Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Mother sues for £20k for being discouraged from bf while the wave machine was on

1000 replies

sizeofalentil · 02/05/2016 12:54

Daily Mirror link to the story here.

I'm totally for breastfeeding wherever and whenever, but I wouldn't want to eat my sandwiches in a swimming pool - they are so germy, like a human soup, so not sure a swimming pool with a wave machine on would be the best place to bf. Plus, obviously in this case there was the waves.

I realise that getting out of the water, especially if she had other kids, with a hungry baby would be a massive faff, but wouldn't the wave machine splash the baby and make it choke?

Serious question: AIBU to think this? Is bf in a swimming pool a done thing? Genuinely curious.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
zeezeek · 18/05/2016 17:13

Wow. I was offered a chair once at a swimming pool because I was on crutches - didn't realise it was discriminatory and that I should have sued. Bugger.

Math you are becoming far too over invested in a thread about a silly little incident that the rest of the world has forgotten. Is it really worth spending the early hours researching and posting?

If people want to bf, then fine i didn't and wouldn't but if women like the one in this story are going to scream discrimination at every little thing then it is hardly going to normalise it, is it.

NotYoda · 18/05/2016 17:41

Golly, that mother was not showing a great deal of concern for her small baby by taking it into such a shithole as described on Netmums

Treeroot · 18/05/2016 18:31

Math, those reviews also say that the pool water was freezing.

MangoMoon · 18/05/2016 18:40

In fact i wouldn't be suprised if the pool lesuire trust is owned by cravendale.

Golly, that mother was not showing a great deal of concern for her small baby by taking it into such a shithole as described on Netmums

GrinGrinGrin

DaveCamoron · 18/05/2016 18:44

This thread is now even more bizarre.

orangebird69 · 18/05/2016 19:13

Math, you are stark raving bonkers. The end.

OrangesandLemonsNow · 18/05/2016 20:11

A figure is attached to the damages when a suit is filed so that businesses that discriminate will learn to take their obligations seriously.

Firstly in this case no discrimination has been proven.

Secondly just because that figure has been asked for there is no certainty it would be given.

mathanxiety · 18/05/2016 20:29

Jason -- when the source is a spokesperson for the pool management that is being sued, it really is wise to take their account of what happened with a grain of salt. More than a grain actually. Maybe a shovelful or two.

I haven't posted about a 'conspiracy'. The cautious approach wrt management that is being sued is only common sense. Quite often, statements made by entities that are being sued are self-serving, believe it or not.

I am guessing you hadn't realised the source named in the article was linked to management?

It is very possible this suit will be settled out of court. Quite often the plaintiff agrees to accept a nominal sum while the respondent agrees to greatly improve training, to change their policies, etc. Were you imagining a Rumpole of the Bailey type trial?

That wasn't discrimination based on your breastfeeding status, ZeeZeek. The experience of Abbie Stocker in the Pendle pool was.

As to 'over-investment' -- I am not the only one posting here.

a swimming pool is just filled with chemicals and basically...other peoples pee. Not the kind of stuff I would want my baby accidentally ingesting tbh Hmm
Used to be the case that women would breastfeed their babies in the ladies loos, frequently full of chemical 'air freshener' fumes and vapourised pee, often with used sanpro lying about, quite often filthy, uncomfortable, and certainly not a place anyone would consider eating in. Lactivists won for us all the right to breastfeed in public and to not be asked to find more secluded places to breastfeed in. Clearly it was a thankless effort.
These kind of stories..I would not be shocked to see in a few months time someone complaining as they had been asked to evacuate during a fire and they were feeding at the time and the evacuation disturbed the feed.
That would not be a case of discrimination because everyone would be required to evacuate, and of course, the fire would be a very clear H&S issue Hmm.

Sparklingbrook · 18/05/2016 20:31

I wonder if we will ever find out what the real truth was. It would be really interesting to know.

mathanxiety · 18/05/2016 20:32

OrangesandLemons -- I think we all know the case is ongoing.

(Though I realise no common sense or faculty of reasoning or ability to keep up with the plot should be assumed here on this thread.)

zeezeek · 18/05/2016 20:39

Hmm, so person being sued = always in the wrong

Person suing = always in the right.

So naive.

Vickyyyy · 18/05/2016 20:53

Used to be the case that women would breastfeed their babies in the ladies loos, frequently full of chemical 'air freshener' fumes and vapourised pee, often with used sanpro lying about, quite often filthy, uncomfortable, and certainly not a place anyone would consider eating in.

--

Yup, tbh I disagree with feeding in loos too. My rule was I would feed anywhere that I can/would eat/drink. I would never eat my dinner in a toilet so why would I expect my baby to do so? I get that others are different but there seems to be a select few (this woman included) who purposely feed in daft places OR enjoy making a scene. A BF group I went to there was one woman who was pretty much salivating at the thought of someone asking her to cover up..was bragging about the comeback she would have and everything. Thats not the way to go about it...its because of people like her, IMO anyway, that there is so much stigma about BFing.

