The Breast Question

[MysticSang'ha]

If you want to change social mores you have to break down the existing ones. Changing attitudes or sensibilities is always disconcerting to those comfortably ensconsed in the status quo.
Progress is made by thouse who flout convention.

Ladies, bob your hair, shorten your skirts, smoke, enter the professions, feed your babies, take off your shirts on hot days....
Society will adjust. The sky will not fall.

Really? Shoot, it's gonna be yet another August broiler here today in the extreme-weather Midwest.......:flirt:




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Isabella Lecour]

A child's right to feed and feed on demand is greater than anyone's modesty or feelings. There are only two participants in breastfeeding, the mother and the child. Everyone else is bystanders, who can ignore it or oggle all they want.

I really don't have any concern for others feelings while in public and half the time nor in privite. If I'm in public I have to deal with enough offenceive folks that don't have any clue how offenceive they are to me, I've learned to let them and their actions roll off my back. I'd rather exercise my rights in public than be constrained by someones artifical constrants of modesty.

I'm all for women to whip it out and feed their child, no matter the place or time. No matter how many people get offended or think their ideas of modesty is the "correct" one. The only use I have for a blanket is to stay warm, not modesty. I have no reason to cover up for modesty outside of law.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

If it was normal to breast feed in front of others then why do women wear tops at the beach while men don't. The issue is not that a baby needs fed...they make pumps and bottles for away from the home. The issue is whether it is appropriate to bare oneself in public for whatever reason. In this sexually clouded world it is not.

That's a whole other issue, albeit a good one for discussion.

Look, the thing is, a breast serves a dual purpose, one which is sexual, the other which is not. It's ~somewhat~ analagous to the male penis, which has two biological functions, only one of which is sexual.

Breastfeeding in no way requires a woman to bare herself at all.

I'm guessing you have never tried to pump? It's takes a lot of time compared to the real deal, and frankly, I stopped breastfeeding my kids early because I couldn't pump in the john at work without repercussions.

My response to people who object to *discreet* breastfeeding in public has always been: If you have a problem with the design, please take it up with God the Designer.

In the South, that is enough to shut up anyone who thinks women should not be allowed to discreetly breastfeed anywhere outside the home.

Hmm. Interesting thought. I must keep this in mind for this and other situations.

I can't think of any normal situation in which the survival of an infant would be contingent on which room he or she is fed in.

In your own house or a public place, I can understand your point of view. However, when you're a guest in someone else's home, their rules apply, and common courtesy would be to ask the host or those there before breastfeeding.

There is no single mode of behaviour that fits all circumstances. Just as it may be appropriate to take a child aside to discipline him or her, or to find a private room for obligatory prayers (if not everyone at the party share your religious beliefs), it may also be appropriate to breastfeed in another room, depending on the feelings of your host and fellow guests.

The point is not that baby is going to die if you don't whip it out and give her milk right then and there.

Rather, feeding is a survival need. Not seeing a woman's breast is a desire of "modesty." Survival, modesty. In my book, survival wins.

If you want to change social mores you have to break down the existing ones. Changing attitudes or sensibilities is always disconcerting to those comfortably ensconsed in the status quo.
Progress is made by thouse who flout convention.

Ladies, bob your hair, shorten your skirts, smoke, enter the professions, feed your babies, take off your shirts on hot days....
Society will adjust. The sky will not fall.

TopFreedom, anyone? (this link is safe for work, but parts of the site may not be)

A child's right to feed and feed on demand is greater than anyone's modesty or feelings. There are only two participants in breastfeeding, the mother and the child. Everyone else is bystanders, who can ignore it or oggle all they want.

I really don't have any concern for others feelings while in public and half the time nor in privite. If I'm in public I have to deal with enough offenceive folks that don't have any clue how offenceive they are to me, I've learned to let them and their actions roll off my back. I'd rather exercise my rights in public than be constrained by someones artifical constrants of modesty.

