Nursing in swimming pool - article - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 272 Old 11-15-2008, 08:42 PM
 
Stargate2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"It's the attitude of some lactivists that gives lactivists a bad name"

Darn tootin'.

I think this whole kerfuffle about the woman being asked to step out of the pool to breastfeed is kinda silly. Common sense and common courtesy apply to everyone whether you are lactating or not. I see nothing wrong with the pool owner telling the woman to not nurse in the pool. BTW, a viewing gallery is still public, it is a big window in front of the pool. The owner was not trying to hide the Bfing woman by asking her to nurse there. She just didn't want her nursing in the water, which makes perfect sense.


KristenMary, I am a big fan of your posts. You are very rational and reasonable, which are two characteristics rarely found surrounding the issue of lactivisim

:
Stargate2008 is offline  
#62 of 272 Old 11-15-2008, 08:47 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 41,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
This is starting to get personal rather than about lactivism. Let's stick to the topic, please. If a critique of Lactivism in general is necessary, it should be a new thread.
Quote:
Do not start a thread to discuss member behavior or statements of members made in other threads or to criticize another discussion on the boards. Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member. If you feel a member has posted or behaved inappropriately in a discussion, communicate directly with the member, moderator or administrator privately and refrain from potentially defaming discussion in a thread.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
#63 of 272 Old 11-15-2008, 10:14 PM
 
MommyJoia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
While I understand the "no food or drink in the pool rule", I honestly do not feel that it applies to breastfeeding. I enjoy breastfeeding in a pool, I enjoy swishing my LO in the water until she falls asleep on the breast. I would be highly embarrassed and offended if someone told me I couldn't breastfeed in a pool or pool area where I know there is a "no food or drink" rule. I also bring water for my LOs in places that do not allow "outside food or drink".

Telling me I can't breastfeed my kids is like telling me I can't hug them. I just can't fathom 'not' breastfeeding in a pool.

I live in FL. I pretty much went swimming 4 times a week for the past 5 months and breastfed in public and private pools all over, like I said in a previous post, including a Disney resort. If I couldn't have breastfed my LO in the pool, my DD#1 could not have gone down the slide. I had to be at the bottom of the slide with all the other parents to catch her, and I could not have done that without wearing DD#2 in a wrap and breastfeeding her, I just could not. I would have had to leave the entire pool area with two screaming kids so I can breastfeed the younger one... It would have been ridiculous. No one batted an eye at me and while I was as discreet as one can be in a bathing suit, it was pretty obvious what I was doing.

I'm honestly, flabbergasted that there are so many posts on here stating that the BF mom was wrong. I personally, have no intentions of stopping BFing in pools in the future.
MommyJoia is offline  
#64 of 272 Old 11-15-2008, 11:11 PM
 
PiesandAbrosmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leadville CO
Posts: 1,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes I want breastfeeding to be normalized, natural, every day part of life for everyone but some places need to have certain "rules" for the public sake. Perhaps the way the owner handle the situation was wrong, but getting all angry that we want "more" rights instead of same or rather equal rights makes us seem extreme. Why does everything have to be a fight? I just think this is not the right lactavism challange because she was not told she couldn't nurse at all or even in the building just outside the pool right? She just couldn't nurse "IN" the pool.

Mama of 4 all born at home : Mothering
PiesandAbrosmama is offline  
#65 of 272 Old 11-15-2008, 11:12 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Wow, there are some really interesting arguments here.

Personally I think the issue is just getting over-anallysed to death. Were the mom and child hurting anybody? No.

The ick factor is a matter of personal comfort levels. The health issues behind the food ban just don't really apply in so many ways, as other posters have pointed out. The no-food fairness issues just seem petty, life's just not fair.

The image of pool staff banning lactating women makes me giggle since my son lactates.
rachelsmama is offline  
#66 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 03:07 AM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
The no-food fairness issues just seem petty, life's just not fair.
If the tables were turned and bottlefeeding was allowed in the pool but breastfeeding was not would you still be saying the same thing?
TCMoulton is offline  
#67 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:14 AM
 
MommyofAngelBabies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
If the tables were turned and bottlefeeding was allowed in the pool but breastfeeding was not would you still be saying the same thing?
Exactly.
MommyofAngelBabies is offline  
#68 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:15 AM
 
MommyofAngelBabies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
Then what about the bottle feeding mother who argues that she is letting the child suckle for comfort? Should that child not be allowed to eat? Because both the bottle-fed and breastfed child are, in fact, eating, regardless of the emotional benefits. And what about breastmilk in bottles? I EP'd for the first four months of Jordan's life. It was breastmilk. Should that have been allowed, too?

