This was originally published to the blog on Monday, however, a disk drive on the server died Monday afternoon and everything posted to the site for the previous 24 hours evaporated into thin air. That includes all readers’ comments to this original post. So, here we go again….I’m not sure I can recreate my original comments to this but will try.
I saw this article on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-skaro/to-the-man-who-yelled-at-the-movie-theater-about-my-child_b_7435234.html
I immediately thought of your blog. Basic synopsis: A woman brought her 3 children to see Tomorrowland, a nine year old, 2 year old and 20 month old. The 20 month old is a cancer survivor and the type of cancer he had damaged his vocal chords. Therefore his laughter comes out more like a shriek than a laugh. The woman said she removed him when he was crying and brought him back in when he was better. However he was apparently shrieking at different scenes in the movie and a man finally shouted “get that kid out of here”. The woman retaliated by holding her child up at the end of the screening and saying to whomever had shouted at her that her child was a cancer survivor, etc.
My take: the kid was too young to the movie regardless of his cancer history. The shrieks could definitely have been distracting. The man was rude to shout at her (he should have gotten someone from the theatre to intervene) but the woman was rude to retaliate. Kids that young shouldn’t go to movies in the first place as they are loud, dark and potentially scary places and probably wouldn’t be able to appreciate a live action sci fi flick like Tomorrowland (the woman confirmed on Facebook this is the movie she saw).
What do you think? 0528-15
My initial thought was to wonder how this mother knew for certain that the male voice yelling to “Get that kid out of here” was specifically in regards to her 20-month old son when she reports that there many other children with adult in attendance at this movie. If the video she includes in her message is an indication of how the 20-month old sounds like when he’s giggling, I’m fairly certain most people would perceive that as shrieking. I wouldn’t want to hear that throughout a movie I was watching. She also reports that the 20-month child’s older sibling, her 2-year old child, is “bouncing off the seat” which, in itself, can be quite distracting.
This appears to be a case where the two youngest children should have been at home under the care of a babysitter rather than “watching” a 130 minute long movie that is not really appropriate for their age group.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Based on the synopsis, the woman thought her child’s vocalizations should be forgiven because he was a cancer survivor? How odd.
Her argument was that her kid was being discriminated against because his laugh is an unpleasant sound, due to damage to his vocal cords. So, all the kids are laughing, but only Vito is a problem because his particular laugh does not sound like other kids.
Now, I wasn’t at the theater and don’t know what exactly angered the other patrons, but it’s my understanding that Tomorrowland is not really a comedy and it’s unlikely that a 20 month old was able to follow the movie. What I’m getting at, is whatever excited him to the point of the laugh/shriek was probably unrelated to the movie and therefore disruptive to other patrons. It likely would have been an issue with any 20 month old in the theater, even one with a “normal” laugh, which is why people generally don’t take 20 month olds to movies.
First of all, I’m starting to get really tired of seeing these kinds of blogs out there. They seem to mostly be on Yahoo. Someone (usually a parent) will have an unpleasant encounter with a complete stranger and then feel compelled to write an entire blog entry about it. And they’re always entitled like, “To the woman who made a rude remark about my child” or things like that. Is every rude encounter with a complete stranger whom you’ll never see again really worthy of such energy?
But that rant over, I do agree with admin about this. I think some movies, such as Pixar films, are understood to be more forgiving of child disruptions since they’re clearly marketed towards children. But even then constant shrieking like this child was doing should not be allowed constantly like that, no matter what the reasoning for it is. She should have removed him from the theater. And just because this beautiful child is a cancer survivor doesn’t mean he can act any way he wants to.
Yes, I can’t stand those articles! I try to avoid seeing them at all possible, but I am friends with a lot of mothers who seem to love this stuff and share it all the time. They’re usually from parents who know their behavior is wrong, but because their pride can’t take it they write a long tirade justifying their behavior targeted at other people with similarly bad behavior so they can get a pat on the back and told they did the right thing.
She posted a follow up to her original article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-skaro/the-day-social-media-tore-me-a-new-one-for-taking-my-son-to-the-theater_b_7483400.html
She says the main point of her original article was to bring awareness to disabilities. But how on earth was the guy who yelled at her to remove her kid to know that the child was disabled? All he heard was a shrieking child, one that for all he knew was in perfect health. There are pictures posted of the child, if I hadn’t read the article I would not assume he had a disability.
And all her self righteous little speech at the end of the movie did was prove that she thought she and her clan were entitled to special treatment. She didn’t think at all of the people who were not involved in the incident, who were just enjoying the movie and were made uncomfortable simply because they were in the same theater.
I am not saying what the man did was at all right, it was incredibly rude and he should have gotten a manager if his movie experience was being disrupted. But I’m sorry, she is wrong on both counts. Her toddler didn’t need to be there in the first place and he wasn’t picked on because of his disability.
I agree! Her follow up was very defensive and not at all relevant to the actual issue at hand. Had someone asked her not to take Vito out in public because his laugh/shriek was irritating to other people, she’d have a leg to stand on. But that is not what happened.
When the man yelled out to take the kid out of the theater, he wasn’t discriminating against disabled children. He was yelling at a parent for allowing her child to disrupt the movie (assuming he was talking to her in the first place). The person being judged in that man’s mind wasn’t Vito at all- it was his mother. She brought a baby to a long movie that was very likely well over his head. It was a bad call on her part, and he was calling her out on it. In a very rude way, yes, but not in a way that would suggest that he thinks disabled kids should not have the same rights as a non disabled kid.
Her announcement at the end was an attempt to shame him for his comment, and her follow up comments offering up samples of insensitive or cruel things other people have said to her (and wow, people are cruel and insensitive!) was a diversionary tactic used to cover the fact that her original rant (specific to the man in the movie theater) was off base. She can backpedal all she wants, but her original post was aimed specifically at that incident, not a broader plea for all people to consider how they treat those with disabilities or illnesses.
Oh interesting, I never saw the follow up.
Thanks for posting.
I read the follow-up story and I still think she is making way too much of this. As you pointed out, her child’s disability was “invisible” and no one is going to know the child is disabled unless they spend a good deal of time with him or you tell them.
The child was not singled out because he was disabled, he was singled out because he was loud and disruptive. When you write blog posts accusing everyone of discriminating against those with disabilities, you are not fighting for equality, you are being obnoxious. But that’s just my take on it.
She pretty much admits, in that follow-up, that it was a bad call to bring the kids to the movies. But she never apologies for how disruptive they were at the theater, and goes on and on about how so much injustice has been done to her and her kids. She is capable of getting a clue but doesn’t actually want to. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with her son’s disabilities and everything to do with hers. She probably believes she deserves the Martyr of the Year award. One good thing about the whole business is that she says she will not be taking the kids to the movies anymore. At least people in her hometown can look forward to going to the theater again.