I'm all for women to whip it out and feed their child, no matter the place or time. No matter how many people get offended or think their ideas of modesty is the "correct" one. The only use I have for a blanket is to stay warm, not modesty. I have no reason to cover up for modesty outside of law.

:clap

I remember some time ago when I was in Mexico and happened to catch sight of a woman breastfeeding her baby. The only thing covering her breast was the baby's mouth. She wasn't following any ridiculous "modesty" rules that would have been nothing but a hassle to her. It was one less thing for her to worry about, and one more pleasant feeding experience for baby.

Come on, people! Nobody puts Baby in a corner!

 

[Buttercup]

Look, there is no right or wrong about this issue. People do whatever feels right to them anyway. This thread certainly would not change my mind at all about how I breast fed in public. It's all a matter of personal preference. For me, I would still consider how others felt. But, that's just me.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

In a related note: Breast-feeding ads blunted - Washington Post - MSNBC.com

Which goes to show you just how important it is to get the straight facts out there.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

They can't go to lavatories to feed their children?

Do you want to eat your lunch in the toilet?

 

[Smoke]

Do you want to eat your lunch in the toilet?

The baby doesn't care. I think the question is, Do you want to nurse your baby in a public restroom? And the answer is, Not unless you're an idiot. I don't even like to urinate in public restrooms.

 

[vandervalley]

why not squeeze the milk into a bottle and bottle feed if needed when out in the public?

 

[vandervalley]

I mean squeeze the milk into bottle(s) at home; just before going out into the public and then bottle feed in the public.

 

[MaddLlama]

You know what I noticed....it seems as if a majority of the people who are against public breast feeding, even discreet breast feeding, are men.

So, it really begs the question: when did men, men that I don't even know, get the right to tell me or any other woman how to feed her baby? It's really the mothers decision, and nobody elses, so frankly I don't understand why this is even an issue worth debating.

The world is a diverse place, it has rough edges. At some point in your life, you're going to see or hear something that offends you. But, that's how life works. So, suck it up, be big boys and girls, and move on with your life.

And, for the people who say "why not just put it in a bottle", well, why don't you just not look?

 

[vandervalley]

And, for the people who say "why not just put it in a bottle", well, why don't you just not look?

yes ur right.

but the "put into the bottle" suggestion was actually for mums who are shy about breastfeeding in the public

 

[methylatedghosts]

We got it pretty ok here in NZ though...

A woman was arrested for "indecent exposure" some years ago but got let off, citing sexism in the fact guys can be topless and women can't. So now we have the "boobs on bikes" parade, annually.

I'm thinking that maybe we take a little more "lax" attitude towards breastfeeding as well than some other places.

 

[Valjean]

We got it pretty ok here in NZ though...

A woman was arrested for "indecent exposure" some years ago but got let off, citing sexism in the fact guys can be topless and women can't. So now we have the "boobs on bikes" parade, annually.

I'm thinking that maybe we take a little more "lax" attitude towards breastfeeding as well than some other places.

I may be wrong on this, ghost, but I believe a similar sexual equality suit in New York some years ago resulted in a similar ruling, with the result that it is today legal for New York woman to doff their tops pretty much anytime and anywhere they wish.

Despite conservative predictions to the contrary, this has not resulted in a general hedonistic Bacchanal.

 

[dawny0826]

Breastfeeding isn't an unnatural act. There are people in this world who look at the breastfeeding mother as if she's doing something against nature. The breast was designed for breastfeeding.

There are ways to make the experience easier for everyone involved. When I breastfed my little ones, if I was in the company of people that might not be comfortable with seeing an exposed breast...I would excuse myself to a bedroom, where I could breastfeed comfortably.

At times though, a mother might need to breastfeed in a plublic space and a woman can cover herself with a blanket for privacy. I see NOTHING wrong with this and though I personally wouldn't feel comfortable breastfeeding in certain public places, I feel defensive over/for those who do. People will often gawk at a breastfeeding mother, when she is minding her own business, FEEDING HER BABY.

There isn't anything unnatural about breastfeeding. Society doesn't object to women bottle feeding in front of others.

