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?

I don't feel the need to question it as I don't have an issue with it, and how is it stalking?

It is stalking because it is evidence of obsession, going to enormous trouble to take someone to task, and generally seem altogether too dogged about making whatever point it is that you think you are making.

I have absolutely no idea!

Really?

None at all?

Mind boggling.
I was right about the reading thing.

Math you seem to think I've spent time obsessively searching your posts. Wrong. I posted on that thread. It's in my 'threads you are on list', when I checked it yours was simply the last post.

Don't flatter yourself.

Oh and by the way, I'm guessing the post you found from a month ago was from someone called Stripedsquad. Because it says so.

You asked about the reasoning behind the rule, and you got it. It actually doesn't really matter how handy it was for you to find a post to C&P.

But back to the quote I supplied - and with reference to your post of Wed 16-Nov-16 09:18:27. Still no clue?

StripedSwad Tue 18-Oct-16 17:22:01
We are on holiday with 3 month BF baby. There's a fancy restaurant on site which we are booked in to

Still no idea?

Math you've lost me. So this is the original post. Maybe I can't remember because you've turn the thread into something it wasn't and managed to be offensive to a huge number of people including myself for having the audacity to chose to be child-free. I still don't get why you've reposted it.

I remember thinking that there would be huge recriminations about the safety of the building after that collapse. Now that Buxtonstill has supplied so much information about why breastfeeding mothers cannot bring babies to shows where children are banned, I am wondering if Westminster theatre licensing regs are focusing on the wrong safety elements - are structures as highly regulated as audiences are?

And clearly, if people managed to get away with no stampede, babies in arms would have been perfectly safe.

People attend all kinds of public events they could just stay home and watch in their living room, but why should they have to?
They would have to if they were breastfeeding mothers who didn't want to pay for or couldn't afford to pay for a babysitter but had an interest in Wikileaks, wouldn't they?

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/02/tech-has-no-space-for-breastfeeding-moms.html

Here's an interesting article on work and breastfeeding.
Yes, attending conventions and staffing a booth is often part of work. There is often long-distance travel involved too. Or work might involve sales meetings far from your home office, or team building exercises.

Those of you so keen on your adult only spaces, how does the sidelining of women who breastfeed make it possible for the people who organise conventions and business meetings and airports, etc. to assume breastfeeding women either (1) do not exist or (2) do not breastfeed once they have returned to work, or (3) give up work in order to breastfeed, or (4) manage to do it via pumping magically or in no time flat in the men's or women's loos?

When something is invisible to polite society it is generally considered non-existent. If you think women who may have once breastfed are the ones making decisions that shape society, and that therefore the needs of women who breastfeed are always taken into account, think again.

The only way to make the powers that be take breastfeeding into account and to make breastfeeding possible is to make sure it is understood that women can be mothers and also professionals, or sophisticated, or human (to repeat the horrible turn of phrase from upthread). The way to do this is to demonstrate that fact in offices and restaurants and all the other places where the baby part of the breastfeeding women equation is invisible.

I reposted it to show that this thread was always about breastfeeding, in response to your post accusing me of turning the thread into one about breastfeeding...

Are you sure you don't have a problem with reading comprehension?

I'm guessing the post you found from a month ago was from someone called Stripedsquad. Because it says so.
No it doesn't.

Dear god woman, the post is about child-free places, and I know it's not a problem with my comprehension because EVERYBODY else on this thread understands this. Oh and I apologise for my auto-correct changing the posters name. (Face palm).

math

As we are on the subject of reading ability - you do seem to have blinkers on in relation to some of my posts.

I've asked, many times, whether your issues is about BF mums being able to take their babies into child free spaces in order to feed , or children of all ages having access to everywhere their parents do. You haven't answered. It would of course be ludicrous to champion both causes - because if you are fighting for the latter, then the former is redundant.

If you are calling for the former, and accept that there are some places (such as casinos, nightclubs and the like) where it is not suitable for older children to be - but are arguing the case for admittance of breastfed children to those spaces, can you please answer the question asked by myself and others which is what age do you think should be the cut off?

