objects, why is it different? I'm having trouble understanding the presumption that children of all ages, differing abilities and interests must interact if they are in the same place.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *contactmaya* 
Oh, and i am taking OP's word that boat was large enough for 3 or 4. Some pp's seem to be doubting her word on that, and using this as the basis for their arguments against what she did. But since only the OP was there, then i think the only thing you can do, is take her word for it.

The confusion is that the OP said 3-4 children could fit around it comfortably but also said her 21MO could've picked it up and moved it. Those two don't necessarily work together for me, so I'm imagining a large toy you can play with but that isn't intended for parallel play the way a play structure is.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *naturalmamaof1* 
By any chance were you at the Riverview cafe? I'm there all the time and I see scenes like that played out all the time. I would have done the same thing if I felt fit, and not worry about it later.


It was! Are you in Minneapolis, too?


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
Hey, this thread is still around!

I know, seriously, right? I think this is the longest thread I've ever followed on mothering! (longest duration, not longest # of comments).


----------



## bluegreenblue2002 (Jul 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
Also keep in mind, how many kids could play happily and freely with the pirate ship is just an opinion. How many kids can fit around a toy happily with room to play is different if it is their friend from if it is a stranger. it makes a difference how coordinated the kids are, how big they are, what kinds of movements are involved. it also matters how many pirates, guns, cannons, treasure chests etc were available. my neighbors barbie house was easily big enough for six kids to fit around but it would have changed how they played. and she did not want a four year old (me specifically) messing with her dream house, interupting her and her friends play and there was not a barbie for me. and I was four. fine motor skills were not my strong suit. It may have been big enough for six best friends to play with but not enough room for a four year old who had never played with a barbie before. Size is relative.

Most likely OP took that into consideration, and therefore suggested sharing...


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Not necessarily. If you are used to parenting a toddler, you may not understand what typical preschooler/kindergartener play looks like.


----------



## Bug-a-Boo's Mama (Jan 15, 2008)

If the pirate ship really was big enough for all to play with, I would have said that we all need to share. Honestly though, if he had pulled it away, I would have told my DS that we need to wait our turn to play with it and tried to distract him. At 21 months that probably would have worked. Now at four, nope. If he wanted to play with it he would have stood there until they either finished or let him play...of course he would now ask them to let him play.


----------



## waldorfknitmama (Sep 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
It was! Are you in Minneapolis, too?

Longfellow neighborhood, I knew it was the riverview----I hate that damn pirate ship toy


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

I now must immediately go out and buy all those pirate ships.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *naturalmamaof1* 
Longfellow neighborhood, I knew it was the riverview----I hate that damn pirate ship toy









Ooh, maybe you can describe it more fully and even post a pic?


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
Hey, this thread is still around! For those who seem to suggest that all children must play together willingly, can you explain to me why you believe this? If you believe it's different for children, as opposed to adults, with respect to public space and objects, why is it different? I'm having trouble understanding the presumption that children of all ages, differing abilities and interests must interact if they are in the same place.











Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2* 
Ooh, maybe you can describe it more fully and even post a pic?

Several pictures have already been posted without clarification as to which is a closest representation if any is.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

KirstenMary;14877892
Several pictures have already been posted without clarification as to which is a closest representation if any is.[/QUOTE said:


> Without clarification by the OP, who didn't see the pictures-- but another poster on this thread said that she had seen the same ship at the same cafe, and I was addressing my question to that poster.


----------



## Butterfy Baby (Dec 30, 2009)

WWID? I typically remove/redirect my toddler from older children.

After removing/redirecting, if the older child tells me "she's ok, she can play with me" then my toddler plays with the older child. If the older child says nothing after I remove/redirect my toddler, I assume the older child is thankful I removed my toddler from their space and I try my best to keep toddler away from him/her.

Older children at a play place shouldn't have a younger child pushed on them, imo. Some of the older girls love taking little ones around and play "big sister/babysitter,etc"....some don't and that should be respected.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
For those who seem to suggest that all children must play together willingly, can you explain to me why you believe this?











