Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

402 replies

sharonthewaspandthewineywall · 16/12/2014 07:21

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?

OP posts:
TheFairyCaravan · 16/12/2014 13:30

And nowhere I have said the woman in Claridges was inconsiderate or selfish to feed her baby. No-one has.

I think she was daft to go to the papers, that's all.

leedy · 16/12/2014 13:31

"I think she was daft to go to the papers, that's all."

Why, out of interest? (also as far as I know she didn't go to the papers, she posted about it on Twitter and the papers picked it up)

Personally if a representative of an establishment had told me off for BF in public I would have been complaining about it on social media as well. Given that they were, y'know, in the wrong. Don't see how that's being "entitled".

Gileswithachainsaw · 16/12/2014 13:33

This story is nothing personal towards mothers at all. though.

It is simply an establishment following conditions of a license.

presumably she had adequate notice of the gig. She wasn't without child care.

as a person I could give a crap how your baby was fed or if you were bf or not. In fact I'd even offer you a drink or hold your baby while you used the loo.

as an employee I'd be jeopardising my job the license and risking a huge fine by allowing to you to bring your baby onto the premises

Gileswithachainsaw · 16/12/2014 13:34

Couldn't

leedy · 16/12/2014 13:36

I wonder what the exact legal situation is/was, though? As I said, I've been to a gig where the performer's baby was allowed in the dressing room, but not the venue/bar itself. Unless the licensing laws are different here in Ireland.

lambsie · 16/12/2014 13:44

When I was teaching you wouldn't have been allowed to take your baby to work with you and leave it in the staffroom with a babysitter. Is this situation any different?

TheFairyCaravan · 16/12/2014 13:45

I haven't said that she was entitled, leedy.

She may have complained on social media, but when the papers picked it up she didn't have to take them up on the offer of it being published. My thoughts are that people have been having babies, and BF, since time began. There never used to be such a hoo-ha over every little thing, and that's how it appears now. If it's not BF, it's buggies on buses etc.

Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 16/12/2014 13:55

But this isn't a breastfeedin issue is it? She was not discriminated against specifically because she was breastfeedin, but because she wanted to bring someone in who was not allowed in, and was pissed off when they didn't make an exception.

It reads as if she did not inform the venue that she would be bringing the baby and just turned up with it. They probably panicked, what with all the regulations about insurance and licencing, and just decided to err on the side of caution with a flat 'no'. If she didn't inform them beforehand, then hey probably didn't have time to look up their 'exact legal position' on it did they?

I was very vocal both on here and in real life, in support of the woman in Claridges and against the comments from fuckwits like Farage. But this case is nothing to do with that. I really fail to see the point of public 'feed ins' outside posh hotels, or going to the papers about cases like this one. All it serves to do (particualrly the frigging feed ins) is perpetuate the myth that breastfeeding mothers are attention seekers who want the world to know about it. I just didn't see any point to the Claridges feed in, apart from for people to eye roll or say 'look I told you, bloody baps out everywhere!'

Most women just want to get on with feeding their kid. If the baby is allowed to be there, it is allowed to be fed there. If a baby is not allowed to be there then, well, its not allowed to be fed there is it?

leedy · 16/12/2014 13:55

"when the papers picked it up she didn't have to take them up on the offer of it being published"

I think we'll have to disagree there, I think she was perfectly reasonable to "go public" with her complaint. I don't see how it's different from someone writing in to the consumer page in the newspaper because they've had a bad experience with Vodafone, or whatever. Unfair to the consumer things get changed because people cause a "hoo-ha" rather than "keep quiet and don't make a fuss".

Re the staff room thing, the main difference I can see is that a teacher would presumably not be in a different school every day and have a regular childcare arrangement (also would be unlikely to be back in school with an EBF 11 week old, unless they were somehow channeling the 1970s).

Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 16/12/2014 13:57

And when I repeatedly say 'breastfeedin' of course I mean 'breastfeeding'!

leedy · 16/12/2014 13:59

Also in the case of the musician mother, yeah, if she didn't actually ask the venue beforehand, that was a bit foolish - from my skim read I thought she'd asked and was refused in advance. As above, I don't think it's a crazy thing for her to ask for, but definitely something to ask for rather than just rock up and expect. Hmm.

Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 16/12/2014 14:05

Oh no wait, I'm wrong about her just turning up!

Another member of the group, violinist Ruth Rogers talked to the club “for hours” on the morning of the concert desperately trying to resolve the issue but to no avail.

I assumed because the baby sitter ended up in the car she had just turned up.

Hmm, no I still don't necessarily think that the club are in the wrong here. If under 12s are not allowed, then they are not allowed. I'm pretty happy with that position.

