Breastfeeding in Public places

volchitsa · 16-12-2014 05:24PM

nm wrote: »

Lol, not a single poster here has sexualised babies bar replies like yours, that point it out incorrectly as a reason against, even though no one ever put that forward in the first place.
It must suit to put it like that to make it a horrifying argument, even though that's not the argument at all.

Well, perhaps you could explain what the argument actually is then? Because that is what it seems to be - a problem with accepting that women's breasts are not necessarily organs of sexual pleasure. What exactly is your objection otherwise? Genuine question. The woman in the restaurant, for example, wasn't walking around topless, as several posters here seem to think, she was sitting down, and the photos clearly show that her breasts were not on display in any way. So what is the problem?

nm wrote: »

LAnyway, yet again - I don't have any issues with breastfeeding. All I've done it point out that one group of people are demanding that it's their right to do whatever they want wherever they want, no matter what (for example refusing to use specific areas put their to cater for them and this exact need), and this has to be the case and what anyone else thinks or anyone elses viewpoint is be damned.
Sure they couldn't be bothered 'gather their stuff' as you put it. Everyone else is "a gobsh*te" as another poster put it. Fine.

But only for their case. If it's a different scenario and other people wanting to do other things that they feel are fine, then the same group will hypocritically want their views on others catered for and others to work around it. ie: someone going topless without a baby.
That's all.

And presenting it as a life or death situation as you or whoever did is simply an out n out lie. Nothing more nothing less. It's not a life or death situation.

How can it be a lie when I said the baby wouldn't die immediately?

But I was referring to the fact that feeding a baby is essential to keep it alive. If I took away your food and said, sure you can go and get some somewhere else, I would be harming you. If you prevent a baby from being fed when it needs to be fed, it is being harmed, however mildly - but the only reason it is "mildly" is because the force of a baby crying for food is so strong that its mother will generally do anything to feed it. But that is no reason to make it more complicated for her to do so.

The question no-one has attempted to answer is : how can it possibly be more acceptable to give a baby cow's milk in public than its mother's milk?

If we are going to criticize one of the two, (personally I wouldn't, but there is a lot of judgmentalism here about women "getting their tits out") shouldn't it be the first?

OldNotWIse · 16-12-2014 05:26PM

Was the photo taken before or after the incident?

ceadaoin. · 16-12-2014 06:10PM

nm wrote: »

Lol, not a single poster here has sexualised babies bar replies like yours, that point it out incorrectly as a reason against, even though no one ever put that forward in the first place.
It must suit to put it like that to make it a horrifying argument, even though that's not the argument at all.

Anyway, yet again - I don't have any issues with breastfeeding. All I've done it point out that one group of people are demanding that it's their right to do whatever they want wherever they want, no matter what (for example refusing to use specific areas put their to cater for them and this exact need), and this has to be the case and what anyone else thinks or anyone elses viewpoint is be damned.
Sure they couldn't be bothered 'gather their stuff' as you put it. Everyone else is "a gobsh*te" as another poster put it. Fine.

But only for their case. If it's a different scenario and other people wanting to do other things that they feel are fine, then the same group will hypocritically want their views on others catered for and others to work around it. ie: someone going topless without a baby.
That's all.

And presenting it as a life or death situation as you or whoever did is simply an out n out lie. Nothing more nothing less. It's not a life or death situation.

They don't want to do whatever they want though do they. All they want to be able to do is feed their child in a comfortable place and not have to do it behind closed doors like its something shameful.

It's been pointed out to you many times that you do not see much exposed flesh at all yet you ignore this and persist in comparing breast feeding to going topless. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse and simply have an issue with 'entitled mothers'. The only entitlement on this thread is from those expecting their own issues to come before a child needing to be fed. Guaranteed that type of person would also have an issue with a breastfed baby crying because it's mother couldn't feed it straight away. Then there would be a thread about how babies shouldn't be allowed in restaurants or some such to protect their delicate ears.

Honestly, if someone has issues with breast feeding, given that you don't actually see much breast, it can only be that it makes them uncomfortable because they associate breasts with sexuality. That's their own problem and shouldn't be pandered to by forcing babies to eat away from everyone else.