I'm not going to pretend that everyones ok with it. I got funny looks feeding in costa at times. But most people didn't give a second glance, maybe as they didn't even know I was feeding as I didn't have my whole tit lobbed out like this lady does on the photo..its quite easy to do it rather discreetly. Just seems to me that some want the attention rather than to give their child nutrition. And I don't see why anyone would want to defend that, no matter how pro BF-ing they are.

mathanxiety · 18/05/2016 21:42

Who said that, ZeeZeek?

its because of people like her, IMO anyway, that there is so much stigma about BFing.

It is absolutely not because of people like the individual you encountered that the stigma exists. That woman was ready to counter the stigma that has existed for over a century, and is also known as Victorian prudishness and the fetishisation of women's breasts.

How does it happen that women know so little about the lives of women in the past that we assume it is us that caused and continue to cause us the problems we face?

The reason to defend the full exposure that wouldn't be your cup of tea (or mine) is that we women have the right to fully expose a breast or even both breasts. We have this right because lactivists pressed the case that women's breasts do not exist purely for men's sexual gratification; they are not exposed during breastfeeding in order to titillate or to give the breastfeeding woman any gratification from exposing herself in this way. When it comes to breastfeeding, it is what the baby needs and how comfortable the mother feels that matters. Society clearly still needs a lot of education about this.

Before the right to breastfeed in public, women could be accused of indecent exposure if a breast was exposed while breastfeeding. Indecent exposure is a sex crime -- flashing is indecent exposure. Obviously, the right to publicly breastfeed has corrected that assumption as far as the legal system is concerned, but it is clear that attitudes lag behind the law.

We can be personally sure that we would never use a host of the other rights we now enjoy as a result of feminist activism, but we can still support the exercise of those rights by other women.

mathanxiety · 18/05/2016 21:48

Jason, when you 'offer a chair at the side of the pool' to a woman who was in the pool in order that she can be seated out of the water, you are asking her to breastfeed separately from other patrons of the pool she was using the water after all just like them because when she is on a chair at the side she is not in the pool.

I feel a Father Ted 'small versus far away' sense of deja vu here.

How can you not understand the difference between 'in the water' and 'out of the water'?

Vickyyyy · 18/05/2016 21:49

It is absolutely not because of people like the individual you encountered that the stigma exists.

--

Maybe not, but attitudes such as hers certainly don't help matters one bit. Why be all militant about a problem you haven't even encountered yet. Getting excited about the possibility of suffering prejudice? Thats not right...

Flashbangandgone · 18/05/2016 23:08

The reason to defend the full exposure that wouldn't be your cup of tea (or mine) is that we women have the right to fully expose a breast or even both breasts

What the 'right to expose the full-breast' really got to do with breast-feeding? Personally I have no issue with it but don't see the logic in conflating the two. 'Lactivists' seem to want to make a point of the right to exposure irrespective of its necessity to breastfeed.

Yes, breasts aren't 'just for sexual pleasure' and have another biological function, breastfeeding, but a man could the same logic to fully and proudly display his penis when and where he wanted for the biological purpose of urinating (he could pee in a pot to prevent any mess getting anywhere).

mathanxiety · 19/05/2016 02:13

There are women who don't want to buy special nursing tops or can't afford them.
There are women who can't afford a nursing bra or find nursing bras uncomfortable or unflattering.
Babies are known to pull at their mothers' clothing or to unlatch and look around while breastfeeding.
There are all sorts of reasons why a mother might eschew a cover, a nursing bra, and a nursing wardrobe.
The right to full exposure whether by accident or because that is how you prefer to nurse is extremely important to the right to breastfeed because it specifically overrules the provisions of laws relating to indecent exposure, thus making it possible for women not to worry about exposing themselves no matter how much or hos little they expose, while breastfeeding.
Without the right to full exposure, women would effectively not be able to breastfeed.

And no, a man cannot display his genitalia in order to impress or horrify random members of the public. This is not what women are doing when they breastfeed with exposed breasts though.

Why be all militant about a problem you haven't even encountered yet. Getting excited about the possibility of suffering prejudice? Thats not right.
But she did experience discrimination, both at the wave pool and previously in a NHS hospital, no less.

By 'being all militant' do you mean exposing a full breast?
She has a right to. She is not anticipating any sort of problem.

Are women who decide to use the Pill 'being all militant'? Women once didn't have that right.
How about women having an abortion?
Women divorcing and keeping custody of their children? There was a time when children automatically stayed with their father after divorce.
How about voting? Is that militant?

