kicked off the plane: was it the container or

102 comments

just more than 3 oz of liquid? g news search

Comments

Good grief!

Feeding babies is what breasts are for, fer cryin' out loud!

If being in the proximity of a mother nursing her baby makes someone feel awkward, that person is out of touch with reality and needs a serious attitude adjustment.

Breasts Make People Nervous

Well, they make adults nervous. When the glimpse of a nipple can spark a national debate and cause legislative changes, there is something seriously wrong.

As for me, I'm a fan of breasts, but bras could go...

Oh, the irony!

I can't find the articles now, but I posted the above with tit, err, this story in mind...

Quote:
In July, activists protested after Victoria's Secret stores in Massachusetts and Wisconsin kicked out women for breast-feeding.

Albuquerque Tribune

God forbid the granola eaters show consideration

This has nothing to do with the baby or feeding. Notice there was no problem with the baby being fed. This was some bitch deciding she has to shove her 'rights' down an entire plane full of people who would rather not see her tits in public. She could have covered up and shown a bit of respect for the rest of the plane.

Welcome to society. There's other people here, not just you. Show some consideration. She's no better than people who let their kids run wild or kick the shit out of the back of your airplane seat. Sure, you're well within your legal rights, but does that make you an idiot? (A: Yes, it does).

Nervous

I think the word you seek is horny, not nervous.

Oh Wheel, take a chill pill, and I mean that in the nicest way ;)

The only throat that tit was shoved down was the baby's, and the baby wasn't complaining. Not like she has any control over when the baby is hungry, when it's hungry you feed it, end of story. I swear if I ever see anyone, I don't give a shit who it is, try to stop a mother from feeding a baby, they should be prepared to dine on a mouth full of knuckles.

She did what she was born to do, it's biology.

Assholes that try to legislate biology to stop a mother from feeding her baby the way humans were born to and have been doing for millions of years are just assholes, big flaming puritanical assholes at that.

Besides, men walk around without shirts on and if you think her tits offend people just wait until I start flaunting my big hairy assed man boobs in public, let the puking begin, fuck 'em all.

This was some bitch

Quote:
This was some bitch deciding ...

THIS WAS A MOTHER DOING WHAT WAS BEST FOR HER CHILD!!!

(Yes, I'm yelling.)

Remember, the plane was three hours late taking off.

Quote:
an entire plane full of people who would rather not see her tits in public

Spare us the deceptive and inflammatory rhetoric. It would be physically impossible for the entire plane to see what was happening if they even cared.

On the other hand, people for several rows around would be disturbed by a crying child, and that can't be tuned out. I guarantee you that discreetly slipping up one's shirt to nurse would be a lot less disruptive for the entire plane than having to listen to a crying child.

Nursing should not be a big deal. In this case it became a big deal because of someone's irrational and uninformed reaction, NOT because there's anything wrong with the act of nursing.

>horny i'd say it's

>horny

i'd say it's milf-related, yes.

i'm not one who often sides with wheel's granola eaters but i'd say this issue will end with the tits winning.

Wow, Bill. I actually

Wow, Bill. I actually *agree* with you!

This is good, too:

Quote:
When the glimpse of a nipple can spark a national debate and cause legislative changes, there is something seriously wrong.

but this one...

Quote:
If being in the proximity of a mother nursing her baby makes someone feel awkward, that person is out of touch with reality and needs a serious attitude adjustment.

Well, that one is just sad sad sad cause those are exactly the people who have been running this country.

...

...

Religious

Quote:
a 75 year old very religious grandfather. Made him extremely uncomfortable

If he doesn't have respect for the way God created things then he's not so religious as you think.

ADDED: The above was in response to a comment by Wheel which he edited out.

FWIW

When did tits become "obscene"?

Just a couple of hundred years ago running around with your boobs exposed was a sign of virtue:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/087194.htm

Since when do people in a so-called democratic society shouting about equality and fairness think that exposing a womans chest is any different than exposing a mans?

Oh, just because they grew into tits?

Men have nipples too, and fat men can wear a B-cup or better, add a vagina and they have to be covered.

