To expect an exception for bf baby?

[PatchItUp]

I have a 2 month old baby who is exclusively breastfed. Today I’ve got a hairdressers appointment for the first time in months and I’ve been really looking forward to it. I’m having cut and colour so may be a few hours. I’d expressed some milk and my DH is going to try giving him a bottle for the first time.

I mentioned when I arrived that this was the situation and that if he refused the bottle, my DH would bring the baby in to be fed then take him away again. I’ve done this in a different hairdressers with my older children before with no problem.

The receptionist said there was a no children policy and therefore I wouldn’t be able to bring him in. I was a bit shocked and reiterated that he is very young, exclusively bf and couldn’t be left hungry if he wouldn’t take the bottle. She said she would check with the hairdresser.

Hairdresser came and said much the same thing - no child policy, if we make an exception for you we have to make one for everyone and customers will complain. I said again that I understood a no child policy to prevent toddlers running around or making noise but this would be a small baby coming in for a feed and then out again. She said she would check with the manager.

Manager heard and said from across the room ‘there’s nowhere for you to go’. By this point all the customers are listening and I felt really conscious and upset about being argued with by three different members of staff. I was fairly sure that this was illegal refusal of services but not totally confident so I said ‘I don’t need to go anywhere, he’ll just be on my lap, have a feed then go again’. They all again said it’s company policy, they can’t make any exceptions. The manager said ‘what’s the percentage chance he’ll need to come in?’ And one of the women said ‘there’s a good chance he’ll just take the bottle so why not take the risk?’ I replied I couldn’t take the risk that he wouldn’t take it and would be left screaming and hungry and not allowed to come in.

Eventually the manager reluctantly agreed that he could be brought in if necessary but it was clear they were really unhappy about it and it’s soured the experience for me massively.

When I checked on my phone it seems they’re acting illegally in refusing services to a breastfeeding mother, although I guess they could argue it’s down to chemical hazards (although this wasn’t mentioned at any time as a reason).

So - was I being unreasonable? And would I be unreasonable to complain later on?

I know some people will say I should have just left but my hair is such a state!! And I’ve been really looking forward to having it cut and having a few hours to myself.

Perhaps consider a mobile hairdresser who comes to your house in future. YABU.

@PercyPiginaWig

There is a difference between not allowing you to breastfeed if they would allow bottle feeding on the premises, and having a no child policy.

If there is a no child policy, then YABU.

The time to ask was when you made the appointment as they then could have (for example) offered you a very early or late appointment if they were willing to be flexible with their policy.

A place that doesn't allow children at all is not discriminating. They may well have customers that go there for that very reason.

On a practical note feeding your baby would potentially increase the appointment length when timings are tight and impact on other customers. Even if you say carry on they may not wish to.

I am hugely pro breastfeeding but I think we need to separate out what is actually discrimination and what is not, in order to secure the rights for breastfeeding mums that are available in other countries with higher breastfeeding rates.
Anywhere that suggests a woman goes to the toilet to feed or is not allowed to breastfeed just because of the method of feeding her baby deserves to be vilified.
That doesn't sound like the case here.

This.

@BlindingLights101 this is mn its a forum doesn't mean i need to write to my mp and if you read all my posts i state that what if someone needs to feed every hr would that be fair on the rest of the staff ?
Expressing every 3/4 Hrs isn't the same thing

Like other posters, I find this whole debate depressing on a site for mothers where so many women on the thread are actually judging someone for a protection that is theirs by law. It's regressive and anti-women. The Equality Act is the same act that defines what is unlawful discrimination against people on the basis of sex, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation and other protected characteristics.

Are you all saying the Equality Act is wrong? You'd be saying the same thing to someone who wasn't allowed in a hairdressers because of being black, disabled, Muslim, gay? (And before you start, different kinds of exemptions apply to different protected characteristics.) Or is it just breast-feeding and maternity being included that you don't like? You're keen on anti-discrimination law as long as it follows your opinion?

Would be interesting to see the same posters if someone posted this same AIBU about disabled access (though there was already on this thread an "I'm disabled and I only go to places that provide services for me" post. Great for you, but not every disabled person feels the same).

It's the basic point that if something is protected by law then a business has to follow the law. No ifs or buts or "well people want their relaxation time and it's their policy!" Policies can't override the law. As a business or service provider you don't get to choose that you're complying with the EqA10 on the things you agree with but not the ones you don't, whether it's not letting gay people in or having a "Christians only" policy or whatever. If you don't want to comply with the law you don't run a business, end of.