It is still unusual in our society to see fully exposed breasts. We are apparently only willing to accept bare or nearly bare breasts when they are used to sell cars and other products, and get people into cinemas, and in porn. In other words, when they are pimped out and making money, usually for men. When they are used for their primary purpose, which is feeding our offspring, that is apparently something we should only do discreetly.

We need to get used to the fact that this is their primary function and we need to reclaim that. I think those women who use their right to expose breasts while breastfeeding are doing us all a favour by reminding society that this is their primary function.

Furthermore, women who do that are reminding society that what women do, legally, in public with their own bodies is their own business, and nobody has the right to interfere, to discourage, offer chairs elsewhere, or give advice to us about covering up or moving somewhere quieter, etc., while we are breastfeeding or simply walking out to the shop.

I personally think it would be nice if that message was taken to heart and my 14 yo daughter cold walk down the street without grown men leering at her chest area and making remarks, or telling her to 'smile!' or all the other intrusive shite women and girls have to put up with. In other parts of the world women are beaten by whip wielding police for not covering up. Same coin, different sides.

The idea that breastfeeding women and all women (and even girls) cannot be scrutinised and judged and second guessed when out and about and not harming anyone, just minding our own business, is an important principle.

The Equality Act is just a start in the right direction. Maybe legislation on public harassment of all women will follow. It would arrive faster if we were more militant about the problem.

CoolforKittyCats · 19/05/2016 07:13

But she did experience discrimination, both at the wave pool

Alleged discrimination

Unless you have a crystal ball and can see the potential court outcome...

Making statements as truth when they haven't been proven is potentially libelous.

Littlemisslovesspiders · 19/05/2016 07:14

and nobody has the right to interfere, to discourage, offer chairs elsewhere

Jeez so no one can politely ask if someone would like a chair now before people shout 'discrimination'. Shock

Flashbangandgone · 19/05/2016 07:25

math

Whereas I disagree with you about the pool case, I think your argument concerning breast exposure is persuasive.

peggyundercrackers · 19/05/2016 07:27

Stop feeding the troll...

Jasonandyawegunorts · 19/05/2016 07:58

The waves and the ripples cover the pool,
The shallow part even, they cover it all
She was sat in a part, where the lifeguard discovered
Her baby’s head being soaked, his face being covered
this was probably upsetting for babe in her arm
So a chair was offered to avoid extra harm

Witnesses from here, the paper and there
Have made it clear, but you do not care
You twist the fact, disregard what's been said
you've invented, fantasied it's all in your head
"The source is wrong. lying in fact"
“Breaking the law” “Equalities act”
"The lifeguard on duty was probably a kid,
Obsessed so much with nipples he wanted them hid”

I know she could have said no sat there and stayed
In the pool water while her toddler played
But why the was a chair offered at all
Screams sinister motive to me, I'm no fool.

“It happened in kent just look at this”
“If this isn’t proof then I don’t know what is”
“all pools are evil Netmums agree...
(Although even I am not surethat helps me)”
Oh stupid people if only I could provide
a chair for each one of you to side at pool side.

Basicbrown · 19/05/2016 08:17

It is still unusual in our society to see fully exposed breasts.

I don't think it is tbh. What about on the beach?

Jasonandyawegunorts · 19/05/2016 08:46

It is still unusual in our society to see fully exposed breasts

you should watch BBC parliament, the whole of westminster is fully of fully exposed Tits.

LogicalThinking · 19/05/2016 09:49

Jason -- when the source is a spokesperson for the pool management that is being sued, it really is wise to take their account of what happened with a grain of salt. More than a grain actually. Maybe a shovelful or two.
So breastfeeding mothers always tell the truth and the accused organisations always lie - just like Caroline Starmer and Primark.

Used to be the case that women would breastfeed their babies in the ladies loos
That doesn't make breastfeeding in a swimming pool a clean and hygienic place to use.
I wouldn't personally have considered a swimming pool to be a good place to breastfeed, but I can deal with the fact that some women want to. That isn't actually the issue here. It's the wave pool that makes the difference.

women's breasts do not exist purely for men's sexual gratification
You are literally the only person on this thread who keeps banging on about that. No-one else cares.

How can you not understand the difference between 'in the water' and 'out of the water'?
In the water = hit & splashed by waves
Out of the water = Not hit and splashed by waves

By 'being all militant' do you mean exposing a full breast?
Absolutely not! She can sit in public fully exposed and that is fine with me.
Militant to me, is the demand that she can feed absolutely anywhere and that anyone so much as approaching her for any reason, must be attempting to discriminate and her hurt feelings must be soothed with thousands of pounds. It's about her lack of flexibility. Breastfeeding mums can move a little if they are in the way and if they are sitting somewhere unsuitable or uncomfortable, and it is reasonable to offer a chair without being hit with a lawsuit.

I completely agree that women are still objectified by a portion of society, but I disagree that women like this are helping. This had nothing to do with her exposure so it's irrelevant.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread