To be getting fed up of these type of jumping on the band wagon breastfeeding threads

[sharonthewaspandthewineywall]

here

FTR I'm very pro breastfeeding and think where children are permitted mothers should be able to feed their babies in whichever way they choose. But to me this is a completely different situation and this running to the papers screaming about the inequity of it all is pointless and doesnt actually help in cases where people do breach the equality act.
So AIBU?

I work a bit of a white collar office job, and yes parents have brought in their children once in a while due to an emergency. But those children were very well behaved and quiet. It was either that or the parents had to take a sick day and potentially set back the project. I have no problem with work places making exceptions, or working in a place that does so long as the kids aren't disruptive and it doesn't happen all the time.

But it is not a right, nor should it be.

At something like a club, moral panic aside, there are legal implications as a PP has said. A club or place that allows children needs to provide a safe environment for those children or they can be held liable. Moreover, if the woman is working under a contract as most musicians do, then that contract generally has insurance to cover their workers. CM's, family members, babysitters, and anyone not employed under them (that includes babies) is not covered by that insurance. That means if something is damaged backstage and the people responsible weren't covered under the insurance policies, the club insurance may not reimburse them for the property damage.

Moreover, I don't think anyone here could begin to fathom the law suits if a club said only certain breastfeeding mothers that meet certain criteria may bring children in. That means they would by law, have to allow toddlers and small children who's parents were breastfeeding them.

In any case, if the mother wanted to continue her career at the very least she should have trained her baby to use a bottle with expressed milk. You can train a baby to use a bottle, even older babies. It's harder as they get older, but it can be done.

People aren't half misinterpreting laws if they think that a disabled person having a right to being somewhere means a breastfed baby also does.

I ask disabled people to leave too.

If they have no.id

I think bigbluestars was referring to the Equality Act, as disability and pregnancy and maternity are all protected characteristics.

I like to see women bf out though - so the argument all of us are trying to keep then home is ridiculous.
I did and will do. I would in claridges, discreetly.
But i wouldnt in somewhere i couldnt take a baby.
Nor in the swimming pool (public)
Nor expect to at a spa the baby wasnt supposed to be at.

Though i do wonder about the cinema- normal screening of say an 18 film if it wasnt too busy. But probably not as baby crying would ruin film for others.
Its hardly completely restrictive. Common sense.
Neither would i take baby clubbing (again under 18)
I mean realistically as i think a PP said what happens if mother is taken ill rushed to hospital? The baby wouldnt starve it may be cup or spoon fed, a right faff. But it is certainly worth ensuring/ working on the baby taking another way of feeding (expressed) just in case.
My DD fed so much i could hardly go to the loo and if id had d&v i would have had a problem.
Im wondering if the worry about nipple confusion so not introducing expressed milk is causing this issue.
Bear in mind i am not saying so that you can then go in public without embarrassment.

I would say most women i know bf for up to 3m and tended not to in public due to embarrassment. It is something to overcome. But i dont think its the biggest cause of stopping, that is the constant demand, never a full night sleep, even doing night feeds at weekend, or having to spend that time expressing, and the assumption that they sleep better and go longer without feeds when bottle fed.
If there is a problem with tongue tie etc you can be feeding constantly.
Not being able to feed in ridiculous places that you clearly cant is not a major issue for bf or affecting take up or continuation.
Being made to feed in toilets would be.

I would be happy to breastfeed in Claridges- as discreetly or indiscreetly as the situation dictated.
Have breastfed in a public swimmimg pool= no problems.
Children are not usually allowed in spas- so it's not an issue.
I have breastfed in the cinema- children are not allowed into 18 movies.
Clubbing is out of bounds- baby is too young.

I don't think the reason of an unexpected emergency trip to hospital is likely enough to warrant the need for working on alternative feeding methods.
If an emergency situation does occur then a solution would be found to feed a baby.

"But they unquestionably have no duty to refuse to allow children onto their premises in any circumstances"

Complete and utter rubbish.

You've also just contradicted yourself by mentioning 'heavy machinery' etc, because that comes under 'any circumstances'.

Grays, what you've done there is to twist the meaning of what I posted into diametrically the opposite of what I said. If someone has no duty to refuse to allow children onto their premises in any circumstances, it follows that there are some circumstances when they do indeed have that duty; it's just that you can't claim that no employer is ever allowed to permit children onto their premises ever, ever, ever. Do try to keep up.

What are you talking about? You're running yourself in circles.

And thanks for the patronising little tidbit there, I'll make sure to keep up with your nonsensical contradictory ramblings

Yes, do try that, Grays. It's so much better than simply reaching for uninformed abuse when you can't make a logical argument.

