Breastfeeding during a flight...

[Jebslund]

Expensive? I use a pair of $12 earphones I bought at fucking Walgreens and I can usually tune the surrounding noise out entirely.

As to sacrificing long-distance, can we also ban left-wingers, right-wingers, people who feel the need to constantly badger strangers for attention only to relate patently obvious "revelations" and ask questions a toddler could answer, people with stupid hairstyles, people who wear too much cologne/perfume, boisterous teens, idiots who feel their desire to recline trumps the person behind them's need for space, idiots who make it a point to belch/fart as loudly as possible, idiots who don't know how to properly cover their fucking mouths/noses when they cough/sneeze, and anyone anyone finds annoying from flights, too, or shall we simply accept that your fare for economy class does not include a guarantee that no one on the flight will annoy you and handle it like mature adults (that is to say, either deal with it or prepare for it.)?

You've found a solution that partly mitigates the problem for you. But if all must prepare that is effectively a 12 dollar tax on all the other passengers who need to prepare for this eventuality, and even at that price you admit that the solution is incompete and partial at blocking out the sound. The mature adult response, taking into account the welfare of all, would be to not take a child on to a flight. When other people don't act like mature adults (such as by bringing a child onto a flight) we need to challenge, criticize and encourage their punishment, otherwise bad behaviour will prevail. It is our duty as good citizens to strive against selfishness in such ways.

No, banning children from planes is not the mature adult response. Children need to go places, too (usually with their parents. ). The parents bought the tickets. It's public transportation. Either solve the issue of your own discomfort (earphones/headphone/earplugs), or shut up and deal with it. If you can't do either, why don't *YOU* use a private mode of transportation if it bothers you so much?

[Dumb Ideologies]

You've found a solution that partly mitigates the problem for you. But if all must prepare that is effectively a 12 dollar tax on all the other passengers who need to prepare for this eventuality, and even at that piece you admit that the solution is incompete and partial at blocking out the sound. The mature adult response, taking into account the welfare of all, would be to not take a child on to a flight. When other people don't act like mature adults (such as by bringing a child onto a flight) we need to challenge, criticize and encourage their punishment, otherwise bad behaviour will prevail. It is our duty as good citizens to strive against selfishness in such ways.

That's why I always tell people who get on the bus in a wheelchair that they're taking up space that could be used by multiple standing passengers, and if they had any consideration for other people they'd get off at once and just wheel themselves wherever they're going.

Taking up a little extra space so that someone needs to wait for the next bus isn't quite the same as wilfully risking the rest of the passengers being disturbed by near-constant screaming over a long journey. This analogy isn't it Chief.

[Jebslund]

Buy some earplugs before going on a flight.

Problem solved.

Not really. How would you hear any safety announcements?

Take them out before the announcements, put them back in? I know, novel solution.

[Jebslund]

That's why I always tell people who get on the bus in a wheelchair that they're taking up space that could be used by multiple standing passengers, and if they had any consideration for other people they'd get off at once and just wheel themselves wherever they're going.

Taking up a little extra space so that someone needs to wait for the next bus isn't quite the same as wilfully risking the rest of the passengers being disturbed by near-constant screaming over a long journey. This analogy isn't it Chief.

What about on rainy or dangerously hot/cold days? What if someone misses an interview because of the wheelchair taking up their space? What if that was the last bus of the evening and those extra people are now stranded?

[Dumb Ideologies]

You've found a solution that partly mitigates the problem for you. But if all must prepare that is effectively a 12 dollar tax on all the other passengers who need to prepare for this eventuality, and even at that price you admit that the solution is incompete and partial at blocking out the sound. The mature adult response, taking into account the welfare of all, would be to not take a child on to a flight. When other people don't act like mature adults (such as by bringing a child onto a flight) we need to challenge, criticize and encourage their punishment, otherwise bad behaviour will prevail. It is our duty as good citizens to strive against selfishness in such ways.

No, banning children from planes is not the mature adult response. Children need to go places, too (usually with their parents. ). The parents bought the tickets. It's public transportation. Either solve the issue of your own discomfort (earphones/headphone/earplugs), or shut up and deal with it. If you can't do either, why don't *YOU* use a private mode of transportation if it bothers you so much?