Not sure I've seen any posts that say (or imply) this, so it must be a misunderstanding of the "when in public..." thing, but I'll bite. Again.









I think that there's a time and place for everything. I do not expect that my daughter will like everyone she meets, nor will she want to play with everyone she meets. However, when we're out in public we assume we might be approached by people. People might sit next to us. Make conversation with us. Etc. It's part of being in places where there are other people.

I also assume that when we're in situations out in public where it's assumed that we'll receive a certain amount of "privacy" (as much as you can get while out and about), that we'll get that. However, there isn't a wall around us. People can still see us, talk to us, _approach us_. It's part of being in PUBLIC. If I want to eat a meal without people looking at me or dare say anything to me, I stay home! If I want to read a book without someone sitting next to me on the bench and commenting on the weather, I stay home!

I think this comes down to teaching a basic level of tolerance by not expecting that the whole world is going to know what your needs are _right now_. Joe Blow in the park who sits next to me and comments on the weather when all I want to do is finish my chapter because I can't do it at home and I've managed to grab a quick 10 minute break to myself doesn't know that all *I* want is to be left alone for 10 minutes. The basic level of tolerance needed to not snap at a perfect stranger for simply being social that is lacking in all these encounters where "how DARE they talk to me, touch me, look at me... [in public]" is tragic. If you NEED to be left alone, don't sit on a park bench.

And if your child NEEDS to play alone, find a place conducive to independent play.

If he _wants_ to play alone, in a public cafe, where children of different developmental stages are likely to be, it might be a good lesson in tolerance for the above stated reasons.

It may be age appropriate for a 4/5 year old to demand to be left to play alone in a public cafe, but I'm of the belief that just because it's age appropriate doesn't mean it doesn't need addressing.

And I'm sure there will be some who will argue that someone is "rude" for not noticing that you have a book in your hand. Or that commenting on how good your steak looks when it's brought to the table is being "rude" for not respecting your privacy in a restaurant, but good grief, if our society is taking a turn in the direction of such benign situations warranting rudeness and snapping back, that's really sad!

I want my daughter to grow up knowing her rights, how to assert them, how to say no, _when_ to say no, and to not be afraid of repercussions for doing what is right.

But I also want her to learn how to _gracefully_ deal with unexpected situations, how to politely and respectfully excuse herself from said situations, and to have the maturity to know how to pick her battles. I wouldn't know how to teach her that if I allowed her to take a toy away from a 21 month old in a public cafe because she _wanted_ to play alone without at least reminding her that the baby is not doing anything wrong.

It may be age appropriate for her to not have the social awareness to not say/do it in the first place, but of the two, at 4/5 years old, she's far more capable of understanding the reasoning of "the other person didn't do anything wrong" more than the 21 month old. A 21 month old doesn't understand that a 4/5 year old might want to play alone. My almost 4 year old DOES understand that sometimes babies crash into stuff and grab stuff and that it's pretty normal.

So am I expecting that my daughter MUST play with everyone who approaches her while we're out? Nope. But I'm going to help her wade through the social tactics of dealing with less than desirable situations. And yes, that means being TOLERANT of kids she doesn't _want_ to play with.

We can only be responsible for our own actions, and our own happiness and contentment and stimulation can't rest on anyone's shoulders but our own. I would think it's very unfortunate if my daughter's play experience got ruined by an encounter such as this. Pick your battles.

And yep, sometimes it's totally age appropriate to have moments of selfishness at this age (the 4/5 age, since my daughter is almost 4), but like I said above, just because it's age appropriate, doesn't mean she doesn't require guidance.