Can you explain another reason why women should have to go elsewhere to feed their babies when they aren't actually exposing their breasts in public?

Yeah_Right · 16-12-2014 06:22PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

babies shouldn't be allowed in restaurants or some such to protect their delicate ears.

Honestly, if someone has issues with breast feeding, given that you don't actually see much breast, it can only be that it makes them uncomfortable because they associate breasts with sexuality. That's their own problem and shouldn't be pandered to by forcing babies to eat away from everyone else.
?

Firstly, I agree. Babies should be kept out of restaurants. And off airplanes. In public in general. They should be kept at home till they are old enough for school. And then kept at school or home until they are 18.

Seriously though, I think what the poster nm is pointing out is that the law sexualises breasts because women have to keep them covered. Unless breast feeding.

volchitsa · 16-12-2014 06:34PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Firstly, I agree. Babies should be kept out of restaurants. And off airplanes. In public in general. They should be kept at home till they are old enough for school. And then kept at school or home until they are 18.

Seriously though, I think what the poster nm is pointing out is that the law sexualises breasts because women have to keep them covered. Unless breast feeding.

No, our culture has sexualized breasts, unlike many African and some south Asian cultures.

But if you claim that more copies of Playboy on the lower shelves of shops is going to encourage young mothers to breastfeed, I think you are wrong, and probably either stupid, or more likely dishonest, with it.

Otoh, if what someone really wants is to exploit the issue of breastfeeding in order to increase the availability of Playboy and Nuts for their own reasons, then yes, claiming some sort of false equivalence would be the way to go.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 16-12-2014 06:34PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Firstly, I agree. Babies should be kept out of restaurants. And off airplanes. In public in general. They should be kept at home till they are old enough for school. And then kept at school or home until they are 18.

Ha ha

Honestly as I keep saying, I don't care about breastfeeding in public or otherwise. All I tried to do was point out a hypocrisy.

When I bothered to post in this the thread was already 30+ pages long with everyone who disagreed with the mothers being banned (5 posters at last count) so I posted. Mild entertainment. Nothing sexual about breastfeeding there although you can keep shouting it all you like.

And whoever it was said about crying was right, I'd obviously much rather a baby be breastfed than crying, that actually is annoying but that's what babies do when they're babies so what can you do.

Anyway we're totally circular now, I point to double standard, I get replies about the benefits of breastfeeding, and round and round. So I'll bow out here, all good.
Feed on.

humanji · 16-12-2014 06:49PM

MOD: NM, you can take another few days off. Try to use the time to read the forum charter and hopefully you'll realise that bitching about moderation on thread and admitting to trolling aren't good ideas.

KCC · 16-12-2014 09:19PM

Breastfeeding mothers are protected by law from being discriminated against or harassed because they are breastfeeding. (Discrimination is less favourable treatment, for example, asking someone to leave a premises because they are breastfeeding.)

derb12 · 16-12-2014 09:39PM

Can't believe this thread is still going ..

In 20 years time, we'll be explaining to our kids that people used to smoke on buses, wash their cars with drinking water and debate whether women should be seen breastfeeding out and about.
In truth, most of the objectors on this thread would probably be horrifed to know that they have undoubtedly already been present while babies were breastfed in public. Women are discreetly feeding all over the place.
No biggy.
And literally nothing to see here folks.

Piliger · 16-12-2014 09:42PM

derb12 wrote: »

Can't believe this thread is still going ..
In 20 years time, we'll be explaining to our kids that people used to smoke on buses, wash their cars with drinking water and debate whether women should be seen breastfeeding out and about.
In truth, most of the objectors on this thread would probably be horrifed to know that they have undoubtedly already been present while babies were breastfed in public. Women are discreetly feeding all over the place.
No biggy.
And literally nothing to see here folks.

If you don't think there is an issue and controversy going on in our society then that's fine. Close your mind to it. I don't agree.

Sittingpretty · 16-12-2014 09:49PM

Piliger wrote: »

If you don't think there is an issue and controversy going on in our society then that's fine. Close your mind to it. I don't agree.

What is the issue and controversy then, please explain?