In location A, it's okay to bottle-feed. So breastfeeding should be allowed, too.

That I can get behind.

In location B, it is not okay to bottle-feed. Breastfeeding should still be allowed.

Sorry, this I cannot get behind. And frankly, I think it's this mentality that gives lactivists a bad name.

I totally agree. Trying to get this "special" treatment, is creating a bad image of breastfeeding. It is a normal natural way to feed and comfort a baby. By demanding rights, above and beyond what other mothers would be allowed to do in the same situation, is part of the reason some people are having negative feelings about bf in public. Don't most bf mothers want breastfeeding normalized, and not raticalized?
MommyofAngelBabies is offline  
#69 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:52 AM
 
bmcneal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: in my own little world
Posts: 2,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the way the owner of the pool approached the situation was wrong.

I do not think the owner of the pool asking the mama to leave the pool to breastfeed was unreasonable. Like a bunch of people have already said, we are striving for breastfeeding to be normal. If we want it to be normalized and accepted, we cannot assume we can have "extra" or "special" rights that a bottle or formula feeding mama would not have. That completely negates the idea of normalcy.

sleeping.gifMama to DD dust.gif(12.2005), DS1 sleepytime.gif (01.2009), DS2 babyboy.gif (04.28.2013) with DH heartbeat.gif04.10.13!!heartbeat.gif namaste.gif

bmcneal is offline  
#70 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 05:28 AM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm quite baffled as to why bottle-feeding is being brought up in this thread at all. It is absolutely and completely irrelevant. If the law says "anytime, anywhere" then that means ANYTIME, ANYWHERE regardless of where bottle-feeding is allowed. Law trumps pool rules. This is a question of law, not fairness. This woman had a legal right to nurse in that pool and she was denied her right. Bottom line.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#71 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 08:01 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
If the tables were turned and bottlefeeding was allowed in the pool but breastfeeding was not would you still be saying the same thing?
If there was a situation where there was no really great argument against bottle feeding, but there was a good reason why breastfeeding wasn't appropriate I wouldn't complain about bottle feeding being allowed. I have no problem with situations where breastfeeding is allowed but giving dd crackers isn't due to crumbs, etc...

To be honest I personally don't have an issue with someone bottlefeeding in the pool either, but since it's logistically slightly different to whip out a boob or go get a bottle I doubt that the issue comes up as much.
rachelsmama is offline  
#72 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 10:56 AM
 
Joyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
I'm quite baffled as to why bottle-feeding is being brought up in this thread at all. It is absolutely and completely irrelevant. If the law says "anytime, anywhere" then that means ANYTIME, ANYWHERE regardless of where bottle-feeding is allowed. Law trumps pool rules. This is a question of law, not fairness. This woman had a legal right to nurse in that pool and she was denied her right. Bottom line.
It's law against law actually. The pool is by law expected to enforce the no food rule. Should the pool owner have to face a fine because someone complained that she wasn't enforcing this law? Would this mother or the groups supporting her be willing to pitch in for her legal fees had she decided to fight it based on the human rights code? Which law wins? I guess time will tell.

I guess I'm of the mind that food is food and it doesn't belong in the pool. Water however is legally allowed.

Don't trust anyone under 5! Mom to 3 boys under 5. Blogging to save my sanity.
Joyster is offline  
#73 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 12:15 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
If the tables were turned and bottlefeeding was allowed in the pool but breastfeeding was not would you still be saying the same thing?
Of course not. And you have proven my point.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#74 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 12:23 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargate2008 View Post
"It's the attitude of some lactivists that gives lactivists a bad name"

Darn tootin'.

I think this whole kerfuffle about the woman being asked to step out of the pool to breastfeed is kinda silly. Common sense and common courtesy apply to everyone whether you are lactating or not. I see nothing wrong with the pool owner telling the woman to not nurse in the pool. BTW, a viewing gallery is still public, it is a big window in front of the pool. The owner was not trying to hide the Bfing woman by asking her to nurse there. She just didn't want her nursing in the water, which makes perfect sense.