----------



## peaceful_mama (May 27, 2005)

Here's my take on sharing stuff in public places:

If we go to somewhere like this with toys intended for a group, if my kids are playing with something and it looks like somebody else is interested, I remind them the toys are for *everyone* and help them figure out a way to share. (As long as the kid still seems interested. I've had plenty of toddlers lose interest in about four seconds' time,







)

it might be finding a spot where the 'baby' can play without interrupting what they are doing.
It might be that they play for XYZ more minutes, and then they find something else to do or we leave. (somebody else mentioned a coffeehouse with puzzles and games for adults....to me that's like an adult seeing somebody else wants to play the game they have, finishing their game, and either letting a new player in or giving the game to the next person.)

OR...if it's a "babyish" toy my kids are playing with anyway (Not in this case, but it's happened to us) I'll redirect *my* kids to something more their size. (that's a pet peeve of mine really, having to redirect my toddlers to something else at the park because all the baby swings are occupied by some obvious school-age looking kids who aren't moving. I'm talking kids who are plenty big and capable enough of doing anything and everything else. Yeah, they're there for everyone, but I *hope* mine will have an idea by that age that some of the things at the park are for the little kids and *MOVE IT* when there's little kids around who want to use them...)

honestly if it was my kids with the pirate ship thing we'd probably just leave pretty quickly if the scene with the "baby" turned into a big problem. We tend to do that. (not *punitive* for my kids for "not sharing" or anything, that would just be our way of dealing with it--like somebody said, part of being in public is dealing with people, if they can't deal well with the baby, then that is not a place we need to be today.)

(Maybe my kids don't want the baby to play with the pirate ship while they're using it....maybe *I* end up "showing them" i.e. doing it myself, but they see me, finding the baby another wonderful thing to play with.







if it works, it works. In the end, that's a stopgap, I'd still see it as my job to wrap up our visit and move on. That's how I'd teach mine "We don't 'hog' the toys in a common play area")


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 









Not sure I've seen any posts that say (or imply) this, so it must be a misunderstanding of the "when in public..." thing, but I'll bite. Again.










Thanks for answering. There were a few posts that disagreed with the analogies to adults in coffee shops - sharing tables, newspapers, magazines etc. and suggested "it's different for children". I don't know who posted those responses, and I'm not going back through a 9 page thread to find them, LOL!, but there was a general tone that children are expected to play together even if they are strangers to each other. Frankly, I find that attitude a little odd.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I think this comes down to teaching a basic level of tolerance by not expecting that the whole world is going to know what your needs are _right now_. Joe Blow in the park who sits next to me and comments on the weather when all I want to do is finish my chapter because I can't do it at home and I've managed to grab a quick 10 minute break to myself doesn't know that all *I* want is to be left alone for 10 minutes. The basic level of tolerance needed to not snap at a perfect stranger for simply being social that is lacking in all these encounters where "how DARE they talk to me, touch me, look at me... [in public]" is tragic. If you NEED to be left alone, don't sit on a park bench.

And if your child NEEDS to play alone, find a place conducive to independent play.

If he _wants_ to play alone, in a public cafe, where children of different developmental stages are likely to be, it might be a good lesson in tolerance for the above stated reasons.

It may be age appropriate for a 4/5 year old to demand to be left to play alone in a public cafe, but I'm of the belief that just because it's age appropriate doesn't mean it doesn't need addressing.

And I'm sure there will be some who will argue that someone is "rude" for not noticing that you have a book in your hand. Or that commenting on how good your steak looks when it's brought to the table is being "rude" for not respecting your privacy in a restaurant, but good grief, if our society is taking a turn in the direction of such benign situations warranting rudeness and snapping back, that's really sad!

I want my daughter to grow up knowing her rights, how to assert them, how to say no, _when_ to say no, and to not be afraid of repercussions for doing what is right.

But I also want her to learn how to _gracefully_ deal with unexpected situations, how to politely and respectfully excuse herself from said situations, and to have the maturity to know how to pick her battles. I wouldn't know how to teach her that if I allowed her to take a toy away from a 21 month old in a public cafe because she _wanted_ to play alone without at least reminding her that the baby is not doing anything wrong.

