I’ve got mixed feelings on this one. I’m no doctor but I’ve been stuck as primary caregiver for an elderly parent. As such I do need to be contacted in case of an emergency.
Of course, should such an emergency happen - I’d leave the theatre, and not try talking through other people’s enjoyment of the presentation.
But for everyone like me I have encountered what seems like dozens of others. And I’ve seen a grand total of four films in theatres in the past three years. It might just be a matter of the common good outweighing the individual good.
All forms. I don’t see how it can ever be acceptable to ban one class of patrons in order to cater to another class that doesn’t like having them around.
Yes, that’s the belief they’re acting on, but that belief is no justification for a discriminatory policy.
Or would you find it acceptable to ban other groups for the same reason? For example, would it be all right to ban women from certain showings if patrons believed – or even if the number of complaints proved – that they were more likely to disrupt the movie than men? How about if someone believed, from experience, that “bad cinema experiences come from gays in straight-centric movies at night”?
Unjust discrimination is a big deal in and of itself. “Separate but equal” is unacceptable.
Again, just think of how you’d react if this policy were directed at any other group. Black people can still go in the afternoon or before lunch - no big deal?
If this comment is based on the OP’s link, please bear in mind that the Daily Mail is perhaps the most meaningful equivalent we can offer in comparison to Fox News. Please don’t judge us all by it.
Mr2001, is your name, by any chance, Ben? Do you want to know who Mr. Ruda Duda is?
[/suspicious]
For people who haven’t been Dopers for, um…eleven years…what has to have been the single longest thread in SDMB history (back when it was on AOL) was called “Who is Mr. Ruda Duda?” and was, rather oddly considering the title, an insane (and inane) argument about ageism between one teenager named Ben and everyone else at the Dope. Seriously, this thread got literally hundreds of posts a day for weeks at a time. It went on so long and so ridiculously that entire subarguments evolved. At one point, two posters got into a long debate about basketball in the middle of it. Ben’s arguments were suspiciously similar to Mr2001’s. If he continues at it for a few months, we’ll know for sure.
It’s not normal for first run theaters, IME, but the dollar theaters around DC served beer & pizza and had tables. I’m not sure, but I think you could smoke, too. It was great.
Racism is different to ageism. Bare with me while I make my point.
There are a lot of nightclubs that have barred my entry based on trivial factors - the fact that I am a guy but didn’t have a group of women with me, the fact that my pants didn’t cost $900, the fact that, at the time, I was growing a really seedy moustache. Was this a problem? No, they obviously thought I would have sullied the crowd with my less than majestic appearance. If that is what the club is aiming for, then fair enough.
Any business has the right to refuse service to any group of people. This is to ensure that the patrons experience a certain standard of quality - why I can’t show up to a fancy restaurant in a bathrobe and slippers. If patrons would flock to a cinema featuring adult-only hours, then cinemas may institute adult-only hours.
But to your question - how would I feel about a race-restricted cinema? They would lose my business, of course. But there is no basis for racial discrimination in the context of cinemas - behavioural differences between races are zero. Children, however, are biologically incapable of sitting through a 2 hour movie without mucking about, BOCTAOE. Unless the movie completely captivates them, their tiny attention spans can’t cope. And yes, I am talking about teens as well - watching Casino Royale in a cinema, some mid-teens behind me lost interest after less than an hour but didn’t have the decency to walk out. Same with I Am Legend, except the did walk out - after an hour or so of disruptive behaviour.
So I don’t see the analogy between ageism and other -isms. No matter what comedians say, black people are no different from white people, men are no different from women. But are kids the same as adults? Come on.
Of all the times when people have been disruptive in movies that I’ve witnessed, a few times it has been groups of teens/young adults, less so for little kids and by far the most disruptive group have been adult black men (yelling back to the screen or to their friends in other rows) or adult couples of all races (talking to each other about what is going on.)
Sorry - BOCTAOE = But Of Course There Are Obvious Exceptions (as 2s on Google would tell you). A useful little acronym when saying mostly true statements like, I dunno, kids are annoying. Me. In cinemas.
