Sorry, I added more to my post as you were responding.

The suggestion that the male passenger move because of the mother's confected discomfort are ludicrous.

Nowhere does the OP suggest that the mother be prevented from breastfeeding nor that she be relocated to do it. He wasn't the 'complainer' or the one 'exhibiting signs of discomfort'. From what I got from his post, he wasn't even aware she was breastfeeding and was in no way looking at the woman's breasts, be they exposed or covered. She falsely accused him of doing so and demanded HE be relocated. Likely not from any sense of modesty or embarrassment but, in all likelihood because she wanted HIS seat for her husband and was angry that he had refused her request to swap earlier.

[Unduly personalized text edited by Moderator per FT Rules.] I think most of us agree with and support that sentiment. Including the OP from what it sounds like as he didn't have any objection to staying in his seat while she breastfed her child. But she has no right to demand he move because she (claims that she) feels uncomfortable feeding her child while seated beside him on public transport. If she feels uncomfortable, then she can move. But I think we all suspect what was really going on here and it wasn't what she claimed.

No doubt. [Unduly personalized text edited by Moderator per FT Rules.]

Agreed. See my edit above.

I'd like to see what would happen if OP had said something like "I'm gay and believe me those are of no interest to me."

based on OPs description, I don't think he was at fault at all; rather that he was in a no-win situation. But you are free to see things however you like.

As a woman, I am so sorry that the OP had to suffer for the woman's manipulation of her right to breastfeed. I don't know the answer. It is true that women who breastfeed have been leered at and made uncomfortable. That does not make it right for a woman to manipulate the situation. I am sorry but I do not see a way for the OP to have won when he should have been able to save his seat. Maybe in the future.

BSBD, from your user name, I can tell we're brothers.
But from your post on this matter, we're third cousins.
This seems to be purely a false accusations to manipulate a situation.
A mild version of a Duke lacrosse case.
The only difference being, the woman stopped short of breaking any laws...

Blue skies.

This. Pretty much this. ^

Hail and well-met! Nice to see another non-whuffo here.


Not sure how we're disagreeing. Here's what I posted a ways back:

Can you tell me how that makes us disagree?

[Unduly personalized text deleted by Moderator per FT Rules.] She had the option of doing exactly what you seem to think she should have done: feed her baby in her assigned seat. She doesn't have the right to have other passengers forcibly rearranged in the cabin to her liking. She could have accepted the situation for what it was: everyone in the coach section of the airplane is in cramped quarters and must sit next to strangers for the duration of the flight.

What I'm suggesting is that if she could not or would not accept that situation, she had the option to go to the lav to take care of her business. Not because she had to or should have to, but because she chose to, if remaining in her assigned seat and doing it there made her uncomfortable. That would have been more reasonable than forcing others to be moved.

Actually, yes, I would. I don't see what the problem is. If there was some reason I couldn't eat in my own seat (due to privacy, self-consciousness, or whatever), that would be something I would consider, well before having FA's rearrange the cabin for my benefit. You seem to have some issue with breastfeeding rights that causes you to extend them literally in all situations, and that they trump all other things.

tbh, who cares where she goes to feed the child. It's her problem, she could have fed it at her seat and nobody would have complained but no, she decided to kick off.

It's her problem, not the OP's

What the FA should have done is observed the situation discreetly.

And when it came to light what had happened the husband should have been relocated to the worst seat on the plane.

Which ones? The one where I said that she appeared to take advantage of the situation, or the one where I said the OP was in a no-win situation? Not sure those were suggestions, more comments, but whatever.


Indeed. She did not, and no one could force her to take her child elsewhere, so - what?

Since feeding a child in an aircraft lav is unsanitary, it's not reasonable.

She had the advantage. Force of law/policy gave her the upper hand. Was it right? Of course not. But the same sort of situation could happen again, given similar circumstances, and the end result is likely to be the same. Too bad.