 

[dawny0826]

Totally apart from the breastfeeding issue, a baby is highly unlikely to appreciate dinner in a nice restaurant, and extremely likely to keep anybody else from appreciating it, either.

I understand that sometimes people have to take a baby someplace it's certain to be a nuisance, like an airplane, but it's rarely really necessary to take a baby to a restaurant or a movie, and doing so is really rude.

So, a mother should refrain from living life...BECAUSE she has an infant in tow?

TRY being a mother for a day...breastfeeding every two hours...changing diapers before and often times directly after feedings. Try giving one on one attention to TWO little children when you haven't had a full nights sleep since before the baby was born.

Try being a good mother and balancing this with housework, paying bills and caring for your husband's needs as well. Motherhood is a blessing to me. But it's often the hardest role I play at times.

When Ruthie was an infant and I was treated to a nice dinner...it was a blessing, not to have to prepare and clean up after a meal.

Think on that, the next time a woman has her baby with her at a nice dinner. Those little outtings can be beautiful blessings for the Mom who is tired and desparately needs a night away.

And though I admit, there are some rude people out there...I think many women take their children with them out of necessity.

 

[Smoke]

So, a mother should refrain from living life...BECAUSE she has an infant in tow?

TRY being a mother for a day...breastfeeding every two hours...changing diapers before and often times directly after feedings. Try giving one on one attention to TWO little children when you haven't had a full nights sleep since before the baby was born.

Try being a good mother and balancing this with housework, paying bills and caring for your husband's needs as well. Motherhood is a blessing to me. But it's often the hardest role I play at times.

When Ruthie was an infant and I was treated to a nice dinner...it was a blessing, not to have to prepare and clean up after a meal.

Think on that, the next time a woman has her baby with her at a nice dinner. Those little outtings can be beautiful blessings for the Mom who is tired and desparately needs a night away.

And though I admit, there are some rude people out there...I think many women take their children with them out of necessity.

No, it's never necessary. It's self-centered and rude. The fact that a woman has had an exhausting day, every day, for a long time doesn't give her the right to ruin everyone else's dinner or movie. If she doesn't have even one friend or relative who is willing to keep her child for a couple hours, if she doesn't have a husband or boyfriend who can keep his own child for a couple hours while she goes out with her friends, if she can't find a babysitter or a daycare center no matter how hard she looks, she should stay home with her child.

But I don't really believe there are that many women who can find no one at all to keep their children for a couple hours. They just assume that the amazing, exhausting feat of reproducing and caring for a baby gives them the right to impose on perfect strangers -- people who very likely include other mothers with a baby who have made appropriate arrangements for their own infants, as well as people who don't have an infant but nevertheless have hectic and exhausting lives of their own and would desperately like to have a nice evening out without being seated next to someone who is virtually certain to pee, poop, cry, and barf during dinner.

And why is this woman doing everything by herself in the first place? Does the father of her child imagine that he has no new obligations? Does it never occur to him to take care of doing the laundry or fixing dinner sometimes?

 

[MaddLlama]

MB, just because it annoys you doesn't mean that a woman doesn't have the right to go to a restaurant if she wants to. Last I checked there was no law against offending someone.

Saying a woman with a small child shouldn't go out into places with that child because it's rude is akin to saying that you shouldn't go out into public with your boyfriend because someone out there who sees you may be disgusted by it. For someone who gets so annoyed about opposition to gay rights and gay people in general, I find it pretty amazing that you expect people to stay at home just so they don't annoy you.

I'm having a hard time figuring out which one is more selfish...

 

[Smoke]

MB, just because it annoys you doesn't mean that a woman doesn't have the right to go to a restaurant if she wants to. Last I checked there was no law against offending someone.

Certainly she has a legal right to do it. That doesn't mean it isn't rude.

Saying a woman with a small child shouldn't go out into places with that child because it's rude is akin to saying that you shouldn't go out into public with your boyfriend because someone out there who sees you may be disgusted by it.

