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?

"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"

Really? Fine if it's the mum's choice ("no, I don't feel like being away from DC right now, no, you can't just take him to have a go of him/show him off"), but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that a mother shouldn't leave her child for a few minutes if she wants to and thinks baby will be ok with it.

As I said, I regularly left both DS when they were EBF and that age, including quick feed beforehand, it didn't seem to be the logistical/child cruelty nightmare that you're depicting.

Also presumably if she had "done the right thing" and had left the baby at home with EBM, the baby could well have been fractious and crying for several hours. It's not like the only reason small babies cry or want their mums is because they want milk (though milk often helps).

"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."

But that's not what the PP was saying, she was saying that for an EBF mum to leave her baby for half an hour is inherently cruel/will cause suffering to the baby, when the EBF mum is actually fine with it and presumably thinks the baby will be ok. It's different from an EBF mum herself saying that she doesn't feel like she can leave the baby (though to be honest, I personally never found BF that restrictive, I think a lot of those posts are from people in the early days trenches who are extrapolating from the "feeds all the time" newborn phase and can't imagine the "will have a feed, then won't need another one for four hours or so, could probably make do with a rice cake" older baby period).

I didnt see it say 25min i assumed out if 4 hr performance it would be 2 hrs.
But i stick by it. You expect baby to scream until you get back. It is a little cruel.
And i did do CC.
I guess it depends on the baby. Most of the time you can take them for a walk.
But a newborn, may not like being left with complete stranger in strange place so more crying.
Its your choice not to do something just in case but as with this woman i dont think you can then complain- especially at this forseeable if you have any common sense situation.

If baby can always wait 2 hrs no need to feed in claridges, swimming pool etc is there?
Surely you feed before going in then??
As its easier than trying to do it while eating or swimming.
You cant have it every which way 'i need baby here to feed immediately, but if i choose to go enjoy myself and baby is crying for food thats ok as i shouldnt be tied to them.'
And if i want to feed publicly i will but if i wasnt there is would be easy to pacify the baby with something else.
I wont bother trying to get another feeding method- i dont need to everyone can just fit round me, even 'if' its the law that the baby cant go there.
I think id feel more sympathy with a first time mum who would be unlikely to realise baby could bottle refuse and if she'd given them more that that day notice, very little could be done at that point. She i assume knew what she was planning to do when she booked the childcare. Sounds like she left it to last minute assuming it was fine or forcing there hand.
The management obviously dont know baby well enough to know it wont cry.
If she'd tried to sort in advance it wouldnt even be a story as she would understand the clubs point of view and wouldnt have been surprised by a sudden refusal where she couldnt make other arrangements.

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

I don't think anyone has said anything of the kind on this thread. I've seen many posts on this forum from ebf mothers who seem to view it as a badge of honour that their babies can't be left with anyone else.

regardless, you have to realise babies and children are not welcome everywhere.

It's not businesses fault they are as flexible as the law allows. It's the cost if child care and hours restrictions on child care that make it hard. that's bugger all to do with establishment who may or may not allow children.

95% of places you can take kids and bf.

The places that won't allow are places like pubs and clubs and casinos and book makers and places where there id dangerous equipment. why on earth would you want to take your baby bf or not to such places. either as a customer as staff.

or as staff

If I've paid a lot of money in a fancy hotel I don't want to see kids and babies in dining rooms. End of. if that sounds selfish then too bad. I think the problem will be solved by just saying no children at all allowed in the dining room. I once went out for lunch when my DD was tiny. The 'friend' insisted the place liked children. Her toddler behaved disgracefully. And other diners gave us stares. Food all over the floor and the poor waiter was really nice. I couldn't wait to get out of the place. So just be aware all those with children.

Nope, it was 25 minutes, and I don't see why you'd "expect baby to scream until you got back". As I said, I EBF two babies (and actually both were bottle refusers at that age), neither of them screamed continuously every time I left the room until I came back. Obviously there are particularly clingy babies but I'm

"If baby can always wait 2 hrs no need to feed in claridges, swimming pool etc is there?"