Kids don’t hold a monopoly on bad behaviour in cinemas. I wont deny that. And anyone who yells at the screen is a jerk. But my numbers are different to your numbers - kids are the worst demographic for this (though I agree, teens tend to be worse than younger kids). Remove kids from my movie going experiences, and you have removed the vast majority of my complaints.
Of course, a more effective countermeasure would be allowing anyone in, but having ushers in place, actually in the theatre, to throw any noise makers out. I pay enough for a goddamned ticket for something I could download for free, so I expect some level of customer service in this respect. But this only happens if one or two individuals are being over-the-top disruptive throughout the whole movie.
Ushers with tasers, that’s what we need. Quiet tasers.
Do you think it’s inherently bizarre to speak up for the rights of young people, or is there something particularly bizarre about the way I’m doing it? I’d love to hear what it is.
No, that’s not true (at least in the US - correct me if this is different in the UK). Businesses can’t discriminate on the basis of certain factors like race, religion, gender, and disability, factors which are beyond the individual’s control. In fact, even age discrimination is illegal when it’s targeted against people who are too old.
I think you missed an important part of my question. Suppose you reviewed all the complaints a theater owner had received about talking during the movie, and it turned out that a certain racial group (or gender, religious group, etc.) was responsible for a disproportionately large share of the complaints. (Maybe this is the theater that Eyebrows Of Doom visits.)
Would you then feel it was appropriate to ban that race, gender, or religion from the theater?
My question isn’t about whether minors really do talk more than adults. It’s about whether that’s a legitimate basis for discriminating against the entire group.
I’m sorry that happened to you, but it’s ludicrous to claim, based on your unfortunate cinema experience, that there’s something about teenagers’ biology that prevents them from sitting through a movie in peace.
I see teenagers just about every time I go to the theater, and they’re not disruptive. Am I only seeing the exceptions, through some amazing stroke of luck? Or could it be that you’re just making an unfair generalization?
Again, I’m sorry you had a bad experience, but what you’re doing is no different from a racist generalizing about black people or a sexist generalizing about women.
Come on. If someone told you one or two stories about a group of women disrupting a movie, would that be a legitimate reason for banning women from the theater?
Do you think it’s inherently immature to speak up for the rights of young people, or is there something particularly immature about the way I’m doing it? I’d love to hear what it is.
No, but it’s interesting that you’d jump to that conclusion. Do you ask people who defend gay rights whether they’re gay themselves?
FTR, I’m Australian. A small clarification, but I thought I’d bring it up.
But as to the anti-discrimination, are you saying a senior citizen could get into a trendy, youth-orientated gym or nightclub, assuming they wanted to? Regardless of what the law says about unfair discrimination, certain groups can and will be barred entry to certain places, either by official policy or by unofficial action on behave of the staff.
Ever hear of women only gyms? Should I try to sue them for not letting me in?
That would be ludicrous. Fortunately, I am basing it more on established science, universal experiences and common knowledge. Teenagers have less of an attention span than adults and less societal inhibitions, especially when they are:
Surrounded by friends
Also surrounded by strangers
Individual teenagers may or may not be more mature than adults. But a group of teens will almost always misbehave far more than a similar sized group of adults. How often do you see teenagers in public? How long since you were a teenager? It’s easy to forget that their brains and bodies are still changing, and this exerts massive changes in ability and personality.
In short, teens often act like pre-teens (or worse) under certain conditions. It seems that inside a dark cinema with friends are those conditions for many.
I was providing anecdotal evidence on behalf of a semi-frequent movie goer. But you might of noticed - I’m not the one who started this campaign. This goes far beyond a few bad experiences of my own.
You keep comparing the issue to racism/sexism, so I’ll take another crack at that - your question then becomes how would I feel banning racial group from cinemas if the anecdotal and scientific evidence confirmed beyond doubt that racial group have shorter attention spans and fewer social inhibitors than non-racial group. The question is moot, as that is never going to happen.
Ageism is not the same as racism. It is not the same as sexism.