Agree Dee. I like her line about “Children do not belong in theaters, or so the numerous messages I got stated so. I honestly don’t care for that debate.” First off, it’s not a “debate”. You’d be hard pressed to find someone who is a proponent of bringing a 20 month child to a 2 hour live action movie. Second, she doesn’t care for it because rather than a debate, it’s people pointing out that she was wrong, which she doesn’t exactly concede, seeing as how she says that’s just what people told her, vs admitting she made an error in judgment.
“This issue has absolutely nothing to do with her son’s disabilities and everything to do with hers. ”
Exactly. The man embarrassed her, so she tried to retaliate by shaming him at the theater by bringing up her son’s medical condition. When that didn’t work (people either ignored her or told her she should not have brought her son to a theater) she turned to social media hoping to get her validation that way. When that backfired, she writes a follow up post full of cruel things people have said to her, none of which have any bearing on the incident she wrote about in the first place.
If she was going to write a follow up, she should have admitted she made a mistake bringing two young children to a movie and that because she is so conditioned to hearing negative things about her son, she is overly sensitive to him being picked on because of his medical issues that she may have overreacted when she wrote her original post.
Her followup letter really irked me. I understand that she is fighting for her son after watching him go through chemo and being very sick. I am sure she is terrified of the future, whatever it brings for that little boy.
But. She is going to have to understand that no matter what is said and done, there are going to be people who are insensitive. The examples she brought up of people who said things to her- I find it very hard to believe this is a majority rules type of thing- she is responding to the few whack jobs who would be crazy enough to say something like that in the first place. She is not going to change their minds, and she is not going to make them more sensitive people with her words. She is best off rolling her eyes and ignoring the wierdos because she needs to focus her energy on helping her son. If she needs to take every single off comment to task, that is another moment she is taking away from helping her son, just so she can play martyr.
Well, she and her special snowflakes should be allowed to disrupt whatever they want because “Little Vito has cancer”. She’d do better to teach the kids to behave in public so they don’t disrupt others
Babies and cell phones at the movies are two reasons I don’t go anymore.
I think it was pretty rude to yell out like that, especially at a kids movie where there was sure to be at least some noise… but I can’t believe what happened when she stood up at the end and explained about her son
‘ Another man muttered to me, “Well, maybe you shouldn’t bring him out.” ‘
wow.
I have to agree with the second guy. If I’m paying $13 (the going rate in my area) to see a movie, I want to be able to enjoy it. I’m not saying she shouldn’t take her children out, but she should consider their ages and behavior levels.
I’m a mother. If I took my kids out and they were disruptive, they were informed they had one chance to behave or we were going home. If they didn’t behave, home we went. It’s on the parent to handle this.
This mother was being selfish and stupid. I frankly don’t care whether your child is a cancer survivor or not, if they’re shrieking or misbehaving, it’s time to go home. And then plan the next outing better.
I think that the man who yelled out was rude. I think that the mom was inconsiderate for bringing her young children to the movie in the first place was rude. I think her standing up at the end to shame someone who didn’t even know about Vito’s voice condition was rude.
But I think the man who told her her son should not be brought out in public because of his voice was rude too.
Yes, the movie theater was not a good place for him to be, age-wise. And that’s what he should have said — not, maybe you shouldn’t take your child out in public.
I agree. If this woman heard a “muttered” comment that probably meant the man was close to her and her child throughout the movie. He probably was REALLY annoyed by the noise. I’m inclined to forgive his rudeness if that is how someone interprets it. Sounds like he had a right to question her decision making.
That was probably the only legitimate complaint she had. And that might have been the same guy who yelled at her earlier.
I don’t think you should hide disabled children or relatives away, just use common sense and be more selective and where you take them. That was the author’s problem, she didn’t use any.
Right.
The reason he maybe shouldn’t attend the movie is nothing to do with his disability, but instead as a result of his age and maturity and whether he’d be able to even enjoy it without disturbing others. Any 20-month old would have a hard time.
It is not a kids movie.
I’m truly sorry that Mrs. Skaro’s child has suffered through cancer. It must be a very devastating and hard thing to deal with.
The fact that the child is cancer survivor is immaterial to the story. With the exception of Mrs. Skaro and her other children, no one in the theater knew the child had cancer/is a cancer survivor. I think she was upset that someone might have been speaking to her and used the fact that her child is a cancer survivor to garner sympathy. As Admin, and Mrs. Skaro herself pointed out, there were many children in the theater and the man *could* have been referring to another child.
Also, most people typically assume all Disney movies are appropriate for all children, including toddlers, but I don’t think that is accurate. The movie in question, Tomorrowland, is a live action film (from what I can tell) and I doubt a 20 month old understands or really cares about the movie. He was probably reacting to all the energy from the other children in the theater. Another film, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, is a Disney movie, but I wouldn’t take small children to that. Plus, theaters are dark and can be frightening for small children. That could also have been why the child was shrieking.
Sure, the man should have gotten a theater employee if he was that disturbed by the child, but then Mrs. Skaro would have done/said the same thing to the employee and probably again at the end of the movie anyway because she wanted people to know why her child was being noisy/disrupting.
I think that she did know for a fact the person was talking to her, because part of her knew that her child was just being too loud. This is a case of a person being offended because that person knows they are in the wrong.
Apparently he could have been referring to her other child, who was having a hard time sitting still- because the child is 2. I wonder how much fun Oldest Child actually had watching the movie if this is what happens in a theater or at home?
I don’t think any kids under three belong in a movie theater, and only then to the G rated, matinee showings of blatantly children’s movies.
Championing for kids with disabilities is admirable, believing that raising a kid with a disability is a free pass to annoy others is abominable.
Yes, the patron was rude, but I can empathize. I’ve tried to speak to movie staff about crying babies, or groups of yelling & texting teens, but have almost universally been told by theater staff that they can’t do anything about it. And as Michelle above points out, what would such a staff member say when the mother cried “cancer baby” at him/her? I’d imagine most people would immediately back down, apologizing, which is what this mother obviously counted on.
Had the man gotten an usher or manager involved the title of the post would have been, “XYZ Theatre Discriminated Against my Cancer Surviving Child” and would have called for a boycott of that theatre chain.
The exact movie in question was 130 minutes long, not including previews. I know plenty of adults who would have trouble sitting through that, so I’m not sure why she thought her 2 toddlers could handle it (which they obviously couldn’t).
