DH being U about baby in restaurant?

[StripedSwad]

We are on holiday with 3 month BF baby. There's a fancy restaurant on site which we are booked in to

we have his mother with us, who will babysit, but she would need to bring baby down to us if he needs to be fed. Restaurant has said no to this as is adults only.

DH thinks this is terrible and wants to complain as baby will only be down a short while and purely for feeding, whereas I think it's just one of those things you accept with a baby and we will just have to eat elsewhere. So who is right?

So math if we extend your view then children should be allowed everywhere.
No adult only places at all.

The irony is that banning children from certain places is not simply to preserve the fun of adults, but to protect children from certain aspects of adult behaviour. So casinos, tattoo parlours drinking establishments, and yes strip joints.

You used the example of a strip bar in a spectacular freudian slip, actually.

As we have learned on this thread, women are uppity liars whose sense of entitlement extends to going places with their babies these days. Feminism has gone way too far.

God forbid a woman should actually use her boobs to feed her baby and not as a means of participating in the whirl of commerce. That would be too women-centered, too baby centered, and maybe even too empowering for women.

Thus it behooves sensible women who know their place to remind those who seem not to, where they belong and what their boobs are really for. It is only right and proper to remind them that if they insist on using their boobs to feed their babies then they need to stay at home. Boobs out and about in public are for the gratification of men only. Hence 'adult only' restaurants.

Boobs out and about in public are for the gratification of men only. Hence 'adult only' restaurants.

You seem to be living in a cardboard box.

You seriously think that restaurants designated as adult only exist to prevent women from breastfeeding in public?

I avoided using a strip club as an example as I knew your response would be exactly as it has been.

However, you have failed to address my question.
Given that a measurable proportion of children are neglected and abused by their mothers every year, despite extensive safeguards in place, why are you so confident that all mothers would respect the fact that some environments are unsuitable for young children?
If mothers are willing to leave their DCs home alone, or in cars outside clubs, what on earth makes you think they won't lie and claim the child is breastfeeding in order to allow the child access alongside them?

Math you need to look up the definition of Freudian slip.

math, any takers on that 4yo at the WikiLeaks lecture?

btw for the record I wouldn't be surprised to find children at The Nutcracker, and so wouldn't expect silence from the audience.

No, they exist to pander to the sense of entitlement of so-called adults to a child-free bubble, and they create the fantasy that babies and children do not exist. As a side effect, they pander to the fantasy that women are available for men 100% of the time, which is not a woman-friendly notion.

Ultimately the restriction to 'adults' only means restaurants can charge more, so you pay a premium for your entitlement to eat in a stuffy environment full of people doing 'serious dining' (to quote Mindtrope).

a measurable proportion of children are neglected and abused by their mothers every year, despite extensive safeguards in place
By 'measurable' you mean ...?

Weirdly, NNChangeAgain, I was under the impression that the number one danger to babies and children is a boyfriend or partner of a child's mother, a male who is not the father of the abused child. Maybe it's just murder of babies and children I am thinking of. Must check my stats.

In recent years, reports of sexual offences against children have increased dramatically, according to the NSPCC. Mothers again, I suppose.

I really can't understand your pov here, NNChangeAgain.
You seem completely suspicious of mothers and seem to think women can't be trusted at all.

Many ballets are based on fairy tales. Most have very little by way of plot and involve lots of prancing around in frilly outfits. Not too different from many a children's tv programme, when you think about it. I don't think it's helpful at all to try to suggest there is a difference between the Nutcracker and any other ballet.

WikiLeaks lectures.. Do they even exist?
There's a TED talk on Youtube featuring Julian Assange explaining the importance of WikiLeaks. You could watch it at home or on the bus or wherever. There's another called 'WikiLeaks: Security, Diplomacy and Global Gossip.' The Central European University's lecture by David McCraw on WikiLeaks is also available online. I very much doubt any lecture on WikiLeaks is unavailable online.

It would be extraordinary to find one only available in the flesh in some hall to which you could bar entry to women with children unless they could prove to your satisfaction that they were really breastfeeding their four year old and not just turning up to get under your skin.