I agree. I'm pro breastfeeding but don't want to see tiny infants being fed everywhere I go. I don't think it's particularly suitable to take small babies to a fancy hotel where people go as a special treat. I wouldn't have myself.

Who sees tiny infants being fed everywhere they go? And how would it harm you if you did see them, VivienneMary?

I don't think the reason of an unexpected emergency trip to hospital is likely enough to warrant the need for working on alternative feeding methods.
If an emergency situation does occur then asolution would be found to feed a baby

we aren't just talking about trips to hospital though.

but about people who work in fields which regularly have them faced with age restricted venues or products.

Surely, if you had erratic time tables in.puns and clubs with no routine to plan around, it would make sense for all involved to introduce methods of feeding that enable you to return to said job.

I assume they'd do whatever us people do who can't take children into work with them?

In my experience that often means not going into work at all. However, some employers recognise that a bit of give and take is in everyone's interests.

I can remember vividly having precisely this situation when DD was 11 months old: I had five different childcare strategies, but I worked part time and an emergency arose on one of my non-working days which realistically only I could deal with. None of my potential carers was available. My employer was happy for me to bring DD in to work, where she was perfectly safe and a distraction to no-one, and in fact that he appreciated the fact that I was prepared to put myself out to this extent to keep the client happy and get the right result for her. But according to OP I was a dickhead.

giles- yes and those are situations which would warrant exploring different methods of feeding.
I just don't like these scare tactics that every woman needs to because of some "emergency" which is unlikely to happen.

Many women breastfeed without ever expressing or using formula. If an emergency happened then a solution would be found.

But I'm. assuming it wasn't a licensed premises?

that's the difference here.

There is no choice in some places. A casino for example. Under 18s are not allowed through doors.

They are regularly tested.

staff are actively dismissed or disciplined for serving or allowing someone under age to be in the building.

vastly different to an office setting

So you see now she was unreasonable to expect the venue to break the law and allowed baby in and that given her line of work she should have prepared for this month's ago?

Giles, we don't know anything about these premises: all that that report says is that the woman was apparently told it was due to a bye-law. Of course it presumably does have a licence if it sells alcohol, but we have no information whatsoever about the terms of the licence and whether those terms apply to the entire building or not. Clearly that is not automatically the case given that, for instance, there is no restriction on pubs and hotels with licences preventing children from being in the same building.

I fully accept that, if it was a term of the licence, then the owners of this club were completely within their rights not to permit the baby on the premises. I also accept that employers are perfectly entitled to require employees not to bring babies to work with them. But it doesn't have to be an inflexible rule, and it does make sense - if only in the name of human kindness - to allow some leeway in circumstances where having the baby there isn't conceivably going to harm or distract anyone, or prevent the employee from doing their job.

I don't think the reason of an unexpected emergency trip to hospital is likely enough to warrant the need for working on alternative feeding methods.

Bit I think that going back to work at 11 weeks into a field which will mean spending time in venues unsuitable for children, does warrant this. Rather than just assuming that everywhere will just break their rules to accommodate you.

I don't like people saying that those of us who are saying that this woman was wrong to go to the papers about this are anti breastfeeding and just want to shout women down and restrict them etc etc, when actually all we are doing is exercising common sense.

Babies are not allowed into the venue. So don't bring them. It's really not rocket science.

My baby would not take bottles (and yes, I did introduce one to her, but she decided she hated them at 3mo). So when we were to be apart, she was fed EBM with a spoon or dropper. It's a bit slow and awkward, but it is absolutely fine for the odd afternoon or evening here and here. I would not take a baby to workplace. That said, it would have been nicer if the venue had exercised a bit of common sense and decided to be flexible. I don't think a baby in a dressing room for a short period of time is a huge issue.

"That said, it would have been nicer if the venue had exercised a bit of common sense and decided to be flexible. I don't think a baby in a dressing room for a short period of time is a huge issue"

That's pretty much my take on it as well, which is why I think all the frothing about YOU CAN'T QUESTION IT, IT'S THE LAW (when at least I'm still not entirely sure about the legal situation in this specific case - as was pointed out above, children are not banned entirely from hotels and various other licenced premises) or WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS WHEN A BABY ELECTROCUTES ITSELF IN THE FETID HELLHOLE THAT IS A PRIVATE MEMBERS' CLUB or IT'LL BE BABIES BEING BREASTFED BEHIND THE TILL 12 HOURS A DAY AT TESCO NEXT is a bit OTT.

(DS2 wouldn't take bottles either, though he did get the hang of a cup pretty early)

But these places don't have to.

It's still a place of employment and you just don't turn up to work with your baby.