Idiots.

Some people just need to grow up and stop letting all the wacky religious nuts and puritanical values mess up people's heads.

Take a trip to Africa, tits all over the place, whoop dee doo, nobody cares and you get over the novelty of it in a few minutes.

Delta aren't too bright

Delta aren't too bright because this happened in Vermont, a very liberal state, full of granola eaters and tree huggers. :-D There's nothing to see if the baby is nursing. Besides, would you want to have a blanket thrown over your head inside a hot, stuff airplane that's sitting on the tarmac?

The real problem

The problem isn't so much that men don't want women breastfeeding in public but they don't want to be censured for accidental looking. It's just er, natural to look.

natural to look

Guilty as charged, depending on the woman.

I am stunned that a law had

I am stunned that a law had to be passed to allow women to breastfeed. That seems so...illogical.

Blame England

A scapegoat must be found and, appropriate at American Thanksgiving time, I'm blaming - wait for it - England, for dumping off all their damn Puritans on us. (Even the uber-tolerant Dutch were glad to finally be rid of the exiled English Puritans.)

That strain of Puritanism has been plaguing us for 400+ years - people see one boob and start having massive hissy fits.

Look ten out of ten infants recommend breast feeding so it's got to be good.

I'm not religious or puritanical but

I do think you're all having a knee jerk reaction and not being realistic.

I absolutely agree a womans right to breast feed but just like changing a nappy (another act both necessary and entirely natural) it needs to be done at a time and place appropriate to the physical needs of the baby and the disruption it could cause.

a) Discreetely on a plane is entirely acceptable but is it necessary to feed a 22 month old right at that moment?. Possibly it would have been more appropriate to wait until the flight had taken off and there weren't issues with moving passengers, seatbelts and takeoff? or perhaps a jar of babyfood would have been better at that point? The kid is two years old, its not going to suffer lasting damage from using an alternative time or type of feeding

b) Demanding a dressing room at Victorias Secret in order to breastfeed sounds a lot like me asking for one to have a picnic. There are surely more options than Victorias Secret dressing room or a 'boiling hot car' even in an emergency feed on demand situation? I suspect the assistant who was 'difficult' committed the terrible crime of explaining that the dressing room of a busy adult toys store is not as appropriate as a coffee shop, chair in a mother and baby store or under a tree in the park.

Most women who breastfeed in public do it so discretely and without fuss that no one even notices. Wapping your baps out in a picket line is not the way to explain how inoffensive and natural the process is and to be honest I don't have a lot of sympathy with women who make a production of it - there are inappropriate places and times to breastfeed and while mothers and babies have a right to nurse they don't automatically have a right to do it absolutely whenever and wherever they please.

I don't think I've ever got offended by the act of breastfeeding but I get easily offended by demanding, rude, people expecting the world to revolve around them and while its really nice that everyone here's gut reaction is to stand up for the mum and babys rights I'm not convinced that either of the two in those reports really deserve your sympathy if you read them carefully.

Oh

>>if you read them carefully.

You mean we're supposed to read the article before commenting? Sounds like work. :-)

nah

just blame the brits - we blame you lot for everything anyway ;)

"Discreetely on a plane is

"Discreetely on a plane is entirely acceptable but is it necessary to feed a 22 month old right at that moment?. Possibly it would have been more appropriate to wait until the flight had taken off and there weren't issues with moving passengers, seatbelts and takeoff?"

Lol!! Babies aren't considerate to adult work schedules!

Better the babe be fed then cry the place out, anyday. :)

Gurtie...

...as usual, Gurtie, you rock!

I couldn't agree more!

Clueless

Quote:
Possibly it would have been more appropriate to wait until the flight had taken off

That comment is uninformed. Nursing DURING takeoff prevents ear problems.

According to USAtoday, the plane was "about to take off" (hours late, remember) ... which again says to me that the mother was doing what was best for her child.

>>Babies aren't considerate

>>Babies aren't considerate to adult work schedules!

Brian, I've got a two year old. She'd be offended if you called her a baby.