KristenMary, I am a big fan of your posts. You are very rational and reasonable, which are two characteristics rarely found surrounding the issue of lactivisim




Quote:
Originally Posted by PiesandAbrosmama View Post
Yes I want breastfeeding to be normalized, natural, every day part of life for everyone but some places need to have certain "rules" for the public sake. Perhaps the way the owner handle the situation was wrong, but getting all angry that we want "more" rights instead of same or rather equal rights makes us seem extreme. Why does everything have to be a fight? I just think this is not the right lactavism challange because she was not told she couldn't nurse at all or even in the building just outside the pool right? She just couldn't nurse "IN" the pool.
Exactly. Exactly ExACTly. I think this is one of those "pick your battles" situations, and I don't believe this was a battle worthy of picking. I do realize, though, that others may disagree.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#75 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 12:56 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
I'm quite baffled as to why bottle-feeding is being brought up in this thread at all. It is absolutely and completely irrelevant. If the law says "anytime, anywhere" then that means ANYTIME, ANYWHERE regardless of where bottle-feeding is allowed. Law trumps pool rules. This is a question of law, not fairness. This woman had a legal right to nurse in that pool and she was denied her right. Bottom line.
I have read the law and no where does it say these words. It says a nursing mother has the right to nurse her baby in public without discrimination. "Anytime, Anywhere" is part of a campaign. Not the specific law as far as I can find.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#76 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 02:53 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
I thought the point of the lactivism movement was to normalize breastfeeding and guarrantee that it is treated equally with other methods of feeding a baby. If bottle feeding is not allowed in the pool then not allowing breastfeeding would be giving the two equal rights. When people start demanding more rights than the bottle feeders I believe it hurts those trying to improve the image of breastfeeding in the eyes of the general public.

Bottom line is the main purpose of breastfeeding is to nourish your child - if food and drinks are not allowed within the walls of the pool then that rule would include both formula feeders and breastfeeders alike.
TCMoulton is offline  
#77 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 03:05 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joyster View Post
It's law against law actually. The pool is by law expected to enforce the no food rule. Should the pool owner have to face a fine because someone complained that she wasn't enforcing this law? Would this mother or the groups supporting her be willing to pitch in for her legal fees had she decided to fight it based on the human rights code? Which law wins? I guess time will tell.

I guess I'm of the mind that food is food and it doesn't belong in the pool. Water however is legally allowed.
A law is not the same as a supposed rule. Rule is not automatically law.

Can anyone find the actual Minister of Health text of the supposed "no food no drink" rule? I ask for two reasons. First, I find it strange that the owner of the pool first said no food, no drink in the pool or pool area, then said that the BFing mother could BF 6 feet from the pool. If there's a rule, is she changing it? If there really were a rule, could she change it?

Second, there is already precedence in Ontario where at least one mother has been awarded a monetary judgment for BFing in a pool and being asked to leave because of a no food, no drink rule. Apparently, standing behind the "no food no drink" rule offers no protection.

I am skeptical that this rule really exists. I could be way wrong. But I'm thinking this rule is along the lines of the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules that claim to be by order of the Health Department, when there are absolutely no health department rules against not wearing shirts or shoes.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#78 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 03:13 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
I thought the point of the lactivism movement was to normalize breastfeeding and guarrantee that it is treated equally with other methods of feeding a baby. If bottle feeding is not allowed in the pool then not allowing breastfeeding would be giving the two equal rights. When people start demanding more rights than the bottle feeders I believe it hurts those trying to improve the image of breastfeeding in the eyes of the general public.

Bottom line is the main purpose of breastfeeding is to nourish your child - if food and drinks are not allowed within the walls of the pool then that rule would include both formula feeders and breastfeeders alike.
I think that constantly comparing breastfeeding to formula feeding cheapens the image. We have rights as breastfeeding mothers that do not hinge on what formula feeders are allowed to do, or not allowed to do.

By constantly saying "If bottle-feeding isn't allowed then breastfeeding isn't allowed" only serves to push the idea that bottle-feeding in the norm, the standard, the big-sister-who-gets-a-later-curfew-when-I-have-to-go-to-bed-at-8 POUT!!