Piliger · 16-12-2014 10:19PM

Sittingpretty wrote: »

What is the issue and controversy then, please explain?

Read the first post in the thread.

Sittingpretty · 16-12-2014 10:30PM

Piliger wrote: »

Read the first post in the thread.

My apologies. I had read the 1st post but your post above implied that you saw issue and controversy in the topic at hand, thus my question.

Piliger · 16-12-2014 11:27PM

Sittingpretty wrote: »

My apologies. I had read the 1st post but your post above implied that you saw issue and controversy in the topic at hand, thus my question.

Oh come on ... I was responding to a post by someone who was claiming that there is no issue here ... that there is no controversy and no issue about breastfeeding, suggesting that the thread by ended.

I was pointing out that this is nonsense...and then you ask what the controversy is ? Really ?

Sittingpretty · 16-12-2014 11:31PM

Piliger wrote: »

Oh come on ... I was responding to a post by someone who was claiming that there is no issue here ... that there is no controversy and no issue about breastfeeding, suggesting that the thread by ended.

I was pointing out that this is nonsense...and then you ask what the controversy is ? Really ?

Yes really, not trying to create any issue here. My question was genuine and without ulterior motive.

Piliger · 16-12-2014 11:41PM

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Yes really, not trying to create any issue here. My question was genuine and without ulterior motive.

Then you will realise the bizarre nature of your post #644.

17-12-2014 10:58AM

nm wrote: »

All I've done it point out that one group of people are demanding that it's their right to do whatever they want wherever they want

In the case of breast feeding - it IS their right. So they are perfectly warranted in pointing that out.

nm wrote: »

(for example refusing to use specific areas put their to cater for them and this exact need)

Why should they use such areas? By all means offer them one if you like - it makes good business sense to offer facilities to people who might enjoy their use - as this attracts customers.

But let us not act that the presence of such a facility places some compunction on the customer to use it - or that their not using it constitutes some unholy form of "refusal". The existence of alternatives offers NO compulsion to avail of them. At. All.

nm wrote: »

and this has to be the case and what anyone else thinks or anyone elses viewpoint is be damned.

You are straw manning now. I do not think anyone has an issue with alternatives viewpoints. They have an issue with baseless alternative view points offered entirely without substance.

If someone has the view point that breast feeding women ought to do so in private - or avail of particular facilities to do so - or anything else - then that is simply irrelevant to me.

If they have that viewpoint - - AND - - can offer some substance for it - then we can have a conversation.

But merely declaring a viewpoint on its own sake - is white noise to me - usually I notice offered in a shrill tone such as your own.

17-12-2014 10:58AM

Piliger wrote: »

Oh come on ... I was responding to a post by someone who was claiming that there is no issue here ... that there is no controversy and no issue about breastfeeding, suggesting that the thread by ended.

Perhaps there are two meanings of controversy that are causing a communication issue in both directions between you.

The first is where there are actual genuine basis for disagreements from which the controversy comes.

The second is when people simply vocally kick up stink on a subject but their basis for doing so is simply non-existent.

In terms of the _first_ definition above - it is genuinely true to say "There is no controversy here". There simply is none.

In terms of the _second_ there clearly is some. By a vocal and very neurotic minority who - for reasons the majority of this minority have simply failed to even _attempt_ to lay out - object to breasts being used in public places in their primary function - which genuinely makes as much sense to me as objecting to seeing people using their legs for walking - or their mouth for eating.

17-12-2014 10:58AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Just a couple of random thoughts on this. I sort of understand that people feel uncomfortable around a woman breastfeeding. I know I do. I don't why though.

Clearly some people are uncomfortable with this and they - like you - are incapable of explaining why. The relevant point to notice however is this is their (your) problem and not the problem of either the woman OR the baby. Your discomfort is simply - not to be too harsh about it - entirely irrelevant.

As for possible explanations for your discomfort - there are a few - but two likely candidates spring to mind.

The first is - the more obvious - that we have sexualized the female breast in our culture - and sex itself has some neurotic and groundless elements of taboo and discomfort for us. Therefore the - even quite minimal - exposure and oral interaction with the breast that feeding involves - invokes that discomfort in us.

