Equal rights not special rights - Page 4

[kriket]

Originally Posted by mamajake

limitation on the presence of children is to satisfy the desires of adults and serves no public benefit.

totally.

and its great.
Plus are children really interested in going to "adult places" like sappy movies, fancy restaurants, loud bars. No. I am tho. The same way you don't do "adult things" at kid places. I don't know how many threads I've read about 'smoking at a playground' and everyone was appalled that you would do some thing like that around the children. There is a time and a place for everything.

But we have deviated quite a bit!

I don't think we all (as a society) have the same idea of what we consider equal/fair/special rights.

[Momily]

Originally Posted by mamajake

I think age restrictions need to be examined for their purpose. If an age restriction exists for safety reasons (which is the case in many bars), obviously it should not be lifted. Ditto strip clubs, "R" rated movies, construction sites. In restaurants, shopping malls, and most non-industrial workplaces, limitation on the presence of children is to satisfy the desires of adults and serves no public benefit.

Where do you live that they have age limited shopping malls?

As far as workplaces, kids in the workplace are incredibly distracting (trust me, I've taken my kid to work). If someone whose work benefits the public (as I believe mine does) then minimizing distractions definitely serves a public benefit.

Of course I work in an elementary school so we aren't exactly "child free" but that doesn't mean that I have a right to bring my infant or toddler into the classrooms on a regular basis.

[puddle]

Sometimes a breastfeeding mother will make a big deal out of something that I don't think is that important. Sometimes I think an individual gets carried away in the name of "lactivism." But maybe that's a really good thing for all of us.

If lactivism is extreme enough, maybe businesses will think twice about giving a nursing mother a hard time. Not because they are legally or even ethically required to accommodate, but because messing with nursing moms is too much of a hassle. If businesses are afraid of women standing up for themselves, then maybe eventually the ones who aren't comfortable making a scene won't have to because someone else already did the work for them. Maybe more women will be willing to try breastfeeding because it won't be as intimidating to nurse in public.

Another more subtle benefit may be that if some lactivists stretch the limits, it leaves more room in the middle. Some women don't want to be considered extreme. If other women are out there holding press conferences every time they aren't allowed to nurse a baby in a day spa, then those are the extremists. And if that's extreme, then maybe standing up for yourself when someone says you can't nurse in a public park isn't really extreme after all. If enough women are nursing 8 or 9 year olds, then maybe 4 or 5 isn't really that extreme after all.

I'm probably not ever going to push for a nurse-in if someone tells me I can't bring my baby in an adults only establishment. But I'm not going to complain if someone else does. In some ways, I think I'm benefiting from their actions at least tangentially.

So... go ahead, lactivists! Push the limits! Call yourself boob fascists! Call the media and carry your picket signs at the slightest offense! I may not always be joining you in body, but I'm with you in spirit. Normalizing breastfeeding may require some people to be, well, beyond normal.

[johnsmom]

Originally Posted by puddle

Sometimes a breastfeeding mother will make a big deal out of something that I don't think is that important. Sometimes I think an individual gets carried away in the name of "lactivism." But maybe that's a really good thing for all of us.

If lactivism is extreme enough, maybe businesses will think twice about giving a nursing mother a hard time. Not because they are legally or even ethically required to accommodate, but because messing with nursing moms is too much of a hassle. If businesses are afraid of women standing up for themselves, then maybe eventually the ones who aren't comfortable making a scene won't have to because someone else already did the work for them. Maybe more women will be willing to try breastfeeding because it won't be as intimidating to nurse in public.

Another more subtle benefit may be that if some lactivists stretch the limits, it leaves more room in the middle. Some women don't want to be considered extreme. If other women are out there holding press conferences every time they aren't allowed to nurse a baby in a day spa, then those are the extremists. And if that's extreme, then maybe standing up for yourself when someone says you can't nurse in a public park isn't really extreme after all. If enough women are nursing 8 or 9 year olds, then maybe 4 or 5 isn't really that extreme after all.

I'm probably not ever going to push for a nurse-in if someone tells me I can't bring my baby in an adults only establishment. But I'm not going to complain if someone else does. In some ways, I think I'm benefiting from their actions at least tangentially.

So... go ahead, lactivists! Push the limits! Call yourself boob fascists! Call the media and carry your picket signs at the slightest offense! I may not always be joining you in body, but I'm with you in spirit. Normalizing breastfeeding may require some people to be, well, beyond normal.

Well said!
Every important gain in terms of rights and freedoms was won by kicking up a fuss and making (what some considered) outrageous demands.
Let's loudly demand to feed our babies anytime/anywhere instead of politely asking permission.

[kriket]

Originally Posted by Momily

Where do you live that they have age limited shopping malls?

yes!

Its intended to cut down on the roving bands of teenagers who's parents just drop them off. You have to be with a parent if you are under 16 (there is a pass for 16 and unders that are parents themselves)

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by kriket

yes!

Its intended to cut down on the roving bands of teenagers who's parents just drop them off. You have to be with a parent if you are under 16 (there is a pass for 16 and unders that are parents themselves)

but you can bring your kids their.. they just don't want kids their by themselves.

[kriket]

yes, but thats what the Pp said, the rule is to satisfy adults. Its no fun to shop when 10 teens are throwing things off the 2nd level.

I was just responding that we too have a mall with a curfew. We have 3 good sized ones in the area and only one with a curfew. I thought it was weird the first time I saw it.

