rocksteadyash

But did the clerk start yelling at you about your drink while your where in the dressing room, yelling at you that you had thirty seconds to leave or else they where barging in, perhaps while you were naked? Or is your comment just based upon the headline? (I know it saves time.)

strathmeyer

CyberSkull

HotMess81

lennybee

So, if I can find multiple parents who have managed to shop at Forever 21, then I could prove that this policy did not exclude parents from being able to shop there, right?
This is like saying a store policy that says I can't bring a firearm on store property prevents me from being able to go on store property if I've got a gun. Now, granted, I could leave my gun unattended more easily than I can an 8-year-old child, but the point is the same-this parent had many other options open to her - none of which it is the store's responsibility to point out for her.

Question though, what if this mother needed to use the restroom? I'm sure most of us can agree that a women's restroom is no place for an 8-year-old boy. Let's assume this parent is shopping in places that don't have "Family Restrooms", as a lot of places don't. What are her options then?

>"However, as a society, "we" have decided that it is not permissable to refuse to serve someone based on things like skin color, religion, etc."

Oh, I completely agree, we, as a society should agree that it's not cool to discriminate. However, why should "our" firm moral groundings be *forced* onto everyone else? If someone has built a business from the ground up with their blood, sweat and tears, why are "we" to tell them how they have to run that business? So long as they're not polluting or some other thing that *forces* their business to encroach on our private life, what does it matter to "us"?

>"Much the same way that the south used to use "literacy tests" to keep minorities from voting at the polls."

The difference is that US Citizens have the *right* to vote. It is a government institution funded by our tax dollars. However, there should not be a law that says a private individual (or company) *has* to allow an individual or group to encroach on their private property.

>"Out of curiosity, if the woman had simply left in a huff after the initial refusal to allow the child to wait in the fitting area and then wrote her letter complaining about the policy, would you support her claim as a reasonable complaint?"

I've said all along that's what she should have done. I'm not going to comment on if it's a bad policy, because I don't know *why* the policy was established, but I can say I wouldn't have cared if this mother had just left the store, *then* complained. To borrow from an analogy someone posted earlier, imagine getting pulled over for speeding on a virtually deserted road. The officer is nice and lets you off with a warning (i.e.: telling you that you can't do what you want to do). Instead of listening, you peel out and continue speeding. What do you think is gonna happen?

When you're shopping, you are a *guest* in someone else's house. Follow their rules while you are there. Feel free to complain about them if you disagree - but follow them. If you just absolutely can't, then leave and go to someone's house who will let you do whatever it is you want to do.

Now, I have a question for you - do you think the "One Person per Fitting Room" rule is a bad policy all around, or do you think the store should make exceptions in cases like this?

TheUncleBob

As to your second point, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to how far "property rights" should go. However, as a society, "we" have decided that it is not permissable to refuse to serve someone based on things like skin color, religion, etc. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that a store should not be able to discriminate against people based on whether they have young children. (Yes I know that the stated purpose of the policy is not to prevent parent with young children from shopping there, but it is the natural effect of the policy. Much the same way that the south used to use "literacy tests" to keep minorities from voting at the polls. The stated purpose was not to discriminate, but that was clearly the effect.)

Finally, these two choices (leave child unattended or take him into the fitting room with her) were the options available to her if she wished to be able to make a purchase. Since they would not let the child wait in the fitting area and they do not allow returns, she really didn't have much of a choice did she? And perhaps you don't have children or perhaps you have tons of money for babysitters (a good one can easily make 2-3x the minimum wage that the attendant was probably making), but not everyone can get a babysitter every time they have to go shopping.

The bottom line is that regardless of whether the store had a legal right to have a policy that effectivly prevents parents with young children from purchasing clothes at its store or not, IT IS A BAD POLICY (at least the way it was enforced here). And the purpose of the letter appeared to be to call the company out on its bad policy. And many of the people commenting (even many of the ones who support the store's right to set whatever policy it wants) appear to think it's a bad policy. So perhaps the company will pay heed to the comments and clarify the purpose/enforcement of the policy so that situations like these do not come up again.

Out of curiosity, if the woman had simply left in a huff after the initial refusal to allow the child to wait in the fitting area and then wrote her letter complaining about the policy, would you support her claim as a reasonable complaint? I guess I'm just trying to figure out if it was the fact that she had the nerve to violate the store's policy that is coloring your view of the situation or is it just a pure libertarian analysis.

