To think FFS re sad faced breast feeding mums in the Daily Fail?

[Chihuahualala]

Single-mother, 33, thrown out of West End show for breast feeding

dailym.ai/2bdctPE

Fuck off ... And fuck off some more! Ear defenders or not this WAS NOT the place for your offspring! Aggggh!!!

I think the theatre should just put a ban on children below a certain age. This incident shows if you give some people an inch they will take a mile.

Lol yes I said it "LOL" at the vague attempt to defend this woman!

She took a baby to a noisy loud west end musical where ticket prices are expensive and it is a live performance.

A screaming, "bobbing" ear defending waving baby is distracting, I don't give a flying fuck what she does with her tots, take your entitled attitude and your screaming baby elsewhere!

Who even thinks "oh yes a punk musical is THE BEST place to take my baby"

Bloody barmy entitled fuckwit 😂

VioletVaccine Yes I have children. Yes I go to the theatre.

As I said earlier the last time I went to the theatre there was a baby sat right behind me in a car seat on the floor. Didn't even know it was there until dad got it out of the car seat at the interval for a cuddle. He put it back in the car seat for the second act. Never heard a peep and the baby was about 6 inches from me.

I was more disturbed by the two women in front of me sharing sweets.

When we were in that throng leaving lots of people were saying "Oh I hadn't noticed that baby was here" and the staff on the door were saying that people bring their babies frequently and pretty much every time people are leaving saying that.

I just think if the baby is being quiet (which doesn't seem to be the case in this instance) then what's the problem? If just the presence of a baby is distracting then that's that individual's issue, the same way as it would be their issue if they were distracted by another theatre-goer's fancy shoes or bright pink hair.

The fact that you go the theatre to get away from your children is your issue in my opinion. I might go get away from my DP but that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be able to bring their DP, as long as their DP isn't being noisy or disruptive.

The thing is DeathStare is that it appears this theatre agreed with you. When this lady booked the tickets and entered the show she was warned it may not be suitable and that she would need to sit near an exit so she could leave in case of disruption but still allowed to take the baby in. So if she had your apocryphal silent baby with you (or at least a very quiet one) everything would have been fine and dandy.

The irony is, that this woman's actions now mean this theatre won't make the same mistake again and will probably now introduce a blanket ban on all under 14s to stop this happening again rather than being accommodating.

This thread is the perfect of why you should take the time to read the entire thread because it changed the facts of the matter. Also, it's not the first time that a woman has lied and done sad face in the media. Shame on these women giving the rest of us breastfeeding mothers a bad name.

Doggity

Yes. That's my main problem with it too.

There's a massive difference between an EBF mum, and a Lactivist.

EBF mums feed their babies purely from the breast, and where that might prove a little difficult, they will modify their plans with their baby for that day, ie, no Skiing, or Slipknot concerts.

Lactivists want you to acknowledge their mammary glands give them an All Access Pass to places that their baby shouldn't even be, and don't you dare question that be-nippled warrior.

I couldn't give a monkeys about how or where people feed their babies but if I had paid £££ for a show and a baby was distracting I wouldn't be happy about it.

She sounds like a nutter. Who takes a baby to the theatre!?

Yab very, very unreasonable.

What planet was she on, thinking that this was acceptable? Poor kid, having to sit through a loud show in the dark, probably with funny random lights shining at you, whilst having these weird ass ear defenders stuck on your head. But it's ok, you'll be cool about being bored out of your tree because your mum will "bop you up and down with the music" there's few kids would have the patience to sit even relatively quietly though that shite for the length of a nativity play, never mind a West End show.

It's just plain disrespectful to the kid, the other people who've paid to go see the show (and probably been a much looked forward to event) and most importantly, the actors who are trying to do their job and perform to the best of their abilities. She sounds like one of these people who says, "I won't let the baby won't change my life!" and won't accept that, for the next few years at least, there's some stuff that she won't be able to do without factoring in childcare. Blurring the lines by making this about breastfeeding and purposefully misrepresenting the actions of the theatre does us all a disservice.

Sorry to disappoint BillSykes but the silent baby behind me at the theatre wasn't apochryphal at all. It was very much a real baby. The play was awful and surreal but the baby was no distraction at all. I'd have welcomed one to be honest.

One of mine as a baby could have safely gone to the theatre (or anywhere else for that matter) and not made a murmur. The others - no chance.

Whether apocryphal or not, it doesn't change the fact that the lump sum of what this woman will likely achieve is that theatres will introduce blanket age bans across the board so that they don't have to face these types of allegations/law suits. So nobody, including those who genuinely could take their quiet baby, will be able to do it now at all.

Sorry guys, wine last night and meant to say this is soo jumping on the, "I couldn't breast feed in the male changing rooms at my local pool" type stories the DM like to feature.

Was trying to get across badly that I didn't think it was like that and that the baby shouldn't have been in a theatre.

I think this may become an unwanted side effect of the breastfeeding disrimination law. There seems to be quite a bit of 'ambulance chasing' with people out to use the new law to make a quick buck.

I think as a result quite a few places will bring in 'no babies' rules to avoid litigation.