A second - which I steal from another poster who posted on a similar thread in the past - is that we as a species try to hide our mammalian and animal nature from ourselves. Everything from doing our toilet in private - to the "civilised" use of cutlery in our eating process - to our clothing - all work together to hide from us our animal nature and we perceive ourselves to be some how "above" the animal kingdom - separate from it - sometimes even with the spark of the divine that some god has created us separately or superior to - with dominion over - the animal kingdom. And like that member of royalty who - upon being brought before some primates - asked to be removed from their presence because they were "too human" - the observation of breast feeding reminds such people of their animal origins - that we are not some mystical and magical species above the animal kingdom - but simply one element of it no more special or evolved than any other. And people do not like being divested of this illusion. At. All.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I get the argument a couple of posters were putting forward about how contradictory its illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public unless a baby is attached. i don't necessarily agree with it but there is a fair bit of logic to the argument.

I think that that logic stems from the fact that our attitudes to nudity in general as a species is neurotic and very lacking in logic. So arguments that point out this disparity and neurosis will themselves contain a fair bit of logic.

volchitsa · 17-12-2014 11:24AM

Deleted User wrote: »

A second - which I steal from another poster who posted on a similar thread in the past - is that we as a species try to hide our mammalian and animal nature from ourselves. Everything from doing our toilet in private - to the "civilised" use of cutlery in our eating process - to our clothing - all work together to hide from us our animal nature and we perceive ourselves to be some how "above" the animal kingdom - separate from it - sometimes even with the spark of the divine that some god has created us separately or superior to - with dominion over - the animal kingdom. And like that member of royalty who - upon being brought before some primates - asked to be removed from their presence because they were "too human" - the observation of breast feeding reminds such people of their animal origins - that we are not some mystical and magical species above the animal kingdom - but simply one element of it no more special or evolved than any other. And people do not like being divested of this illusion. At. All.

I think this aspect can't be emphasized enough, because part of the problem is that it is actually easier for us to "blame" the sexual interpretation than to accept this one, although it is probably a bigger part of the unconscious rejection of breast feeding than any fear of sexual arousal caused by seeing breastfeeding women.

I say this because I think it also explains why some women are unwilling to breastfeed. I have a good friend who began feeding at the maternity, largely under pressure from her Spanish mother for whom it seemed completely natural. My friend gave up within a fortnight, even though she had no problems with milk production, because, she said, she felt the pressure of having her baby depend entirely on her ability to produce milk was too much for her. In the light of this "mammalian" interpretation of breastfeeding (which I hadn't come across at the time) I can understand her unease rather better. It makes complete sense, even though she herself didn't see it that way. I never really understood what she meant otherwise.

Not that those of us who enjoyed breastfeeding have more self awareness or are better people, still less better mothers - we just didn't have that particular mindset, for whatever reason. I have always been struck by how similar the reactions of our female cat with her kittens were to human mothers, including my own. Other people find that a strange way of seeing things. I guess it's like some people are more disgusted by dirt than others, or afraid of spiders. Or whatever. One of my sisters was always slightly disgusted by nappies, whereas I never gave it a thought - for my own babies anyway, I wouldn't be keen on other people's. Nor could I breastfeed another woman's child, yet another sister did exactly that (for the sister who hates nappies!), and was really happy that it worked. We're all different.

TheQuietFella · 17-12-2014 11:29AM

While I personally see no issue with it you have to remember that the hotel is in it's own right a public place so to speak & they have to cater for a lot of opinions whether you agree with them or you don't.

17-12-2014 11:34AM

TheQuietFella wrote: »

While I personally see no issue with it you have to remember that the hotel is in it's own right a public place so to speak & they have to cater for a lot of opinions whether you agree with them or you don't.

They do not have to cater for opinions. They can choose that. What they DO have to cater for is law. And the law is seemingly quite clear on breast feeding at this point.

kylith · 17-12-2014 11:49AM

volchitsa wrote: »

I say this because I think it also explains why some women are unwilling to breastfeed. I have a good friend who began feeding at the maternity, largely under pressure from her Spanish mother for whom it seemed completely natural. My friend gave up within a fortnight, even though she had no problems with milk production, because, she said, she felt the pressure of having her baby depend entirely on her ability to produce milk was too much for her. In the light of this "mammalian" interpretation of breastfeeding (which I hadn't come across at the time) I can understand her unease rather better. It makes complete sense, even though she herself didn't see it that way. I never really understood what she meant otherwise.