Most two year old "toddlers" - they've been walking around for almost a year now - are on solids. Unlike newborns, they don't need to feed "on demand". They feed instead to adult defined schedules; all of mine always did.

I'm with Gurtie; the woman got her tits in a tizzy just to make a political point. Put it away, love!

Version I read said a woman

Version I read said a woman in seat, nursing a 1 year old, kicked off because she refused a blanket from one of the crew:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-21-breast-feeding-protests_x.htm

Are there different versions of the details kicking around?

Well if the kid was 22 months...

Well if the kid was 22 months, technically he/she would still be considered a 1 year old. But since 22 months is only 2 months away from being 2...well...the kid was nearly 2. And yes, a toddler, not a baby. (Assuming 22 months was the age.) Nothing wrong with breastfeeding a toddler if that's what you want to do, but there's not the same immediate need as breastfeeding an infant. I believe they simply asked her to cover up, not stop doing it all together, right?

On another note, it sounds like a bunch of the protesters were wearing Jennifer Laycock's amusing breastfeeding shirts that she sells from her lactivist site! :)

[added] The article did say this though:

Quote:
Gillette was in the second-to-last row, in a window seat, with her husband beside her, she said.

which sounds like she was pretty discrete.

Age

The only time I think a kid's too old to breastfeed is when they're old enough to talk and yell from the from yard "Hey bitch! I'm hungry! Give me a tit!"... sadly, true story.

Bitty......

Buckworks, lots of things during takeoff alleviate ear problems but personally I suck on a mint and so do most kids on planes.... my point there is that on takeoff you must wear a seatbelt, young kids must be in aircots or in lap belts, the aircrew are entitled to consideration too.

Those two women could be perfectly in the right and if I'd been there I might have easily supported them - but they might not and everyone's ranting away as if they must be blameless - lactating is natural not magical and it doesn't buy you a pass so you can do anything irrespective of how it effects other people. Less of the overly PC Knee-jerk is all I'm saying.

what's a granola?

what's a granola?

Nope

Giving a mint to a child that age would be irresponsible considering the choking hazard.

Quote:
doesn't buy you a pass so you can do anything irrespective of how it effects other people

But you think that a hypersensitive flight attendant has a pass to impose HER views irrespective of how it affects other people??

You think that the attendant's moment of awkwardness justified throwing the family off the plane???

Gimme a break.

no

I think that chances are about equal the attendant was uptight or that the woman with kid was uptight is all.

Clearly security also felt justified in throwing the family off the plane, something normally not done except as a last resort given the huge expense it puts the airline to
so I sincerely doubt that it was simply a case of a flight attendent straining to see a nipple in order that they could act outraged and evict a family.

Flight attendants can

Flight attendants can sometimes be really dumb.

But we belt up when they say, "Belt up".

She doesn't "impose her views". She can boss you around on the grounds of security/safety, read the small print.

Gimme a break, again

This situation had nothing to do with safety or security.

Children under the age of two can travel in a parent's lap and they are not belted in.

ok - lets disagree

>>and they are not belted in.

you fly different airlines than me (with horrible stewardesses) is all.....

It's her call

>>This situation had nothing to do with safety or security.
The T&Cs will make that entirely the attendant's call, not yours. And she is not obliged to share her reasoning with you either.

I don't like it any more than you do but increased airline security over the last few years has changed the game a fair bit. And I, for one, don't need a whiny mother of a toddler trying to make a political point when the plane is already late. Go do it in a place where you aren't going to waste bystanders' time, somewhere where nobody is busy trying to do a job. Like a park. Or a government office. :)

Delta said..

"Delta later announced the flight attendant was being disciplined."

So maybe she was in the wrong.... or are they just trying to calm the storm.

Seat Belts and toddlers

If you don't buy seat for the child you don't/can't belt them in. I'm pretty sure buying and individual seat is optional when they are under the age of two. Speaking from experience.

most airlines seem to have

most airlines seem to have lapbelts for toddlers and air cots for the little ones, at least thats what they say in the safety demo speil on the airlines I fly, although that is sidetracking a bit, 'cos removing the seatbelt point still doesn't effect my personal opinion that it could as easily be the mothers at fault as the 'bad guys' being evil, from the info available in the first two links.

