some_stars | why must everything be ad absurdum?

Why? Are people trying to trespass in your yard while breastfeeding or something?

My yard is a completely breastfeeding-safe zone. For the record.

I had a friend who was an exchange student from - I think Switzerland, once, and they gave her this pamphlet that was all Helpful Hints For Living In Australia. One of them was "Women may breastfeed on the streets! Do not be alarmed!"

Okay, maybe without the exclamation marks. I giggled anyway.

/tangentially relevant

Ha! I actually think breastfeeding in public is awesome and should be completely allowed--I just don't like the idea that absolutely everywhere has to allow babies.

I think babies should be allowed anywhere ... but, to paraphrase Lizbee, I think it's fucking rude of women who bring them some places. (Is there a Vidcom shemozzle? This seems to be a hot topic.)

actually I'm pretty sure it's US law that a breastfeeding child cannot be banned from any place the mother has access to - including bars. It may be that bar owners are not aware of this and would (illegally) prevent you from entering anyway, but, there it is.

No, that's not accurate - see discussion here. There's no real U.S. law on these issues - it's a question of laws by state. The law under consideration here is just Illinois's law, and apparently the scope of that law ambiguous.

oh, my apologies! I obviously should've checked what I'd heard before repeating it.

Okay, you may well be able to bring your child to a bar, but I'm going to be on the side of the people complaining about it. Some places should be childfree--and I say this as someone who hates the "childfree" movement and all it stands for, and a firm supporter of breastfeeding everywhere that babies are allowed to be.

Dude, I'm breastfeeding and I'm cool with there being places babies aren't allowed to be.

Whether or not you & I agree on what those places should be is open to debate, but then, I don't agree with all my local friends who are subject to the exact same laws I am on that, either.

Where I am, any public or private place where mother and child are legally permitted, breastfeeding must also be permitted. There are places from which children are legally barred, and therefore even nursing babies cannot go there. These places include some, but not all, bars -- if the bar gets a certain amount of its revenue from food, it must ban smoking and allow children, but if it is under that amount it can allow smoking and ban children. Other places simply opt to discourage children, but do not/are not legally allowed to bar them. As long as these are places that do not qualify as "public accommodation", I do not much care, although it decreases the likelihood of me going to them. I suppose one of the open questions is that, with something like a con, is a "no babies" policy legally enforceable under local law, or is it merely a discouragement?

In the specific case of VVC, Illinois law appears to only cover the authorization of the *mother* to be there: http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/BreastfeedingLaws/tabid/14389/Default.aspx#i

which might mean that VVC cannot legally bar breastfeeding children, though I don't see any reason it could not discourage them/make rules about what to do if the child is disruptive.

(I am in PA, and as I mentioned, the law says both mother AND child must be authorized to be in the location, which means that cons in PA can probably have no-child policies that include breastfeeding infants. Anthrocon attendees are perhaps breathing a sigh of relief.)

I would be very surprised if the courts ruled other than the law did not apply, because the mother was not authorized to be in the space with a child, in the case of places that banned children. Nothing about the law suggests that it is creating a separate authorization to bring the child into a no-child space.

Mind you, if they let the mother and child in the door, and then suddenly remembered that oh, yeah, they are a no-child space when she tries to breastfeed, then they'd be screwed. But "I'm sorry, ma'am, children are not allowed in this bar" is the sound of the management not authorizing the person to be in their space.

(deleted comment)

Excuse me? Was there something I said that made you feel you needed to be rude to me?

I'm just boggled that it took one comment thread-- not even a long thread!-- to get from "are there accomodations for nursing mothers at the con, and if so what are they?" to "formula is evil and if you don't exclusively breastfeed your child you will regret it! ~~Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life~~." This affects con accessibility how again?

Seriously, we can't have one discussion that acknowledges the existence of infants without getting into drive-by parent-shaming...

Oh. Wait. Yeah, maybe not so boggled. Appalled, but not boggled.

Pish. Don't be silly.

Sorry, having a little bitterness, here. I stayed home the year my kid was born because my six-week-old was not ready to be away from me for a whole weekend, nor I from her, and I wasn't actually breastfeeding. The idea that it would have been okay to let a breastfeeding mother bring her baby but not allow me to bring mine...brings up a whole lot of issues for me that I thought were gone when I finally accepted that my body wasn't going to produce milk. Apparently not.

Yeah, that bugged me a whole lot.

(deleted comment)

The person who needs an aide to attend is a paid member of the con. The baby isn't. There is a difference between accommodating the needs of con members and the needs of con members' families.

Which isn't to say there's not an argument to be made for allowing infants* at the con. But it's not the same argument.

*And the question really has to be about all infants. As

cereta points out above, it's not fair to extend a privilege to women whose bodies are capable of producing milk, and deny it to those who can't.

Edited (spelling) 2010-07-05 16:46 (UTC)

Well said; these points shouldn't be compared, and it's a shame that they are being.