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#79 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 03:32 PM
 
Tofu the Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~pi View Post
Actually, that is not how it works here legally. As I understand it from several lawyer friends, breastfeeding is protected here in a way that bottle feeding is not. The term is apparently sui generis - breastfeeding is unique because of the biology involved. You cannot try to create a false equivalence and pretend that what goes for one goes for the other.

Under Ontario law, breastfeeding is a protected right. This is emphasized further at the local level (there are tons of local initiatives for breastfeeding, including free clinics staffed with IBCLCs, free access to nurses who will make home visits to help with breastfeeding, posters and ads, and a campaign that the city did with restaurants and cafes to display the breastfeeding symbol ) and at the federal level, where there is an official position on the issue: "Anytime, Anywhere." (Health Canada. Breastfeeding anytime anywhere, part of a breastfeeding social marketing strategy, breastfeeding resources. Ottawa: Health Canada Communications, K1A 0K9; 1993.)

At the policy level, breastfeeding is officially recognized here as an important health issue. It is not seen as just another way to feed a baby, and you do not have to allow bottles anywhere you allow breastfeeding.
Thank you for this post!

Tofie ~ mama to DD1, DD2 and Pookie v3 debuting December 2011
Oh my God....women are the COWS of PEOPLE!! --Reese, Malcolm in the Middle
Tofu the Geek is offline  
#80 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 03:51 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
By constantly saying "If bottle-feeding isn't allowed then breastfeeding isn't allowed" only serves to push the idea that bottle-feeding in the norm, the standard, the big-sister-who-gets-a-later-curfew-when-I-have-to-go-to-bed-at-8 POUT!!
So what about the moms that feed their children pumped breastmilk in a bottle - do they not deserve equal rights to feed their children in the pool?
TCMoulton is offline  
#81 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:04 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
So what about the moms that feed their children pumped breastmilk in a bottle - do they not deserve equal rights to feed their children in the pool?
I think it's irrelevant, to be honest. We're talking about a mother who has the legally-protected right to feed her child in the biologically normal manner. All other manners of feeding are not concerned with this specific situation.

Of all the human rights movements in history, none ever made the same argument that is being made in this thread. And we are too close to it to see how ridiculous it is. Did activists for womens suffrage march to take rights away from men? Did they say, if we can't vote, neither should men? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the argument made here. Women deserved the right to vote as humans. Therefore, whether or not alternative forms of feeding are permitted, a breastfeeding mother has the legal right to nurse wherever she is. Period. Because she is human, feeding her human child, in a manner that is biologically normal. Regardless of where and how other mothers feed their children.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#82 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:05 PM
 
Joyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
A law is not the same as a supposed rule. Rule is not automatically law.

Can anyone find the actual Minister of Health text of the supposed "no food no drink" rule? I ask for two reasons. First, I find it strange that the owner of the pool first said no food, no drink in the pool or pool area, then said that the BFing mother could BF 6 feet from the pool. If there's a rule, is she changing it? If there really were a rule, could she change it?

Second, there is already precedence in Ontario where at least one mother has been awarded a monetary judgment for BFing in a pool and being asked to leave because of a no food, no drink rule. Apparently, standing behind the "no food no drink" rule offers no protection.

I am skeptical that this rule really exists. I could be way wrong. But I'm thinking this rule is along the lines of the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules that claim to be by order of the Health Department, when there are absolutely no health department rules against not wearing shirts or shoes.
It's a law.

Ontario Health Protection/Promotion Act, RRO 1990, Reg # 565, Public Pools Section # 10, Paragraph # 5: "Every owner and very operator shall ensure that no food or beverage except water is supplied or consumed in the pool or on the deck".

Could you please provide a reference for the case you cited? I'm curious, it's strange that it wouldn't have been reported long by now with the media or local sites.

Don't trust anyone under 5! Mom to 3 boys under 5. Blogging to save my sanity.
Joyster is offline  
#83 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:12 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Info on the case is here:
http://canadianlactivist.wordpress.c...g-information/

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#84 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:13 PM
 
syd'smom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
I think it's irrelevant, to be honest. We're talking about a mother who has the legally-protected right to feed her child in the biologically normal manner. All other manners of feeding are not concerned with this specific situation.