Airline rules don't make sense to me..

I've often wondered why children under 4 aren't required to have their own seat with a carseat to properly secure them. How is a jet different than any other form of transportation?

I've also wondered why they don't weight people and charge according to weight. I heard a while back airlines are rasising prices because people are fatter. So I demand that those of us who do take care of ourselves and are not overweight pay less.

And why the hell do they serve peanuts?

The problem in a nutshell

Quote:
don't need a whiny mother of a toddler trying to make a political point when the plane is already late

If you think the simple act of nursing in a location where only a few other people would even be aware of it constitutes a political confrontation, that is YOUR problem.

This was not a public flashing for prurient purposes, it was a mother looking after her child, in an outside seat near the back of the plane, with the baby's father beside her.

The mother would have had no reason to whine (loaded word!!) until after the flight attendant's misguided and high-handed reaction.

Here's a page you might find interesting ... advice from a children's hospital for travelling with a baby or small child:

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_travelai_pep.htm

Note how they recommend nursing ...

She certainly knows how to milk PR

I read the first three words from from that link and then I stopped. It's about travelling with babies, not relevant to the discussion here. Further, even babies don't feed on demand; most are trained into a pattern within a few days of being born! And this was NOT a baby.

>> the simple act of nursing

Therein lies the problem. The focus is on "the baby" and "the nursing". "The nursing" was probably not even necessary at that exact point in time. Neither was the fuss she made about refusing to cover up. That's the confrontation. If your child was that important, and its feed was that important, and having breast milk was that important, and it was all important at that specific point in time .... then you'd have just taken what the attendant offered and used it to cover up and get on with the job.

Further, even babies don't

Further, even babies don't feed on demand; most are trained into a pattern within a few days of being born!

Lol!! If you're speaking from experience as a parent, you don't realise how lucky you were. :)

ROFLLLL

Aww Brian, you beat me to that one! Trained within days...that's priceless! ROFLLLLLLL

In my country...

... no-one EVER asks nursing mothers to "cover-up"

That also takes care of mothers wanting to make a "statement" like this one.

I stil think 80% of the problem lies with the community, 20% with the "let's see if I care" mother.

IMHO of course (since I'm not a nursing mother NOR the nursing mother police)

Exactly Yes :)

exactly Yes :)

Look at this as a simple matter of courtesy.

You are stuck in a place with a diverse crowd of strangers with whom you have to spend the next few hours. You have to do something. That thing is certainly not in itself offensive, but you know that some people do not feel comfortable seeing it.

So you start to do this thing and someone says that you are offending them but by taking a very simple action, which doesn't stop you doing it, you would remove the offense.

So what do you do? Tell them to sod off or drape a blanket over your shoulder?

If you're not prepared to do that small thing to make someone with a different upbringing to you more comfortable then imho you deserve to be removed from the plane.

(and Wit, I doubt they do in Sweden either - I'm not defending a society which raises uptight puritanical wierdos but given that most countries do have people who have been raised in different ways continuing to do something when someone has explained it makes them deeply uncomfortable and suggested a solution which doesn't inconvenience you is what you'd expect of a 14 year old, not from someone raising a kid themselves)

More inflammatory rhetoric

She wasn't in the midst of a crowd, she was in an outside seat near the back of the plane with her husband beside her. Again I say, lay off the deceitful and inflammatory rhetoric.

Quote:
If you're not prepared to do that small thing to make someone with a different upbringing to you more comfortable then imho you deserve to be removed from the plane.

Why not solve the problem by removing the uncomfortable uptight person from the plane instead????

After all, if they're not prepared to do the small thing of looking some other direction for a few minutes they don't deserve much consideration either.

switching gears

>continuing to do something when someone has explained it makes them deeply uncomfortable and suggested a solution which doesn't inconvenience you is what you'd expect of a 14 year old, not from someone raising a kid themselves

Let's try this what if I'm sittng in a plane eating a roast beef sandwich I bought in the airport between connecting flights. The person sitting across from me is a PETA activist and is disturbed by my actions and complains about being offended and suggests I wrap my meal up and eat it when plane lands so they don't have to see it what should I do ...