This is turning into quite the debate. Mods, are we sure this is still in the right thread?
Universal experiences and common knowledge? There’s been more than one person in this thread and other threads who have testified to the fact that demographics other than kids/teens have been more disruptive in their experience.
The simple fact is that targeting a demographic you have prejudice against rather than focusing on behavior of all groups is discriminatory and bigoted.
Cite? Even assuming these things are quantifiable and based on an actual study and not just your shortsighted anecdotal observations, are you really saying that it’s 100% of teenagers and at the magic age of 18 that all goes away? If not, then your statements don’t have merit as the basis for discriminatory policies.
Cite? If it’s merely your own observation, others have had different observations.
And even if it’s a statistical phenomenon, so what? It’s well known that other groups are statistically more likely to engage in certain behaviors. But we don’t make policy decisions based on that.
Like any witchhunt, it’s dressed it the legitimacy of prejudice against a group that it’s still in vogue to be bigoted against. If it were twenty years ago, it would be about black people or gay people. Now it’s about young people.
Well there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that black people are more likely to be disruptive in a movie theater than white people. Which isn’t due to a shorter attention span or fewer social inhibitors. It’s just part of a particular culture. There’s plenty of scientific evidence that large groups of people of any age have fewer social inhibitors, hence “mob mentality”. This is in no way unique to teenagers.
Yes it’s different. It’s bigotry based on an arbitrary number rather than skin color. It’s still bigotry. Different doesn’t mean better.
Yes, they could be barred, but it’d almost certainly be illegal. If they felt like suing, and could point to a policy or pattern of action that discriminated against them on the basis of age, I’d expect them to win in court.
You wouldn’t be the first. Some US states have changed their laws to allow women-only gyms in response to lawsuits.
Mm-hmm. And if I said that established science, universal experiences and common knowledge showed that women had less societal inhibitions than men, and besides we all know that whenever they get together in groups they can’t help but gossip about celebrities and soaps and whatnot, so therefore they should be banned from the theater, your response would be…?
Here’s mine: I doubt the existence of any established science showing that teenagers are incapable of keeping their mouths shut for two hours at a time, I think you’re generalizing unfairly from a handful of experiences, and I think the “common knowledge” you speak of is nothing more than stereotypes and prejudice.
I see teenagers in public all the time at malls, stores, theaters, and restaurants; I also have teenage relatives, and I even know one or two who aren’t related to me. I must conclude that either (1) there’s something in the water in Australia that causes your teenagers to act quite differently from ours, or (2) you’re making an unfair generalization.
It’s been several years since I was a teenager, but not long enough to forget what it was like.
No, my question is how you’d feel banning racial group based on the same level of evidence that’s been provided here for banning young people.
Scientific evidence doesn’t enter into it, since there is no scientific evidence in favor of banning young people from the theater. There are anecdotes and stereotypes, but we’ve seen that those also exist in favor of banning racial group.
It’s a hypothetical question, the scenario doesn’t ever have to happen in order for you to answer it.
I can understand why you wouldn’t want to answer it, of course: if you say “yes, I’d support banning them”, then it’s embarrassing because it amounts to supporting racism; if you say “no, I wouldn’t”, then it’s hypocritical because you don’t hesitate to support ageism based on the same evidence. But that’s a problem with your belief that age discrimination is different from other forms, not with the hypothetical scenario.
Here are a few cites I managed to dig up with a few minutes on Google/Google Scholar. They do not address all the points, but maybe I can do a better search later.
I did manage to dig up research covering both Austrailian and US children between the ages of 13-17, finding no differences between them. But the study compares three ages (preteen, teen and adult) on their attention span regarding websites - something any contemporary teen should be a pro at watching. The results? Teens did badly, preteens did surprisingly well.
Extrapolate what you will from these findings.
