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?

not entirely. conventions and laws also apply that give rise to certain things being considered acceptable, and others not.

For instance, people on here (and elsewhere) are always going on about things being "appropriate" or "professional". who sets what these things mean? Society sets it.

Is everybody happy? (addresses auditorium, panto style)
No?
Then we need....
CHANGE

Personally I think the iconisation of breastfeeding is at times problematic, for all sorts of reasons, and one of them is that by narrowly defining a specific and minority physical need as paramount or of this special importance, it misses opportunities to re-position motherhood / fatherhood entirely, regardless if your baby is on the bottle or not. And it catastrophises the need for parenting to be accommodated: it implies OH NO THE BABY WILL STARVE is the only legitimate reason to say "hell why shouldn't the baby come in?"

I am not saying everyone should take their baby to work or that everyone wants to, or that everyone actually could. I am saying that society has a hell of a lot more wiggle room on everything than it thinks it has and we, as parents, should be asking why we are always getting the shitty end of the stick because by the time everyone else has haggled over what they want out of the situation we get left with: long commutes, expensive childcare with negligible tax breaks, shitty treatment at work if pregnant, breastfeeding, or part time; or if "choosing" to SAHP, isolation, alienation from the economy and from certain sections of the community, potential vulnerability to financial abuse, being monstered as a benefits scrounger, etc....

A posh cellist bf-ing her baby in a posh club is hardly taking to the barricades for the MATERNAL REVOLUTION but ffs, whose side are we on here?

It is not a bye-law. It will be a rule the venue has imposed which it is perfectly entitled to do and perfectly entitled to enforce for whatever reason it likes.

According to the report, phaedra, the mother was told that it was due to a bye-law. There is no reference to it being an internal rule.

You have no idea whatsoever what the insurance or licence conditions say.

Precisely - that is what I said. You have no idea either, but seem to be very confident in proclaiming the basis for the club's actions.

Bloody hell, are you using this as research for a thesis or something?

I think. There seems to be a lot of people who seem to feel that because you don't wear a suit or its not an office or deal with "business" that regulations s cab be taken less seriously.

This is a place of employment. doesn't matter if it's a pub or a factory or a public car park. rules and regulations apply. They apply if you wear a suit to work and they apply of you carry a broom.and wear a jump suit.

You can look at this thread two ways: restricting it solely to the incident in the report linked to, or looking at it in terms of the title, which clearly goes much wider, and has to cross-refer to things like the Claridges incident. Frankly, I don't think there's a great deal of point dissecting this incident, because we don't have enough information.

It does seem to me that the OP is making a far wider attack on people who go public on situations where they are not permitted to breastfeed in public, or are required to hide away or cover up. I think that really does need to be publicised, because if businesses serving the public regularly get away with this sort of conduct it will simply be perpetuated.

The rules and by-laws will make up the Club's constitution, by which it is governed.

What conduct?

turning away people. staff and customers who try to enter with children.?

staff aren't allowed to eat behind counters even if customers can eat on the premises. They are expected to dress appropriately and talk appropriately whatever the state of the people out the front.

And pub, cleaning job or solicitors office. It's not acceptable or professional to turn up with your baby.

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

Some countries protect the breastfeeding rights of mothers and babies.

Norway and Sweden for example.

I'm not aware that protecting the right of women to breastfeed has brought those economies to the brink of destruction.

Babies aren't allowed. End of.

Doesn't matter if they are breastfed or bottle fed.

Working mothers have to express or bottle feed, they can't just take their babies into work. That's simply the way of the world, and definitely how it should be. I would not want mothers bringing their crying babies into the office while I was trying to get stuff done.

If she doesn't like it she can either express, put her career on hold, or give her baby formula. Those are all very feasible options that don't require her expecting people to cater to something so ridiculous. She not irreplaceable and there are plenty of other musicians that could take her place.

Having a baby doesn't mean the world gets to cater to you, it means you make the compromises necessary to thrive in your current situation. She either needs to compromise her feeding habits or her career.

I think we are lucky in the UK. You get up to a year off and benefits when you have kids and you get the right to request flexible working. Some places do tax free child care voucher schemes.

you are also bullet proof when pregnant.

but it seems it's not enough unless you can take your baby to strip clubs or casinos

Some countries protect the breastfeeding rights of mothers and babies.

