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?

*'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?*

In which case, why do parents define themselves as parents? Or is it just the reproductive status of non-parents that you are discriminating against.

My DH and I part own a restaurant. It is very popular, very comfortable and very child-free. We dine there a lot.

I went on holiday with my 16 year old daughter abroad this year. We have holidayed many times as a family when my children were growing up.

It was a small child friendly hotel. There were many kids by the pool, doing things that kids do, jumping in the pool, splashing, throwing beach balls, screeching ( and the odd tantrum)
As a result we were splashed sometimes books and kindles got wet we were, dive bombed inadvertently, we were hit by the odd ball when we were trying to relax.
All of this was acceptable behaviour it was a family hotel, marketed as a family hotel and our choice to book there. And it was these kids rights to have some boisterous noisy fun by the pool.

Interestingly though halfway through the holiday my DD asked me if there were such things as adult only hotels and if there was could we book for next years.
Although only 16 she has become aware of the pleasure in peace without children, she said she wanted to listen to the crickets without interruption, to listen to the mountain noises without toddlers screaming.

Is that so unreasonable?

If mathanxiety has her way, yes.

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

My sister and I are both non-parents but not in the same way.

If I was asked I'd say I'm happily childfree, because I never wanted kids. DSis did want them but couldn't conceive, so she's childless. That's the difference.

Surely it's obvious?

What exactly have you asked me not to call you?

-shudder-

S/he called me Jessica. Only my mother calls me Jessica, and then only when I'm in Big Trouble. And I haven't been in Big Trouble since I was about nine. I would have thought "Jay is for Jessica" sort of implied that I get called Jay, but ah well. There's a lot I thought was implied that has been (deliberately or otherwise) misconstrued by this person, so you just can't tell, can you?

Regardless, I'm choosing not to engage anymore.

You are not exactly the mistress of understatement, so pardon me for taking this as a post with no more subtlety than any of the rest of your contributions.

Is this you asking me not to call you Jessica?

Plus you clearly have not disengaged.

Do you have issues with your mother, by any chance?

Empress, no, it is not one bit obvious.
To those who have had difficulties conceiving or staying pregnant or who have lost their children to disease/genetic conditions the term child-free an be a huge slap in the face.

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

You already said that, Munstermonchgirl.

Munstermonchgirl Fri 18-Nov-16 07:56:14
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 grin

One sad thing is that I think math actually has some interesting points, regarding the mother baby dyad, exclusion and feminism.

Unfortunately her tone is so combative that even those of us who have an interest in her ideas are being beaten away with her baseball bat, swinging wildly at anyone it seems.
Nothing can be gained by having such a combative attitude.

If she has her own views on feminism then great, but unless she is willing to engage in dialogue in a constructive and useful way then she is wasting her own time posting here.

I am perfectly willing to engage in constructive dialogue, as evidenced by my posts on this thread.

So if those who have indulged in personal remarks about me, my children, my parenting style, my posts on other threads, etc. would like to withdraw at this point, let's continue.

Today 08:26 mathanxiety

You already said that, Munstermonchgirl.

Munstermonchgirl Fri 18-Nov-16 07:56:14
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

I did indeed. Glad to see you've taken it on board.

I am perfectly willing to engage in constructive dialogue, as evidenced by my posts on this thread.

Your definition of "constructive dialogue" must be very different from mine, math. I fail to see either on your posts on this thread.

I have no issues with my mother. I have issues with you, stepping over boundaries that were pretty clear to everyone else on this thread. Only my mother calls me Jessica. You are not my mother. Ergo, do not call me Jessica. My name is Jay.

It seems like you are very good at ignoring pragmatics in favor of semantics when it suits you.

Math, I might not agree with you on this thread but your posts on the trans media watch thread are bloody brilliant.

Careful - this is a quote from math:

16/11/2016 08:42 mathanxiety

"So here it is in plain English:
You should not refer to posts on other threads here on Mumsnet.
It is not OK. "
"Hoping this is now crystal clear."

(Of course, that was 2 days ago, so her opinion may have completely changed now!! )

Has no one managed to splat that bloody fly yet?

Buxton not for lack of trying.

There was absolutely no instruction whatsoever in that post of yours, JayisforJessica.

From now on, JayisforJessica, be so kind as to refer to me as 'mathanxiety', not 'math'. I will accept no abbreviations. I will actually consider abbreviations to be evidence of deliberate antagonism on your part. Nor will I accept terms such as 'mule' or 'barking' when referring to me, and I will draw negative conclusions about your attitude to me and to this discussion if I see them.
Thank you.

Clear?

It seems you are very free with uninvited abbreviations of other posters' names when you are the one doing it, along with derogatory exchanges of remarks with other posters about me, my excrement, my choice of presidential election candidate, trout, etc.

Maybe less of the shouty caps while you're at it too?

It would also be conducive to civilised back-and-forth if you were to ponder the fact that other people are entitled to disagree with you.

......
Yes, it is very clear NNChange, and very sad indeed, that your definition of constructive dialogue is different from mine.

As I clarified, Munstermonch:

"I believe it is considered to be evidence of stalking, maybe even goady, and possibly a few other not-cricket-ish things."

"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."

Therefore when someone refers to a thread or remarks on a thread and it is clear that those remarks have no bearing on the current thread and/or are not being used to make an argument on the current thread, that is fine.

As I clarified, Munstermonch:

"I believe it is considered to be evidence of stalking, maybe even goady, and possibly a few other not-cricket-ish things."

"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."

Therefore when someone refers to a thread or remarks on a thread and it is clear that those remarks have no bearing on the current thread and/or are not being used to make an argument on the current thread, that is fine.

Holy moly.

Yes, it is very clear NNChange, and very sad indeed, that your definition of constructive dialogue is different from mine.

Goodness. How arrogant. You are very sad that other people think differently to you. What a disappointing, and emotionally dissatisfying life you must lead.

It's still buzzing around Buxton

mrsham you've took the words out of my mouth. I've literally read this opened mouthed.
nn you can't have a different opinion. You just can't.
Best to let this die. Ignore any further responses

No, NNChange, I am not sad 'that other people think differently' from me.

I am sad that you think 'constructive dialogue' and terms like 'arrogant', and 'fetishist', derogatory remarks about how I model intellectual rigour to my children, and remarks like, 'Where better to secure a limitless supply of erotic material than a public forum targeting women and parents?' are compatible.

You are welcome to disagree with me but not to compare me to a fetishist or to suggest I am some sort of pervert.