it drives me nuts...
 

each year, our church has either a women's retreat where they go away
for two nights and have a speaker, or a conference where they have a
speaker for Friday evening and multiple sessions on Saturday but at the
church so no one has to stay away from home.

Each year the only restriction placed on attendance is no nursing babies.

Now for the retreat, that would be unrealistic anyway, though they also
add in that you may not stay offsite, thus making it impossible for a
nursing mum, the retreat location is an hour away from the church, so
attending for the day and staying at home is possible and positively
encouraged when the mens retreat is at the same location.

We are blessed with a big church building with extensive facilities, a
father could quite happily entertain a baby somewhere in the building,
the mum could set her cell phone on silent and no one would even know.
But if baby is quiet, why should she have to go away, if dad brought
baby at lunch time why shouldn't she nurse her baby at the lunch table?
If the baby is very young and does just sleep and eat and mum is in tune
with them, why on earth can't she have them in a sling and sit at the back?

I'm convinced someone thinks that if they allow nursing babies it will
actually mean toddlers running around over the whole church distracting
everyone. They don't even follow up the no nursing babies rule with a
polite, we can provide somewhere for you to express and store your milk,
it's a big church, not everyone will ask, you can't assume these things.

I think what annoys me most is that given the size of the church, I
think this kind of statement appearing once a year will influence
someone, I really think there will be one baby out there where this date
on the mum's schedule will influence how long they breastfeed for.
Some women will not go, some will go and express milk, others will go
and baby will get formula not ebm, but somewhere in the pile, there will
probably be someone for whom this was a factor in introducing bottles
last month and them no longer breastfeeding.

I hate the fact that if I even mention this to anyone I'll be labelled
as a lactivist. The view of the church probably assumes that this is
just a rule which will determine whether someone attends, or how they
manage things on that day. Not something that given the size of the
church probably will mean one child get's less breastmilk than it might
otherwise have done, possibly several months less.

Anne

it drives me nuts...
 

In article ,
Anne Rogers wrote:

each year, our church has either a women's retreat where they go away
for two nights and have a speaker, or a conference where they have a
speaker for Friday evening and multiple sessions on Saturday but at the
church so no one has to stay away from home.

Each year the only restriction placed on attendance is no nursing babies.

Oooh, I would be hopping mad if it were my church! And I would be asking what
their problem was.

Why would a bottle-fed baby/toddler be less annoying than a BF one? If they
said "no facilities for babies", that would be different, but it looks like
they are getting at the BF babies only.

The women's conventions I have attended have always had facilities for
mothers, BFing or otherwise: a separate room with CCTV, change tables, toys
and so on. Babies are not allowed in the main auditorium, and there are no
facilities for older children.

The larger convention I go to at Easter has a children's program that covers
children of all ages. The creche has an area where BFing mothers can sit and
listen to the talks while they feed their babies. (If anyone is interested,
these are run by the Katoomba Christian Convention, http://www.kcc.org.au/ --
originally modelled on the Keswick Conventions.)

Frankly, I'm appalled by your church's attitude. Looking after mothers with
babies, whatever the feeding method, is not rocket science!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

it drives me nuts...
 

In article ,
Anne Rogers wrote:


each year, our church has either a women's retreat where they go away
for two nights and have a speaker, or a conference where they have a
speaker for Friday evening and multiple sessions on Saturday but at the
church so no one has to stay away from home.

Each year the only restriction placed on attendance is no nursing babies.

Tell them that Jesus was breastfed.

-- Anita --

it drives me nuts...
 

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
Anne Rogers wrote:

each year, our church has either a women's retreat where they go away
for two nights and have a speaker, or a conference where they have a
speaker for Friday evening and multiple sessions on Saturday but at the
church so no one has to stay away from home.

Each year the only restriction placed on attendance is no nursing babies.

Oooh, I would be hopping mad if it were my church! And I would be asking what
their problem was.

Why would a bottle-fed baby/toddler be less annoying than a BF one? If they
said "no facilities for babies", that would be different, but it looks like
they are getting at the BF babies only.

I guess it's supposed to be obvious there is no childcare and the
comment is directed at nursing women who might think a no children rule
doesn't apply to them.

The women's conventions I have attended have always had facilities for
mothers, BFing or otherwise: a separate room with CCTV, change tables, toys
and so on. Babies are not allowed in the main auditorium, and there are no
facilities for older children.

I've experienced similar, though mostly there hasn't been a restriction
on babies being in the main auditorium, but probably also not a specific
area set up to be helpful.

If the church wanted to do it this way though, they already have a cry
room set up, with one way glass and intercom.

The larger convention I go to at Easter has a children's program that covers
children of all ages. The creche has an area where BFing mothers can sit and
listen to the talks while they feed their babies. (If anyone is interested,
these are run by the Katoomba Christian Convention, http://www.kcc.org.au/ --
originally modelled on the Keswick Conventions.)