Those whose party will likely cause other passengers a problem should have the responsibility to make the alternative arrangement. That is the solution that best serves the common interest, and thus this is what should be implemented.

[Ifreann]

That's why I always tell people who get on the bus in a wheelchair that they're taking up space that could be used by multiple standing passengers, and if they had any consideration for other people they'd get off at once and just wheel themselves wherever they're going.

Taking up a little extra space so that someone needs to wait for the next bus isn't quite the same as wilfully risking the rest of the passengers being disturbed by near-constant screaming over a long journey. This analogy isn't it Chief.

It's the same basic selfishness of a person thinking that their journey is more important than other people's journeys. At the very least people in wheelchairs should have to buy multiple tickets. At least two for the space they'll be taking up, maybe a third for the delay in flipping out a ramp for them to get on.

We need to encourage their punishment if we want to stamp out selfishness, don't we?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Taking up a little extra space so that someone needs to wait for the next bus isn't quite the same as wilfully risking the rest of the passengers being disturbed by near-constant screaming over a long journey. This analogy isn't it Chief.

What about on rainy or dangerously hot/cold days? What if someone misses an interview because of the wheelchair taking up their space? What if that was the last bus of the evening and those extra people are now stranded?

That is sad but in the vast majority of cases the disabled person will cause no one any trouble at all, so social inclusion prevails in a way it doesn't with babies who are always prone to fits of near-constant screaming.

I thought society had moved beyond infantilising the disabled, these disabilist attitudes have been an unpleasant surprise.

[Ethel mermania]

A baby blanket lined with £50 notes immediately stops any child from crying.

And, as every wealthy parent knows, a dollop of caviar on the dummy will immediately silence even the most fractious baby**

[N.B. Do not give your baby caviar]

johnny walker black, works so much better.

[Jebslund]

No, banning children from planes is not the mature adult response. Children need to go places, too (usually with their parents. ;) ). The parents bought the tickets. It's public transportation. Either solve the issue of your own discomfort (earphones/headphone/earplugs), or shut up and deal with it. If you can't do either, why don't *YOU* use a private mode of transportation if it bothers you so much?

Those whose party will likely cause other passengers a problem should have the responsibility to make the alternative arrangement. That is the solution that best serves the common interest, and thus this is what should be implemented.

No, they really don't. They have an obligation to mitigate the risk, but they are under no more obligation to make other arrangements than a person in a wheelchair does. You are responsible for dealing with your own annoyance when you choose to take public transportation. Either prepare for the situation or shut up. I'm allergic to dogs, yet you won't see me campaigning to have them banned from public transport. I just take allergy medicine, because, as a mature adult, I am willing to mitigate my own minor annoyance, rather than make someone else's travel a nightmare/strand someone else for the sake of my own comfort when I could easily solve my problem in a way that allows for both my comfort and their ease of travel.

[Jebslund]

What about on rainy or dangerously hot/cold days? What if someone misses an interview because of the wheelchair taking up their space? What if that was the last bus of the evening and those extra people are now stranded?

That is sad but in the vast majority of cases the disabled person will cause no one any trouble at all, so social inclusion prevails in a way it doesn't with babies who are always prone to fits of near-constant screaming.

I thought society had moved beyond infantilising the disabled, these disabilist attitudes have been an unpleasant surprise.

Nothing ablist or infantilizing about it. Both inconvenience society in ways they cannot control, yet, for one, you correctly put up with it, while you cry like a petulant child and seek to exclude the other.

By the way, no, unless the child is sick, a well-cared-for child is *not* "prone" to fits. The majority of infants I encounter on public transport are so quiet you almost wouldn't know they are there. The screaming comes with discomfort, and most parents deal with that in short order. The ones that don't merely stick more in your mind.

[The New California Republic]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7387710/mum-accused-of-trying-to-steal-other-womens-men-by-breastfeeding-in-public-hits-back-with-naked-snaps-with-her-two-year-old/

She continued: “She called me ‘disgusting’ followed by a litany of degrading swear words. Apparently she thought I was trying to steal her man by quietly breastfeeding my baby during the landing of the plane.