It's not the employers responsibility. It's the parents.

that's what maternity leave is for.

Winging it in the hope that some venues may allow you to bring your family along is not a professional way to run things.

it's just not how it works.

doesn't matter what the venue is. doesn't matter what the job is. It's a place of employment who's responsibilities lie with staff. not their families.

If people turn a blind eye or allow it that's up to them. But that's just them being nice. It's not a requirement or remotely possible In many circumstances.

If you have a job it's up to you to arrange for that care to take place elsewhere. and stop putting unreasonable demands on employers.

And stories like this kill business who are within their rights to place restrictions.

People need to stop seeing breastfeeding and babies as a way to shame places that aren't doing wrong.

having babies isn't new. We wouldn't be here if it was. you and your baby are not special. no one is put to get you

it's a club not a day care centre for disorganised people who don't make choices in line with their work and who expect already lenient employers to make even more allowances.

I think it is worth attempting to get a bf baby to take expressed milk.
All sorts of reasons.
You could die, suddenly
You could get pg again and need MS meds
Start feeling depressed and need a med not compatible (though some are)
D&v (chained to loo)
Breast cancer?
You want to go 'child free wedding'
Hen party
Retained placenta

Of course most arent emergencies.

But in the musicians situation she probably had notice, not a sudden thing, as PP said spoon etc a possibilty and surely its worth trying as likely to be an ongoing issue.

I cant see any reason to bf IN the swimming pool.
Especially as mine young enough to need that would poop straight away.

Choose to be purposely indescreet publicly if you want, apparently its your right. But not necessarily particularly nice of you or considerate of others. (Though of course its doing no harm to them)
The law doesnt make you, but it probably doesnt stop you changing nappies on the restaurant table either.

I dont even think this is about bf so much as not wanting baby there screaming, they probably have no interest in that at all.
So story is mum is not allowed to take baby into age restricted place.
She now regrets not introducing a expressed bottle earlier, which she will do with another child if she has one as in her profession its not always possible to be with baby when its hungry.
She advises other women in similar situation to get baby used to expressed bottle/spoon. As they can be awkward and may not take to it just like that.
If they later reject it then youve done what you can.

I havent seen much to say directly feeding has that much benefit over expressed, if you are doing a mix.

And funny actually as the people who are 'no dont do controlled crying as its damaging'.
And yet its ok to force a baby to wait for food until the interval?

"And funny actually as the people who are 'no dont do controlled crying as its damaging'.
And yet its ok to force a baby to wait for food until the interval?"

Just to address this point: as far as I know the duration of the first half was going to be about 25 minutes, I left my bottle refusenik DS2 for waaaaay longer than that (an hour or two to get my hair cut/go swimming, left with my mum or his dad) when he was that age. Are you suggesting that BF mums who have a baby who won't take expressed milk should never be away from their children, at all, because otherwise it's excessively cruel/equivalent to CC as "they might get hungry"/you're "forcing them to wait"? Fucksake. Most 11 week olds if they've just been fed are not going to start screaming inconsolably for a feed five minutes later, or if they are they can usually be distracted with cuddles etc. Presumably the woman in question knew how long the baby was likely to be able to go happily without a feed and was going to feed him straight before/straight after.

Also quite eye-rolly at the "you have to get them used to the bottle from early on, in case you die". Strangely enough I managed to survive with one bottle refuser without being chained to him or him ever screaming with hunger (or indeed me dying). I do see the advantage of baby being willing to take EBM, but really, the period when they're feeding what feels like every five seconds is actually very short.

Are you suggesting that BF mums who have a baby who won't take expressed milk should never be away from their children, at all, because otherwise it's excessively cruel/equivalent to CC as "they might get hungry"/you're "forcing them to wait"? Fucksake.

There are plenty of people on here who would have you believe that an 11 week old shouldn't be away from its mother for more than a few seconds at a time (particularly if the baby's grandparent wants to take it out in the pram or similar!)

What if she decided to feed the baby and it decided (as 11 week olds are prone to do) that its going to take its time on that particular feed and takes ages to finish?

'Ladies and gentlemen, apologies for the delay in tonight's performance, but baby Olivia is being a right little boob monster right now'.

Or the alternative, which is to leave an unsatisfied, fractious baby crying or wanting milk again quite quickly.

Just keep your baby out of your workplace FFS.

Are you suggesting that BF mums who have a baby who won't take expressed milk should never be away from their children, at all

There are many many threads on here over the years bemoaning the fact that the child is EBF and so: DP snores through the night and she is tired, she can't go shopping, she can't have a night off, she can't go out, she can't get a few minutes to herself, and on and on and on.

If you choose to EBF then you takes your chances with what comes!