Frankly, I'm appalled by your church's attitude. Looking after mothers with
babies, whatever the feeding method, is not rocket science!

Me too! I mostly think that what they do for children/babies is ok, but
we only moved here when DD was 15 months old, so I've not really dealt
with having a nursing baby in this setting. But subtle things can make a
big difference, just by the way things are set up. In our old church, if
a baby needed feeding during bible study and they weren't with you
already, someone would bring them to you in the bible study. Numbers and
distances mean we have pagers at this church and I've never seen a mum
come back in the room with a baby after fetching them to nurse them.
Some young babies do stay with their mothers in the study, but they
leave when they have to nurse them! Which is actually more disturbing
than if they just nursed them if we were going to quibble about it being
a disturbance issue.

Anne

it drives me nuts...
 

On Nov 11, 12:49?am, Anne Rogers wrote:
each year, our church has either a women's retreat where they go away
for two nights and have a speaker, or a conference where they have a
speaker for Friday evening and multiple sessions on Saturday but at the
church so no one has to stay away from home.

Each year the only restriction placed on attendance is no nursing babies.

Now for the retreat, that would be unrealistic anyway, though they also
add in that you may not stay offsite, thus making it impossible for a
nursing mum, the retreat location is an hour away from the church, so
attending for the day and staying at home is possible and positively
encouraged when the mens retreat is at the same location.

We are blessed with a big church building with extensive facilities, a
father could quite happily entertain a baby somewhere in the building,
the mum could set her cell phone on silent and no one would even know.
But if baby is quiet, why should she have to go away, if dad brought
baby at lunch time why shouldn't she nurse her baby at the lunch table?
If the baby is very young and does just sleep and eat and mum is in tune
with them, why on earth can't she have them in a sling and sit at the back?

I'm convinced someone thinks that if they allow nursing babies it will
actually mean toddlers running around over the whole church distracting
everyone. They don't even follow up the no nursing babies rule with a
polite, we can provide somewhere for you to express and store your milk,
it's a big church, not everyone will ask, you can't assume these things.

I think what annoys me most is that given the size of the church, I
think this kind of statement appearing once a year will influence
someone, I really think there will be one baby out there where this date
on the mum's schedule will influence how long they breastfeed for.
Some women will not go, some will go and express milk, others will go
and baby will get formula not ebm, but somewhere in the pile, there will
probably be someone for whom this was a factor in introducing bottles
last month and them no longer breastfeeding.

I hate the fact that if I even mention this to anyone I'll be labelled
as a lactivist. The view of the church probably assumes that this is
just a rule which will determine whether someone attends, or how they
manage things on that day. Not something that given the size of the
church probably will mean one child get's less breastmilk than it might
otherwise have done, possibly several months less.

Anne

Is it no "nursing" babies or no "babies" at all? If bottle fed babies
were allowed, I'd be up in arms, but I can see it not really being a
"retreat" in the full sense of the word with babies present.

it drives me nuts...
 

Is it no "nursing" babies or no "babies" at all? If bottle fed babies
were allowed, I'd be up in arms, but I can see it not really being a
"retreat" in the full sense of the word with babies present.

Very specifically "no nursing babies".

It's interesting that the women's retreat, also says that you are not
allowed to just go for the day and that you have to stay onsite. The
men's retreat at the same location had specific packages recognising
that some of the older men wouldn't want to stay overnight and they even
organised a coach to take them there for the day. Some other guys who
couldn't make the whole weekend arranged a car pool so they could spend
Saturday evening there.

Making it such that you have to stay onsite, suddenly turns difficult
but possible for a nursing mum into impossible.

There are numerous other reasons why that set up excludes people, I lost
track of how many people said to me last year how glad they were it was
a conference at church, not a retreat, so that they were able to go.

Thinking back to the nursing babies in a conference type setting, a
nursing baby is no more of a disturbance than someone with a weak
bladder who needs to go to the toilet frequently getting up to go out,
or someone with chronic pain issues who needs to keep moving around, or
someone with a stubborn cough. If it was said you could only attend such
an event if you would sit still in your seat and only go to the bathroom
or to get a drink at allocated times, that would be discrimination,
but when it involves a nursing baby, it's suddenly ok.

Anne

it drives me nuts...
 

In article ,
Anne Rogers wrote:

I guess it's supposed to be obvious there is no childcare and the
comment is directed at nursing women who might think a no children rule
doesn't apply to them.

Then you write "No babies allowed." And they have chosen not to put that. I
would be asking someone why.

Numbers and
distances mean we have pagers at this church and I've never seen a mum
come back in the room with a baby after fetching them to nurse them.
Some young babies do stay with their mothers in the study, but they
leave when they have to nurse them! Which is actually more disturbing
than if they just nursed them if we were going to quibble about it being
a disturbance issue.

Sounds like you have some work to do there!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/