It may be age appropriate for her to not have the social awareness to not say/do it in the first place, but of the two, at 4/5 years old, she's far more capable of understanding the reasoning of "the other person didn't do anything wrong" more than the 21 month old. A 21 month old doesn't understand that a 4/5 year old might want to play alone. My almost 4 year old DOES understand that sometimes babies crash into stuff and grab stuff and that it's pretty normal.

So am I expecting that my daughter MUST play with everyone who approaches her while we're out? Nope. But I'm going to help her wade through the social tactics of dealing with less than desirable situations. And yes, that means being TOLERANT of kids she doesn't _want_ to play with.

We can only be responsible for our own actions, and our own happiness and contentment and stimulation can't rest on anyone's shoulders but our own. I would think it's very unfortunate if my daughter's play experience got ruined by an encounter such as this. Pick your battles.

And yep, sometimes it's totally age appropriate to have moments of selfishness at this age (the 4/5 age, since my daughter is almost 4), but like I said above, just because it's age appropriate, doesn't mean she doesn't require guidance.

Well, I agree that people need to be tolerant and a little more graciousness in public is always welcome. I don't think there was a lot of graciousness in harshly speaking to a pre-schooler who doesn't want to play with a toddler. The pre-schooler had an understandable reaction to the situation and was acting age appropriately. I don't see how intimidating the pre-schoolers helps them learn tolerance and grace.

Honestly, it sounded like the OP was angry at the other mom for saying the OP's daughter "needs to learn" not to snatch toys and then took her displeasure out on the pre-schoolers. If she really wanted them all to play together nicely, she could have invited them in a friendly manner, with a little more kindness, and the entire situation could have been defused in a pleasant way.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

I have two dds - 7 & 2. The two year old is no where near ready for play with anyone other than another curious/slightly destructive two year old!









As for the initial response to the grabbing (the hand held toy) - I would have told my seven year old the EXACT same thing, something along the lines of 'Use your words. Tell him no thank you, I'm using this toy right now'. How is that rude? I'm modeling behavior for my child. If an adult grabbed something I was using, I would use pretty similar terminology.

If my two year old (just two last month) attempted to interrupt/get in on a game older children were playing, I would quickly gauge whether or not they were receptive to having her come over, what mood she was in, what the situation was in... but nine times out of ten (barring them enthusiastically including her) I would re-direct her.

As for the whole 'public toy' issues, unless it's an actual play structure for multiple children to play ON at one time, the rules here (in our town - Chapters, local coffee place, yarn house, etc.) are whoever is playing with it first, decides whether or not to share. Not every toy must be immediately shared with every child that wanders up.


----------



## lonegirl (Oct 31, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
My response would be different depending if I were the parent of the 4/5 yo or the parent of the 1 yo.

I would expect my 4/5 yo to "be kind to the baby. Show the baby what to do." (and my 4/5 yo would have been happy to do so). I'd redirect my dc if she were having a very difficult time doing so.

.

Yes.
My son is 3 and when we go to Gymboree free play time the ages are from 6m-5...we've been going for over a year now. I have always asked him to be gentle with the infants and new walkers and that if the other younger children want to play with the ball he was playing with (2min ago)....I remind him that it is rude to snatch it away and that perhaps they can play catch together. If he continues (as some times he does) by saying "no, this is my ball...he's a bad boy."...I remind him that the toys are for everyone to play with...if he refuses to share, unfortunately he must move on to another activity.

He is a child who plays much better with older kids (4-7)....but if an older child chose not to play I would just remind him that sometimes he doesn't want to play with other kids.


----------



## GoestoShow (Jul 15, 2009)

.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
I don't think there was a lot of graciousness in *harshly* speaking to a pre-schooler who doesn't want to play with a toddler. <snip> I don't see how *intimidating* the pre-schoolers helps them learn tolerance and grace.

Seriously?

From her original post:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
My response, "This is a public coffee shop and the toys here are for all the children to share. She can play with the pirate ship if she wants to."

