to think that it is poor behaviour if children/teenagers play on their phones for 100% of the time at a meal out?

[FlouncingMintyy]

Bit of a reunion with old friends today. We are scattered far and wide so don't see each other all that often and have lots of children between us ages ranging from 8 to 14, who don't know each other particularly well but have certainly met before and seen each other from time to time.

There were more than 25 of us and the only way we could configure it in the restaurant was for the 8 children to sit on a table nearby.

Aibu to be really unimpressed that 3 of these kids simply played on their phones for the entire meal and made no effort to interact with the others?

My dd said that one boy (younger than her) literally did not speak at all.

Oooo touchy hmc

YANBU. Phones are entirely banned for my DCs in any situation such as this. It's bloody rude, for a start. We managed to go out for meals, sit yawning in boredom when ancient aunties came to tea, visit other people's houses, etc without needing to be entertained the entire time!

I loathe seeing phones in public with people playing on them anyway. Have a fucking conversation, why don't you? You only need a phone if you are making a call, IMO. You don't need to be playing games/on Internet the entire time.

Not in the least bit touchy actually - just posting my opinions in a direct and forthright manner .... Maybe you should try it rather than fatuous remarks?

We are all just posting our opinions

Yes, well you could work on how you express yours to, you know, actually contribute to the discussion?

Maybe if adults actively included the children more rather than expecting them to entertain each other whilst the olds have a good old laugh, then phones wouldn't even come into it?

WHY have a kids table if kids are invited why not just all communicate and eat together????

No need for distractions or judgements then huh?

But if adults are going to expect children to entertain each other purely on account of them being smaller, then let them choose how to spend that time... colouring in, playing games on the iphone. WHY do you care, when obviously those who are saying it's anti-social couldn't actually give a flying shit about actually communicating and including those children anyway, they just want them to keep up appearances. Double standards.

Oh FFS what's wrong with having a kids table? Must we all be teaching our children to be so bloody precious that they expect to be constantly entertained by adults and treated like mini grown ups? There's absolutely nothing wrong with expecting a bunch of 8-14 years olds to sit around a table together and chat among themselves for a couple of adults while the adults catch up. Children don't need to be the bloody centre of attention 24/7. No wonder kids are sitting for two hours on a phone because no one has taught them how to actually cope with not being included in everything and how to initiate a conversation. It's all about having their darlings centre of attention and amused at all times. I fear for the future of the world, I really do.

But they obviously didn't expect to be entertained, or to be centre of attention.

Hence amusing themselves unobtrusively & harmlessly whilst the adults had their catch up.

Haha... it's not about entertaining, it's about including. If you don't want them to be involved whilst you talk 'grown up' don't dictate how they spend their segragation

At 14 I had more in common with my 87 year old granny than I did an 8 year old... if you expect a 14 year old to entertain an younger child whilst you have fun, at least pay them.

There's nothing 'wrong' with having a kids table if they're all of similar age. 8 and 14 are not similar ages.

I fear for the future of the world where anyone who's yet to reach puberty has to sit on a separate table.

In many cultures, everyone eats together, old and young, it's INCLUSIVE. Not at all 'entertaining the young ones' or having them 'the centre of attention'...

I have exiled my children to a children's table, in the knowledge and understanding that as I don't want them at mine, they can do what the fuck they want. I prefer to have them with us, as part of the group, joining in... it's healthier all round, unless I'm getting pissed or talking about things that are age inappropriate, in which case, maybe a babysitter is the better option???

It's not precious to be inclusive. I would argue it's adults who are being precious. Shall we agree to differ?

And what about when they grow up and get a job? They go to a work event and are sat on a table with people they don't know, or may not even particularly like. Is it still acceptable to sit and play with your phone for the whole meal? Or should they suck it up and be prepared to act like a human being and socialise for the meal? If a 14 year old can't keep themselves amused for a couple of hours and actually TALK to another person, then you've done a pretty crap job as a parent.

To be honest, if mine had been the fourteen year old, I wouldn't have obliged him/her to attend, on the grounds of understanding that it would obviously be a ghastly bore.

