Pregnant Woman Told To Leave Pub

[stinkymonkey]

the nanny state continues

I can understand where the landlord is coming from, though I don't agree with what she did.

(belatedly) waving an enthusiastic hand to join BoffinMum's campaign.

You know, there has recently been a thread from a woman in absolute anguish that she might have caused her DD to have FAS. Now from what she posted, not only was her alcohol consumption not that enormous, but the 'problems' her DD has do not even really sound like anything wildly out of the ordinary, not even really a mild learning difficulty (a bit slower to read/do maths than some classmates and a tendency to be dreamy and vague).
The really dangerous factor in all this self-righteous squealing about how PG women should be labelled, restricted and controlled is that it's quite substantially about a state get-out clause: blame any health or development problems on those bitches who won't knuckle down and know their place and you don't have to bother about little matters like the appallingly underfunded maternity health provision, or the general bad health associated with poverty (you can't afford much fresh food because you have reduced access to it if you don't have a car, as most of the food shops in poor areas have a very limited array of fresh food, you might be living in substandard housing etc).

They can recommend all they like, SM. THe Fact remains that, while a fair few women decide with their partners that they are going to TTC and therefore give up alcohol, fags, soft cheese and pate, and start taking folic acid and having very careful scheduled sex at optimum conception time, plenty more get PG unexpectedly during a magnificent drinking binge and carry on drinking, smoking, gobbling pints of whelks and leaping into moshpits and still have healthy babies. And don't forget that some people do everything by the book from three months before conception until the actual moment of birth and still have babies who have problems.
'Foetal rights' is a dreadful misogynist concept, because it's all about controlling women, policing their behaviour and blaming them for everything.

Well I hope she sues and wins.

The comments on the argus site are worryingly stupid.

Well said, SGB.

Sues and wins?

Sues for what?

She was legally refused service. She then sat drinking from a friends pint (mature, and classy )

As this is against the law (drinking alcohol in a premises where you have been refused service), she was asked to leave.

If any lawyer in the country thought she had a case, I would be deeply concerned for our justice system.

Morally right or wrong, she broke the law.

jesus wept some of you see male hegemony and misogyny every where!talk about put upon conspiracy theorists

ScottishMummy: Well, that's because male privilege IS everywhere. When women routinely earn the same as men (rather than about 65% and falling of male wages), when we are not seeing two women a week killed by partners and when the default position for anything about human beings is about human beings not men with women as an afterthought, then we will be less inclined to complain about male privilege.

It's very interesting the different tone on recommending things isn't it?

They recommend that you don't drink alcohol and if you do you are treated as a pariah, they recommend that you breastfeed but if you do, the discomfort you cause to a vast percentage of the population, including medical professionals, is much greater than if you drink a glass of wine while pregnant. Particularly if you keep doing it after about 6 months.

Funny that, recommendations.

(I am not calling on not breastfeeding to be treated with the same control-freakery as not drinking alcohol btw., just pointing out how disgraceful and horrific it would be if women were treated the same for not breastfeeding as they are for drinking alcohol while pregnant. This is all about controlling women, nothing to do with the welfare of foetuses or babies.)

DSM - for sex discrimination.

It is not lawful to refuse to sue someone on grounds of race or sex discrimination.

Sorry to serve someone, obv

Excellent posts as usual, SGB.

yeah knock yourself out with some all are gits stats.must make life easy that you have one universal view,one size fits all.so you see everything the same ole way

some men are also great sons,and husbands, partners and brothres.

do those of you with son's attribute all those characteristics to your own child

Myra Hindley, Rose West, Karen Mathews all vile women,just because they are female does not make them representative of me. just a not all men are wife eating animals or bullies

i do think this is really a complex issue,about health beliefs and cognitive dissonance.knowing alcohol is potentially risky but choosing to drink

But getting indignant about your perceived impingement of rights/liberty to chose

talk about not seeing the wood for the trees for the leaves

I salute you, SGB. Women like you make this country a better place to be, for all of us.

Sticking my neck out here - but the thing about the woman being in anguish about whether her drinking caused her daughter's problems (and I don't know the story here, she could well not have known she was pregnant).

But, well, that was one of the main reasons I didn't touch a drop in pregnancy - I didn't ever want to look at my daughter and wonder if I may have damaged her through drinking (however slim the chances may be).

Yes LittleBella, and while not serving someone because they are a woman would constitute sex discrimination, not serving someone because they are pregnant isn't.

Its a right that licensees have.

Whether or not one agrees with it is besides the point. It is their legal right.

Well, good for you, chequers.

People often enough fall pregnant accidentally and engage in drinking or even drug use before they know they are pregnant.

My teenage SIL did. She was on the Pill, even, but she was also doing a number of drugs and fell pregnant. Her baby, now 13, is all right.

But I guess if such womens' kids wind up with an impairment they deserve the guilt they live with?

That's true DSM.

A good friend of mine took over a rough old pub, funnily enough in it was in Brighton too.

He put the prices up to keep out the old clientels but if they tried to come in he would just refuse to serve them. It was his perrogative - he didn't want to be welcoming to a certain 'type'. Maybe the landlady in this story felt the same way.

Thank you expat.

I think you'll find I did mention that the woman may n ot have known she was pregnant, but thank you for your warm praise, that's very kind of you.

I'm waving, Boffinmum.

And agree with Bella, this has nothing to do with welfare of foetus and everything to do with controlling women.

again - the licensee was discriminating against her because the only reason she refused to serve her was because she was pregnant. In the absence of a law against serving alcohol to pregnant women, this was discrimination.

The fact that she was happy to serve her the first pint proves that the only reason that she didn't serve her again was because of the pregnancy.

Ergo... discrimination.

Doing something to someone because they are pregnant, is indirect discrimination DSM.

"But getting indignant about your perceived "impingement of rights/liberty to chose

talk about not seeing the wood for the trees for the leaves"

Do you feel the same about formula feeding, SM?

Because formula feeding is much riskier than breastfeeding. Nevertheless, I'd go to the barricades for women's right to choose it for whatever reason they want, without some ignorant tosser throwing them out of an establishment because they think it's the wrong decision (and aren't very good at risk assessment).

LOL Heartily quite a digression,throw in summat about BF-Why?hey dont forget the SAHM and working Mums if you really want to trot out some hackneyed ole clichés

We may as well make all vaccinations compulsory for children. Apparently women cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions on behalf of their children. It would be much safer if we put the state in charge of all these kind of decisions.

But it's not a digression SM.

It's about the control of women.

That's what it's always about.

You haven't answered my question.