Dodger88

First off, the policy was not that the young child could not be in the fitting room area. The policy was that the child could not wait in the fitting room area and that it's limited to one person per fitting room. That's not discrimination (except, maybe, against siamese twins?).

Second - and this is going to be an unpopular opinion - but, I'd like to go with Ron Paul here - if a property owner doesn't want a particular race, gender, age or class of people on their property, then yes, the property owner *should* be allowed to decline to allow those people on their property. Likewise, we, as consumers, should have the right to determine where we want to spend our money.

Finally - you keep trying to make your point, claiming that the customer's only choices were that she had to leave her child unattended or take him into the fitting room with her. Again, as we discussed, these were not her only options.

Was this a bad business decision? Probably. But shouldn't it be the right of the business to determine how they want to run their business? If a customer doesn't like it, they can leave and shop elsewhere.

TheUncleBob

Query: If I had a store and said that my policy was that black/disabled/jewish people are not allowed in the changing room should that be ok? What if store statistics indicated that there was a greater likelihood of shoplifting with those groups? Does that make the policy ok? So why would discriminating against people with children be any different?

As I have tried to point out several times, store policy does not necessarily carry the weight of law. You cannot establish/enforce a private rule that is against public policy. And furthermore, regardless of whether parents of young children should be a "protected class" is not really relevant. The purpose of the letter (as I read it) was to convey to the upper management of a company an extremely unpleasant shopping experience at one of their stores that was the result of a questionable policy (or at the least, the result of extremely poor judgement in enforcing a policy).

Although the manager's subsequent demand that the customer get out w/in 30 seconds and be escorted out of the store was rather harsh, it is also irrelevant to the underlying issue. The focus should be on the policy itself. And after a careful weighing of the risk-reward balance (i.e., preventing theft/making some customers more "comfortable" vs. endangering the welfare of a young child) it seems like a no-brainer. If theft was the primary concern (a legitimate one) then they could have let the child stay in the fitting area in PLAIN VIEW of the parent and the attendant. Problem solved. If the concern was that an ADULT woman was upset that an 8-year old child was going to "check her out" then the adult woman should grow the hell up. I mean get real. Who is in a better situation to alleviate the problem in the easiest manner? The parent who would have to leave their child alone and unsupervised? Or the adult who could simply avoid the problem by not leaving the fitting room half-naked? There are plenty of places that a parent should not bring a young child... a clothing store is not one of them.

@UpsetPanda: I'm not sure how you can "equate" adult men walking around in a woman's dressing area with an 8 YEAR OLD CHILD waiting for his mother! To me, that is completely insane.

P.S. To those who have raised the question, over the years, I have seen mothers take their young sons into the ladies restroom and I have seen fathers take their young daughters into the mens restroom. While I've never been thrilled with the situation, I've always appreciated that it was the lesser of the two evils.

Dodger88

TheUncleBob

Houston, we are "GO" for "threadjack!"

axiomatic

@Crymson_77: Child Endangerment? By telling them to gtfo? You have got to be kidding.

cde

Crymson_77

TheUncleBob

kruz01

CharlieSeattle

CharlieSeattle

UpsetPanda

Oh, I see what you did there. ;)

drjayphd

I mean seriously people, he's 8 Year Old. Girls still have freaking cooties to him, so he's not going out and having sex just because he saw his Mom change.

Szin

Also, come on. It's his MOM. There's nothing wrong or mentally scarring with changing in front of your child unless you decide to create a taboo about it. Especially if she was just trying on some pants. Heck, do you guys always walk around dressed from head to toe because your kid might see your thighs?

IrisMR

But for those of you to compare living in this day and age and leaving your 8-year-old with strangers to yester-year you need to get with it. Today's society is much more dangerous. I remember when I was a kid my parents let me walk to school, which was a mile and a half away, with no problem. I wouldn't dare let my children walk to school alone at the age in the same area today.

I think they were wrong in not letting her take her 8-year-old, that is too young to me. And yes, there is nothing wrong with her trying on pants in front of an 8-year-old. I doubt she had any evil intentions in mind, if so she wouldn't even have mentioned it.

Quintus

Dashrashi

Furthermore, my mother did take me into dressing rooms. Imagine that, different mothers with different practices.

@veraikon: Maybe she needs to or chooses to shop there because it's cheap. It's not necessary for you to be so judgmental when you don't know her situation.

Dashrashi

Also, you should turn down your bitchiness before trying to interact with other people.