Some theaters now do offer a babies/toddlers night specifically so you can bring your baby to the movies, you just have to ask around.
I wonder if I’m in E-Hell. I’ve turned to other patrons and said, “Shush!” or “Can you be quiet?” or “I can’t hear the movie.”
I’m afraid so.
The etiquette-approved method of dealing with these boors is to pretend that they don’t realize they’re being loud. “I’m terribly sorry, but I’m afraid your voice is carrying very well; would you mind saving your conversation for later?”
I was wondering where the posts had gone!
A 2 year old and a 20 month old were way too young to sit through a movie! The mother said her 2 year old “was bouncing off the seat” How delightful for the other movie patrons sitting near this family. Nothing beats trying to watch a movie with constant movement (and probably vocalization too) from the child in the seat in front of you.
Maybe that was what the man was yelling about, not the child recovering from cancer.
So nice to see all the sane comments on here! I couldn’t believe that people were expected to be outraged on the mother’s behalf in the original story. Don’t bring children who are too young to understand the movie to a movie, and never bring babies.
I agree with the admin.
I don’t think that the man was rude, or a coward. He had no way of knowing that Vito just recovered from cancer. And no one knows what the other people in the theatre are going through. There might be another kid fighting cancer (or watching his/her last movie). Or a family who gets to take their child out for a movie only about once a year, after saving all the money that they can. There might have been a grad student who has been pulling 18 hours a day for several weeks, and really need a break; or that worker working double shifts so that he/she can actually pay the bills, and decided to reward themselves with a higher tip from a kind patron. How is Vito’s need to be there any greater than the needs of the other families? That is entitlement on Skaro’s part.
This thing was not about cancer. Most parents don’t take a 20 month old to a theatre. That too to a Disney action movie (it was Tomorrowland, according to what some commenters who saw Mrs.Skaro’s comment on her facebook page). Parents all over the world make that kind of sacrifice everyday. If she couldn’t afford a baby sitter, but wanted her 9 year old to take a break, and go to an action movie, I’m sure she could have easily found someone to take him with them, while Ms.Skaro is with her toddlers. Even if she is a single parent and there are no relatives around, some other parent from the 9-year old’s school or a neighbor might have been able to help. A lot of people jump at the opportunity to ease the burden on a family dealing with crippling illness.
Let’s face it – the mother didn’t want her 20-month old to watch the movie, but rather she wanted to watch it herself. I am all for disability advocacy. But I do not support using disability as a ticket to condone her bad behavior. I am sure she is tired, and needs a break too. But she has to make arrangements so that she does not squeeze off the enjoyment of other patrons, who are also
There was another Yahoo article by another author PRAISING this mother and the awesome way she “handled” the man who yelled. (I rolled my eyes at that).
But what it mentioned in the article was that the 7 month old was at home WITH THE NANNY while the other 3 kids went to the movies.
Nice.
Oh that sucks about the drive dying, I was wondering where the article went when I checked out the site yesterday…Hope you’ve got it sorted, I love seeing new stories each day and would hate for you to loose all your hard work!!
Anyway, I read the original article shortly after it came out. I was honestly amazed at the amount of comments COMPLETELY agreeing with the mother that “He has cancer, you don’t get to yell at him”. ANYONE who pointed out that the person yelling in the dark was only mad about the shrieking got leapt upon like a wounded gazelle, and god forbid you pointed out that literally no one in the theater would have known that Vito had cancer until the mother pointed it out.
I’m not unsympathetic to those who have cancer. My own mother died of it when I was two, and I lost four friends to it by the time I was 19. But I HATE when people use illnesses as an excuse for plain ol’ rudeness. Shrieking in a theater is NOT acceptable. It doesn’t matter the circumstances. If something you or one of your children is doing is interrupting other patrons ability to watch the movie they paid good money to go see, then you need to do something to stop the disruptive behavior.
I went to the family’s Facebook page (It’s linked in the story) the night I initially read it, and it was more of the same “HOW DARE HE YELL AT SOMEONE WHO HAS CANCER” type stuff.
And I honestly hate that I live in a world where someone might think I’m an evil old witch because I’m talking even remotely badly about a two year old who was shrieking in a theater just because he has cancer.
No child should have cancer. No person should have cancer. But if you have cancer, or your child has cancer, don’t use it as an excuse for things like shrieking in a theater.
From reading your blog and the comments on your forum, I’m actually beginning to believe that Americans think anyone who disturbs them in any way shape or form should be left at home. What a terribly sad and selfish way you all seem to conduct your lives over there.
First of all, the commenters aren’t automatically American, so “over there” could be anywhere in the world, and there are probably quite a few countries represented in these comments. Secondly, There are many situations where patience for those in need is required of others – when little ones are miserable at the grocery store, the doctor’s office, etc. Going to see a movie is not a necessity, and if the general public has been accepting of Vito and his noisy emulations in other public venues (and the mom did not mention undue pressure from the public during other outings, which she would have had she experienced them, as she seems quite eager to rack up sympathy points) then that speaks highly of the society this family lives in. If you enjoy paying top dollar to see a movie you cannot hear clearly because there is far too much distraction from other patrons then you are in the minority. It’s not too much to ask for parents to consider others when choosing to participate in something that is clearly not a necessity. It never killed any parent to have to wait until their kids are older (or grown up) before going to the theater.
I’m British, so ‘not over there’. I also have a son with a learning disability and can speak from experience about challenging behaviours at the cinema, restaurant or wherever. If my son’s behaviour impacted on the enjoyment of everyone else he was removed from the situation. Disability or not, he has to learn to fit in with the world just like the rest of us; I don’t expect, or want, him to get by playing the ‘poor me’ card. And I don’t want to play it either.
What I would see in that situation is good parenting in action, and I would [inwardly] applaud your actions. I might never know that your son has a learning disability, and with your wise teaching I might just assume he was a nicely-behaved chap who was a pleasure to be around!
Oh, I forgot to say: I’m a Brit currently living in France…
The reason why Europeans are so welcoming of small children in their restaurants [in my experience] is that in all the countries where we’ve dined out, families with young/disruptive children almost-invariably *immediately* remove the child from the situation, each and every time that is necessary.
We had a lovely meal at a table next to a lively toddler and a baby – my husband only realised after we’d left and I pointed out grandad outside [again] with the toddler who was running off a bit more steam! He’d been seated with his back to the family, and hadn’t seen all the comings-and-goings and had been totally undisturbed, as had all the other diners.