Straight Right Hand

Followed by a left hook. But my left eye starts twitching at the mere mention of PETA.

but they didn't ask the kid

but they didn't ask the kid to eat later did they? they asked for them to do it out of view. If someone was really genuinely offended or upset I imagine you would think they were a nutter but turn away and eat your sandwich looking out of the window wouldn't you? I mean whats the point of upsetting someone when you can so easily not do?

Buckworks I don't think an air stewardess is allowed to look in another direction for a few minutes when they have a job to do. I also suspect they can't leave the plane without getting the sack. I also don't see how on earth you can think that this discussion contains inflammatory rhetoric - have you never had a theoretical discussion down the pub?

Don't you see that by being as single mindedly defensive of any act of breastfeeding whatever the circumstances you're being as 'uncomfortably uptight' as someone who reacts badly to a flash of nipple?

Who Has More Rights

Why is my right to eat a sandwich in peace and quiet not disturbing anybody being infringed upon? Not my fault or my problem someone has an issue with me being a carnivore as long I'm not being disruptive doing it. If you made a big stink about it acting like a wacko I'd take an especially long time eating it savoring every bite that I lovingly chewed 173 times before I swallowed it. Then I'd go home and blog about it ...

But then if you didn't bother me at all I probably would have been finished in less time than you spent complaing about it in the first place.

I call it

I call it inflammatory when someone misrepresents the facts of the case in order to score points. That has happened more than once in this thread.

Quote:
by being as single mindedly defensive of any act of breastfeeding whatever the circumstances

That's another misrepresentation.

I'm not defending any act of breastfeeding whatever the circumstances. I'm definitely defending this act in the circumstances as reported, however.

In this case I say the flight attendant was astoundingly rude, acted irrationally and abused her authority.

Quote:
I don't think an air stewardess is allowed to look in another direction for a few minutes when they have a job to do

The flight attendant's job did not require her to stare at the nursing couple.

>>Trained within

>>Trained within days...that's priceless!

Hmm. My wife an I have had three kids in the last five years and every single one was trained within days. And that's despite the fact that one of them had severe colic and other problems. There's nothing extra clever about my kids; if you subscribe to the new age fad of feeding on demand militantly promoted by some midwives then maybe you should try something different with the next baby (Tips: Also ignore all that rubbish about not letting them sleep on their fronts, not sharing a bed with them etc.) Feeding a new born every two hours isn't easy - especially when the feeding takes ages and then they've got to burp - but they get used to "the pattern" in about 3 days.

However, we aren't talking a new born here. My (circa) two year old opens the refrigerator and gets her own food if you don't keep an eye on her. Next month I plan to let her operate the microwave (under supervision) when she "helps" me make scrambled eggs for breakfast - just like her brother used to do when he was that age.

I call it inflammatory when people keep referring to this two year old as a baby ;)

Flight attendant.

I think that especially flight attendants should have an open mind and a tolerant attitude. If the attendant was the only one complaining, then I feel this person was out of line. Now of course if this person were to hand over a little pillow or two and suggest the mother turn away from the crowd as to not disturb the kid. That would have been subtle. After all, people are allowed to puke their guts out on flights and others just look away. Flight attendants will not moan (at least not in public).

However, I wasn't there. It could well be that the mother was making a public, provoking, possibly "educational" display of it. The kid being almost two years old adds to that scenario. For all we know, the mother is a breast feeding activist, fighting for the breastfeeding rights of mothers and kids until the latter are well in their teens.

Unless someone posts a video of the incident on YouTube, I guess we'll never know :-)

That may be the problem, Wit

That may be the problem, Wit --- at least, from the article I read, there's precious little information about exactly what happened or who said and did what, and therefore it's difficult to gauge much beyond personal preferences.

Not public

Quote:
It could well be that the mother was making a public, provoking, possibly "educational" display

Repeat: the woman was sitting in an outside seat near the back of the plane, and the person beside her was her husband. Only a handful of others would have been aware what was happening, if they happened to look in the right direction. That's about as private a setting as one can get, given the context.