Now, I haven't been in a Forever 21 since before I was 21, but I seem to remember that those kinds of stores have tiny dressing rooms. This would mean that her little boy was not just watching mommy change, but probably getting a face full of mommy's crotch or butt as she was trying to put on pants in a crowded dressing room. That probably isn't why the store said he couldn't go in, but I would think that would be a good enough reason not to bring your kid in if you were thinking about it hard enough.

samurailynn

Tonguetied

veraikon

I know they have cut staff hours recently to save $$, and everyone who works on the sales floor and dressing room is feeling stressed during busy shopping hours. Not an excuse, just an observation.

ElizabethD

And, not that I think seeing his mother semi-nude is going to screw him up for life, but an eight year old is reaching the point where seeing mom nude borders on inappropriate, especially when it's probably unnecessary. He's probably old enough to be more embarrassed and humiliated than his mom over the whole ordeal.

lennybee

bishophicks

WhirlyBird

gisgt

I don't think anyone is saying she didn't have the right to challenge/be upset over company policy - we're saying she simply did not have the right to blatantly ignore the policy and go head and break it. If you disagree with the store policy, that's fine. Talk to the manager. Yell at the manager. Call the company's HQ and yell at them. Organize an internet boycott against them. But you loose as soon as you break the rules.

TheUncleBob

kruz01

Note that I am not saying whether or not there is a case that public policy should treat people with young children as a "protected class" for these kinds of purposes. I'm just suggesting that people not cite "store policy" as some be all-end all that trumps all other factors.

But am I the only one who feels that the bigger issue here is the store's poorly reasoned and foolishly handled enforcement of their policy rather than the fact that she subsequently was thrown out as result of violating the policy. The outrage should be that they would put a customer in that situation in the first place. How stupid is a policy that tells paying customers that if you have concerns about the safety of your children then we prefer you not shop in our store. This is the kind of story that if it gets picked up by local media can generate a huge backlash. Then the store scrambles to state that while there are legit reasons for the policy, they were not intended to be enforced as they were here. "Of course we would never suggest that mothers with young children were unwelcome in our stores. And nothing is more important to us than our customers having a safe and positive experience shopping in our stores."

Stores are not dumb. They often do dumb things because of institutional arrogance. But they are not dumb. I'm guessing that they are not going to want to alienate most mothers who shop with young children and mothers who shop for their older children. It costs them too much public good will, as I suspect that most people would be sympathetic to the mother with the young child in this case... other than the "openly hostile to those with children" crowd (You want to tell me that a parent has no business taking a young child into a bar or casino or fancy restaurant at night etc, then fine, but don't tell me that she can't go shopping for clothes. That's ridiculous.)

I bet somewhere out there a PR firm is starting to see dollar signs...

Dodger88

ceejeemcbeegee

It sounds like you're talking about legal rights, a common conflation around these parts. The point of Consumerist stories like these isn't to establish grounds for lawsuits or criminal prosecution, it's to warn people about the antisocial behavior practiced by certain stores or corporations. If you believe that people do not deserve respect, then this post isn't for you. Most people, however, do believe in the concept of basic human decency, and some may be inspired to avoid Forever 21 in the future, which is the intent.@str1cken:

lihtox

Also, to anyone who says "they should just raise more responsible kids": that sounds a lot like "why don't you just quit smoking?" or "why don't you just cheer up and stop being depressed?": easy to say, maybe easy for some to do, but not a trivial skill which everyone possesses. Surprise, surprise, other people are different than you--- you are a unique snowflake after all. :)

lihtox

I've seen kids walk off into the streets unattended.

Maybe you should leave your child at home and plan shopping trips alone.

BTW, kids hate shopping unless it's specifically targeted/geared towards toys.

Kendra

drjayphd

@CharlieSeattle: State law may or may not say the parent cannot leave the child unattended. Either way, the parent still had the choice to leave the store.

TheUncleBob

FoxintheSnow

Dashrashi

Dashrashi

As for Forever 21, I've waited outside the changing area while a girlfriend tried on clothes. That store, especially the dressing area, is a total chick space. I don't blame them at all for wanting to exclude an 8 year old male child from the environment -- and if I were that male child, I'd be glad that they did.

JohnnyE

bobosgirl

I agree that you're not always entitled to an exception, but it's reasonable to expect one when A) the exception is reasonable, and B) reasonable exceptions are made, by and large. I don't see how this is an entitlement attitude.