Younger dc would be more amenable to performing appropriately & to the OP's specifications without the teenager there, I imagine. It does begin to sound a bit like a chimps' tea party, though, if the point of them conversing nicely is for the approval of watching adults.

As for them eventually needing to make chitchat at work events -that's a reason to include them in conversation with adults.

I agree with you that I wouldn't have forced a 14 year old to attend. I would however hope that my child was interested in going out to lunch and meeting some new people. If he were going to come along and sit on a phone, well he can stay home and do that.

I don't agree with you about always including them in the "adult" table. I just don't think that occasionally sitting on a table with people of their own generation and ask them to socialise is a bad thing. It can even be a good learning experience to allow them to sit on their own away from their parents at times. I used to love it as a kid, made me feel all grown up to on my own table and not sitting next to my parents.

If you go out dinner as a family and mum and dad are on one table and kids on another, then I'll absolutely be in your camp. But this was a big group dinner and not everyone can sit next to everyone else, unless you play musical chairs all night. There were two tables needed, so putting the adults together and the kids together in this situation absolutely made sense.

I have never given in much thought but we always have the kids mixed in with adults when we go out in big groups. We all chat together. It's fun.
Our DC's and our extended families DC's are used to eating out and enjoy it along with the rest of us. I can't think of a single time when we have had a kids table.

Obviously we go out without the kids sometimes and we enjoy that as well.

According to the OP, there was one 14-year-old, four 12-year-olds, two 10-year-olds, and an 8-year-old. Even if you buy the premise that the 14-year-old could not possibly interact with the 8-year-old (which, BTW, I do not), then surely the four children who were within two years of the 14-year-old could not be deemed too young for him/her. Especially as so many people are simultaneously arguing that the children should have been interacting with the adults, 30+ years older than them.

That paragraph includes far too many numbers.

To me it is perfectly reasonable to expect that everyone who attends a meal should make conversation with the people at the table, whoever they happen to be, no matter what age they are.

It wasn't about meeting new people, though - OP said the families have met before, so the older children obviously felt they had little in common.

& yes, I'd also be a bit disappointed if one of my dc was one of the unsociable phone-fiddlers. I would probably have nipped over & removed the phone if I knew it was down to rudeness rather than, say, paralysing shyness.

What I wouldn't do, though, is worry or bosom-hoick that someone else's kids spent the meal buried in their phone. They aren't bothering anyone else, they're obviously bored rigid, & their future ability to scintillate at work socials isn't my problem.

It's one of these things that resolves itself - another three or four years & NONE of the kids will want to hang out with their parents & their mates, so the OP & friends will be able to enjoy a long, convivial lunch without having to fret about a table of mardy kids. .

Oh FFs.... I was THE most unsociable teen, despite best efforts, and actually, despite the fact I liked a lot of the other people I had to sit with on various meals out...

I am a sociable adult. Stop being such bloody drama llamas.

Being sat with people you don't choose to sit with for hours whilst your parents have a jolly old time and ignore you completely is a bore.

Yes. We should all be sociable. Sometimes it's okay to sit a fiddle with a phone/colouring book/stare at your navel.

But from a pre-adult's perspective. The adults are fiddling with each other and being selectively sociable to their peers, whilst shoving the younglings on a table together purely because they haven't reached puberty yet.

What is SO wrong with sitting a one big table and allowing everyone to talk to who they want to?

I would object to being sat with someone I wasn't interested with. As an adult I'd make an effort in a WORK situation, because I'd be at least getting a wage. I can't say I would in my freetime!

Yep ^^^^
That.

What is SO wrong with sitting a one big table and allowing everyone to talk to who they want to?

Doesn't anyone actually read the OP?

Because there wasn't one big table available! There were more than 25 people at the lunch, and not all places are set up for one big massive table of 25 people. It's pretty impractical as well, you generally end up with a big long table with people yelling at each other down it to try and talk.

I would object to being sat with someone I wasn't interested with. As an adult I'd make an effort in a WORK situation, because I'd be at least getting a wage. I can't say I would in my freetime!