The real question to examine here is why the perfectly healthy, God-given act of nursing one's child should be such fodder for controversy.

Why should a mother have to fight for the right to do what is best for her child?

Maybe she was standing up...

...and yelling to her husband and to other people "...not to look at her TITS since she was just BREASTFEEDING her (2-year-old) BABY FCOL!..." (LOL)

I dunno. People do all kinds of silly stuff.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't give a toss. Most Dutch people aren't easily shocked.

>>Why should a mother have

>>Why should a mother have to fight for the right to do what is best for her child

A) It's not necessarily best for a walking, talking, thinking, tantrum age, two yr old toddler to have breast milk on demand. I actually cringe a bit at the thought (and I don't even do the breastfeeding myself).

B) The mother was fighting for the right to not cover up, not for the right to feed her child.

The "act" isn't fodder for anything. Her obstinacy - and resolve to inconvenience everyone else by delaying the plane even further - is more than annoying.

>> I wouldn't give a toss.
Probably. Neither would I. Neither would most people. That's why she had to make a noise to get attention.

That sounds like what was

That sounds like what was happening: B) The mother was fighting for the right to not cover up, not for the right to feed her child.

"Most Dutch people aren't

"Most Dutch people aren't easily shocked."

Except by burkas. That's another story, though. :)

Another misrepresentation

It was not "on demand" ... they had waited several hours and were settling in to nurse AT A TIME WHEN IT IS MEDICALLY RECOMMENDED ... when the plane is taking off. Remember the ears? Ear care would be a greater issue than nutrition at that juncture.

The mother claims that her shirt covered almost everything, and that very little skin was exposed. Knowing how nursing tops are generally designed, I believe that.

Yes, I'm curious: if someone demanded that you put a blanket over your head while you were eating, what would your response be?

do you really think that any

do you really think that any airline, anywhere, would remove a family from a plane at the point of takeoff, with the huge associated costs and customer dissatisfaction let alone the wait for the next take off slot, because one stewardess was offended by a small glimpse of boob?

There is no way that that is the full story. Planes take off every day with people who are being severely offensive to airline staff on them and no single stewardess has the power to demand someone is ejected, especially for a reason which everyone else on the plane and groundstaff would consider unreasonable. This is not a case of one uptight woman in a uniform behaving like a Hitler, this is a case of behaviour (probably only co-incidentally involving breastfeeding) deemed poor enough by a group of people that it was agreed that removal was the only option.

Blanket!? That sounds like a burka...

... and since I'm Dutch hehe :-#

(oh well)

Gurtie - you make it sound like we definitely need a video of the "occasion". Maybe a staged reconstruction on Discovery?

I agree that the story as it is cannot be complete.

>> AT A TIME WHEN IT IS

>> AT A TIME WHEN IT IS MEDICALLY RECOMMENDED

Wrong. On two grounds.

It's highly unlikely that the best medical advice for ear care is to have a drink just before take-off. It's even more unlikely that the advice insists that the drink be milk. I'd be shocked senseless if it went further and said that you need to be on a tit. But if it does please get me a copy for the next time I fly. Boy, do the stewardesses have a surprise in store! ;-)

What's wrong with sucking on a mint? The kid sucks on sweets outside of aircraft, right? As you yourself say the best time is before takeoff. During take-off you, Gurtie, I and my kids are all strapped in. And this toddler should be too. Period. I don't care if it's whining for milk, I don't care if its mother wants to make the morning papers. Just belt the fuck up and let other people get on with their lives!

>>if someone demanded that you put a blanket over your head while you were eating
Our two year old would yell blue murder. But then she has been eating solid foods for three quarters of her life and won't die if she misses her occasional milk (she doesn't even use a bottle - she drinks out of a beaker!). Our baby daughter would find it very comforting. Like other babies whose mothers do like to keep it discreet and know how to cover up.

Look, I'm completely with you in that a mother should be allowed to feed her baby pretty much anywhere. Discreetly. I 100% agree with that bit.

Yet another misrepresentation

Quote:
to have a drink just before take-off.