Now she's a bully AND intimidating?









And... I'm out. Have fun ladies!


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Seriously?

From her original post:

Now she's a bully AND intimidating?









And... I'm out. Have fun ladies!

Well, I didn't say she was a bully.

From a pre-schooler's perspective though, I think what she said was harsher than the situation warranted. A pre-schooler would likely have been intimidated. There were kinder, more gentle ways to say something similar and model friendlier behaviour. In other words, to show tolerance and graciousness, as you put it yourself.


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoestoShow* 
Umm...that's very American. In many other countries (and even in the US in previous generations), it is still common that if there is a seat at a table in a cafe or a coffee shop (sometimes even in a restaurant! I've had complete strangers escorted to my table when I lived in Russia because there happened to be seats enough to accommodate them at my table as opposed to another). So, you know....highly, highly cultural that.

In much of the world, it would not be rude. It'd be very normal.

Having lived abroad, I'm well aware of that, but last I checked, I was in the US and so is the OP.

It may not be rude in other countries but it is rude here...so I'm not sure why cultural norms in other countries would be relevant.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 

As for the initial response to the grabbing (the hand held toy) - I would have told my seven year old the EXACT same thing, something along the lines of 'Use your words. Tell him no thank you, I'm using this toy right now'. How is that rude? I'm modeling behavior for my child. If an adult grabbed something I was using, I would use pretty similar terminology.

would you have also said "she needs to learn"? That's very impolite.


----------



## Momily (Feb 15, 2007)

I feel like "She needs to learn" could be taken 2 ways, and without hearing the tone I can't say which is true.

One is "It's about time that child learns not to grab. Speak up to her so she learns her lesson!"

The other is "She's still a baby, she needs time to learn not to grab. Don't be upset, just let her know you're still playing with that."

Big difference in the two.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom* 
would you have also said "she needs to learn"? That's very impolite.

I would have said something like 'She's still learning how to play nice' Like Momily said, it would depend on tone.

I had a mother say to her older ds (in reference to my dd pushing him before I could get to her) 'She doesn't know any better. Maybe she'll say sorry, she's still learning', none of which I found offensive.

If she had said 'She needs to learn pushing isn't nice' (again, tone dependent) I wouldn't have been taken aback. It's a) the truth and b) a way of validating an older child's feelings.


----------



## AmyKT (Aug 20, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
As for the initial response to the grabbing (the hand held toy) - I would have told my seven year old the EXACT same thing, something along the lines of 'Use your words. Tell him no thank you, I'm using this toy right now'. How is that rude? I'm modeling behavior for my child. If an adult grabbed something I was using, I would use pretty similar terminology.


I agree with this, but I think the whole issue wouldn't have been an issue at all if parents would simply TALK TO EACHOTHER. The mom who told her daughter to defend her toy from the toddler could have looked at the other mom (the OP) and said, "we're working on non-physical methods of solving problems" or whatever. It has been my exasperating and embarrassing experience that some parents don't want to be acknoweldged by other parents. We're in a place together, where our kids are playing together, and we're totally zoned in on them. Don't look at the other adults in your midst! It's weird. As a first time parent of a toddler, I don't know if this is the unwritten code, or just my bad luck.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmyKT* 
I agree with this, but I think the whole issue wouldn't have been an issue at all if parents would simply TALK TO EACHOTHER. The mom who told her daughter to defend her toy from the toddler could have looked at the other mom (the OP) and said, "we're working on non-physical methods of solving problems" or whatever. It has been my exasperating and embarrassing experience that some parents don't want to be acknoweldged by other parents. We're in a place together, where our kids are playing together, and we're totally zoned in on them. Don't look at the other adults in your midst! It's weird. As a first time parent of a toddler, I don't know if this is the unwritten code, or just my bad luck.