It's depressing to see the way women on here are policing other women's legal rights and spouting nonsense about what is allowed, just because they want the law to agree with them when it doesn't.

@WhereYouLeftIt how close are your boobs to the top of your head?

@Twizbe at the moment many are giving plastic gowns which I would not put over a baby

@stackthecats but we are all also allowed different opinions and their is a choice for the op and also they did actually agree in the end

YABU and irritating

[quote worriedatthemoment]@BlindingLights101 this is mn its a forum doesn't mean i need to write to my mp and if you read all my posts i state that what if someone needs to feed every hr would that be fair on the rest of the staff ?
Expressing every 3/4 Hrs isn't the same thing [/quote]
Thankfully most women in the UK are able to take enough maternity leave that baby doesn't need to feed every hour by the time they return to work.

[quote worriedatthemoment]@Twizbe at the moment many are giving plastic gowns which I would not put over a baby [/quote]
Well then you supply your own cover. Funny how usually women are shammed if they dare feed their baby on public without a cover ...

YABU. Get a mobile hairdresser to come to you if your baby can’t be left.

YABU why don’t you get a hairdresser to come to your house? Solves your problem

This thread is depressing but it's also mad. The legal position has been explained, clearly, loads of times and still people are all "well that's their policy so suck it up"

And it's not really the point....but why would a hairdresser have to stop what they were doing for the duration of the feed? It's a 2 month old, not an 18mo wriggly toddler. You just carry on cutting the hair/painting on the colour/washing the hair while the baby feeds away (unless I was some kind of bfing ninja. But have people never breastfed while sitting still or lying down?!)

And while I'm at it...how is it ok to call someone "entitled" for wanting to do this (a short feed for a 2mo while having a hair cut) but not posters saying "I deserve a completely child free space exactly when I want it as I want it"? Not that I don't understand the desire for a child free space sometimes, but I hate the word "entitled", it seems to mean nothing on MN except "you are asking for something perfectly reasonable that pisses me off for my own reasons"

YANBU for wanting to feed your child at the hairdresser.
YABU for not checking their policy in advance.

[quote worriedatthemoment]@stackthecats but we are all also allowed different opinions and their is a choice for the op and also they did actually agree in the end
[/quote]
But the law is the law worried, in the same way that it applies to other protected characteristics under the Act. It's not an opinion. I take it the you think the Equality Act is completely wrong to protect breastfeeding women then? Is it only some of the protections you disagree with? Or all of them?

YANBU. I’d find a new hairdresser that is less computer says no.

so I shouldn’t have my hair cut for as long as I’m breastfeeding?

You get it cut in the window between feeds. If that means you can't go for a long colour session, so be it for the next few months. You can't expect life to carry on as it was? Go when you have a long enough window.

@SohoOrigami what if water splashed on baby whilst washing hair or some chemicals etc , accidents happen
I wouldn't drink a cup of coffer whilst holding a baby , I could but i wouldn't just incase
If I were a hairdresser I would not be comfortable doing someones hair who had a baby in arms , I mean hairdressers always ask you to sit still anyway

YANBU.

I don’t have children but this would not upset me at all.
People need to live and let live.

Exactly I don't think the hairdressers would allow a bottle feed baby at the appointment either. What about pubs and restaurants with no children policies. Does that mean a breast fed baby can go but they are allowed to ban bottle fed babies. Common sense needs to be applied. Or a theatre.

You'd be saying the same thing to someone who wasn't allowed in a hairdressers because of being black, disabled, Muslim, gay?

Eh?

[quote AppleAppleAppleApple]**@Babdoc* and @Talkwhilstyouwalk* I had a baby that went on feeding strike due to an incident and ended up in hospital. Don’t not assume that a baby will just ‘take a bottle of it can’t have access to breast’, babies aren’t that simple sadly.[/quote]
Ok, worst case scenario it won't take the bottle, how long is it realistically going to have to wait assuming OP feeds right before leaving for the hair appointment? My guess is not long, so putting it into perspective it would hardly be an emergency if the baby refused the bottle.

@SofiaMichelle

YAB as U as F

Well aren't you delightful...

OP, YANBU. As the previous posters who actually know and understand the law have explained.

My middle child was a bottle refuser and I breastfed her in all sorts of ‘child free’ places, including a pub and at work. None of those places attempted to discriminate against me, thank goodness. Sorry your hairdresser didn’t bother to consider the Equality Act when they came up with their child free policy.