There is a difference between accommodating the needs of con members and the needs of con members' families.

Yeah, it's the equivalent of someone who is a sole caretaker of a nursing dependent spouse; if the spouse is a member, the con obviously has a duty to accommodate if at all possible. But they aren't responsible for arranging someone to cover for the caretaker, and they wouldn't be bound to allow the non-member spouse to accompany the member to con functions.

(deleted comment)

If you wanted an aide to be with you full time during the convention, I'd expect that you would buy them a membership, and in fact VVC's policy was so last I saw.

A disabled con member who is aided with access is not "extended a privilege" - using language like that for a disabled member would be HUGELY insulting

If nursing mothers are allowed to bring their children into the con, and non-nursing mothers aren't, then childrens' access is being treated as a privilege-- which it shouldn't be; we're in agreement on that much at least.

Forgive me if this is an ignorant question-- I've never been involved with the rearing of an infant-- but can you avoid the plugged ducts, etc., if you take along a pump and express your milk regularly that way? The existence-- or potential existence; as I said, I am ignorant about how this works-- of mechanical accomodations is relevant to this conversation.

Sorry-- read the post in a hurry and didn't see you'd already written about pumping. I'm sorry that didn't work out for you.

Edited 2010-07-06 02:20 (UTC)

Aide means someone who assists. Your baby is not an aide. You assist the baby, it doesn't assist you.

(deleted comment)

Not okay. Also, deleted.

I'm very sorry I hurt you, and I know this post was phrased pretty badly. But I was so offended that people were making this an issue of accessibility, because I don't think it is(and I was overly frustrated by the people being judgmental about mothers who don't breastfeed exclusively).

I am actually completely in favor of supporting breastfeeding in public, and I strongly dislike "childfree" people's efforts to make the world, well, child-free. I think children belong in public, most of the time. But not all the time, and not everywhere. I think the desire to have a purely adult space isn't a bad one. Also, there is a reasonable expectation that a baby will eventually stop needing its mother for food, while there isn't that a person will get over a disability.

I'm sure you're still angry, and I'm really sad about that--I am, but I don't know what else to say. I do wish I had phrased myself better without giving in to anger, so that I had hurt you less.

(deleted comment)

This comment brings up another really interesting question:

How do we protect everybody from the raving freakshows who are clearly going to be showing up at the con without warning-badges telling the rest of us to back away slowly and not make any sudden movements?

(deleted comment)

You might want to cut back on the ablist language.

Okay, freezing now. Seriously, go away.

Dude, you're such an incoherent troll I can't even tell who you're insulting here. Go away, regardless.

(Regarding the judgmental people, it was the discussion here that upset me. "Why should we penalize the people who are making the right choice for their babies?" "Oh, it's okay if a woman doesn't breastfeed, she'll realize later how wrong she was." Bad stuff.)

I definitely wasn't aware of the pain-for-the-mother issue, that does complicate things. But on the whole, I just don't think that people wanting to create and be in an adults-only social space is a bad thing. I think those spaces should be, not the norm, certainly, but respected. And I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to watch a vid "in absolute silence"--that's the whole point of the con!

Basically, I just don't think that having a baby is an issue of disability accessibility that always trumps other considerations(the way disabled access does), because there are some places that babies don't belong, whereas there's nowhere that a disabled adult doesn't belong. That isn't in any way a judgment on the mothers of those babies.

I wanted to reply quickly so you'd know I heard you, but I will definitely be thinking about what you've said; I value your opinion on this, as most things, very highly. I'm sorry for not modulating my initial post better to reflect more my actual opinion and have less hurtful language, and forgetting that you might be hurt by it.

so is the whole hotel childfree for the con then? Because I would probably just have my partner or a friend hang out at the hotel room with the baby, and nurse the baby in between vid shows, etc, if they're old enough to go an hour or so between feeds, like a ten month old. Idk, I've only ever gone to a really family friendly con where I brought babies with to panels. to be on panels even, so I don't know how an adults only con works.

And I don't get how a ten month old isn't going to be disruptive, compared to a (non colicky) newborn. Actually, my last baby was kinda colicky, so for several months I couldn't go anywhere where people needed relative peace and quiet.

You are arguing in favour of limiting women's freedom of movement. I thought you should be aware of that.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I am completely in favor of allowing breastfeeding in public, in any place that babies are allowed. I just don't think that every single place in the world needs to allow babies. Most of them, yes. I actually hate "childfree" people for trying to make the world, well, child-free. But not everywhere.

Um, what? I am still catching up on a lot of current discussion, so I don't want to get involved in the main debate here, but --

I actually hate "childfree" people for trying to make the world, well, child-free.

What is your definition of "child-free"? Because as far as I'm aware, it's a personal choice made by some women/couples for a multitude of different reasons -- psychological, health-related, just don't like kids or have any interest in making more, etc -- and any way you look at it, it is in no way deserving of hatred.