Never gone to a wedding and been seated next to someone you don't know? If I went to a wedding, was put on a table with people I didn't particularly know, and the adult sitting next to me spent the whole night on their phone to avoid making conversation, then I'd think they were a right prat as well.

YANBU am so thankful that my dss who are 12 and 15 have no interest in phones. They don't need to FB when out of the house. Or play games. We talk. Old fashioned perhaps but that's how it is. Plus they socialise with people they don't know as it's good manners. In the house they do play on PC, laptop, xbox etc.. but in restaurants it's not too much to ask for them to talk is it?

Dining together is a social occasion - no matter what age you are!

I always thinks it looks so anti-social if anyone is on their phone or iPad at a dining table.

My DC is never allowed to play with a phone/iPad at a dining table. I invariably get complaints of "but so-and-so is going to be using theirs at the table!", to which I invariably reply "I don't care, they are not my child. You are. It's rude and you're not doing it". Admittedly DC then spends the meal looking over so-and-so's shoulder whilst they play on their device!

It's common courtesy I think to interact with the people you're eating with. If other people allow their kids to be rude, I'm ok about that, but I'm going to set a good example for my child to follow. Just because other people do things doesn't automatically lend that respectability in my eyes.

I think it's a huge shame that the kids who were on their devices at the OP's kiddie table didn't take that opportunity to find out more about the other children they were eating with.

As for the "Bermuda" poster - whose family all sat at the dining table ignoring each other whilst playing on their own devices - I would feel absolutely mortified doing something like that!

Just saw the dcs had to sit separately. No that changes things imo. The dcs would sit amongst the adults in my family outings.

No, aldiwhore's right.

You can't equate 'being parked on a table with other kids I know vaguely but don't have anything in common with, because my parents want to have a long lunch with their mates' with 'being on a table with people I haven't met at a wedding I have chosen to attend'.

I do think the lesson to be learned is for this particular gang to do something other than lengthy convivial lunches, until the youngest dc are old enough not to be dragged along. They'd all enjoy it far more.

I think it's perfectly OK for the kids to be "dragged along" to these social occasions and, even if they only unplug their ear-phones for a little bit its a great opportunity for them to brush up on some social skills, finding out things they have in common with people they hadn't met before.

This was a great "life-skills" learning opportunity for all of those kids!

So what if it was, strictly speaking, an "adults" occasion. So what if the kids weren't able to entertain themselves for an hour or two. Character building I say!

Kids who can only interact with others on their own terms, within a narrow social circle are going to grow up into whinge-bats who will whinge and whine every time they don't get their own way and make their parents' lives a misery every time they are taken out socially outside of their limited, insular, comfort zone.

How do they know they have nothing in common Raven if they won't fucking talk to each other????

And to not go out until all the children are older? Do you seriously think that parents should put their lives on hold for at least 18 years, longer if you have multiple children, and only do things that revolve around the children? Do you really think any of them will be emotionally scarred for life because they had to sit in a restaurant and eat food for a couple of hours? No wonder kids are turning in to pathetic, whining, ME ME ME morons who can't do anything without an electronic device clamped in their hands.

Because the OP has already explained that they already know each other, Midnite. Which suggests that they aren't that enraptured at the prospect of hanging out over a restaurant table.

& I'm not suggesting at all that the parents shouldn't go out! Strewth. Far from it. Mine are pre-teen & I go out loads. I also teach teenagers.

If I were doing a big gathering, which I do fairly regularly, of old friends & their dc, I would tend to have a house party/sleepover. Or go to somewhere like our local Sculpture Park where you can have a nice lunch & then dc can go off & wander. Or a barbecue in the back garden.

Or, if you've already booked a restaurant & the tabling isn't ideal, at the very least - accept that it's going to be a bit dull for some of the older ones. & as such, by all means set 'no phone' rules for your own - but don't necessarily expect other parents to feel the same.

As I said before, it will resolve itself. In five years' time, OP & her mates will be able to go out entirely child free. In the meantime, there isn't actually any disruption to her social life occurring. Someone else's children played on their phones, which caused her, in fact, no inconvenience whatsoever.