With all due respect, no. It isn’t sad or selfish. It’s more that we think that people should exercise common sense in as many aspects of their lives as possible. It isn’t very sensible, for example, to take two toddlers to a movie that isn’t designed for them, and can’t hold their attention (which is very short, as I’m sure you know) regardless of whether or not of them has recently suffered from serious medical problems. Nor is it particularly selfish to want to go to a movie without having shrieking, over-stimulated toddlers at the theater. This isn’t an American thing. I very seriously doubt if that would be much fun in any part of the world. Nobody is suggesting that the babies never get out and interact with the world. It is, however, wise of their parents to think through where they take such young children, which very clearly, they didn’t. The author even admits that in her follow-up. This is less a reaction to the child, and much more a reaction to the parents’ poor judgement. And nobody is selfish or sad for not particularly wanting to put up with poor judgement when it directly impacts them (and something they paid good money for).
We all conduct our lives like that? What an interesting assumption.
I agree that the man who yelled out was rude, but the child being a cancer survivor is a mute point. The child is, I feel, way too young to be able to sit still long enough to enjoy a movie. In addition, I don’t know that this particular film is appropriate for small children. It is a PG movie, not a G rated one. It’s an unfortunate situation all around.
When my husband and I go to the movies, we try to pick the latest showtime available, especially if we know it’s a movie that children may want to attend. Our closest theatre also has a VIP section which is 19+ and has assigned seating, so our alternate is to check to see if our preferred movie is showing in the VIP section and make a night of it.
“Moot” point. Not “mute”.
Kid’s too young to be at a movie, period. I’m sorry her child had cancer, and he IS cute, and I am horrified by some of the comments she says she endured in her subsequent post. But that doesn’t mean she should be taking a baby (cancer or no cancer) to a movie theatre where other paying patrons come to hear the movie. Then she blathers on about what she is teaching her 9-year-old. What she is teaching him is that it’s all about ME and MY rights, and that it doesn’t matter if you ruin someone else’s enjoyment as long as you get to do as YOU please. By all means, if she were in a supermarket or something, I would be applauding her. But a movie theatre? No. I am not familiar with this movie, but I gather it’s for older kids, not babies.
She’s also teaching her son that if you play the victim, you’ll get a pass on despicable behavior.
I have never seen a baby in the cinema. Ever. I also never see toddlers or children under 10 there. I don’t understand why you’d take them there.
Then you’re very lucky. The last seven or so movies I’ve gone to see, no matter what they were rated or what time of day I went to see them, at least part of the movie was disrupted by children who were too young to be there.
There was the mother who walked her toddler back and forth across the theater for the majority of the movie (The most recent Batman film).
The mother who let her children watch something else on her phone while she pretended to be interested in the Avengers. (I say pretended to be because when they weren’t on her phone, she was).
There was the child during Captain America (the second one)who discovered that if he stood up his shadow appeared on the screen…
I could keep going but I’m getting angry just thinking about it. I get that they are superhero movies but they are still PG13, and if your child is clearly more interested in being disruptive, than keep them at home.
I live in Northern Europe. Maybe it’s a cultural thing.
Even if the child’s voice WASN’T damaged, he was disruptive in the movie. Not his fault, he’s a baby.
Exactly, it was the mothers fault. She should have been the person to determine that this was not an age appropriate activity for her baby and gotten a sitter.
By the time I buy two tickets, two drinks, and a bucket of popcorn, I’ve spent upward of $40. For two people. It’s rude for parents to impose noisy, fidgety children on people who probably don’t go to the movies often because of the cost. This is why God gave us Netflix and Red Box. If you want your loud kids to see a particular movie, especially one that isn’t aimed at children, then wait for it to come out on video and rent it. I have zero problem with people taking children to children’s movies, and I think people who expect quiet in such a setting are ignorant, but I do believe that adults who pay for tickets to movies aimed at grownups should be able to enjoy them in peace.
As for the child being a cancer survivor or having a disability, at the risk of sounding heartless, what does that have to do with any of this? Lots of children suffer similar problems. I don’t mean to trivialize that, and I certainly think all parents should take their kids out from time to time, but one special-needs child doesn’t trump everyone else in the theater. Get a sitter and go without your child, or watch the movie at home.
Some cinemas have bring your baby sessions and I’ve brought my young child to those. We saw Guardiabs of the Galaxy, Interstellar and Age of Ultron. He slept through all three.
So yes, babies can be brought to the cinema. I wouldn’t take them to a regular one though and would have no patience for a complaining non-parent.
Maybe the person complaining is NOT a non-parent, but a parent who took the pains to leave the baby back home so that he/she doesn’t disturb other patrons for a movie which is not at a bring-your-baby session, or is clearly a toddler’s movie like Bambi.
We took the family to the opening weekend of “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” last month: Hubs, me, 20-year-old and 16-year-old.
Down front was a mom with a child who was, I’m guessing, eight or nine months of age. Months. I know this because every time the child shrieked and began to cry, which happened five or six times, mom would step into the aisle, turn, and begin bouncing him.
By the end of the movie I had a bruised ankle, because every time the crying baby made me twitch, my husband would kick me in the ankle.
Was it disruptive? Yes. Is it reasonable to be irked that someone brought a nine-month-old to an Avengers movie? I think so. But it happens _all the time._
There’s a whole swath of movies-we-never-saw because when the kids were under the age of 6 or 7, we could not afford both a movie and a sitter. And for the next few years, the only movies we saw were “Toy Story” and such.
But yeah, if your laughing sounds that much like shrieking, that’s startling and disruptive, regardless of the cause. And, (B), what are you doing with children that young in a movie theater?
This whole dispute sounds like it has less to do with the child’s disability than it has to do with the mom’s sense of entitlement. The bottom line is that her youngest 2 kids were too young to be expected to sit through a 2 hour movie without being really disturbing. While it’s true that you should expect kids at most, if not all, Disney movies, you should still be able to expect parents to have a little consideration for other viewers who have paid for their ticket and actually expect to hear what’s going on. In this age of streaming videos and readily available DVD’s, it is realistic to entertain kids under 3 at home where they can get up, run around and scream to their heart’s content. Also, while I am sorry for the child who is disabled, I for one would not damage my child’s hearing by dragging them into a theater at that age. Movies are really loud, even for an old lady like me. A child has way better hearing than I do and sudden, loud noises are one of the few things that all baby mammals react badly to. So, to the mom who dragged her two, way too young kids to the movie and let them jump up and down and scream the whole time, go home and let other people enjoy a movie that they paid to come and see (and hear.)
My youngest son, my daughter and I, went to see “The Lion King” in the movie theater when Disney re-released it to major theaters a few years ago.