I never said baby could always wait two hours, I said babies can sometimes wait two hours if, eg, they're just fed, ready for a nap, or whatever. And even if baby could, why would I bother trying to make sure baby was fed somewhere outside the nice cosy hotel with comfy chairs (would I have to find another cafe near the hotel and pay for another drink before going to have my actual tea? Do it on the Tube?) before going in? Basically there are few enough situations where I would make a small baby wait for a feed while I am actually there: it just makes my life and the baby's life far more complicated for the sake of other people's weird sense of propriety. Baby can occasionally wait to feed so I can get my hair cut (and I did usually try to schedule it around a nap), baby shouldn't have to wait to feed just because some uptight individual is afraid they might see my boobs.

"You cant have it every which way 'i need baby here to feed immediately, but if i choose to go enjoy myself and baby is crying for food thats ok as i shouldnt be tied to them.'"

But that's not what the woman wanted - she wanted baby there so she could feed him before and after the performance: she'd be away from him working for the minimum possible time, versus possibly several hours if she'd left him at home. She wasn't planning on suddenly dropping her instrument and running off stage to feed. I don't see what's so strange or complicated about it. Aside from the "venue not wanting to admit a child" issue it sounds like a very sensible plan, I don't see any contradiction in it.

"I don't think anyone has said anything of the kind on this thread."

Well, yeah, naty1 basically did:

"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?"

ie that leaving a presumably just fed EBF baby for half an hour is "forcing a baby to wait for food" and equivalent to CC.

"I've seen many posts on this forum from ebf mothers who seem to view it as a badge of honour that their babies can't be left with anyone else."

Well, that's their prerogative, I suppose - I've personally never had much truck with the "I haven't been apart from my 6 year old for more than two minutes because I'm soooooooooo attaaaaaaaached" brigade - but I don't think they're representative of all breastfeeding mums. And, as per above, I do think there's a middle ground between "I cannot leave the baby with anyone else for even five seconds" and "I am happy to leave the baby for the entire day".

If baby can always wait 2 hrs no need to feed in claridges, swimming pool etc is there?

A number of points there, naty:

1. The baby in the Claridges case was 12 weeks old, therefore he might well not have established a regular feeding pattern;
2. It is never a matter of just two hours in Claridges, is it? You need to add travel time each side - which may be an hour each way or more - and people rarely only travel to Claridges for tea; they tend to make a day of it with shopping etc.
3. But anyway why should a mother juggle her entire day and the baby's routine around a visit to Claridges when she can feed her there?
4. The only reason you give for this is that it is "indiscreet", "not particularly nice", or inconsiderate. But then you need to answer the question which is so regularly avoided in these discussions: if another customer doesn't like the sight of the breastfeeding baby for those reasons, why can they not simply look in another direction?

It's like "aha! You've conceded that you could possibly leave the baby for half an hour, so WHY CAN'T YOU LEAVE THEM FOR THE WEEKEND, THEN? HYPOCRITE!"

"why can they not simply look in another direction?"

HYPNOBOOBS. :)

"If I've paid a lot of money in a fancy hotel I don't want to see kids and babies in dining rooms. End of."

Any other types of humans you don't want to see?

Old people?

The disabled?

Fat people?

On what planet is it acceptable to give as justification for excluding particular groups from venues, that 'you don't want to see them'?

Ffs.

No one's excluded.

Kids are allowed between certain times in licensed premises.

If I go out for lunch at 2 or dinner at 7. I expect to see kids. If I'm. out for quiet drinks at half nine I would rather there not be children. because sitting round the corner making a bowl.of chips last all evening just so.it scrapes, through legal requirements and letting kids run riot round the place is just taking the piss tbh.

you have had all day ffs.

Obviously older kids may well be there at that time. bit babies and toddlers should really be home in bed.

especially when the parents have been in the pub most the day.

Is anyone here actually arguing that small babies should be out in pubs with their parents at 10pm after their parents have been drinking all day?

