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 genuinely can't see where you answered the questions I had and I've rtft. I'm not the only one though who clearly can't make sense of your rants

segregated lunch counters in pre civil rights US please...

Once more for those in the back who may not have heard,

"CHILD" IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS IN THE SENSE OF PLACES WHERE ATTENDANCE IS OPTIONAL. RACE IS.

And again, your child is not going to be a child/breastfed forever. Black is for life. Which is why I think equating childfree restaurants to pre-civil rights segregation is so offensive. Other, more rational mumsnetters, please back me up here?

Comparing children not being allowed in certain places to black segregation. Wow.

There's a bit of straw in the gutter outside our office today. If someone needs it, then I'm happy to post it to them.

But it wasn't always, JayisforJessica.

I am equating your comments on businesses being free in the present to exclude whoever they want to in the interests of making money and/or meeting a perceived need to past situations where businesses were free to exclude whoever they wanted to in the interests of making money and/or meeting a perceived need.

I am also saying that separate is not equal. The class of people that is excluded from a place where they could go because there are no health and safety concerns and the general purpose of the business is not detrimental to the baby is by definition an unequal and inferior class because of the exclusion.

Your failure to understand that breastfeeding involves a pair of people, one of whom is a minor, is really baffling to me. You cannot separate out the rights of the two people where breastfeeding is concerned and there are no other issues (H&S, etc). Breastfeeding involves the baby by definition.

Mum and baby don't have to split up - mum has every right not to go to the bloody restaurant! Nobody is being forced away from their baby!

I honestly feel like I"m trying to teach a mule to use a spinning wheel.

The mum as an adult has every right to go to the restaurant. The breastfed baby has the right to breastfeed. Excluding the woman on the basis of her legal choice to breastfeed in a place where she is not compromising the health and safety of her baby and where nobody else's health and safety will be compromised is an unreasonable exclusion done for the sake of squeezing money out of punters. The right of restaurant owners to exclude babies thus puts money making ahead of many items that are allegedly in the public interest, such as promoting and supporting breastfeeding, and promoting and supporting the idea of women's rights, which should always include mothers' rights.

How charming, Jessica.

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

She also has a right not to go, nobody is being forced to go.

You already said that, and I already responded.

None of the questions have been answered. Math just bangs on, throwing a load of words including 'feminist' 'excluded' 'sophisticated'
and 'boobs' up in the air and letting them land randomly. Her posts make no sense. It was mildly amusing for a while but boring now. I would pity her if I thought she really believes any of her own drivel

in a place where she is not compromising the health and safety of her baby

But math you contradict yourself.

You argue that mothers should be completely autonomous when it comes to her breastfeeding venues and doesn't need these misogynistic laws to tell her what is good for her baby.

Why should health and safety laws be imposed on her is she is so infallible and always makes such good choices?
Why should that decision making be taken away from her and other laws designed to be abandoned.

So mothers don't need laws to prevent them from taking their kids to tattoo parlours or to a high court trial showing graphic images to the jury, but they do need laws to prevent them breastfeeding in a nuclear processing facility or a goods yard with industrial machinery moving about.

Why the discrepancy? Why do you want exemptions on health and safety grounds. I thought breastfeeding women were some super human group who always new best?

"designed to protect her child be abandoned"

I honestly feel like I"m trying to teach a mule to use a spinning wheel.
Too complicated an analogy maybe. More like one of those annoying wasps or flies at a picnic that won't give, despite everyone trying to swat it...

maths obsessional posting about BF mothers/babies is reminiscent of a fetishist I read about a while ago - I'll see if I can find the article......

Where better to secure a limitless supply of erotic material than a public forum targeting women and parents?

That boat I said you were trying to desperately bail out earlier Math, well sorry but you've now landed on the seabed.

The sad thing is, math is trying to point out discrimination to the very group ( us ) that she feels is being discriminated against.

Probably most of us on this thread have breastfed. And not felt discriminated against.

It is rather arrogant of math to presume to be the spokesperson for all breastfeeding mothers.
Because it's clear we don't feel as she does..

Well said Mindtrope.

although personally I'm bored of seeing math's posts, every one of them is another nail in the coffin for her self-styled brand of 'feminism' so from that point of view- keep going math

"KidLorne, my feminist position is that women can have babies and also enjoy the benefits of being adult humans. They can have babies and not lose their career trajectory. "

Right, and the existence of a few restaurants which say adults only impacts a woman's career how, exactly?

I'm child free. My life is certainly no "less" for not having them!

I have asked you not to call me that, mathanxiety. That you continue to do so has pushed you from argumentative into deliberately antagonistic.

NNChangeAgain
I'm just disgusted that they can called someone who has had miscarriages and has suffered with mh. 'A sensitive soul'
that is offensive and just downright goady and argumentative.
As for Childfree 'being liberation from children and snideness' where does one even begin with that?
I agree with you completely, it is an obsession.