Of all the human rights movements in history, none ever made the same argument that is being made in this thread. And we are too close to it to see how ridiculous it is. Did activists for womens suffrage march to take rights away from men? Did they say, if we can't vote, neither should men? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the argument made here. Women deserved the right to vote as humans. Therefore, whether or not alternative forms of feeding are permitted, a breastfeeding mother has the legal right to nurse wherever she is. Period. Because she is human, feeding her human child, in a manner that is biologically normal. Regardless of where and how other mothers feed their children.
:
Thank you for wording this so well (I was struggling to organize my thoughts.)

It reminds me of a quote on a poster that teachers often have. I can't remember the quote exactly, but basically that "Fair does not always mean the same" - and in Canada, bfing moms have the right to breastfeed anywhere they are allowed to be. Period.

Kelly , mama to 4yo and 1yo ,
syd'smom is offline  
#85 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:34 PM
 
Joyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
Thanks, it's reported in the paper as a mediated settlement and didn't make it clear it was a judgment. Still trying to find something unbiased one way or the other that makes it clear.

Coming back to say, Success, I am the Google Queen! *G* It was a settlement. A good one I'm sure, but I could be wrong with this, it doesn't necessarily set precedent, otherwise I'd think that the Ontario law have had to be amended or altered in some way shape or form.

Don't trust anyone under 5! Mom to 3 boys under 5. Blogging to save my sanity.
Joyster is offline  
#86 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:41 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think things of this matter may be different in the US and Canada. Here, a settlement is essentially settling out of court and the settlement is still legally binding.

Regardless, they never would have settled on the matter if the law protecting breastfeeding mothers didn't trump health codes/regulations regarding eating or drinking in the pool.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#87 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:49 PM
 
readytobedone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: not dissertating
Posts: 3,682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i still think it's kind of yuck to breastfeed in a public pool.

dissertating wife of Boo, mama of one "mookie" lovin' 2 year old girl! intactlact:: CTA until 7/10 FF 1501dc
readytobedone is offline  
#88 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 04:59 PM
 
Joyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
I think things of this matter may be different in the US and Canada. Here, a settlement is essentially settling out of court and the settlement is still legally binding.

Regardless, they never would have settled on the matter if the law protecting breastfeeding mothers didn't trump health codes/regulations regarding eating or drinking in the pool.
Ummm, I'm actually Canadian, born and raised, Toronto specifically. According to the OHRC site, a settlement under mediation is an agreement between the two parties, and if that agreement is violated, then it goes back back to the OHRC. It can indeed be legally binding, but the issue is precedent. I don't know either way, but haven't seen any evidence that it necessarily equates to precedent. Like for example, a bunch of nurses at Markham Stouffville won a mediated settlement to not participate in abortions. The hospital agreed and wrote some new policy, but that is not enforced across the province.

And lots of places do mediated settlements. I worked a lot with them back in my days before being a SAHM. When it's too costly or time consuming, or that they want to just be done with it. It can be for good PR, or they could not just feel strongly about it one way or another.

Don't trust anyone under 5! Mom to 3 boys under 5. Blogging to save my sanity.
Joyster is offline  
#89 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 06:17 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
An unsubstantiated case can't even make it to mediation. The fact that the woman was offered settlement proves that she was wronged by being asked not to BF in a pool. Just the fact that it reached settlement indicated this. Her rights were violated and she was compensated.

For instance, if I filled a complaint because someone leaned over my fence and breathed air that was on my property, I couldn't bring suit and allege that air was stolen. Because the law does not support that claim. Same here. The woman would not even have been permitted to bring suit if no law or rights had been violated. If the no food no drinks had actually been statutory law, rather than code or regulations, then she would not even have been able to file a complaint (or it would have been quickly dismissed if she managed to file it and find an attorney).

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#90 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 06:23 PM
 
Joyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well the pool regulations are under an Act, so I'm assuming it's law. I'm arguing on the point of precedent, you said that there was precedent set, there isn't, it was mediated settlement, which has not set precedent legally. It's a contract which can be legally enforced, but not law, code or regulation.

Don't trust anyone under 5! Mom to 3 boys under 5. Blogging to save my sanity.
Joyster is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off