Also presumably the reasonable argument against them being there is that it's bad for the babies. Rather than not wanting babies in some venues, ever, because you "don't want to see them"....

I've worked in several pubs. It seemed to be the done thing. turn up at lunch time with kids and stay all afternoon. then when it's close to leaving time (for kids) they'd go outside or into restaurant and order a bowl of chips or a portion of garlic bread. (as kids allowed if eating a meal.with an.adult) babies/children would be crying as they were cold/bored/fed up, and be sat uncomfortably in buggies fir ages while parents carried on.

This is why there are restrictions not obly due to the law but also past a certain time adults either don't behave themselves and get drunk and loud or swear or talk about things not appropriate for children to hear, or they just want some quiet time with a couple of friends and not to have to listen to children crying or have them running around.

If this was at 4 in the afternoon in the local family pub of course it's tough shit kids will be there deal with it.

but at 10.00 at night surely it's not unreasonable to expect kids to be in bed.

or to refuse entry to under agers customers and staff alike regardless of feeding methods.

I bet some of the posters on this thread either decline invitations, or bring their kids to adult only weddings 'because children shouldn't be excluded'.

What about Sandals holidays, they exclude kids? People choose those holidays exactly because they don't want to see kids on their holidays, nothing wrong with that is there?

"I bet some of the posters on this thread either decline invitations, or bring their kids to adult only weddings 'because children shouldn't be excluded'."

Nope, I frequently go to events without my children because much as I love them I quite enjoy going out without them (things I have gone to recently without my children: late night gig, very sweary drag show, Michelin-starred meal).

Though I probably would decline an invitation to an adults-only wedding if one of them was still a babe-in-arms and couldn't be left for the whole day (and/or ask if the B&G make exceptions for tiny babies, some do), I don't see what's wrong with that. In that case it wouldn't be because I feel the baby shouldn't be excluded, it's because otherwise the baby (and mum) might not be happy with the arrangement and (depending on bottle refusenik tendencies) the baby couldn't be fed. I don't think that's anything to sneer at, personally. There's a big difference between a highly dependent newborn baby and a riotous 3 year old.

There's a big difference between a highly dependent newborn baby and a riotous 3 year old.

Not in a lot of people's eyes. Their precious children don't stop being precious children until they are..........oh, let's see......at least 24 !

There's a big difference between a highly dependent newborn baby and a riotous 3 year old

the law applies whether your 1 day old or 1 day short of your 18th birthday.

dependence on breasts or lactation does not exempt you from restrictions.

depending on bottle refusenik tendencies

At 5 weeks old my son had the choice of bottle........or die. He's now 30. So don't tell me about 'bottle refuseniks' as though it were an excuse.

"So don't tell me about 'bottle refuseniks' as though it were an excuse."

Jesus, I'm talking about going to a wedding, not going off to fight the Nazis or something. I'm sure, yes, every and all baby would eventually drink from a bottle or other vessel if it was a matter of "drink from bottle or starve", but the process might be extremely long and/or stressful for all involved (would you starve out a breastfed baby to the point of screaming and dehydration to make them take EBM just because it's a bit more convenient?), and it's not necessarily something you'd want to do with a serious bottle refuser unless you absolutely had to. Some BF babies take to the bottle quite easily (DS1 did), some absolutely hate it (DS2, take a bow), I don't see how that's "not an excuse" for not leaving your EBF infant.

"What about Sandals holidays, they exclude kids? People choose those holidays exactly because they don't want to see kids on their holidays, nothing wrong with that is there?"

I think some people don't want to be around shouting, splashing children or child-orientated activities on holiday. I don't think it's the sight of a child is an issue is it? They're not that unsightly. God, I know what I'd rather see, given the choice of a dear little three year old playing with her bucket and spade, or a leather-skinned chav in a mankini shouting into a mobile phone.

Is Claridges a child free zone? I don't think so.

Re: the club the OP refers to, I don't think the mother was planning on propping her newborn up at the bar with a martini. I think the idea was to keep the baby backstage.