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.

@AppleAppleAppleApple hardly ‘unpleasant’, never said not normal is a bad thing...maybe you should drop the aggressive tone

@Fuebombaa then perhaps, just perhaps, you shouldn't be on highly emotive threads about infant nutrition?

what you're talking about here relates to the public sector equality duty. That doesn't apply to a private business.

No, it's not.

The example I attach below explains indirect discrimination (based on Irish legislation but the principles are the same)

Example A gym asks for a permanent address when a person applies for membership. The gym may not mean to discriminate, but the effect of the rule is that it may be harder members of the Traveller community to join the gym than it is for other people to do so. In this case, the gym would have to show that this requirement pursues a legitimate aim, and is appropriate and necessary. If they cannot, the request will be discriminatory.

@PrincessBuggerPants the thread is about OPs issue with the hairdresser..

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.
NRFT but YABU - you kept the conversation going by trying to get them to change their policy so that's your fault.

Yes, dye might drip, even cream dye, that's why you wear a cloak and most hairdressers have dye stains on their clothes.

Get a mobile hairdresser. This is what I did whilst breastfeeding and still do as its handy!

@Fuebombaa I think you need to reflect on why you think that is what this is about.

@PrincessBuggerPants

Current NHS guidelines suggest not 'introducing a bottle' to breastfed babies (unless under supervision for top ups etc) until they are at least 6 weeks old, to avoid interfering with establishing milk supply and the breastfeeding relationship. Many lactation consultants/breastfeeding supporters will recommend avoiding anything such as a bottle or dummy that could cause 'nipple confusion' or interfere with establishing breast milk supply and breastfeeding relationship before 12 weeks.

The assumption that a breastfed baby will just take a bottle is obviously coming from people with incredibly little experience of the issue.

OP’s baby is two months old so under NHS guidance absolutely fine to be introduced to a bottle.

If it’s important to OP to be able to get her hair done that’s exactly why people are advising she introduce a bottle a few days before to make sure baby is okay with it, because not all babies take to it fine and if she can’t bf them at the salon then that’s a problem.

Many lactation consultants and bf advocates are unfortunately full of woo so NHS guidance is the only thing actually relevant here, and it isn’t because her baby is two months old.

@Huff1epuff

I'm really surprised by how many pp think yabu! Are breastfeeding mothers not allowed a haircut? Wtf!

Yes, what an odd thing to suggest. No one has said they can't have a haircut.

@ChameleonKola how dare you suggest people in our society who are dedicated to supporting mothers and babies to provide adequate infant nutrition are 'full of woo'.

You're a 'fed is best' type aren't you?

How many children have you breastfed, and for how long?

@PrincessBuggerPants

Yes, I'm sure they have the blanket rule of no children allowed to indirectly discriminate solely against breastfeeding mothers 🙄

Well if it isn't there for that reason, they can make an exception to avoid that can't they.

Why should they? Its a private business. They probably don't have insurance to cover children on their premises. They do not have to allow children of any age through their door, regardless of how they are fed.

In fairness Princess

You're a 'fed is best' type aren't you?

This is unfair - everyone is entitled to their view, and there's nothing wrong with the above view.

[quote PrincessBuggerPants]@ChameleonKola how dare you suggest people in our society who are dedicated to supporting mothers and babies to provide adequate infant nutrition are 'full of woo'.

You're a 'fed is best' type aren't you?

How many children have you breastfed, and for how long?[/quote]
Oh dear. This reply certainly tells me you’re not worth engaging with on any deeper level than to say have a nice evening :)

Find a hairdresser who allows it, go without your kid or book a mobile hairdresser.

Plenty of options that don't involve pissing off the customers who might've chosen this salon because it's child-free.

Seems like no one can hear the word no nowadays without exploding into a seething mass of righteous indignation.

Example A gym asks for a permanent address when a person applies for membership. The gym may not mean to discriminate, but the effect of the rule is that it may be harder members of the Traveller community to join the gym than it is for other people to do so. In this case, the gym would have to show that this requirement pursues a legitimate aim, and is appropriate and necessary. If they cannot, the request will be discriminatory

Race including ethnicity IS a protected characteristic within the 2010 equality act hence the gym cannot refuse them membership based on absence of a full time address.

That is completely different to this scenario.

The business is refusing children entry which they are legally allowed to do given that it is a private site they are not discriminating against breastfeeding mothers.

IF the salon was NOT adults only and they refused to allow breastfeeding then YES it would be discrimination because they would be specifically banning the act of breastfeeding rather than children in general. This is a very important distinction to understand.

By default you cannot discriminate against breastfeeding if children in general are not allowed on site to be breastfed in the first place.

You are 100% unreasonable. Dropping dye, blasting a hair dryer. You would I think expect everyone else to wait whilst you fed your baby, and potentially run late but clearly it’s all about you. Why not get a mobile hairdresser?

I think people are being mean to you. I understand you just wanted to have an appointment and go on like normal and for it to not mean that breastfeeding stops you from doing that. I do think though that you should have cleared this beforehand with the salon as it's quite awkward to do it when you turn up.

I'm 8 months and just recently had my hair done as I think it'll be a while before I can get it done again so I do understand that its difficult to manage a child and doing normal things like go to the hairdressers.

YANBU!

Surely for now, a mobile hairdresser is a better option?

@CHISistoast

Surely for now, a mobile hairdresser is a better option?

You are the very first person on this thread to suggest this. 🙄

(In a thread spanning 850 posts, it's usually good to RTFT as much as possible).

You're a 'fed is best' type aren't you?

Well, what a lovely thing to say.

YABU

@PrincessBuggerPants

These threads always going the same way.

Bitter women with internalised misogyny who can't acknowledge the sad truth they didn't get adequate support to breastfeed, or just didn't really want to in the first place, having to kick breastfeeding mothers of newborns while they are down in a pathetic attempt to validate their flawed opinions and lack of knowledge years later.

Get over it. It is foul.

I think there's definitely one better person here. Stop projecting.

@JellyBabiesFan

Example A gym asks for a permanent address when a person applies for membership. The gym may not mean to discriminate, but the effect of the rule is that it may be harder members of the Traveller community to join the gym than it is for other people to do so. In this case, the gym would have to show that this requirement pursues a legitimate aim, and is appropriate and necessary. If they cannot, the request will be discriminatory

Race including ethnicity IS a protected characteristic within the 2010 equality act hence the gym cannot refuse them membership based on absence of a full time address.

That is completely different to this scenario.

The business is refusing children entry which they are legally allowed to do given that it is a private site they are not discriminating against breastfeeding mothers.

IF the salon was NOT adults only and they refused to allow breastfeeding then YES it would be discrimination because they would be specifically banning the act of breastfeeding rather than children in general. This is a very important distinction to understand.

By default you cannot discriminate against breastfeeding if children in general are not allowed on site to be breastfed in the first place.

In fairness Jelly that does make sense, at least intellectually. I still instinctively feel it is unfair, but recognise this isn't exactly a cast-iron argument 😊

I recognise there are people with better knowledge than me on this thread.

Overall, I still firmly support OP, she was NBU & her post listing some of the truly horrible comments made towards her should be required reading for a lot of people who posted here.