They had only seen it on television and both loved it, and I thought it would be fun to go see it at an actual movie theater.
My daughter was 8 or 9 at the time, and it didn’t occur to me (stupidly) that certain scenes were going to be MUCH louder and intense at the theater….surround sound etc.
Now, she didn’t scream or cry, but the scene where Mufasa is trampled to death by the large herd of animals was SUPER loud and very intense, and she climbed into my lap until it was over.
I’m a grown up and the noise/music was very startling to me as well….I just didn’t think it through.
We all had a lovely day out together, but even now the mention of that movie gets a “remember how loud and scary that one scene was?!?” from my daughter.
I do remember lots of other folks with much, much younger children than mine that had to take little ones out for a “breather” at certain scenes.
The lady in back of us with a three and four year old, told the dad before a certain scene with the coyotes she knew was coming up, that they were going to the bathroom during the scene coming up, and would be back as soon as she knew it was over.
Yeah, that scene was pretty much the reason I spent my childhood skipping Mufasa’s death. At Disneyland, they have a really awesome show in California Adventure called World of Color. It’s amazing, and one of the things they do is project scenes from Disney movies onto a wall of water. Including that one. Thanks so much, Disney, that scene scared me to death as a child!
Ugh, I also have a crippling Disney-related memory from childhood! It has pretty much colored my enjoyment of anything Disney for about 45 years.
One of my kids showed me something on you tube which lists the ten scariest scenes in Disney “kids” movies.
Pretty much all of “Fantasia”, Ursula in “The Little Mermaid”, and others.
The scene in one of the “Harry Potter” movies in which a book is opened and a human face appears out of the pages and screams is enough to keep a child from daring to open a book for years. People who make movies for children need to think about those scenes and just how scary they can be to a child.
With respect, I don’t think Harry Potter is a movie for ‘children’ (as in, under 10). Even the first, least intense Harry Potter film is rated PG-13 here in Australia (as in parental guidance recommended for kids under 13 due to scary scenes). It’s certainly not marketed as a G-rated Disney or Pixar type film for the whole family.
My kids aren’t into Harry Potter, but one rainy day, we checked out the latest movie preview on pay-per-view.
It looked scary as hell (the gray guy with no nose!), and I said “these are KIDS movies?!?”
In a world (said in movie narrator voice) where it seems like everyone is just looking to be offended and everyone else feels special (and so in need of special treatment), this kind of thing just twists my melon. I appreciate that you are a mother with children who want to see a movie, but a movie theatre is LOUD and FULL OF PEOPLE and no place for an infant/toddler. They have no idea what’s going on, they’re going to make a lot of noise, and they’re probably not going to be happy. If you don’t have a friend or relative who can watch the baby while you take the older kid to the movies and you don’t have the cash to spend on a babysitter, then, I am sorry, but the rest of the world doesn’t have to suffer. The same applies to restaurants and other social activities where babies are just too dang small to participate properly. As far as I’m concerned, if you have a kid in public, the way that kid behaves is the way YOU behave. Are you allowed to scream and run around and throw garbage on the floor? No? Then neither is your kid.
Like Like Double Like!!
(also, I definitely read that with the movie announcer voice)
May I add that neither of my children are handicapped or have any illness.
I agree with many others that no one would know that the child in question had any sort of illness, just that he was being disruptive in a movie that, to me at least, doesn’t look appropriate for any 20 month old, I’ll or not.
I’m sorry that any child has to go that, and applaud the mom on her heartfelt follow up letter, which was very touching and thought provoking. Many blessings to Vito and his family.
Here comes the “but”…..say this child was say, 15, and shoplifted an item at a store.
Does, “but he has cancer!” mean he has a get out of jail free card on all infractions?
I can give you a situation where that was almost the case. A friend of mine was engaged to a woman that had three sons – one of whom had been diagnosed with cancer at a young age. Shortly after the boy passed away, one of her other sons forged her name on a check to pay for pizza. My friend was horrified because Mom was not going to punish the kid because “he’s still getting over his brother’s death”. Sorry, Mom – while some degree of grief-caused acting out might be tolerable, committing a felony is not.
My dad’s one brother passed away from colon cancer at age 19, just one year after my folks got married.
His youngest brother who was a teenager at the time, 14 or 15 years old, after the funeral took a bottle of Jack Daniels and sat on the back porch drinking almost the entire bottle until my dad went looking for him and took it away.
He died when he was in his early 40’s from liver disease.
Twenty. Months. Old. Even if he hadn’t experienced developmental setbacks because of the brain cancer (and mom says he has), that’s still too young for a child to appreciate a movie like “Tomorrowland.” Or any other Disney movie, for that matter. He was probably reacting to the lights and colors and moving images. She could have saved herself a lot of money and heartburn by leaving him and his 2-year-old sibling (is that a typo?) at home with a sitter and a video — any video — and taking just the oldest kid to the movie.
Apparently she has gotten a *lot* of really insensitive comments about the child, and she’s probably got her “don’t you dare pick on my disabled son!” mommy-spidey-sense dialed up because of that. But this was not one of those scenarios. This was about another patron who didn’t appreciate the moviegoing experience he paid for being ruined by a loud child who was too young to be there. Not too disabled — too *young*, period.
@BagLady: A few years ago, at my son’s baseball game, there was a boy about 11 or 12 years old who was going around picking up ladies purses and going through them.
Someone finally figured out who his mom was and dragged her over to the boy and the ladies purse he had in hands.
All the ladies who had snatched back their bags gathered around the mom and the boy and asked the mom if she knew her son was taking money out of everyones purses.
She said, “Well….He wants a candy bar from the snack stand and I don’t have any money!!!”
So….you sent him to steal money from all our purses?!? What the hell?!?”
“I told him I didn’t have money and he’d have to find some elsewhere.”
What?!?
Then she said, “well…my goodness!!! He is mentally handicapped….I think you could all be much more accommodating to a boy who is retarded!!” (Her word, not ours).
Our jaws pretty much hit the ground and someone said, “just because he is handicapped doesn’t give him, or you, the right to go through people’s bags!!!”
She gave us all dirty looks and grabbed her son’s hand and walked away.
We all kind of just stood there, and more than one mom said that if the boy had ASKED nicely, we would have given him money….the nerve of some people!
I recall reading an article in People Magazine some years ago about a family who had multiple mentally disabled children. I think they all had autism and thus would sometimes disrupt other people in public – such as snatching food off of plates in restaurants and such. The mother would never stop them from doing so nor offer to correct the situation. She would simply tell the affected person that her kids were acting that way because they were disabled, and leave it at that. She thought it was perfectly okay for her kids to do that and never stopped them.