I know exactly what you mean! You are totally right re: looking at and addressing the other parent. I would have said something along those lines (i.e. 'I have a toddler at home too' and laughed) Addressing the other parent in a friendly way would probably take the edge off of many of these situations.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

you don't always have time to choose your words carefully i you think your 5 year old is about to wallop a baby. it really sounds to me like both children were acting in an age appropriate way and the mom was just trying to stop things from going to their natrual end. "Use your words... wwwooorrrdddssssss"


----------



## Elizabeth2008 (Nov 26, 2008)

well, the mom's reaction initially was ridiculous. Your 21 month old needs to learn that it's not ok to innocently reach for an interesting toy? Give me a break! LOL. As for the second interaction, that's a bit tricky. I think that large play structures at parks (jungle gyms, slides, etc) are generally open to any and all at the same time. And i make that clear to any child who tells DS that he can't come on the structure because they're on it. But with toys, even large ones, we usually abide by the principle that the child using the toy has the option to share or not to share. If they don't want to share, then I encourage DS to ask them if he may use it when they're done. I don't think forced sharing for small children makes a lot of sense, but that's because DS is at a Reggio school and that has always been the philosopy there.


----------



## GoestoShow (Jul 15, 2009)

.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

yes, two year olds do need to learn. they cannot be expected to know it at two. she wasn't telling him to smack that baby and teach him a lesson. she was telling him to use his words because the baby doesn't know yet and still needs to learn.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoestoShow* 
Umm...that's very American. In many other countries (and even in the US in previous generations), it is still common that if there is a seat at a table in a cafe or a coffee shop (sometimes even in a restaurant! I've had complete strangers escorted to my table when I lived in Russia because there happened to be seats enough to accommodate them at my table as opposed to another). So, you know....highly, highly cultural that.

In much of the world, it would not be rude. It'd be very normal.

It would be considered rude if there were other seats available, here or in other countries. I've travelled in many other countries too, and it is not common to be seated at an occupied table when every other table in the room is available. In the example OP presents, the other children are the only ones in the toy area, and thus the only toy being played with is the pirate ship. I personally really like the table analogy that's come up over the course of the thread, and think that this only adds to it. If the play area were full of children and all the fun toys were being played with, then yes... kids should be expected to share. In an area full of toys where only one toy is being played with, not so much.

Also, OP lives in America. She says that in her first post.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
yes, two year olds do need to learn. they cannot be expected to know it at two. she wasn't telling him to smack that baby and teach him a lesson. she was telling him to use his words because the baby doesn't know yet and still needs to learn.

Agree entirely. You don't just hit age 7 (or whatever) and magically know the rules of your society. 2 year olds DO need to learn that they can't just grab toys out of other people's hands. The other mother was telling her child to tell the toddler that. No big deal. If it were my 2 year old, I'd want the older child to do the same. That's called socialization.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigeresse* 
Hmmmm. Interesting thread. I can't say honestly that either side was in the wrong here at all. There are valid points going both ways. If I was the mom to the toddler, I would have redirected her. I would not have confronted the 5yo unless he was downright mean, which it doesn't sound like he was. However, if I was mom to the 5yo, I would have said something to him about the toys being for everyone and perhaps he could find something else for the baby since it will be very hard for her to watch while only the older kids can use the ship. He may not do it, but at least the seed is planted for a more compassionate response later on. I think this situation would have worked out better as a collaborative effort on the part of both moms. To expect mom of toddler to keep her completely out of what the older kids are doing is unrealistic. To expect 4 and 5 yo.s to have to share everything they are doing with toddlers is also unrealistic.

ITA with this. Interesting thread.

FWIW, I have not actively taught my 5yo to ask if she can play *every* time she approaches other kids. Sometimes she does and sometimes she doesn't and just joins in (like, she might walk up to some kids being dinosaurs and say "I'm a dinosaur too! Raar!"). I just let her negotiate that herself. Now I'm wondering if I should teach her this. Huh. What is the general feeling on that?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
FWIW, I have not actively taught my 5yo to ask if she can play *every* time she approaches other kids. Sometimes she does and sometimes she doesn't and just joins in (like, she might walk up to some kids being dinosaurs and say "I'm a dinosaur too! Raar!"). I just let her negotiate that herself. Now I'm wondering if I should teach her this. Huh. What is the general feeling on that?