You are right and your DH is BU.

It's an adult environment and I certainly would feel comfortable bringing baby in to breastfeed during an evening meal.

Is it close enough for you to pop out and feed at some point in the evening?
It's a shame that baby doesn't take a bottle i.e. MIL could give the feed herself (am not making a FF/BF judgement)

hope you get to enjoy the evening out with your DH!

if people managed to get away with no stampede, babies in arms would have been perfectly safe.

Your complete lack of consideration for the emergency services, who already put themselves in harms way, in staggering. Why on earth should they be sent into danger without a clear idea of who, if anyone, they are searching for?

Stress and negative emotions do funny things to people. A mother may drop or leave her baby behind, either deliberately or in panic. A woman may claim that she has left her baby inside, when she didn't have one with her. You may be a calm and collected mother in the face of danger to yourself, but there is plenty of anecdotal and researched evidence to illustrate that mothers sometimes put their own safety ahead of their child's, or act irrationally in a misguided attempt to keep the child safe - such as hiding a baby, or giving it to someone else.

Dedicated child-friendly performances at specific times allow venues to secure additional staff, and mitigates the risk of something occurring while there are children present. If babies were permitted at all performances, the risk would be a great deal higher.

But hey, don't feel that you should defer to the professionals. Spend your life a seething mass of anger towards an unjust society that excludes individuals for purely selfish reasons. I'm sure you disagree with the research that proves that stress and anger shortens life expectancy, too

RestlessTraveller -

Thread title:
DH being U about baby in restaurant?

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?
The OP features a husband who wants to complain about the idea of a child free place not allowing a mother and baby to breastfeed. It is about a woman who feels he shouldn't complain, and who says she would feel self conscious breastfeeding.
Won't take bottle and don't have any with us, or steriliser etc. Glad people agree - I'd feel self conscious anyway

And how does auto correct change a name to Stripedsquad? Seems an unusual selection.

So the post is about breastfeeding, in child-free places, or as I prefer to call them, places that ban children.
Not quite about 'child-free places'.
Or what do you imagine this husband and father is (rightly imo) upset about?

mathanxiety Tue 15-Nov-16 03:16:32

^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.

Here ya go, NNChange.

Maybe you were distracted by the reference to tattoos?

A mother may drop or leave her baby behind, either deliberately or in panic. A woman may claim that she has left her baby inside, when she didn't have one with her. You may be a calm and collected mother in the face of danger to yourself, but there is plenty of anecdotal and researched evidence to illustrate that mothers sometimes put their own safety ahead of their child's, or act irrationally in a misguided attempt to keep the child safe - such as hiding a baby, or giving it to someone else.
You really don't like mothers, do you?

It's amazing society doesn't just clap babies in orphanages as soon as possible after they are born, as I said before.

Clearly they would be far better off away from murderous, mush-brained, abusive, selfish, convenience-loving, entitled, unsophisticated, un-humans.

I don't know Math, why don't you contact Apple and find out.

Can we have a show of hands to say who believes this original post was about restricting breastfeeding rather than child-free places?

Spend your life a seething mass of anger towards an unjust society that excludes individuals for purely selfish reasons. I'm sure you disagree with the research that proves that stress and anger shortens life expectancy, too

I am 52 and going strong.

I am a feminist. Does that qualify me to be described as a seething mass of whatever?

Do you think women should sit back and accept every shitty thing society deems for for us to put up with?

What rights would women have today if women themselves had not organised and identified problems and fought against them?
Think of a few elements of your life that you may take for granted -
University education
Professional career
The vote
Reproductive rights
Right to divorce
Right to custody of your children after divorce
Any more?

We've always enjoyed all those rights, yes?

So now it's restricting breastfeeding that you think I am talking about, RestlessTraveller.

Please provide your evidence for this.

Whatever 'restricting breastfeeding' may mean...