This woman is ridiculous.
She wasn't kicked out for breastfeeding.
She got kicked out because her child was screaming and being a distraction ( it's a baby, it's natural) and should never have been there in the first place.
Now she wants to sue for some compo awful.

math if i'd paid lots of money to see the greenday show and a baby was screaming, gurgling and generally distracting then i'd damm well complain.

Yes i could probably hear swearing at home but i like Green Day, and hearing a baby scream is not part of it.

motherducker Sat 13-Aug-16 09:09:53
Sounds like a right laugh mathanxiety. Did people often take their babies along?
Regardless I don't think you really understand what a musical is tbh.

Punk really was a right laugh. But at the same time it was a ground breaking cultural phenomenon.

I suspect many a baby was conceived at some gigs, as long as people could find a reasonably quiet spot away from the breaking bottles and the general mayhem, pogoing, headbanging, etc...

I don't think any of you really understand what the punk experience was or if if you think a musical could do it justice.

I myself am still laughing at the idea of a musical about a punk group (it's actually mind-boggling), about people shelling out £££ to see it, and getting annoyed about the possibility of movement in their peripheral vision. I suppose you would all expect the loos to be in pristine and very usable condition too, at a punk experience, or even a theatrical experience that addresses a punk group' history.

broadcast 3 August 1977. Probably far more instructive about punk and also about its context than any musical. Punks were very much the lactivist types of their day. Polarising, not everybody's cup of tea, but definitely not the threat to society-as-we-know-it that the likes of the DM and some here think they are/were, and ultimately, on the right side of history.

The difference between an EBF mother and a Lactivist is in the eye of the beholder. Some people are deep down really uncomfortable with the idea of women's bodies being used in public for the purpose that nature intended, and refuse to see EBF mothers and babies as a 'nursing couple', with the implication that where the mother goes the baby will go too. This is very much the beholders' problem, and not one any nursing woman has a responsibility to fix. The whole point about making public breastfeeding legal is to make sure breastfeeding mothers are not forced to choose between breastfeeding and their lives, their sports, their interest in music, their needs in general.

-- 'It was about...not feeling you were restricted by your sex' and ultimately 'this helped women in music no end'. (about 2:00 - 2:30) .

Roxy scene, 1977.

The idea that women should be meek has held women in general back in every walk of life and in every age of history. 'Lactivists' have learned the correct lesson from history.

I think it behoves society in general, and in particular people who are upset by lactivism as if it's some sort of subversion or even some sort of crime, to examine what they see as 'the place' of women, 'proper' behaviour for women, what are the 'shoulds' that they think apply when it comes to mothers who are EBFing, and they should try to figure out why they hold whatever attitudes they find, when they start digging.

.

Society still has a real problem with any kind of 'attitude' in women.

I am getting a very clear impression from many of you that you don't like babies.

mathanxiety - I am old enough to enjoy punk gigs. Ds shares my love of the Damned .

West End Musical does not = a gig.

Green Day, who have a few good tunes bless 'em, are not yer actual punk band as old gimmers like you & I understand it.

This was clearly not an appropriate venue for a baby; the staff tried to be nice by agreeing to admit the mum if she agreed in turn to leave if her dd was distracting others. Daft of them, but well meaning.

The mother then let the side down & appears to be being rather disingenuous in claiming this is about BF.

Lesson learned for the venue (no teeny kiddywinks in future), but not great for the cause of BF acceptance. Also a bit shit for that evening's audience & performers.

Green Day aren't even proper punk. They're a novelty band off of the 90s.

math - I am getting he very strong impression you don't like common sense, or manners....

You are on mumsnet. While lots of MNers don't have families, a lot of us do. The difference is choosing not to be a dick about parenting those children. HTH.

Also, as you have already been told, IT'S NOT A PUNK GIG, IT'S A WEST END MUSICAL. It's not even about green day. It is a regular musical with a fictional story line that used songs written by the band. It's still a West End play that the baby was interrupting, not some Sid and Nancy free for all where people get shit faced and pierce each other's ears with safety pins!

From breastfeeding to a lesson in punk.

I like babies on the whole but not in a theatre.

Here are a few reviews:
Jed Gottlieb of the Boston Herald enjoyed the premise of the show but found that "the music and message suffer in a setting where the audience is politely, soberly seated"... yup, irony not lost there.

'Rachel Ward of The Telegraph gave it four out of five stars, calling it "90 minutes of uninterrupted chaos"'.
But apparently bringing a baby to all that chaos was intolerable.

Punks GD are not. And I'll repeat, the musical is not Shakespeare either.
'Charles Isherwood of The New York Times commented that the show contained "characters who lack much in the way of emotional depth or specificity, and plot lines that are simple to the point of crudity"'
Methinks there really wasn't much concentration required and nobody would have missed much if a baby had cried, or bounced in their peripheral vision.

It's also probable that the songs sounded better on the album.
'Jim Harrington of the Oakland Tribune compared the show unfavorably to the original album, writing: "[what] once was a fine Gouda has been prepackaged as Velveeta", and continued sarcastically, "In other words, it should do big business on Broadway."'

Money really not very well spent therefore. Maybe that's what was really pissing the audience off.