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 now friend is in inverted commas. You're a piece of work math you really are. I'm not giving you anymore ammunition. I would pity you if I could be arsed.

Wow Mathanxiety. You don't have to train new babies to feed from a bottle of you want a night out. You can take the baby to one of thousands of places that are child friendly! Or just see an opportunity to mouth off about your rights I suppose. And can I ask what is so wrong with people being described child-free? What would you prefer, childless? Why is it such a problem to you that not every woman wants children? Hardly feminist.

'Hurt'
Negate the choice to breastfeed by excluding half of the parties to breastfeeding.
Discriminate against mothers who could afford the dining experience but not the babysitting.
Make breastfeeding mothers jump through more hoops than others in order to enjoy the dining experience.
Imply that the presence of babies and children is a hindrance to an enjoyable or sophisticated night out.
Imply 'child free' experiences are superior, desirable, and worth paying more for.
In general terms, set up a conflict of interest between children on the one hand and adults on the other.
Babies and children are 'othered' in a way that is negative.
A narrative featuring them primarily as nuisances is not a good thing for them.
A narrative featuring breastfeeding women as 'entitled' is not a good thing for breastfeeding women or any women.

Yes my friend read about your miscarriages. That's what made her laugh, that a person could be so unaware of other people's feelings on the subject.

Wow

RestlessTraveller -
Only someone who thought of mental or emotional health problems and professional help for those problems in very ignorant terms could possibly have read my comment the way you did, so perhaps it is for the best that you have not commented further on it, and apparently are not going to.

I have already discussed my issue with the term 'child free'.

It implies liberation from children.
It pours scorn on those mopes who have chosen the 'burden' that the 'child free' have chosen to be 'free' from.

It is not feminist because ultimately it makes it possible to blame women for the issues they face as mothers in the workplace and in society, on grounds that they choose to be hampered by children or charged most of their paycheque for childcare, when in fact it is the fact that workplaces are set up for people who do not have the responsibilities of dealing with children that is the problem for women (and men who are interested in contributing their share of parenting.)

'You can go to another restaurant' easily translates into 'You can get another job that would work better around your chosen role of mother'. Never mind that the dinner you want is in that particular restaurant, and never mind that working in law or finance or engineering or medicine might be your chosen career.
You can be a cashier and get hours that work around school.
You can be a teacher and get summers off.
You can make a fraction of what you would make as an engineer/barrister/doctor.

math that's ridiculous. Ridiculous. You're just looking for reasons to be offended.
Not being able to afford something does not mean that the people who put the price on the experience or the rules that go along with it are discriminating against you. It means you don't have enough money to pay for it and that's life. I can't afford a lot of shit since I had my daughter because childcare is so expensive-that's not discrimination, it's economics.

Some people do think that a child free experience is superior and are willing to pay extra for it. Some people do see the presence of a crying or naughty child as a hindrance and don't want to risk their relaxing evening being ruined. That's upto them and they have the right to feel that way.

Businesses don't give a fuck about people who can't afford their services regardless of the reasons why. We chose to have children-they are a privilege not a right and certainly not a platform to force an agenda onto others.

Oh for goodness sake. The "exclusion", such as it is, is from a tiny minority of places, and it's TEMPORARY.

I for one find it hugely offensive that you're calling it "discrimination" against people who are CHOOSING to breastfeed. Get real. Racial discrimination, that's a thing. If you're black, you didn't choose to be that way and you're not going to grow up/age out of it, are you? So to say that a restaurant choosing to limit their clientele to those of voting age is "discriminating" against children, against breastfeeding mothers... GROW UP.

Your experience is not the universal experience! Your choice is not the universal choice! There are people, hundreds of thousands of people, who have made different choices to you and that doesn't make them bad or selfish people, it makes them PEOPLE WHO HAVE JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO CHOOSE AS YOU DO.

You're being hugely offensive with your "this is discrimination against breastfeeding mothers" because first of all, bog off with calling it discrimination until you've experienced some real, systemic, never going to end because you can't just age out of it discrimination. Second of all, sometimes when we make choices, options are closed to us, and that's just life. You don't get to opt for breastfeeding then condemn everyone who didn't choose it and everyone who is living a life that doesn't involve it. The way you feel about people "discriminating" (and I use the term with huge sarcasm in your case) against breastfeeding mothers? That's how the rest of us are feeling right now while you rant and rave about how terrible we are for wanting balance in our lives in the form of a little time away from children.

It all comes down to choice. Some people make choices you don't agree with. You need to suck it up and remember that the world doesn't revolve around you and your children and your experience, mathanxiety. There are thousands upon thousands of people having a different experience to you and living a different life to you that you are currently dumping all over, hurting, and offending because you can't seem to comprehend that your chosen path isn't the One True Path.

And "childless" implies that women who don't want children are lacking somehow. As if, as women, having children is our main purpose and without them we are "less".

If a woman wants to describe herself as "child free" then that's her prerogative. It's like you hate women math. Unless they breastfeed.

When I stopped breastfeeding my DCs is none of your business and not at all relevant to this thread

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve.