[1littlebit]

or maybe its because kids left alone at the mall are not always respectful or honest. You can say its not fair b/c adults are just as capable of being rowdy, rude, and dishonest ... and if thats your outlook thats your business. But the people who are loud, rude, breaking rules, and stealing are almost always teenagers who are at the mall by themselves. it is not for adults. it is for everyone in the mall.. most especially the store employees and security guards who end up having to deal with them.

and im sorry if teens are throwing things off the second level.. or throwing things at all they shouldn't be in the mall whether there is an age limit or not. thats the kind of crap that ticks me off. I'm 21 now and i guarantee you i would have said the same thing a few years ago.

[kriket]

1littlebit: oh, I agree! I was using language from the previous post. I'm trying to stay on topic but its so much fun to wonder!!

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by kriket

1littlebit: oh, I agree! I was using language from the previous post. I'm trying to stay on topic but its so much fun to wonder!!

lol. i see what your saying. ok now im curious... do people really think an age limit is unreasonable? its not like they aren't allowed there at all.. they just arent allowed there without an adult. I think thats fair.

[the_lissa]

Yes I think is ridiculously unreasonable. I was going places by myself since I was 11. I wouldn't shop at a place that had age limits lie that even though i am obviously over the age limit now.

[Momily]

Originally Posted by kriket

yes!

Its intended to cut down on the roving bands of teenagers who's parents just drop them off. You have to be with a parent if you are under 16 (there is a pass for 16 and unders that are parents themselves)

But we're talking about age limits that impact nursing. Children who are at the mall by themselves are unlikely to be nursing.

I would be very concerned if my 9 year old was at the mall drinking someone else's breastmilk -- call me picky, but I don't think that makes me less of a lactivist.

I also think that limitations on ages of unsupervised children are very different from limitations on children. My local pool says noone under 12 without an adult -- makes sense to me, and I'm pretty sure most restaurants would look askance at a 2 year old who walked in by themselves, even the ones with high chairs and kiddie menus.

[junipermuse]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

lol. i see what your saying. ok now im curious... do people really think an age limit is unreasonable? its not like they aren't allowed there at all.. they just arent allowed there without an adult. I think thats fair.

I feel that age limits are totally discriminatory. I hate that teenagers and children are the only group left that it's considered okay to discriminate against. If someone is behaving inappropriately you demand they leave and have a security guard escort them out of the mall. If they show up again you call the police and have them arrested for trespassing. It should be handled on a case by case basis. There are many honest and responsible teenagers who should be allowed to shop at the mall without parents despite what their irresonsible peers are doing. This sort of thing gets me really upset. I hated it when I was a teen and it just makes me sick with anger now that I'm 28.

When I was a teenager, my boyfriend and I were dropped off at the mall by our parents and we had a legitimate reason to be there. We both babysat, and saved our money to buy things (usually clothes), our local malls all had movie theaters so we'd go catch a show, and we loved to have dinner at the food court because it was cheap and we didn't have to agree on what to eat. In fact my mother refused to even take me shopping from the time I was about 13 because we couldn't agree on what clothes to buy (I didn't dress inappropriate, she just liked things that were more put together and I liked more casual stuff). Besides there are already relatively few places that teenagers can go, and few things they can do. I'm not saying that misbehavior should be tolerated, just that people should be judged by their behavior, not their age.

[sweetpeppers]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

I think I'm with thismama on this one. Ideally, we wouldn't see breastfeeding as special, because 95%+ of the population (everyone physically able) would be breastfeeding. But I also think it's a fallacy to say that the breastfeeding dyad is exactly the same as a formula feeding dyad. The breastfeeding dyad isn't necessarily "better" or "more attached", but it is different, physically and physiologically. And honestly, I've only argued against the "no children allowed, not even in-arms babies" rules on the basis of being child- family- and parent-unfriendly, not specifically to breastfeeding. But a breastfeeding dyad does have more physical need to be together than a formula feeding one; that's really not disputable biologically. So the rules should be changed because the default should be breastfeeding, and the formula or bottle-feeding minority gets to take advantage of it also, not because breastfeeding dyads should somehow get "special" treatment.

I don't think that babies should be able to go EVERYWHERE a woman could go, but I do think infants (up to around half a year; whenever they're comfortable being entirely in-arms) would be welcome in a lot more places in a truly breastfeeding- and child-friendly culture. And I don't think believing so makes me particularly "radical" or "entitled".

Yes. Yes, yes. and yes. This cultural is not friendly towards babies and mamas, nursed or bottlefed. Or towards children in general, and it's downright antagonistic towards teenagers.

[SwanMom]

Originally Posted by junipermuse

I feel that age limits are totally discriminatory. I hate that teenagers and children are the only group left that it's considered okay to discriminate against. If someone is behaving inappropriately you demand they leave and have a security guard escort them out of the mall. If they show up again you call the police and have them arrested for trespassing. It should be handled on a case by case basis. There are many honest and responsible teenagers who should be allowed to shop at the mall without parents despite what their irresonsible peers are doing. This sort of thing gets me really upset. I hated it when I was a teen and it just makes me sick with anger now that I'm 28. I'm not saying that misbehavior should be tolerated, just that people should be judged by their behavior, not their age.

I agree. I teach high school and am privileged to know many respectful teenagers who act more "grown up" than many adults I've known.