PhaedraIsMyName · 16/12/2014 14:09

So it is because of the law then phaedra? That's exactly the point I was making

You're missing my point. It's entirely legal to have age restrictions on venues. I have no problem with that.

lambsie · 16/12/2014 14:10

Lots of workplaces do not allow you to take your baby or child to work with you. Maybe they could have been more flexible but there was no discrimination.

EilisCitron · 16/12/2014 14:11

Another thing to bear in mind here is that the work was in Central London. I doubt a jobbing cellist's house is in zone 1, so this means that there would likely be an hour of travel for her from wherever she lives to gigs like this. If you do this sort of work, you will spend a large proportion of your life working in places out of geographical reach of any sort of crash-facilities you can afford (your house, your friends' houses, a modest cafe, etc)

People outside London, with cars, are often accustomed to "popping" here and there in a way that is entirely out of reach of those who work in London, zone 1. If any of you are opining on this thread about what she should have done, you should stop it, unless you have lived that lifestyle and can remember it clearly (public transport, always an hour from everything, carry everything you need with you for the whole time you are out)

Do we want the only people who breastfeed, to be those who can afford to stay at home, and never want or need to go out for any period of time?

Do we like the status quo? How good is the status quo for mothers and babies (breastfeeding aside). Does it work well enough? does anything need to be changed?

SorchaN · 16/12/2014 14:13

I do think it's a discrimination issue because if women can't work due to breastfeeding they're being placed at a disadvantage. I think women should be able to breastfeed anywhere they want to (with a very few exceptions where it would be clearly unsafe, e.g. where there are risks of exposure to radiation). We need a change in the law; women should be able to bring infants to work and employers should ensure that there are appropriate locations on the premises for women to breastfeed.

SquirrelledAway · 16/12/2014 14:16

Christ on a bike - bring your infant to work so that you can bf on demand? What planet are you on?

lambsie · 16/12/2014 14:20

I don't see how that would be practical in many jobs.

leedy · 16/12/2014 14:21

" women should be able to bring infants to work and employers should ensure that there are appropriate locations on the premises for women to breastfeed."

Though presumably that would only be necessary for women who don't get maternity leave? I was still breastfeeding when I returned to work both times but didn't need to have baby with me as they were 10 and 12 months old at the time (my workplace does, however, provide a room/time for BF mums to pump if necessary).

I do feel for the musician in the story but I would presume/hope situations like hers where she's a BF mum back working at 11 weeks postpartum are relatively rare.

leedy · 16/12/2014 14:25

And yes, I can't see how that would work in a lot of workplaces either, given that you'd need to have childcare as well.

EilisCitron · 16/12/2014 14:28

In some jobs it would not be practical, but in the case of the cellist playing a 25 minute sonata in premises with a green room, but over an hour from her home, it is eminently practical.

Even in those jobs in which "it would not be practical", who decides what the parameters of the work and the working conditions are?

I work in an industry in which things have changed enormously over 20 years. When I first started you "needed" teams of 5 or 6 to do what one person does now. Things have flexed. Some of the admin is less time consuming because of computers. But a lot of the changes have come about because people have changed the way they do things. Individuals are contributing more, and in different ways, over time, as their colleagues and potential colleagues or assistants have been made redundant or not recruited.

I don't think these changes are, mostly, for the better (although they are in some ways). But I only use this as an example that things CAN change. work does change all the time. Things people said can't be done, very often are, a bit later, a bit at a time.

The principle according to which these changes are effected is usually to do with paying staff less to build the bottom line. If you wanted to - if we wanted to, as a society - we could make huge rafts of changes along different principles.

leedy · 16/12/2014 14:36

Yes, agree it would be entirely practical for the musician in the story. I can't see how it would work in my job on a regular basis unless I worked from home (though I'm sure if I'd had to nip in during my maternity leave with a baby and someone to mind him in tow there wouldn't have been a problem, there's enough kitchen/canteen/meeting space to temporarily house one minder and baby). And regardless of job, I can't imagine there are many jobs you could get done while minding a small baby - as I said, you'd need on-site childcare, or work from home with in-home childcare. I am reminded of the various delusions I and friends of mine had about all the amazing stuff we'd get done when we were "off on maternity leave" first time round.

Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 16/12/2014 14:54

If you brought your baby into work with you, who would look after it while ou were, you know, doing the job you were being paid to do?

SquirrelledAway · 16/12/2014 14:59

Even in those jobs in which "it would not be practical", who decides what the parameters of the work and the working conditions are?

My employer and myself, through my job description and my contract of employment.

PortofinoVino · 16/12/2014 15:17

We need a change in the law; women should be able to bring infants to work and employers should ensure that there are appropriate locations on the premises for women to breastfeed.

And people wonder why some employers, especially small business, are reluctant to employ pregnant women Confused