I have never known my husband to pee, poop, cry, and barf at the dinner table, and if I thought he were at all likely to, I wouldn't take him out to a restaurant, either. There is a difference between being offended at someone's life choices -- I didn't suggest, for instance, that heterosexual couples, or parents, should never go to a restaurant -- and being distracted and even disgusted by watching an exhibition of the bodily functions of a person who has selfishly been dragged into a situation that he (the baby) cannot possibly appreciate or enjoy.

 

[dawny0826]

No, it's never necessary. It's self-centered and rude.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I do have a hunch that these families that have ruined your dinners weren't trying to be self-centered and rude. I'm sure they simply wanted to enjoy time with THEIR families.

I work. My husband works. Dinners and outings with my children are very important to us. Certainly, we don't go out to incredibly expensive restaurants but we do go out to nice restaurants at times. We have every right to dine out. We've dined out as a family, since our girls were infants.

The fact that a woman has had an exhausting day, every day, for a long time doesn't give her the right to ruin everyone else's dinner or movie.

I doubt she's intentionally trying to RUIN your dinner. I'm with you on the whole movie thing. My oldest daughter is now five years old and has been to several movies. I wouldn't take my two year old to a movie out of respect to others.

If she doesn't have even one friend or relative who is willing to keep her child for a couple hours, if she doesn't have a husband or boyfriend who can keep his own child for a couple hours while she goes out with her friends, if she can't find a babysitter or a daycare center no matter how hard she looks, she should stay home with her child.

And I think most women try to exhaust these options. I do. Still, there are times, where families want to enjoy dinners together as families, even with little ones.

And I can relate to women wanting to get out of the house, especially when they've been cooped up in the house, after giving birth. I couldn't part with my babies when they were newborns. After the first 4-6 weeks, I was ready to get out of the house with them and we did.

I can honestly say to you, my infants normally slept when we went out. Do you find sleeping newborns to be rude?

But I don't really believe there are that many women who can find no one at all to keep their children for a couple hours.

I know quite a few women who do not have childcare. I've been fortunate in this department.

They just assume that the amazing, exhausting feat of reproducing and caring for a baby gives them the right to impose on perfect strangers -- people who very likely include other mothers with a baby who have made appropriate arrangements for their own infants, as well as people who don't have an infant but nevertheless have hectic and exhausting lives of their own and would desperately like to have a nice evening out without being seated next to someone who is virtually certain to pee, poop, cry, and barf during dinner.

I think you're being mighty assumptive about the intent of others. But you're certainly allowed to feel as you'd like.

And why is this woman doing everything by herself in the first place? Does the father of her child imagine that he has no new obligations? Does it never occur to him to take care of doing the laundry or fixing dinner sometimes?

My husband and I have an equal opportunity marriage. He's very helpful but he can't relate to what it feels like those first few weeks after surgery, when you're tired and sore and you just want to feel human again. Getting out feels good...it's healthy. That was the point that I was trying to make. And I'm no less deserving of a nice dinner out than you are.

We're not a family who goes out to eat often but when we do...it's a treat and it's cherished family time.

I wanted you to understand where one self-centered and rude woman is coming from.

 

[MaddLlama]

I have never known my husband to pee, poop, cry, and barf at the dinner table, and if I thought he were at all likely to, I wouldn't take him out to a restaurant, either. There is a difference between being offended at someone's life choices -- I didn't suggest, for instance, that heterosexual couples, or parents, should never go to a restaurant -- and being distracted and even disgusted by watching an exhibition of the bodily functions of a person who has selfishly been dragged into a situation that he (the baby) cannot possibly appreciate or enjoy.

I'm not sure I see much of a difference. So far, I haven't seen anyone suggest that mothers should change diapers at the table.

The basic idea you're presenting here is that mothers shouldn't bring their babies out in public just because it annoys you. Frankly, I find that to be rude, selfish, and a very good illustration of the "me first" philosophy that seems to permeate our culture. Sure, you could argue that the mother is doing the same thing, but your attitude is no less rude or selfish.