Dashrashi

Why shop at Forever 21 anyway? The one time I went in their store, I found so many flaws in their clothes. Clothes fell apart so quickly and were falling apart on the hangers. They were irregular, also, even though they were charging full price. I would rather spend my money on something a little more likely to stand a couple washings.

pigeonpenelope

You people are making it sound like she was forced to leave her child unattended at gunpoint. Was it really so important that she try on those damn pants?

thalia

Tankueray

lovelygirl

Her son is almost middle school-aged and she's bringing him into the changing room with her? And she does this regularly? That's morbid.

Parenting aside, if a mother feels the need to bring her child into the fitting room to ensure their safety, I agree that it's pretty crappy for the store to deny her

5 years olds are in kindergarten....8year olds 3rd grade. i was 12 when i was middle school douche.

i agree with whoever said our worlds just fucked up and cautious now, my mom let me roam the stores when i was like 5. i got lost at Disneyland no less than 5x before 6 and once completely lost at Knott's Berry Farms when i was 4, i just walked away and disappeared. my point is, my parents found me. That was 92'...i dont think thaaat much has changed. People are just scared

meanwalrus18

Pylon83

Dashrashi

samurailynn

samurailynn

B

catspyjamas

I also think that by saying "The kid can't go in with you," they WERE implying that the kid should be left outside, because it would be irrational for them to be implying that she should leave, because that would cost them money. You can't blind yourself to the implications by saying, "Well, I never expressly told her to leave her kid unattended." You're expected to behave like a reasonable person, and it's reasonably foreseeable that the outcome of you telling a person that she can't bring her kid in is that she will leave him outside. (That appears to be the solution meant by the clerk, again, as the other option--leaving--is irrational from the store's POV.) If that's so, you're responsible for whatever arises from that (again, reasonably foreseeable) outcome. I cannot imagine that F21 wants to be responsible for kids left unattended.

Dashrashi

(rant off)

Trai_Dep

So the safest thing to do if you're worried about child abductions is to get them as far away from their families as possible.

Oh. Wait.

Seriously, people: perspective. Facts. Common sense. Your kids will be happier and much more well-adjusted. As will you.

Trai_Dep

Frankly, I'm surprise that there is even an overlap between the F21 customer and the responsible parent demographic.

Mr_Burmie

Pylon83

Dashrashi

mscissy

I can only wish on you willful children. The relationship between parenting and child behavior is not as direct as you think it is.

Dashrashi

Pylon83

Can the parent really win here? Come on.

Dashrashi

If you folks were traumatized by seeing your mother's bare legs (she was trying on pants, for crying out loud) you've got some serious body issues.

rjhiggins

Dashrashi

Pylon83

Dashrashi

cde

K-Bo

Pylon83

iskandertime

Pylon83

cde

Pylon83

mammalpants

zizou

Pylon83

Pylon83

CharlieSeattle

CharlieSeattle

CharlieSeattle

Pylon83

CharlieSeattle

cde

misslisa

CharlieSeattle

CharlieSeattle

cde

Dodger88

CharlieSeattle

Why is an 8 year old child watching mommy changing clothes anyway? He can sit outside the room and patiently wait. What does she she when he needs to go to the bathroom in public?

bugsnbre

But I'm curious as to what you think about what I asked. Why should my child (who is a customer just like every other customer) be forced to be exposed to people who are walking around half undressed?

Dodger88

cde

bobosgirl

bobosgirl

Is it a DANGEROUS policy? Of course not. There are no pants-trying-on emergencies. You have options.

Is the store acting within its authority to make the policy for whatever reason -- customer comfort, loss prevention, liability -- it chooses? Of course. It's private property. They get to make the rules.

Is the store acting reasonably in asking someone to leave who has clearly demonstrated her unwillingness to follow the store's policies when they are outlined by the store employees? Of course.

Does a customer have the right to decide, "Oh, well, that policy sounds stupid, so the store employee must be wrong, and therefore, I will ignore her"? Of course not.

If the woman had just LEFT THE STORE when they refused to allow the child to wait with her in the dressing room area, and then she had written a letter to corporate calmly explaining that she unfortunately had suspended her shopping at F21 until the policy was changed, she would stand a better chance of a good outcome. As it stands, this letter is going on the junk pile, because she's made herself easy to write off as a jerk.

alisonjane

My answer is no. They prevented a customer from buying something. There are clearly other mechanisms to prevent shoplifting, including having this policy generally but then allowing common-sense exceptions when someone objects. Stupid policy, enforced stupidly.