Next up, we have parenting advice from North Dakota State University. This says before the age of about 15/16 teens and preteens are hugely egocentric and have short, but increasing, attention spans. The net result - they are likely to get bored, and are not going to care who they piss off trying to entertain themselves. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/pipeline/teen-3w.htm
For a psychological/neurological investigation of teen behaviour, this quote sums it up pretty well:
Well I’m sorry, I’ll put away my pitchfork. Like I said, I expected this sort of treatment as a teen. That’s why I’m an advocate of it - because I’ve always been an advocate for it. I was able to see the benefit of a few adult-only screenings, even if it were a restriction on my own rights. This is being as bigoted as a gay person opposing gay marriage - you know their point of view is not going to be founded on unjustified discrimination.
You talk of anecdotal evidence. I talk of anecdotes backed by science. Besides culture, as well as being difficult to define, isn’t hardwired into anyone’s biology, so banning certain biological traits (like skin colour) is missing the mark. Not so with ageism.
All irony intended, but cite? I know all about mob mentality and its effects on behaviour, but has the research shown that it influences adults and teens to the same degree?
Now there are frivilous lawsuits being taken to a new level. If gyms, or cinemas, or restaurants near where I lived decided to go exclusively female, I would not care. I would not feel discriminated against. I certainly wouldn’t sue.
Not all women want to be hit on when they go to the gym. Not all adults want to put up with noisy kids at the cinemas. This isn’t discrimination, it is customer demand.
Those studies which pop up every now and then comparing the number of words spoken each day by men and women, finding them to be either similar or suggesting men to be more talkative. So… established science be damned, because the science part is not listening.
applause
No, I’m serious. A good argument, you have backed me into a corner. I have provided some evidence to back up my distinction between the -isms, but in respect to this paragraph I will answer it straight.
It is my believe that any business should be allowed to deny service to any group of patrons. They are welcome to discriminate based on who they serve, if they believe such discrimination will further their business. It would be my deepest hope that any business which arbitrarily refused service to women, for example, would be boycotted, or at the very least suffer enormously for excluding half the market.
Based on popular opinion, a cinema which blocks youth attendance at certain screenings would either fluorish or falter. That is up to the market to decide. There are problems with this, the market is hardly the wisest of all beings, but this is what I believe. Sorry if this upsets you.
By the way, I would boycott the sexist restaurant and the racist nightclub. But I would attend the ageist cinema.
These cites don’t show that teenagers are incapable of watching a movie in silence. What they do is illustrate a handful of factors that may, from time to time, influence their ability to concentrate. But:
Failing to concentrate on a movie is not the same as loudly disrupting it for other patrons.
The same factors exist for other groups as well. (Hmm, who else is known for having mood swings?)
These studies might provide theoretical basis for explaining why young people are more disruptive than average, if indeed they are, but don’t actually show that they are.
Actually, it might be. Some people reject the hardships that are inflicted on them in their youth, and spend the rest of their lives fighting them… and some people internalize those hardships, come to believe they deserve to be treated that way, and go about inflicting them on a new generation. Just look at parents who were abused as children and then go on to abuse their own children.
Talking during movies isn’t wired into anyone’s biology either. Most, if not all, teenagers are quite capable of keeping their mouths shut for two hours. The factors you cited above might influence the others, but obviously they’re not insurmountable, as an objective look at how teenagers actually behave in cinemas would easily prove. (Unless I was right about there being something in the Australian water supply.)
If you ban all teenagers because some of them are too hyperactive to remember that they’re inside a theater, that’s no better than banning all people with dark skin because some of them come from a culture where talking during a movie is acceptable. Whether the cause is cultural or biological is irrelevant; it’s part of who they are, and it affects their behavior.
It’s both. It’s a discriminatory policy that caters to the demands of bigoted customers.
Fair enough. Thanks for admitting that you believe businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, and all other such traits. I disagree, obviously, but I can at least respect the consistency.
Sometime I’m going to have to vacation in Doperland and visit one of these theatres you guys are constantly bitching about. I reflect everytime one of these threads comes up, and for the life of me I cannot think of one time I’ve ever heard a cell phone ring, or be answered, or talked on in any way during a movie. I’ve been disturbed by excessive talking maybe 3 or 4 times. I’ve probably averaged about 1 movie in the theatre per month for the last ~20 years.