My brother (now 43) is autistic. My parents insisted on proper behavior. It was difficult on all of us, but he is a self sufficient, fully functioning adult member of society. When, heaven forbid, my parents pass, he will not need supervision. While not every child with autism can reach that level, not pushing them to try is doing them the biggest disservice I have ever seen.
There was a boy who sat in front of my family at a holiday concert my daughter was in, who is a high functioning autistic (he was in a few of my son’s classes) who was very badly behaved during the whole concert.
Some actions I understand cannot be helped, but his parents ignored him and his behavior the entire concert, making it difficult for those behind him to enjoy the show.
At intermission, a lady who was next to our family said to the parents, “your son is making it very difficult to hear the show, would you please ask him to be a little more quiet during the rest of the show?”
The mom looked supremely offended and replied, “Oh….he’s fine!”
“No…he’s not “fine”, he is being very disruptive, and those of us behind you would like to hear our children sing, please!!!”
Just goes to show even people who have suffered a great deal can be entitled
I have to agree that children who are too young to enjoy a movie would be better off at home with a relative or a baby sitter. There are many movie dvds that a child can enjoy at home without bothering other people.
Whe the child is old enough to sit still and to watch the movie, that is the time to introduce him/her to a theater.
Okay, I agree that bringing toddlers to Tomorrowland was a mistake, but it was an understandable mistake, given that most Disney movies are G-rated and aimed at children. But, I think some people here are missing a bigger point. Her youngest (let’s call him Tertius, for the sake of expediency) just beat cancer, and is slowly returning to living a normal life, whatever “normal” may be for a 20-month-old. Maybe that outing to the movies was the first excursion that Mrs. Skarro took her kids on, since before Tertius got sick. Maybe she figured, “Okay, I’ll take them to the movies, because that’s not too strenuous, and Tomorrowland is a Disney movie, so that should be fine for the whole family. I’ll take Tertius out if he cries.” Well, Tertius did cry, and she took him out to the lobby until he calmed down. Then, she got flak from another patron because Tertius was laughing, because his laughter sounded shrieky after the cancer treatment. Maybe Mrs. Skarro reacted the way she did because she felt that that patron’s reaction was a sign of things to come. I bet now she thinks she can never take Tertius to another movie, or play, or concert, or storytime at the library, or maybe even to the playground or the swimming pool, because what if he laughs, and people think he’s shrieking? Maybe physical and speech therapy will restore Tertius’ laughter to its previous, easily recognizable state, but maybe it won’t. I don’t think it’s very fair to ask Mrs. Skarro to keep her son at home indefinitely. That wasn’t what the man in the theatre was asking her to do, exactly, but, right or wrong, I think she took it that way. I mean, on the one hand, it’s not a good idea to take a toddler to an action movie that’s more than two hours long, but on the other hand, I think Mrs. Skarro saw this as a family outing ruined by a stranger’s negative reaction to her youngest son’s illness, and a possible sign of things to come.
I don’t fully understand what the Skarro family must have gone through, and still be going through (although I understand somewhat, because my mom had breast cancer in 2009), but the thing with serious illnesses is, they affect the patient’s whole family, and there’s a lot of inherent loss there. You lose the mindset that [Serious Illness] is something that happens to other people. You lose the mentality that “tomorrow” is a given for the affected person. When and if remission comes, you’ve still lost the guarantee that the illness will never return. Most of all, when you’re in the thick of it (or newly in remission), you lose the sense of “normal” when you’re craving it most of all. So, maybe that’s what this outing was about–maybe it was about, “Our family has been through a lot, with Tertius having cancer, but we’re still a normal family, so let’s do something fun together.” Maybe it was a special treat for Primus (or Prima, since the article doesn’t specify gender), who’s by far the oldest at nine years old, but is still a child. Chances are, Primus/Prima was required to help out a lot more than usual during the worst of Tertius’ battle with cancer, and this movie outing was a reward for that. So, at the risk of sounding unpopular, I’m not going to berate this family too hard, because they’ve been through a lot. I don’t even think Mrs. Skarro wanted to ‘cry cancer baby,” because “cancer baby” had probably taken up too much of Tertius’ identity, for far too long, and that day was probably meant to be about anything BUT cancer, but then that was ruined by the aftermath of the cancer. The other thing is, the Skarros probably spent a lot of time in and around the hospital, surrounded by other cancer families, so I bet they were A) used to everyone understanding, because they were all in the same boat, and B) hardened from the past few months to the point that they were (or at least Mrs. Skarro was) annoyed that the man in the theatre appeared to have nothing more serious to complain about than a movie being disturbed by a child’s laughter.
I would propose to you, Anonymous, that it would also be kind and wise of Mrs. Skarro to research places and movies that she is taking her son to. The Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example is a Disney movie- with a song sequence that is one of the ones that caused me to miss sleep as a kid. And I wasn’t sick or too young for movies at the time. This isn’t about compassion for cancer survivors. I know what having a family member that sick is like. My family member lost that fight, and I was the one that the burden of hospice and funeral arrangements fell on. So then, as a grieving person, do I not have a right to go out and find something normal in a theater? And how would Mrs. Skarro know that I have been hurt so deeply and was just trying to find a sense of normal again with what remains of my family? Because according to your logic, I too have a right to find that. That’s the problem with waving that flag instead of having common sense. How does Mrs. Skarro know what that man has suffered? Maybe he has less patience than he would normally because he has an illness or someone in his family does. This is why politeness and common sense are the cornerstones of compassion. Otherwise it’s the Misery Olympics, and who wants gold in that?
I contend that Mrs. Skarro took her two smallest children to something that if they had been 100% healthy they would still have been too young for. She showed poor judgement, and that has nothing to do with bleeding hearts over her son’s cancer (and thank God he seems to be in remission). She showed poor judgement, and was curtly informed of that (and yes, he could have been much more polite, or gotten an usher, or any number of other things. He didn’t. He was wrong. But she was much more wrong- since two of her children were probably also not having the very best time). She didn’t like that. I don’t blame her for that, nobody likes that. But she was wrong, and brought that particular scenario onto her own head. Nobody was particularly polite here.
I’m with you, Lucretia. For all we know, that man may have just learned that he had stage 4 cancer and decided to take his family out for one last “normal” meal-and-a-movie before telling them about it. Or maybe he had a rough day at work and that was the last straw. Maybe he just didn’t get enough sleep. From what I’ve read, the movie theater (and this particular movie) just wasn’t a good place for these two toddlers at their age and maturity level. Maybe next time, she can take them out to a park or a playground, then rent from Red Box, put up a blanket fort, crack open a box of candy, and have a fabulously “normal” day with her kids without stepping on anyone elses’ toes.