It is entirely relevant to ask for how long you were excluded from society while breastfeeding

hear hear jay.

You could possibly afford to dine in restaurants that allowed children, Champagne, because you would not have to shell out for childcare.

Some people do think that a child free experience is superior and are willing to pay extra for it. Some people do see the presence of a crying or naughty child as a hindrance and don't want to risk their relaxing evening being ruined. That's upto them and they have the right to feel that way.
'Child free' spaces convey the idea that this is a desirable way to spend an evening. If society does indeed raise a child, then this is bad news for children, who are increasingly seen as nuisances - other terms have been use don this thread, like 'brats'. People who feel this way about children have the choice to stay at home too. Why should the public interest in promoting breastfeeding be compromised in order to enable the making of money by business owners pandering to a newly militant 'child free' section of the market?

Angry white men have the right to feel their way of life is threatened in the US. Is it right for Donald Trump and the alt right media to pander to their feelings?

We chose to have children-they are a privilege not a right and certainly not a platform to force an agenda onto others.
But we feminists 'force' our mother's rights agenda onto businesses, right? We want paid maternity and parental leave. We want parent-friendly hours. We want job sharing. We want to be welcome back into our jobs when our mat leave is over. We do not want to be penalised at work if we stay home with sick children or because of childcare issues. We even want the education system to provide educational opportunities for pregnant teens.

What you are saying is we should not do that. 'We made our beds and now we should lie in them'. Having children is a choice and we ourselves should be left to deal with the consequences. Our choice should not affect how anyone runs their business. The right to make money comes first and last and no other interest should be served.

What you are saying is we should not do that. 'We made our beds and now we should lie in them'. Having children is a choice and we ourselves should be left to deal with the consequences. Our choice should not affect how anyone runs their business. The right to make money comes first and last and no other interest should be served.

That's exactly what I'm saying, actually. I chose to have DS. I chose everything that goes with having a baby. I chose the sleepless nights, I chose the diaper explosions and the vomit and the midnight feeds and the cuddles and the love and the pride and the joy. But [insert name of childfree restaurant here] didn't choose to have my DS, and had no input in the decision I made to have him, so why should my decision affect them? To expect them to cater to me because I chose to have him is just incredibly selfish of me. That's why I don't expect them to cater to me.

It would be one thing if people were saying "ban all babies everywhere". They're not. They're saying "hey, dotted about the landscape are a few places that don't allow children, if that's the kind of environment you'd be into". You, as a parent, have a multitude of places you can go with your children where they're welcomed. But you're not happy with that. It sounds like you won't be happy until there are NO places left that don't cater to you, and bugger everyone else and what they want.

What if there was a person who eats meat saying, "well, I want to eat meat, so vegetarian restaurants shouldn't exist. I have the right to be catered to wherever I go, so those places that don't serve meat are discriminating against me and should either be forced to cater to me or shut down".

What if there was a person who liked to drink alcohol saying, "well, I want to drink alcohol, so dry restaurants/cafes shouldn't exist. I have the right to be catered to wherever I go, so those places that don't serve alcohol are discriminating against me and should either be forced to cater to me or shut down".

You would (ideally, but I don't hold out much hope for a reasonable response from you) call those people ridiculous. That is exactly how ridiculous you are being.

The whole world doesn't exist to cater to you and yours. It has to cater to other people sometime, too.

a newly militant 'child free' section of the market?

Where the hell have you been living for the last 30 years?

Society is more welcoming of children now than any time in history.

If you have chosen to integrate yourself into a regressive society, which is moving in the opposite direction, then that explains why you feel the way you do.

But really, you should travel, explore, and you'll discover that far from being 'newly militant', those businesses which do not cater for children are, in the main, the traditionalists.

You are ranting and raving and missing the mark. Again what do you suggest is a better term for being child free? And why is it not ok to choose to spend an evening in adult company? As a grown adult you should realise we can't have it all ways all the time. The restaurant are catering to people who wish to spend a night there knowing they can't take their children. You can choose not to go, choose to boycott it, choose to give your child a bottle for the night if going to that particular place at that time is important to you or you can choose to go to one of the places your children are welcome.you have choices. Just like it's fine to choose to have a night out with no kids.

restless don't engage anymore.
It's obvious what they want.
Don't rise to it.
to your friend
The 'sensitive soul'

So you think that women who want to have babies and maternity leave and return to their jobs are entitled, JayisforJessica? This is what you are arguing for. The end result of your reasoning is the exclusion of mothers from the workplace, and no flexibility required at all of employers when it comes to chosen states of pregnancy and motherhood on the part of their employees. Of course, women can choose not to have children...

Your vegetarian /dry restaurant analogies are not apt.
No breastfeeding mother wants the chef to feed her baby tofu or ply it with gin. Breastfeeding mothers want to go out and feed their own babies in the vegetarian restaurant or the one that is dry. They want the fact that breastfeeding involves two people to be actively acknowledged and encouraged. There is a public interest concern involved here, namely the promotion of breastfeeding, and that is associated with the perceived status of breastfeeding mothers..