Dashrashi

1) Who cares why the mother was shopping at F21? As far as I'm concerned she can shop where she damn well pleases. That was not the problem that was addressed in the letter. The issue was a store policy, not whether women of certain ages can shop at certain stores.

2) To the female commenter whose own mother made her face the door (??!!??) while she tried on clothes when the commenter was a young child: THIS pretty much sums up what is wrong with our society.

Back to the issue at hand - which everyone seems to think is somehow irrelevant here. Is the store policy justified? Yes or no?

mamalicious

TheUncleBob

zizou

Sorry, you fail at reading.

FTA: As I was about to enter the room she informed me that my son would have to wait outside the fitting room area. OUTSIDE THE FITTING ROOM AREA!

Most clothing stores have a hallway of sorts that leads to several fitting rooms that usually have slotted doors. She was told that he had to wait outside that area. Not outside the fitting room, but outside the area those rooms were in.

While I think mom played too many emotional cards in her letter about the "most humiliating" thing to ever happen to her, I understand her point of view completely for taking her kid with her.

The folks that keep saying "he's 8, he'll be OK"...right, because nobody over 8 is ever kidnapped."

FF_Mac

Pylon83

amoeba

Dodger88

Of course, let's not forget all the other stuff our parents used to do:

- Take us to bars with them
- Drive us around in the car with no carseat
- Drive us around in the car with no seatbelts
- Leave us in the car while they went shopping

We're all fine, right? No big deal.
(-off-sarcasm-tag-)

humphrmi

So I see it both ways. But if they were that concerned, they should have been professional and just had someone count and remember the items taken into the room, then checked them afterward.

MoonBunny

brazenlyblond

Forever 21 sells some very modest pieces at an inexpensive price. The fact that she shops there means only one thing - she is fashionable, but doesn't want to pay a lot of money for something she won't be able to wear for more than a couple seasons.

Get over yourself.

MARTHA__JONES

The assumption she can go shopping without her son is that a)she's married or that b)she can afford a baby sitter to go shopping.

This is also the kind of story that our consumer advocate news reporters love to get hands on....

jesuismoi

Dodger88

RandomHookup

Why couldn't it have been about both the loss prevention aspect and the comfort level of the other customers?

Too many people are taking an either/or approach to this without rationally looking at all the options.

TheUncleBob

Anyway, my mom took my brother and I into the dressing room with her all the time. It's not like we were STARING at her naughty bits while she changed. And it was definitely necessary for my brother, who is a bit of a wild child and would definitely run off to God-knows-where if left unattended for just a SECOND. It is is no way bad parenting to watch your kids, or even prevent them from wreaking havoc in the store.

jhuang

As to this store specifically (Forever 21, not Fashion 21 as I wrote... it was late), I totally understand the customer's anger. I think she would have been justified in writing this kind of letter even if she accepted the "third choice" and just left the store without being "escorted out". It was the store's poorly planned policy that put the shopper in the bad situation to begin with. If shoplifting is driving this policy, then they should have let the child stay in the fitting area. If the "comfort" of the other customers was driving the policy, then they should have let the child stay in the fitting room. If inappropriate sexual behavior was driving the policy, then they should have alerted the police that they suspected child abuse. If a low-level employee on a power trip or a local manager with no common sense is driving the policy, then they should be reprimanded/fired. Pretty simple in my book.

@Ericakane: Once again, what if my daughter is trying on clothes and needs to come out to show them to me? Why does she have to be subjected to you exposing yourself?

Dodger88

gingerCE

Again, she can shop wherever she wants. It's not up to you to dictate where she can and can't shop. What relevance does that have to this story anyway? This is about, in her case, following store policy; in the manager's case, it's about how to properly carry out store policy. Whether or not YOU think she's too old to shop there doesn't fit into this argument.

zizou

irid3sc3nt

siskamariesophie

Uh, think about it. When he's a teenager he can be left at home alone. Or, if he does come with her to the mall, he'll be browsing the stores he likes.

You people are blowing this out of proportion. It's an 8 year old BOY. Not young man, not teenager, BOY. 8 year olds are typically in 2nd or 3rd grade. They are still small. This has gone from whether or not she should follow store policy and if said policy was fair, to many grown adults on here going, "Eww, he's gonna see her naked! Child abuse! That's creepy!"

Grow the hell up. Honestly. Not everyone has the same beliefs you do. Don't tell her how to live her life because you're an immature prude.

zizou