MangoMoon, the double dash only causes the strikeout if used as shown in the 'Emphasis' section. If you're having trouble reading my posts on your device I suggest you contact MNHQ as there is clearly some sort of glitch causing your difficulty.
FYI, a double dash does not cause a strikeout. A strikeout is caused by a double dash where it is not separated by a space on either end from the word between the dashes. If you type a double dash on either side of a word and leave a space between the dashes and the word, then you should not cause a strikeout. The problem is not mine but MN's.
zeezeek Fri 20-May-16 09:59:14
"If you think discrimination against breastfeeding women is inconsequential in a world awash with pimped out body parts of women, including breasts, then I invite you to think again."
It IS inconsequential compared to the very real and damaging discrimination that happens towards women (and men) every single day based on their gender, their colour, disabilities etc. Being offered a chair when bf is NOT and will NEVER be discrimination.
By that 'logic' only what can be considered the worst imaginable issue is deserving of any attention.
Which is a heap of hooey.
All discrimination needs challenging. It is all bad. It's not a race or a competition.
Discrimination against breastfeeding women is real. It affects women's confidence as they try to juggle having a life and breastfeeding. An environment hostile towards public breastfeeding influences the decision to breastfeed. A hostile environment towards breastfeeding mothers also impacts PND. Allowing the "breasts = for sex only" view of breasts to prevail is really bad for women. We should be a lot more thankful to lactivists than we seem to be on this thread.
And offering a chair away from the place where the woman is breastfeeding is discrimination. A breastfeeding women has the right to breastfeed anywhere she feels like it, H&S concerns all being equal. Nobody has the right to interrupt to 'offer a chair'. Nobody has the right to second guess her choice of spot.
Basicbrown Fri 20-May-16 08:26:52
'Extreme militancy' is not going to adversely affect women's right to publicly breastfeed any more. The law is on the side of women.
Well it's interesting because on another thread I read a post from a pregnant woman who was worried about breastfeeding in public. She was worried about being seen as one of those militant types just for feeding her baby.
That is not the fault of the so called militants.
That is the fault of those who have decided that feminism is a dirty word, that the term feminazi is acceptable, that women who stand up for themselves are bitter harpies who would shut up and be happier if only they had a good fuck. People who are British versions of Donald Trump, in other words. For all the hypocritical harrumphing about him, to judge from this thread there are a good few British people who think exactly like him when it comes to women, women's rights, women who complain about infringement of rights, and women who challenge misogyny.
I am gobsmacked at the complete lack of analysis in your comment, Basicbrown. Do you know anything at all of the history of women who dared to stick their necks out and the backlash that always greeted them? The comment you saw on another thread was a sad example of the complete cowing of women by a society that is misogynistic to the nth degree.
What is wrong with being 'militant' anyway? Is it shorthand for 'angry lesbian who will never get a man (or even a good looking woman)'? The subtext that women need to make nice to the general public or they will not be tolerated is very harmful to us. The result of women taking to heart the power of society to slap labels on us for daring to challenge its rules both spoken and unspoken is that women get paid less than men, rape hardly ever gets reported and if reported then rarely prosecuted, women get battered black and blue and judges still grant access to the children to their batterers, child support enforcement is a sick joke, and the list of injustices goes on and on and on and on. And it will keep on going until we decide we are not afraid of labels and start sticking up for ourselves. 'Militant' is not a dirty word.
Flashbangandgone Fri 20-May-16 07:05:26
math. Yes, the pool would have Professional Indemnity insurance which may cover this, so perhaps the impact wouldn't be as dramatic as I posted. It's still in effect £20k of public money as claims like this increase premiums.... Not to mention the legal costs. Still not clear what 'damage' has been done that could possibly equate to claim even close to £20k.... I don't see how a case of some mild temporary embarrassment (which is all it could reasonably be) causes any damage that equates to an annual salary for many?
This makes their lazy failure to educate their staff even worse. They are risking the waste of public money through incompetent management. Any management with half a brain would have sought legal advice on the ramifications of the Equality Act in all its provisions as it might apply to the running of the pool and the training of staff, since the pool is likely to be used by members of the public with rights guaranteed under the Act.
Failure to provide an environment (including staff training) where rights are respected equals damage. It's a pity you you do not appreciate that rights without the right to claim damages when they are abridged are meaningless. It's a pity that you do not understand that not knowing your rights or not 'feeling' you have been discriminated against doesn't mean discrimination hasn't occurred.
Jason
"The point is that they can breastfeed in public, out among other people, and they do not have to separate themselves in order to breastfeed".
This woman wasn't asked to seperate herself from anything. She was asked if she wanted a chair, a chair in the same area she was in.
The chair was not in the water. It was outside the pool.
'Same area' is codswallop. You could claim a chair in the same county fit that description.
Effectively asking her to remove herself from the water (because the chair was outside of the water) is discrimination.
If you give facilities and businesses the right to 'offer a chair' to breastfeeding women that is not in the exact spot they have chosen, how far is too far from the place they have chosen? How do you define 'same area' for the purposes of enforcement of the Act?
In a football stadium, could a woman be 'offered a chair' that is technically still in the grounds but from which she can't see any of the game? Could it be perfectly fine for an official to 'offer her a chair' several hundred yards from her seat in the stands on grounds that the cheering or the swearing or the jostling must surely be upsetting to her baby?
Would it be ok for a restaurant manager to 'offer a chair' to a woman that was away from her table in a restaurant, still in the 'same area' that she was sitting in, still in the dining room, but maybe behind the hostess' desk or at an empty table in a corner?
Your 'same area' argument is completely ridiculous and if it were to be taken seriously then the Equality Act's provisions regarding breastfeeding in public would be null and void.
You still seem to not understand that there is a difference between 'in the water' and 'out of the water'. It is so simple, and yet you have completely failed to grasp it.