So Math (as you have decided) I want to "live like a man" I should now women to be available for me 100% of the time. Any other pearls of wisdom about maleness I need to know?

Are you a politician math? You've avoided my question several times.

Your position seems a little confused. Are you calling for all breastfeeding mothers to be permitted to keep their babies/children with them, or are you calling for a ban on exclusion of all DCs from public places?

If it is the former - how would you propose non-breastfeeding children are excluded from child free places?

And yes, you're right - I am suspicious of mothers. Having had responsibility for enforcing rules put in place in order to safeguard children, I have first hand experience of the risks some mothers are prepared to expose their DCs to for their own convenience or benefit. There are sadly only too many mothers, like you, who think they know better than those with relevant experience.

A large proportion of central London theatres are run under strict licence from Westminster Council. Many of them cannot admit under threes. Some do, and generally each person must be able to sit unaided in a seat, and must have their own ticket. In the. Event of an evacuation or disaster the the theatre must provide correct staff to customer ratio, and after you have settled to watch the show, all the ticket stubs are counted and the theatre manager knows exactly how many people are in the building. If you had a dozen parents with babes in arms, you would not have a clue if everyone had been accounted for in the event of an emergency. This is done to safeguard patrons, not to discrinate against breast feeding mothers.

There are variances from this from time to time, i.e productions of the Snowman, The Gruffalo etc, and these normally run under a different specially written licence.

Your jaundiced view probably should not be projected onto ordinary people seeking to eat a dinner en famille, NNChange.
How do you know that women in adult only restaurants have left their children in the care of a properly checked out and responsible babysitter? For all you know, their babies and children are in the tender care of some 16 year old and her tattooed and multiply-pierced boyfriend.

Of course mothers and fathers should be able to take their babies and children everywhere.

Buxtonstill, in the event of a serious emergency, nobody would be standing at the doors counting people exiting. They would be trampled in the stampede.
And since 'children's performances' can safely be accommodated, apparently, the regs about babes in arms for adult performances seem a bit ott. Either that or theatre owners are prepared to countenance the death of hundreds of minor patrons in the event of a fire or gas leak, etc.

And since 'children's performances' can safely be accommodated, apparently, the regs about babes in arms for adult performances seem a bit ott.

There are sadly only too many mothers, like you, who think they know better than those with relevant experience.

You're the gift that keeps on giving, math.

I can't help myself commenting on thread again, despite my better judgment! I'm comparing it to a ship that has cast one of its crew off in a rowing boat to fend for themselves. The boat has a hole in it, and despite bailing with all their might and determination, and realising their inevitable doom, they still persist in the hope that a miricale is going to happen and they aren't going to sink.

I left my children in the care of a 16 year old and her tattooed boyfriend just last night, whilst going out with my husband to a nice adults only restaurant. I then allowed them both (the 16 y old and boyfriend) to stay overnight.

she's my niece and he's one of my very serious and highly intelligent students

Math, it appears you want to argue with everybody, but just to let you know, staff would not be counting people exiting the building, but management would liase with the emergency services as to the number of people in the building should the place be decimated by a bomb or similar.

If you read my post carefully you will see that it is not the individual theatres that make the rules, but they have to follow the terms of the licence issued by Westminster Council.

I think you need to write to Westminster Council and share your views, as you seem to be a born expert, despite never worked in theatre management. I'm sure they would be very interested to hear your qualified opinion.

I have just finished reading this thread.

No one is saying that women should stay at home. People go to adult only venues such as certain hotels and restaurants because it is a totally different environment to those where there are children. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong this these people or that they hate children whether they have children or not. A change of scene and atmosphere is always nice.

I go out with my toddler for dinner to all sorts of restaurants. We don't go to "family friendly" restaurants we just to restaurants of all types, prices, quality etc depending on what we feel like eating. She is well able to behave and loves all sorts of food and enjoys eating out.