Is she getting resistance when she joins in? She might be picking up other social cues, like if she walks in and the kids look at her in a welcoming way, she'd know to join in. I would let her navigate it herself unless she's having trouble.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
ITA with this. Interesting thread.

FWIW, I have not actively taught my 5yo to ask if she can play *every* time she approaches other kids. Sometimes she does and sometimes she doesn't and just joins in (like, she might walk up to some kids being dinosaurs and say "I'm a dinosaur too! Raar!"). I just let her negotiate that herself. Now I'm wondering if I should teach her this. Huh. What is the general feeling on that?

I think you only need to teach her this if she has trouble understanding social cues. There are children who need to be taught this sort of thing, but most children do not.

The specific issue here is that a 2 year old wants to play with a 5 year old, without actually being capable of doing so... and the 5 year old knowing that and not wanting to play with the 2 year old. I guess a similar situation would be if your 5 year old was always wandering over to the 15 year olds and wanting to play with them. Sure, sometimes the 15 year olds might think that a 5 year old tagging along was really cute, and play with him... but you can't entirely blame a group of 15 year olds who don't want to drop everything they're doing to entertain a random 5 year old. And _then_ I would step in and redirect the 5 year old. But assuming your 5 year old wants to play with similarly aged kids who are playing age-appropriate games, I'd let him work it out on his own. He, shall we say, "needs to learn."


----------



## Super_mommy (Nov 13, 2009)

The way she reacted was not fair on her part... Toys are meant for everyone..


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super_mommy* 
The way she reacted was not fair on her part... Toys are meant for everyone..

So you think that all toys are meant for everyone at the exact same time, regardless of whether they're already being played with or whether they're age appropriate for everyone?


----------



## Encinalien (Mar 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
OP here. Wow - 110 responses! I thought I'd get 7 or 8 and then quickly fall onto page 2.
*
5 - My husband and I had something of a giggle at the posts describing me as a bully, someone who barged in and insisted my child ruin the experiences of the two kids there. And perhaps ruin their entire lives to come*. Who knows.
*.

See?!? *That's just how we'd expect a bully to act, go home and laugh about it with your buddies.

Just kidding. *Geez 

Uh. *I'm very glad I took the time to read this whole thread. *I originally thought I would have given the kids another minute to see how it played out before saying anything to them. *Sure, if I was any kind of a good mom I would have sat down on the floor and facilitated playtime that was sooo much fun for all three kids. *

But I have been training myself to wait until the last minute to intervene, just watching. *And I keep getting surprised by kids. *It would have been very difficult to wait and see how the kids solved it if I was already upset by how their mom acted a minute ago. *But I would have stood there staring at them, ready to jump in if my kid or the other needed help.

Why I'm glad that I read this is, knowing me, if I was already uncomfortable with the woman and I was watching the situation with the kids for signs of trouble; it just wouldn't have occured to me to make idle conversation with the mother while the kids decided what they were going to do. *I am going to remember that. *We don't really have coffee shops or anything cool like that here. *And everybody in town knows each other. *But I'm sure this insight will come in handy somehow.


----------



## jlobe (May 1, 2009)

I haven't read all the posts, sorry if I'm repeating .....

I have a 5 and 3 year old and both me and my kids have benefitted from older kids working hard at playing together in a public playspace. When we are in a public playspace and a toddler is interested in my kids I encourage them to play with them at their level... because it's really good for my kids to learn how to play with children of different ages. Even if they resist at first, the unexpected fun and feeling of importance and accomplishment usually trumps their desire for their individual play.

At home or in private it's a different story. There they can choose to find a private space. Usually, they choose to play with each other so it's not much of an issue.


----------