“Okay, I agree that bringing toddlers to Tomorrowland was a mistake, but it was an understandable mistake, given that most Disney movies are G-rated and aimed at children. But, I think some people here are missing a bigger point”
I’m going to respectfully disagree with you on two points. One, it’s not really an “understandable” mistake in my opinion. Anyone who spent 90 seconds watching the movie trailer should have concluded it was not appropriate for a 20 month and a 2 year old. In fact, I don’t know of ANY full length movie that would be enjoyed by a baby. It was a really, really, unwise decision on her part.
My second disagreement with the above is that people are missing the bigger point. In my very humble opinion, there IS no bigger point. Mom made an error in judgment bringing such young children to a movie, Other Patron loudly complained about it, and Mom took to her blog and accused the guy of discrimination and implied this man thinks that all disabled children should be hidden away so they don’t make the general public uncomfortable. There is nothing about this incident that suggests that the man feels that way.
Now, I might think her argument had merit if say, Vito were 4-5 years old, the movie they saw was some Pixar movie, and Vito was laughing at all the funny parts just like the other kids were, but because his laughter sounds different, he was asked to leave. Then I would say that while it may be unpleasant to have to sit near someone with a shrieky laugh during a funny movie, he DOES have as much right to be there as anyone else and has as much right to express his amusement the same way any other kid in that audience did.
In this case though, I *really* doubt that Vito’s shrieking was related to his amusement over the movie. I can’t really fathom what a 20 month old would find so hilarious about a 2 hour live action sci fi movie. Maybe he was excited by the colors and the noise, and was expressing that excitement the way 20 month babies do- which is why 20 month babies generally don’t go to movies.
Anyways, while bringing a baby to that kind of movie was an unwise decision, it’s not like anyone got hurt. It would have been a relatively minor inconvenience for everyone else in the theater, and Mom should have just admitted to herself bringing such young kids to that movie was a bad idea, and that maybe the guy could have been nicer about it, but at the end of the day, she was wrong in the first place. And that should have been the end of it.
Instead, Mom decides to double down on her original bad judgment and follow it up with an equally ill advised blog post accusing anyone who complains that her child is disruptive (in any setting, regarding of how true it may have been) of hating disabled people and thinking they should not have the same rights as the non disabled. THEN, when she’s called out for both her original bad judgement and for extrapolating this random guy’s opinions on disabled children based on unrelated prior experiences she’s had, she writes ANOTHER ill advised blog post full of hyperbole and baseless assumptions and naming herself as the champion for disabled children, when she’s actually hurting that cause by falsely accusing people of discrimination when they were merely questioning her decision to bring young children to a movie that was not age appropriate for them.
Well put. Couldn’t agree with you more.
I’ve read both of her blog posts about this and I’ve seen Vito’s Facebook page. Honestly, I’ve seen people play the victim before in my life but this lady really wins first place. Vito looks like he’s having a great time with life – LET HIM BE, Mrs. Skaro! Please stop using your child to gain attention! Quite sad indeed. If I had a child with cancer, I wouldn’t be plastering him all over social media trying to gain sympathy. I’d keep his status between close friends and family only and try hard as heck to make life as normal for Vito AND my family.
As you mentioned, she made an error in judgment. She got called out on it, got embarrassed, and rather than inwardly admit her error, she needed to twist this into a story about discrimination against her cancer-stricken child to gain attention and sympathy. Sad.
I think its pointless to try to justify all of the reasons that they went to the movie. Or to try to justify the reasons that other people may have been at that same move. They decided to go to a movie. I’m sure if it was a big occasion, Mrs. Skaro would have mentioned that in her article in order to hype up the drama.
The bigger point in this whole thing is that Mrs. Skaro made a bad judgment call.
I remember going to a very late night premiere showing of one of the Harry Potter movies- can’t remember which one. There was a toddler there- probably no older than Vito. I watched her parents letting her eat candy and drink out of a soda cup with growing dread. Yup- about 5 minutes into the movie, she started cutting up. I swear I’m not making this up, but there was a low hiss and almost everyone in the theater slowly turned around and looked at the family. They picked up and left. I don’t know if a manager said something, or if they just realized at that moment they maybe they hadn’t made the best choice. OTOH, I’ve seen people bring in small children and everything went fine. It’s all about knowing your kids and what they can handle. Which obviously, Mrs, Skaro is either completely oblivious of, or is a complete optimist.
While I don’t want to assume everyone has ready access to the Internet, there are sites dedicated to determining whether films are appropriate for kids or not. Or at least you can tell by the description of the rating: Rated PG for thematic elements and sci-fi violence. Tomorrowland is more a movie for 8 and above. At 2 hours and 10 minutes, it’s too long for kids. Heck, I’m 26 and I was fidgeting about 90 minutes in
I meant to say “…too young for really young kids.”
This woman definitely had access to the internet though.
If she’d stood at the door as everyone was entering and said to every patron “My child had cancer, and when he laughs, it sounds like shrieking. He’ll probably make noise all through the film”, how many would have demanded their money back? Or told her not to bring him in? I imagine the theatre staff would have advised against it too.
She knew that her child could potentially make very disruptive noise and decided that it was more important for her to see the movie than to be courteous to everyone else and wait until Vito has more control over his behaviour, or to go to a kid-friendly session.
Yelling Guy was probably at the end of his tether. Did she honestly expect him to admit he’d yelled after playing the cancer card? Being the guy that calls out the inattentive/obnoxious parent is one thing, being ‘the guy who yelled at the cancer baby’ is another.
First of all, that movie isn’t really for kids under 5. So a 20 month old and a two year old should not have been watching it. Second, I don’t believe kids under three belong in movie theaters.
Third, we live about 80 miles from this theater. I had a feeling and confirmed it through Google. If this mother was so desperate to see this movie with her kids, there was a sensory friendly showing at this theater only two days after this incident. There kids and parents don’t have to worry about their emotions and reactions to the movie. Even dancing in the aisles is encouraged.
I agree with @WildIrishRose,
Just because a movies says ‘Disney’ or ‘DisneyLand’ doesn’t mean it’s suitable for children.
Leave children at home with a babysitter and a stack of DVDs or even playgroup. There are other people in this world apart from entitled snowflakes who use sick kids to make a point.
Just wanted to point out that, while we all know now that Vito has/had cancer, none of us have any idea what was going on in the shouting gentleman’s life.