You are basically arguing for the right of restaurants to exclude classes of people because money making is more important than promotion of policies that are in the pubic interest.

The issue of separation and equality has been discussed by no less an august body than the US Supreme Court. It held that separate is always inherently unequal. Children of all races can legally go to school together in the US. American society hasn't developed as much as the civil rights campaigners hoped, unfortunately. So children only go to school together in places where racial integration is actively promoted. The interests of money making triumphed over the public interest in racial integration.

NNChange, there is a serious backlash against babies and children and mothers breastfeeding in public, and there has been for at least the last five years, possibly longer. Diatribes against babies and children of the sort I have read here are now acceptable. Hate speech against women is all over the internet. Child porn flourishes. Donald J. Trump was elected president of the US last week.

Ginger, while I may not name check you individually in each and every post I type, you are welcome to read my posts, and when you do you will find your questions answered.

So you think that women who want to have babies and maternity leave and return to their jobs are entitled, JayisforJessica? This is what you are arguing for.
No, I'm arguing that women who want to have babies shouldn't expect the entire world to change because their life has. Of course some allowances are, should, and must be made, but that's not the same as expecting the entire world to cater to you.

The end result of your reasoning is the exclusion of mothers from the workplace, and no flexibility required at all of employers when it comes to chosen states of pregnancy and motherhood on the part of their employees. Of course, women can choose not to have children...
Working, for many, isn't optional. Eating out at a fancy restaurant is.

Your vegetarian /dry restaurant analogies are not apt. No breastfeeding mother wants the chef to feed her baby tofu or ply it with gin. Breastfeeding mothers want to go out and feed their own babies in the vegetarian restaurant or the one that is dry. They want the fact that breastfeeding involves two people to be actively acknowledged and encouraged. There is a public interest concern involved here, namely the promotion of breastfeeding, and that is associated with the perceived status of breastfeeding mothers...
Well, this is just an exercise in How To Miss The Point. I didn't suggest that breastfeeding mothers want the chef feeding their baby tofu or plying it with gin. My analogies were designed to point out the fallacy of a person who has made choices in their life, expecting every single restaurant ever to cater to those exact choices, whether that makes good business sense for them or not, whether that infringes on other people's right to make different choices or not.

You are basically arguing for the right of restaurants to exclude classes of people because money making is more important than promotion of policies that are in the pubic interest.
"Child" is not a protected class in the sense of excluding them from a place it's optional to go. If you are a child excluded from Shovelly Joe's Chicken and Waffles, one day you will not be a child, and you will be able to have all the chicken and waffles you like. Until then, too bad. Isn't one of the cardinal lessons we're all supposed to be teaching our children that "Life isn't like Burger King, you can't always have it your way"?

The issue of separation and equality has been discussed by no less an august body than the US Supreme Court. It held that separate is always inherently unequal.
Again, "child" isn't a protected clss in the sense of excluding them from a place it's optional to go.

Children of all races can legally go to school together in the US.
School, which for children is a mandatory proposition. Fancy restaurants aren't mandatory. I'm not even touching the rest of the mess that was your final paragraph, because it doesn't make any kind of sense as a response to the points I was actually making.

'Child free' is still defining status relative to the presence of a child in one's life, just as 'childless' is.

Is there a need for any term for it? Why the focus on that element of life? Is that what defines people?

And actually, I'm arguing that no one should be allowed to make choices that impact on the entire world. Breastfeeding parent, vegetarian, carnivore, alcohol consumer, teetotaler, whatever. You don't get to tell other people what to do. However, owners of businesses DO get to make choices about who they want to enter the place that they own. If you don't like it, don't give them your money. The point here is that expecting them to change/shut down because they don't suit YOU is selfish and cruel to both those businesses and the people who they DO cater for, who happen to have different preferences to you.

But screw all of them, right? As long as you can go any place you feel like you want to go, the world is okay.

When did I demand the whole world caters to me?

And you are in fact arguing that women make their beds and therefore are being entitled when they seek rights in the workplace. The fact that working isn't optional doesn't matter. The pertinent fact is that women choose to have babies. By your logic, and even using your vocabulary, if you choose this option then you should suck up the consequences. No business should have to accommodate your choice.

Many restaurants do offer a vegetarian option. Many restaurants offer an animal derived food option. Your analogies don't hold water partly because they are only referring to what restaurants offer to those they admit as customers, not who they exclude. If you are admitted, you could choose to eat the tofu. It wouldn't kill you for once. If a vegetarian restaurant refuses admission to a breastfeeding mother and baby, then the mother won't get to eat the tofu.

And you have missed the point wrt separate and equal, just as I thought you would..

However, owners of businesses DO get to make choices about who they want to enter the place that they own. If you don't like it, don't give them your money. The point here is that expecting them to change/shut down because they don't suit YOU is selfish and cruel to both those businesses and the people who they DO cater for, who happen to have different preferences to you.

So, your thoughts on segregated lunch counters in pre civil rights US please...

Further to my remark about 'child free' versus 'childless' - the only advantage 'child free' has is its snideness.