I thought that's what WE do in the UK? I thought it is illegal to discriminate against a bf mother?

So what ARE you on about?

Has anyone come up with a reason why the woman shouldn't even think about havingher baby and minder in the dressing room (not the venue) other than "those are the rules, you have to obey them even if you're one of those entitled mothers" (rules presumably designed to stop people bringing their kids out drinking with them rather than stopping artists having their kids in their dressing room), though? I don't think it's comparable to somebody having a screaming baby in the office, or having a child out in a pub or club, and I can't see how it impedes her ability to do the job or the venue's ability to host the event.

The situation as I read it involved having the baby looked after in a different part of the building. I don't see who's immediately inconvenienced, unless it had a legal implication for the venue, and if it did, I don't see why we can't question whether this is "how it always must be". (now having terrible flashbacks to learning about Adorno...)

I do agree that we don't have all the details, of course.

the op is saying

"it's not about bfing, it's about access for children. so people in situations like this shouldn't complain because it tars us all with a whiny brush, and it doesn't breach any laws"

I am saying

it doesn't have to be about bfing to matter, and it doesn't have to break a law to be undesirable.

I am also saying: you are mistaken if you think "we should only ask for this much because then we might get it. If we ask for a bit more, then They will be outraged, and we will get nothing."

This is the wrong attitude. This is not how negotiation works. If you start out in a negotiation internalising the other party's position, and trying to accommodate their points before they have even been made, you are going to lose out. You have to start taking a stronger position than the one you think you can realistically win. This is how change happens.

So do we want parents to have better lives, or not?

And as I said above, regardless of this particular situation's details, I've seen venues cater to something "so ridiculous", so it's not like it's something that nobody ever does, ever, or that all musicians take long maternity leaves or don't breastfeed or should never expect to tour with their offspring. I've also seen, eg, performer's kids backstage at festivals (had the dressing room next to Sonic Youth once and they used to tour with Kim and Thurston's daughter, Kristin Hirsh and Low toured with their kids as well).

I mentioned before that the dressing room will be potentially dirtier or colder or less safe.

staff areas like this are often half used as storage areas. There wouldn't be suitable disposal facilities for say nappies.

electrics may he haphazard (wires everywhere)

there may not even be facilities to heat kill or flood or tap water if venue provides bottled water to the room.

It may not have secure entrances or exits.

or teh only access involves walking through the restricted areas

Ffs typos.

heat milk or food

This is the wrong attitude. This is not how negotiation works.

And who went to tell the women outside Claridges this ^^

"I mentioned before that the dressing room will be potentially dirtier or colder or less safe.

staff areas like this are often half used as storage areas. There wouldn't be suitable disposal facilities for say nappies.

electrics may he haphazard (wires everywhere)

there may not even be facilities to heat kill or flood or tap water if venue provides bottled water to the room.

It may not have secure entrances or exits."

Are you a public sector jobsworth health and safety officer?

Of course it would be possible to accommodate that mother and her baby for a short period, but people who have an axe to grind about breastfeeding will always find reason for fussing and being a tight arse over trivia.

but people who have an axe to grind about breastfeeding will always find reason for fussing and being a tight arse over trivia.

Like the club rules of 'no under 12s', you mean. Yes........trivia indeed.

"I thought that's what WE do in the UK? I thought it is illegal to discriminate against a bf mother?"

I'd like to think so, but here is a mother being discriminated against, and other women arguing for restrictions on the freedoms of breastfeeding mothers.

Bloody hell, I've played in some grotty venues but they pretty much all had a better dressing room than you described - they don't tend to have "wires everywhere" (???) and they're generally clean enough and no colder/less safe than the rest of the venue. In fancier venues they're usually rather nice as the venue wants to look after visiting artists and not have them refuse to play there again. I'd certainly have a baby in one without fearing for its life. Presumably "places you are allowed to bring a baby" don't have to be up to the standard of "professional child care facility", otherwise my children probably wouldn't have been allowed in my own house, let alone out of it.

I'd like to think so, but here is a mother being discriminated against

No, she's NOT. If she were breastfeeding her 13 year old child they WOULD be allowed in.

"And who went to tell the women outside Claridges this"
Your issue with "these women in front of claridges" clearly en par with 'tramps' in your view seems a bit over invested, no?