Maybe he has cancer too, or knows someone close (wife, child, parent) who has been suffering it and came to the movie for what he hoped was a blessed couple of ours of relief from his troubles (perhaps even to spend time with his own child who was age appropriate for the movie in question.
Maybe he was already stressed out from other troubles in his day and the repeated shrieking was the very.last.straw. when he had hoped to have chance to relax.
There’s at least two sides to every story.
Exactly. Ms. Skaro had no idea what the yelling man or any other person in that theater was going through.
Also, what gives her the right to assume anything about the frustrated man? What if he saved to see this movie? What if he just lost a loved one? What if he is suffering from something you can’t see? Maybe he shouldn’t have yelled, but maybe…..just maybe……this ruined a night he was looking forward to?
I was a disabled child (congenital heart defect). Not once, NOT ONCE, did my parents every permit me to misbehave and try to justify or excuse it because “she has a heart condition!” Previous commenters are absolutely correct–Vito shouldn’t have been at the movie, not because of his cancer history or his funny laugh, but because he’s 20 months old and a movie is not an age-appropriate place for him.
I’ve seen Tomorrowland and it is not something I think is suitable for under 10s. I don’t think she should have brought him to it even if he hadn’t had cancer. My local cinema does do “mother and baby” showings so mums can bring their young children along – it’s advertised with a pram so you can expect very little children/babies to come along. In that kind of situation you can expect to have babies/toddlers talking, laughing crying etc.
Have to add this–anyone who thinks that a Disney movie is automatically suitable for young children has obviously not seen “Snow White”.
I’m rather cynical when it comes to children, but I believe that the movie theater is no place for children under six. In fact, Alamo Drafthouse theaters don’t allow children under six to general showings – only special showings of age-appropriate films for those children. Regardless of medical conditions, if a child is going to be disruptive and you are aware of that fact, do not bring your child to a quiet public environment where others are trying to have a good experience unless the child can conduct him or herself in a non-disruptive manner.
I agree, the mom didn’t think it through. I’m pretty young (early 20s), and I hardly ever go out to the movies because it’s expensive, and likely to be too crowded and noisy (I’ve got anxiety issues). But when I save and plan to see a movie I want to enjoy it. I tend to get immersed in movies I watch by myself, to the point where I know my reactions could yank people out of their experience, so I usually just wait a bit and rent or my bff and I’ll do a ‘girl’s night in’ where she brings the movie. I make the popcorn, and we chill in our pjs and do make overs. That way we get to scream, or rewind or skip.
Point being: if you know you might not behave right, you can at least plan right so everyone has a fun night. 🙂
Why do parents think it’s OK to take small children to long movies that are not in any way geared toward children of that age group?
I remember one time, I was sitting down to enjoy a second viewing of The Fellowship of the Ring, which not only is about three hours long, but has orcs and other assorted monsters in it. Lots of scary scenes. And loud.
A couple came in with a toddler in tow. I walked over to them (this was during the previews), and said, “You may not know it, but this movie has some scary scenes in it. The orcs, for example, will probably scare your child.” They looked at me as if I were an idiot, and said, “Oh, she’ll be just fine. She’ll probably just sleep through it.”
Fortunately, they were the type of parent who could realize their mistake, and when she started shrieking in terror, they removed her from the theater, muttering about scary monsters, and maybe they shouldn’t have brought her to see this movie.
Parents, please, preview the movie BEFORE you bring small children! Judge whether it’s appropriate for your children, based on length, subject matter, and how it’s presented. CHECK the ratings. If you think there might be something objectionable, please use judgement. If you preview the movie, and find it good in all respects except one particular scene, then that might be a good time for a planned potty break. But for goodness’ sake, and the sake of all the other theater patrons, PLEASE don’t bring small children to movies that aren’t meant for them!
interesting concept – cancer survivors are forgiven all? i’ll use that excuse next time i am rude…
But back on topic – regardless of the child’s age (and i didn’t quite get the ages there – 20 months and 2 year old?), if they have a condition or disability that results in them shrieking, then yes, she needs to remove them from the venue till they calm down.
I remember going to the cinema once on holiday to see Stars Wars the Phantom Menace. Me and my sister were at Junior school at the time so we were old enough to see a PG film. My parents must have seen before (something that I didn’t clock until many years later on) because when two parents and their three/four year old and sat behind us, my Mum said “we might have to take out “Youngest Child” (my younger sister) at the funeral scene”. She was dropping a hint at cremation scene at the end to the parents sitting behind us. They did take their child out at the end.
This is why the few drive-in theaters that remain in the country are such great family options. They could have watched the movie from their car without disrupting other patrons. There is a good reason why there are no feature-length films targeted at toddlers. They’re not developmentally “there” yet. She probably didn’t have a babysitter, or didn’t want to get one, and did the expedient thing.
Also wanted to add, I find it rather disgusting when parents try to use their child’s health issues or disabilities to gin up internet outrage and generate pageviews. Many years ago, there was a woman with two autistic daughters whose outraged blog post went viral. She was very angry that her girls weren’t invited to her brother’s wedding. The girls were like 9 and 7 at the time. The title of her post was something like “My autistic children not welcome at family wedding.” Sounds rage-inducing, until you read the entire post and learned that NO children, with the exception of ring-bearer and flower girl, were included. When this was pointed out to her in the comments, she dug in, stating that since she was close family, an exception should have been made, and also that if there was a ring-bearer and flower girl, more children should have been included.
This mom is doing the same thing. It’s not about her child being a cancer survivor. It’s not about her child at all, really, it’s about her bringing children to a movie when they’re not capable of sitting quietly through it, or even getting anything out of it at all.
Wow. I was thoroughly enjoying this site until I was met with the unfettered apathy displayed by the commenters above. At no point did any of you discuss how utterly classless it is to simply yell out at another paying patron to “get that baby out of here”. When patronizing a movie theatre, one should remember that they are in public, and not owed silence at the expense of other patrons. If you want silence at a movie, perhaps you should pay for the privilege of a private screening. Otherwise, be aware that some adults have children, and children make noise. Some of us enjoy spending time with our noisy children. Some of us actually like them, and take them with us through our little life experiences, rather than dumping them onto the first available caretaker with an impatient sigh of relief and annoyance at their mere existence. Instead of demanding that someone in public adhere to your unrelenting need for silence in a public theatre, why not attend the movie at a theatre with difference policies, or watch it at home? If it is you who has a problem with the noise a particular patron might bring to a public event, then it is YOU who should amend your attendance, not them. The world doesn’t revolve around your need to exist devoid of annoyance or inconvenience, and you do not have the right to act on your compulsive need to bully others into submitting to your demands. Good day.