“Breastfeeding is natural, and our breasts were made for feeding our babies. Associating breastfeeding with sex or perversion is disturbing.”

It seems reasonable enough to consider the remarks uncalled for, though the airline is under no obligation to censor them. But what seems a little less reasonable is to have a problem with associating it with sex. Yes, breastfeeding is "natural." However, sex is also "natural." Including promiscuous sex. Why would anyone put it past evolution to have males respond to evidence of successful childbirth by wanting to give her another baby, and in turn, getting aroused? Can we really be sure that's any less "natural?" And if we can't, isn't it a little hypocritical to treat how "natural" one is relevant, and not the other?

And how often are women shamed for breastfeeding during a flight, compared to being shamed for bringing their infants on board the airplane at all? We all know that the one person who brings an infant, if the infant starts screaming, has made it a lot more stressful for hundreds of people, (if not also keeping them from the sleep they might've needed before landing) whereas if she'd just do a train or cruise, others could avoid the noise more easily...

Got any other source other than The Shitty Sun? I wouldn't trust that rag if they said water was wet.

And women should be able to breastfeed in public, despite the prudishness.

[Uan aa Boa]

Taking up a little extra space so that someone needs to wait for the next bus isn't quite the same as wilfully risking the rest of the passengers being disturbed by near-constant screaming over a long journey. This analogy isn't it Chief.

Disturbed... Can you imagine the horror? And wilfully disturbed at that. I'm shocked. It's obvious to me now that people with children have clearly foregone all right to have a holiday, visit relatives or travel for any other reason. They chose to have the children after all. Wilfully! The fact that having a small child is an intense experience that's stressful as well as wonderful doesn't matter. Getting a break or family support is nowhere near as important as your right to remain undisturbed as you voluntarily put yourself in a confined space for several hours with several hundred other human beings.

I'd think you just had strange priorities if it weren't for the irony that you're criticising what you call selfishness. Honestly, if kids on planes constitute a major problem in your life then you are blessed indeed.

[Alvecia]

Not really. How would you hear any safety announcements?

Take them out before the announcements, put them back in? I know, novel solution.

I think the issue is that if someone was sleeping with them on, they'd miss them.
I reckon noise cancelling headphones as standard might be a good idea so long as they're piped into the PA system so that if there are any important announcements, they come through the headset.

[Major-Tom]

I'd prefer the mother taking measures to calm her baby, like, say, breastfeeding than hearing a screaming little motherfucker at 30,000 feet.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Not really. How would you hear any safety announcements?

Take them out before the announcements, put them back in? I know, novel solution.

And if you're asleep during them?

I'd prefer the mother taking measures to calm her baby, like, say, breastfeeding than hearing a screaming little motherfucker at 30,000 feet.

Wouldn't make much difference. Babies scream for a variety of reasons.

Taking up a little extra space so that someone needs to wait for the next bus isn't quite the same as wilfully risking the rest of the passengers being disturbed by near-constant screaming over a long journey. This analogy isn't it Chief.

Disturbed... Can you imagine the horror? And wilfully disturbed at that. I'm shocked. It's obvious to me now that people with children have clearly foregone all right to have a holiday, visit relatives or travel for any other reason. They chose to have the children after all. Wilfully! The fact that having a small child is an intense experience that's stressful as well as wonderful doesn't matter. Getting a break or family support is nowhere near as important as your right to remain undisturbed as you voluntarily put yourself in a confined space for several hours with several hundred other human beings.

I'd think you just had strange priorities if it weren't for the irony that you're criticising what you call selfishness. Honestly, if kids on planes constitute a major problem in your life then you are blessed indeed.

If you're sleep-deprived while you need to find your connecting flight, the issue might not seem so trivial. There's also the fact that hundreds of passengers are being disadvantaged for the convenience of only the few people who bring babies on flights in the first place.

If parents want to vacation, they can take a train or boat. That way, others can avoid the noise.