That's another misrepresentation.

If the child is to be nursing during takeoff you have to get started beforehand.

Quote:
What's wrong with sucking on a mint?

For a child that age, the choking hazard is what's wrong with it.

Quote:
a mother should be allowed to feed her baby pretty much anywhere. Discreetly.

Ahh, but it seems you don't think that one of the most out-of-sight corners available on the aircraft qualifies as sufficiently discreet.

If the child is nursing

If the child is nursing "during" takeoff the cabin staff aren't doing their jobs properly.

>>the choking hazard is what's wrong with it.
Do you have any kids? They're genetically programmed to gag earlier and not die from choking. Not that they never do but, seriously, it's easier for an adult to choke to death than a toddler.

So, any other reasons for not using a mint just like other kids of that same age (like mine)?

You keep on about the corner being discreet. Maybe it was TOO discreet and others couldn't admire her devotion to motherhood and to bitty so she had to make a demonstration to draw attention to herself.

Children Choking

If you've ever had to stick your own fingers down your niece's throat and extract a cracker that had become lodged and had blocked it so much that it was almost impossible for her to breathe, you might be a little less sure about what will get stuck and err on the side of caution in the future, despite what a search engine tells you ...

That's not common tho.

Sorry, but if you're THAT frightened about your children choking, you may starve 'em.

PS: if your BABY is small enough to sit in your lap and have a "baby seatbelt", it's not so hard to breastfeed it DURING take-off when it's most helpful.

Even my own 2-year-old toddler (at the time) who was NOT overly malleable BTW, could be persuaded to suck on something else, including a thumb, a sweet (or two), a piece of cloth or whatever.

A public display thing seems more and more plausible.....

Spare us the sarcasm

Quote:
others couldn't admire her devotion to motherhood

That is illogical. If her goal was to nurse for publicity points she'd have done it out in the waiting area or someplace considerably more out in the open.

The issue only became politicized after the flight attendant had the family kicked off the plane.

As for the cabin crew not doing their jobs if the child is nursing, once again the facts are being misrepresented. One could debate the wisdom of the policy, but it is accepted practice on many airlines for "infants" under the age of two to fly sitting on an adult's lap.

On Air Canada, for one example, on flights within North America an "infant" under two sitting on an adult's lap travels for free. For overseas flights, the charge is 10% of the adult fare.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/before/youngtravellers/infant-child.html

moving on....

>>If you've ever had to stick your own fingers down your niece's throat and extract a cracker

I'm sorry you had that experience. I'm glad she didn't die.

'night everyone :-)

Rigged search

A Google search that isn't rigged for failure will turn up plenty of stories about young children dying from choking. Way too many ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=toddler+dies+choking&btnG=Google+Search

Again I say, stick to facts.

what??

you should be allowed to breastfeed without covering yourself on planes because this google search shows small children choke on toys and popcorn?

Lets all agree that you're right Buckworks because I think I'm loosing the will to live, let alone carry on this discussion.....

Oh c'mon

O c'mon, Gurtie, that comment was in response to Yes's rigged search results "genetically programmed to gag earlier and not die from choking."

You'd let him away with a distortion like that????

TITS!

If they're such a threat, I can't wait until airport security starts making women show them during the security check process.

Heck, I may take up residence at the airport!

lies, damned lies and SERPs

>>You'd let him away with a distortion like that?
My contention was that toddlers (80K) are less likely to choke to death than men and women (3 million).

You've set out to prove that kids do occasionally die of choking. Well done. :)

Stats warning: Number of SERP is NOT a reliable indicator of whether it's safe to allow toddlers any candy / mints. Or whether to breastfeed them till they have their own kids. Or anything.

>> I may take up residence at the airport!
The queue is behind me. (Moan: Why don't those lactavists protest at Heathrow where I can actually go and watch the mass breastfeeding?!)

Neither is a great option

I wouldn't give an almost 2 year old a mint or any type of hard candy. Nor would I still be breast feeding them.