There's an especially... fervent... section of child-free that I think is being talked about here. It goes beyond being child free and into anger and hatred of anything child related.

Huh. I guess I understand that more, but ... maybe that could be made clearer or a different term could be used for it? I know plenty of "child-free" people who like other people's kids just fine. Some are teachers. And even if you hate kids, well... some folks hate dogs. As long as they aren't burning babies or kicking puppies, I have no beef with them.

It does get confusing, because the awful ban-children people call THEMSELVES "childfree" and I've developed a pavlovian association with the name of their comm. I will try to be more specific in the future!

Oh, I'm referring to a certain community that defines themselves as "childfree" and basically want the entire world to ban children forever, and toss around charming terms like "crotchfruit" and "moos". They're a whole comm on livejournal! I'm just so strongly opposed to the attitude that kids don't belong in public space--I mean I'm also, obviously strongly in favor of being able to set up kid-free spaces, but most of the world, you should be able to cope with seeing some kids running around. And these people go into FITS about having to hear a kid whine for thirty seconds.

Ah, gotcha. That's definitely a bit more extreme than my usual definition of "child-free". Myself, I'd fall into the camp of "tacky, but still a matter of personal taste," but I understand where you're coming from now. (Crotchfruit! How charming! Can I call my future hypothetical children that? From me it would be an expression of love!)

I don't think making accommodations for mothers with young dependent babies is the same as having children everywhere.

I also believe there is a difference between a baby - small, feeds, sleeps, poops - and a toddler - who might wander around, get bored, want stimulation and company -- and an older child (which I am not elaborating on because I expect people to have memories of being a child, or knowledge from books and other media, or even experience from other people).

I think it is okay to have the Con not welcome children, because it is a small Con and because children have needs that I can't see the Con meeting. I believe that a small baby attached to its mother, is a different *type* of thing. And a small baby at the point at which it can't be out of its mother's (or other primary carer's) care is possible to accommodate with thoughtfulness and consideration on the convention and the mother's side.

This does mean making accommodation, but, for instance, if there's step-free access to accommodate wheelchairs, it accommodates baby buggies as well. If there's space to sit comfortably there is space to breastfeed. When there are warnings about sudden change in volume and strobing lights, that is a useful thing for a migraine-sufferer to know, and also for a mother of a baby so she can choose whether her baby could stay calmly feeding or sleeping - or even looking at the shiny lights and listening to the music - or it would be better to keep the baby elsewhere. And there has to be the awareness on the mother's side that a fussing baby may well be too much distraction and should not be in the room or should be removed immediately. Some fussing babies can be easily and quickly silenced by breastfeeding.

And people can go to cons and see their friends and engage in fannishness even when they are mothers of new babies. Not all of them, not all the time. But sometimes it can be possible and they shouldn't be excluded offhand.

I think she's actually arguing that parenting comes with an entire host of responsibilities, rights, limitations, privileges, consequences, trade-offs, opportunities and opportunity-costs.

And one of those trade-offs is that you're attaching yourself to a kid full-time for a while, and there are some places that are not appropriate for children -- either because the environment itself would be disturbing for a baby or a child, or because the presence of a baby or a child would be disruptive to the core activity planned for the environment.

So very much this.

And while there's no need to be hyperbolic - I grew up as the child of a woman who felt motherhood shouldn't mean giving up anything. If she'd done it while she was single in high school, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it when she was a married mother? The consequences were not pretty. Now, I'm absolutely not saying "These women are like my mother", but I am saying that when you have to look after a kid, things should change. If you're not willing to accept that, why did you have a kid, bragging rights?

You are right. All the things you said are true.

I think there are also some things that are perceived to be too hard to accommodate when in practice they could be accommodated, and one of those is small babies and their mothers.

Keeping women locked up at home because there are places babies should not go, keeping mothers isolated from their friends because babies are always believed to be disruptive, that makes the world a less good place.

Each person is different: some babies will enjoy music and bright lights, some babies will need total quiet and no light-level changes. I hope that the babies' primary carer which is often by default their mother would be aware of this. Some babies do not mind loud noises and bright lights. Some babies are quiet and easily pacified, and a person who doesn't care about babies might not know they are there at all.

Each person is different, some parents will think of grizzling fussy babies as being disruptive, some will only think of crying and yelling as disruptive. There's room for clarifying things and extending consideration.

Each parent is different in that some have family to leave the baby with and some don't, some can afford childcare for a small baby and some can't, some can pump breastmilk and some - one in the comments here, even - can't, some can breastfeed and some can't. There are options open to some that are not open to others, or are bad options to others.

But the total rule being no, you have a baby, seeing friends and doing fannish things with friends is now closed off to you - I think that is wrong. I think it could be possible to accommodate a mother and a small baby.

(deleted comment)

Oh, sorry, I already deleted it. (WTF, people.) Also I don't think I do. I..don't actually know. But I will definitely freeze the threads for you.

why must everything be ad absurdum?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

/popping in via links.

no subject

no subject