[Jebslund]

Take them out before the announcements, put them back in? I know, novel solution.

And if you're asleep during them?

Someone or circumstances will almost certainly wake you if it's actually important. If not, you'll probably never know. For the trays and seats one, a flight attendant will most definitely wake you up for landing.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Taking up a little extra space so that someone needs to wait for the next bus isn't quite the same as wilfully risking the rest of the passengers being disturbed by near-constant screaming over a long journey. This analogy isn't it Chief.

It's the same basic selfishness of a person thinking that their journey is more important than other people's journeys. At the very least people in wheelchairs should have to buy multiple tickets. At least two for the space they'll be taking up, maybe a third for the delay in flipping out a ramp for them to get on.

We need to encourage their punishment if we want to stamp out selfishness, don't we?

Funny you should mention that. The overweight are charged extra for the extra space they take up on planes. The disabled are not. It's almost as if "is your reason for needing accommodations evidently a result of your own decisions" is the tiebreaker here.

And what is having kids, taking them with you on your trip and choosing a plane over a train or a boat, if not "one's own decision?"

[Caracasus]

Planes usually work out cheaper and faster at that distance than boats and trains. Trains and boats also carry other passengers besides parents and kids.

[Jebslund]

If you're sleep-deprived while you need to find your connecting flight, the issue might not seem so trivial. There's also the fact that hundreds of passengers are being disadvantaged for the convenience of only the few people who bring babies on flights in the first place.

Do you sue the airline for turbulence that keeps you from sleeping, too?

If parents want to vacation, they can take a train or boat. That way, others can avoid the noise.

Or they can take a plane and not spend days just on transit, and you can find some way to tune or block it out. Boats and trains are public transit, too.

[The New California Republic]

If parents want to vacation, they can take a train or boat. That way, others can avoid the noise.

...

...this isn't a small gauge railway or a rowboat that we are talking about, there will actually be other people on the train or the boat. Shock. Horror.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Nothing ablist or infantilizing about it. Both inconvenience society in ways they cannot control, yet, for one, you correctly put up with it, while you cry like a petulant child and seek to exclude the other.

And yet, you defended a comparison between infants and the disabled.

By the way, no, unless the child is sick, a well-cared-for child is *not* "prone" to fits. The majority of infants I encounter on public transport are so quiet you almost wouldn't know they are there. The screaming comes with discomfort, and most parents deal with that in short order. The ones that don't merely stick more in your mind.

So you're suggesting that for every child who screams on a plane, there are several who do not?

Does that not suggest that the child who screams on that plane is waking up not only adults, but other children as well?

If anything, that makes a stronger case for parents choosing other modes of transport.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Do you sue the airline for turbulence that keeps you from sleeping, too?

Hell no, but the difference is its likelihood doesn't depend on who boards the plane.

Or they can take a plane and not spend days just on transit, and you can find some way to tune or block it out. Boats and trains are public transit, too.

Yes, they are. Forms of public transit where people can switch seats during the voyage to avoid the noisy kid.

[Caracasus]

If parents want to vacation, they can take a train or boat. That way, others can avoid the noise.

...

...this isn't a small gauge railway or a rowboat that we are talking about, there will actually be other people on the train or the boat. Shock. Horror.

Eh, probably not thought of that. I suspect a lot of this is bought on by a hatred of being personally inconvenienced in any way than a genuine desire to make air travel or any travel nicer for everyone.

[Jebslund]

And what is having kids, taking them with you on your trip and choosing a plane over a train or a boat, if not "one's own decision?"

1: The normal order of things.
2: Necessary if you're not wealthy.
3: Practical and possibly necessary as trains and boats are more expensive and take several times longer, potentially to the point where more time is spent travelling than vacationing, all so you don't have to do anything in order to be comfortable.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If parents want to vacation, they can take a train or boat. That way, others can avoid the noise.

...

...this isn't a small gauge railway or a rowboat that we are talking about, there will actually be other people on the train or the boat. Shock. Horror.

In trains, you can move from one rail car to another, and ferries are much more massive than trains or planes. (Hell, the latter often let you rent cabins.)