But that's just me...

get the little girl a beer

>>Nor would I still be breast feeding them
You're normal ;-)

Much has been said about "natural". In the natural course of events - and if human biology wasn't tampered with - a woman usually gets pregnant within a few months of giving birth. The second kid arrives by the time the first is 18 months old. With the arrival of the baby the milk changes to colostrum and older siblings - if not already weaned - will usually wean at this point as they don't like the change in taste.

Breastfeeding at 22 months? Some would argue that it's not natural. At any rate the brat should learn that sometimes she needs to use a bottle.

This discussion is going nowhere...

...so I think we should ask Matt C for advice.

PS: this works perfectly (but I dunno how there are called in English heh)

Soother

In Canada we call those soothers; I've also heard them called comforters.

A soother can sometimes be useful but it would not do the job needed during takeoff, because it would not ensure that the child swallows.

Yeah but it doesn't run out.

I know for a fact that it works.

Grown-ups could use them too, but if they do, I'd suggest they put a blanket over their head.

LOL, Wit

>>it would not ensure that the child swallows.

AFAIK, whether the child swallows is immaterial. It's the act of sucking that helps. A pacifier/ comforter/ dummy would do just as well as a breast, and with less disruption all around.

lowering the tone

I think its the swallowing equalises the pressure but sucking anything makes you swallow because sucking causes saliva build up - spit or swallow you have to do one...

>>ask Matt C for advice

Yeah - Google have experience in the breast area after all ;)

Wrong again

Quote:
AFAIK, whether the child swallows is immaterial

Wrong. Swallowing is vital to equalize the pressure in the ears.

Swallowing "foreign material" is immaterial indeed.

Saliva will do just fine.

Have you tried the soother, Buckworks?

No ...

Saliva will do just fine only if there's enough of it, and a soother will not ensure that.

Quote:
I am stunned that a law had to be passed to allow women to breastfeed. That seems so...illogical.

Grnidone made that comment many posts ago. The attitudes reflected in this thread should give some insight about that.

Ponder how deep the prejudice is against normal nursing even in a group as intelligent as this one.

Missing the point buckworks - it's not against breastfeeding

The woman was breastfeeding. Not relevant
She was being discreet. Not relevant
The 'baby' was a 'toddler'. Not relevant
It is natural to breastfeed. Not relevant
Breastfeeding during take off is good for the health. Not relevant
Women have the right to breastfeed. Not relevant

The woman refused to take a simple action when asked to, twice, by the stewardess. RELEVANT

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what she was doing, regardless of the rights and wrongs of what the stewardess was asking her to do - the simple fact is that it was a very simple instruction to comply with, it would not have caused her any problems and would have not stopped her feeding the toddler - at that time she decided to ignore the instruction and was rightly taken off the plane.

Just because you think you are right does not mean you can do what you like when on an aeroplane.

I agree. From what I

I agree. From what I understand, she wasn't told that she could not breastfeed. She was told that she had to cover up. She apparently refused to do that, and thus she escalated it into a situation that inconvenienced both the airline and her family.

Seems to me that the question is: was she taking a plane ride, or making a social statement?

To that woman on the plane:

If you're an activist looking for a cause don't bother with the Lactavists. It's not a campaign that's going to change the world. If you've got that much of energy and fire in you pick something that really will make a difference to peoples' lives. Shouting about "the right to breastfeed in public" is a bit silly because it's usually allowed in most places anyway. It's very, very, very rare that you'll find a place where it's barred (in the US and UK) without good cause.

We have a lot of recent baby and baby feeding experience. I am delighted to say that folk are generally extremely accomodating. We've never been stopped. Heck, people go out of their way to allow my wife privacy. They vacate seats, let you jump to the top of queues, pull screens out for you, even offer to make you a drink (nursing mothers need more fluids). I like to think that this is how most of the UK (and US) is.

>>Ponder how deep the prejudice is against normal nursing even in a group as intelligent as this one
I'm afraid you're seeing something that doesn't exist.

Okay. And what are the

Okay. And what are the screens for?

Ever used a unisex changing

Ever used a unisex changing room at the local swimming pool? ;-)

No. I just wondered whether

No. I just wondered whether the screens are for covering up. :)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.