However, sometimes we go out without her. We can definitely relax more as we don't have to consider her needs and no matter how well behaved any child is, you can definitely relax more without them. Sometimes we go to restaurants that aren't "adults only" but not really suitable for children given the type of food or the atmosphere.

In my experience, those parents who seem unable to go outside of the house without their children are usually very insecure and not at all interesting in their own right and they are hugely aware of this. Mathanxiety's example of going to a restaurant with a "$99" steak and other people cooing over her children is an example of this. Getting attention via her children, when she would not have received this attention otherwise, validates her.

Mathanxiety, you obviously don't know very much about Ireland if you think that all restaurants welcome babies and toddlers with open arms!

Not all children are well behaved and not all parents care so personally I'm glad that there is a choice to go to a child free restaurant once in a while. I've only been to a couple but may go more since I know I'll never meet Math in one.

How do you know that women in adult only restaurants have left their children in the care of a properly checked out and responsible babysitter? For all you know, their babies and children are in the tender care of some 16 year old and her tattooed and multiply-pierced boyfriend.

Prejudice much math

My tattooed and pierced nephew has a first from Oxford and has often looked after our DC.

"Of course mothers and fathers should be able to take their babies and children everywhere."

What, literally everywhere? To 18 cert films and to loud gigs? To proper drinking pubs?

Don't be absurd, and don't think that just because you tether yourself to your kids you are a better parent than people who take a break from it every now and again - because, chances are, you are a worse one for doing that.

FFS, why can't some mothers understand, that some people don't want to be in the company of lots of children? It gives me the rage.

My youngest turned 18 this month. So, I now only have adult "children".

Next year, me and DH will go to an Adults only hotel. You know why? Because for the last 18 years, we've had to go to family hotels and we fancy something a bit more sophisticated. Last year, in a family friendly hotel, I lost count of the number of balls and lilo's I took to the head, when swimming. When I was doing the aqua aerobics, I was continually dived bombed by boys of about 10 years old, whose parents were getting pissed up in the bar. The kids threw food on the floor, the parents left it there. Cue me coming down to dinner in lovely shoes and slipping on dropped chips. The bins were overflowing with nappies. The dinner times were ruined by children running around the restaurant and by babies screaming.

I don't dislike children, but if I'm completely honest, whilst I love my own to the moon and back, I'm a bit "meh" about anyone else's. I have the right, now that I have raised my kids to adulthood, to seek out adult only spaces. Not least because there seem to be so many parents these days who don't supervise their kids! And some of them are really naughty.

I'd not be happy to make a booking at an adult only restaurant, only to have a woman on the opposite table whip her boob out and start feeding a baby. I breastfed my own kids, but I actually don't enjoy seeing other women doing it. I think it stems back to the fact that my son was such an awful feeder and I had mastitus, it brings back icky memories for me. I'd also wonder what the heck the woman was thinking and why she was so entitled

I do agree also that women who cannot go anywhere without their children, are really boring and seem to define themselves as a mother only. Yawn.

You mean you don't find everyone else's DC just as adorable as you do your own Husky? You don't deserve to go on holiday at all

"If you want to engage with me on the topic then feel free to discuss the matter at hand, which is breastfeeding and women's right to do it wherever women go."

WRONG, math.

The "matter at hand" is the right of humans to enjoy a meal without having to listen to squealing humans. THIS, is a completely different of type of disturbance as "throat clearing, etc" that you bring up to solely confuse the issue. I know. I know because I've raised two sometimes squealing, completely normal little humans, who are beautiful, well-adjusted teen humans now.

Again, please take your 17 humans and your boobs to somewhere I don't have to listen to. I did, so can you that is respect the rights of the MAJORITY of humans.

And stop passing judgment on humans who choose not to procreate. They are humans too. You should know, as someone who is SO, omg, concerned about being considered "NOT human"!

Buxtonstill astounded that people can't see why staff would need to know how many people would be in a building

piglet really? Are you really that shocked? I think it just shows the type of person math is making that sort of comment.

hmm math is still hovering around an E grade with her poorly constructed illogical essays. She needs to try harder. As someone said, the gift that keeps giving.