Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

If a kid seems unkempt or has food on his/her face or clothes, then yes, it would make sense that those kids be targeted. Not saying this is YOUR kid but I know a few people who don't seem to care that their kids have jam on their face, etc.

Great, so kids who are not perfectly groomed don't belong near art. That's just a terrific standard.

Where in my post does it say that the kid has to be perfectly groomed? If your kid has visible food stains or smears on his/her face or clothes then no, they do not belong near priceless works of art.

And what museum are they letting anyone get close enough to the art that smears of food on their face could transfer to the art???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

If a kid seems unkempt or has food on his/her face or clothes, then yes, it would make sense that those kids be targeted. Not saying this is YOUR kid but I know a few people who don't seem to care that their kids have jam on their face, etc.

Great, so kids who are not perfectly groomed don't belong near art. That's just a terrific standard.

Where in my post does it say that the kid has to be perfectly groomed? If your kid has visible food stains or smears on his/her face or clothes then no, they do not belong near priceless works of art.

If this stringent criteria had applied to Jason Pollack, he never would have found his calling. And I am not being ironic or snarky.

if Jackson Pollock had been reminded not to touch the paintings, he would not have broken down into tears and abandoned his gift forever. At any age.

Anonymous wrote:Op here - wow, interesting posts. I guess most of the people here have never been to the BZ in the NBM. The BZ is for children - it's hands on and as member of the museum i can tell you that the great hall is often filled with running, skipping and playing toddlers and kids. Its a great downtown playspace on hot days and very cold ones. In fact on Saturday several of the kids and staff had a soccer game going.

As to my "out of control" child. As any 18 month old will do, she ran forward in excitement about two arms lengths ahead. I did ask "is this weird" to get a general sense of what others thought. I doubt I will complain since we do go often and weekdays maybe a different vibe.


Thanks

Former poster here. In that case, as I said before, I definitely think the woman overreacted and that she shouldn't have touched your daughter. And an 18 month old excited run is different from a 2-3 year old out of control run.

As to the other poster - I'm not a helicopter parent but I have the "arm's reach" or "hold hand" rule in public places, especially if it's crowded and/or I'm with all of the kids at once and I need to be able to reach a kid. I mentioned before that I did not allow my boys to run around in the great hall - it was our first time there and since it was mainly adults getting their morning coffee and adults taking pictures and getting ready to go into the exhibits I wasn't sure if sprinting around was permitted or the best idea. Plus, it keeps them calmer if we walk to our destination rather then run.

Anonymous wrote:Op here - wow, interesting posts. I guess most of the people here have never been to the BZ in the NBM. The BZ is for children - it's hands on and as member of the museum i can tell you that the great hall is often filled with running, skipping and playing toddlers and kids. Its a great downtown playspace on hot days and very cold ones. In fact on Saturday several of the kids and staff had a soccer game going.

As to my "out of control" child. As any 18 month old will do, she ran forward in excitement about two arms lengths ahead. I did ask "is this weird" to get a general sense of what others thought. I doubt I will complain since we do go often and weekdays maybe a different vibe.


Thanks

Yep. DCUM-ers who feel the need to comment on every little thing, even though they have never been to the building museum or the BZ. OP- I had what sounds like the same woman come running after my 13 mo when he was headed in, too. Like he was going to damage something in the stroller parking zone.

For the record, PPs, we non-helicopter parents do allow our kids out of arms reach is designated kids areas.

Op here - wow, interesting posts. I guess most of the people here have never been to the BZ in the NBM. The BZ is for children - it's hands on and as member of the museum i can tell you that the great hall is often filled with running, skipping and playing toddlers and kids. Its a great downtown playspace on hot days and very cold ones. In fact on Saturday several of the kids and staff had a soccer game going.

As to my "out of control" child. As any 18 month old will do, she ran forward in excitement about two arms lengths ahead. I did ask "is this weird" to get a general sense of what others thought. I doubt I will complain since we do go often and weekdays maybe a different vibe.


Thanks

You mean, "Jackson" Pollock?

I didn't realize he worked in peanut butter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

If a kid seems unkempt or has food on his/her face or clothes, then yes, it would make sense that those kids be targeted. Not saying this is YOUR kid but I know a few people who don't seem to care that their kids have jam on their face, etc.

Great, so kids who are not perfectly groomed don't belong near art. That's just a terrific standard.

Where in my post does it say that the kid has to be perfectly groomed? If your kid has visible food stains or smears on his/her face or clothes then no, they do not belong near priceless works of art.

If this stringent criteria had applied to Jason Pollack, he never would have found his calling. And I am not being ironic or snarky.

Anonymous wrote:OMG. Toddler profiling. Call the ACLU.

I hear they target the ones in disposable diapers.

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who said that my daughter got a lecture the Smithsonian. For the record, she wasn't running -- the guard simply came up and began a sort of pre-emptive anti-juvenile deliquency campagin And the fact that your children weren't lectured -- what does that matter?

Are guards simply able to single out kids they want to lecture and pick on because they feel certain kids look bad, or like potential PB&J smearers? (Kid wasn't eating anything either for the record). Isn't that an invitation to guards profiling and targeting kids of certain looks and races? Do we allow police officers to preemptively pull over certain drivers because they MIGHT speed, or steal cars? Of course not! Why should kids be harassed this way?

OMG you are seriously comparing someone being told "we aren't going to touch the paintings aren't we?" to police doing racial profiling? And harassment?!! 'we aren't going to touch the paintings, aren't we?"!!

Seriously you need to take 5% of the brainpower that you have devoted to art and redirect it to common sense.

Anonymous wrote:Did people even read the OP? The kid was running into the building zone of the Building Museum, which is not the Smithsonian, which is there FOR CHILDREN. She was not running up to a Monet with peanut butter smeared hands.

OP said her daughter was running around the great hall and then ran into the building zone (assuming ahead of her mother, which means they may not have seen an adult with her).

I don't think running in the building zone is an issue. At least, I don't remember it being one of the rules when we were there and both of my boys were skipping around while playing and nobody said anything.

I actually stopped my boys from running around in the great hall. Maybe it's not a problem - but I felt as if having toddlers/preschoolers sprinting around probably wasn't something that the museum employees or other patrons wanted to be around. We ate a snack, looked at the water fountain and Lego display of the museum, then walked to the building zone, waited through the rules speal, then walked in.

Even in the kidzone rogue toddlers have to managed. If I recall, there is even a sign restricting the # of families that can be in the room at one time.

OMG. Toddler profiling. Call the ACLU.

Did people even read the OP? The kid was running into the building zone of the Building Museum, which is not the Smithsonian, which is there FOR CHILDREN. She was not running up to a Monet with peanut butter smeared hands.

Anonymous wrote:I really only take my kids in the Fall and Winter. They know not to touch the art because they are not allowed to at home. But my 2 year old has run around the art museums and no one has ever said anything beyond, "you must be tired!" Or "she's fast!" We have never had a problem. I am stunned to read others have.

Were they in close proximity to the art? Probably not. There is a zone around which a squealing drooling toddler is just not tolerated around major artworks.

You really should not have let your kid go running into the room that way--and to the pp whose kid was in the art museum--yes. The guard probably sensed from your child's body laguage that she was likely to run up and try to touch the art. Kids will do this unless they are told not to. If you can't control your child, i.e., instruct them as to how to behave appropriately in a museum, unfortunately, (or fortunately) there are guards there to hold them back. Our general society has become so unrestrained and inappropriate now, such that many great works of art that were once freely open for close inspection have to be roped off of placed behind bullet proof glass. It starts when the kids are little: no running indoors and keep your hands to yourself.