This self-disgust regarding our bestial nature is very interesting. It reminds me of when I was talking to a friend several years ago and breastfeeding came up. She was literally repulsed by the thought of it. I explained the health benefits for mother and baby, the fact that you don't have to worry about sterilisation, and the huge monetary savings. She didn't care, her response was "It's disgusting, you'd be like a...a milk cow". She really couldn't see beyond the fact that she'd be producing milk and suckling a child 'like an animal'.

Weird.

Neyite · 17-12-2014 12:45PM

kylith wrote: »

This self-disgust regarding our bestial nature is very interesting. It reminds me of when I was talking to a friend several years ago and breastfeeding came up. She was literally repulsed by the thought of it. I explained the health benefits for mother and baby, the fact that you don't have to worry about sterilisation, and the huge monetary savings. She didn't care, her response was "It's disgusting, you'd be like a...a milk cow". She really couldn't see beyond the fact that she'd be producing milk and suckling a child 'like an animal'.

Weird.

Some 15 years ago someone I know was shockingly told by their friend when she breastfed her child that 'Breastfeeding was only for Africans and animals'

Thankfully that kind of remark today would go down like a lead balloon.

kylith · 17-12-2014 12:59PM

Neyite wrote: »

Some 15 years ago someone I know was shockingly told by their friend when she breastfed her child that 'Breastfeeding was only for Africans and animals'

Thankfully that kind of remark today would go down like a lead balloon.

There was a definite class element to it too and some people still see it as a sign of poverty - the rich hired wet nurses, the middle class used formula, only the poor breastfed.

"Africans and animals" is one I've never heard before but I can believe it. Only 15 years ago though?!

Neyite · 17-12-2014 01:09PM

kylith wrote: »

There was a definite class element to it too and some people still see it as a sign of poverty - the rich hired wet nurses, the middle class used formula, only the poor breastfed.

"Africans and animals" is one I've never heard before but I can believe it. Only 15 years ago though?!

Yep, child is in secondary now. It was backward thinking even then but shocking now. Looking back on my childhood the only women I ever saw breastfeed were traveller women. So I do think there was and possibly still is an element of class snobbery about breastfeeding, only that its flipped now.

From my own personal reference points, one parent was pro-breastfeeding as had a rural background and it was commonplace in their childhood. Firm belief that what nature provided was best, and was not too fond of the idea of formula. Other parent from an inner city background considered breastfeeding to be highly immodest, unnatural, and disgusting. Both were from poor families so no class divide. The latter is now thankfully very proud that all their grandchildren were breastfed - thinks its great stuff and is very supportive. They feel personally that their earlier revulsion was partially attributed to their devout faith.

BarryD · 17-12-2014 01:16PM

I or my wife, in that situation would have informed the staff to feck off and go mind their own business. In other words, don't be annoying your customers, if you value their business.

derb12 · 17-12-2014 09:23PM

Piliger wrote: »

Oh come on ... I was responding to a post by someone who was claiming that there is no issue here ... that there is no controversy and no issue about breastfeeding, suggesting that the thread by ended.

I was pointing out that this is nonsense...and then you ask what the controversy is ? Really ?

I think you're referring to my post. I certainly never said the post should be ended though ...

But look, this is my point. The reason I would say there is no controversy here and no substantial issue is that people breastfeed around the place all the time. I've done it hundreds of times out and about and nobody has ever noticed or said boo to me.
You will basically never see a headline that goes "thousands of women breastfeeed without incident!!" But that is what happens all the time. One so called "celeb" encounters a silly waiter and you have 45 pages of "should this be allowed" nonsense.
Rather than close the thread it should be stickied or preserved for posterity as a primary source for social history students in 20 years time!

tinkerbell · 18-12-2014 03:03AM

The amount of sheer ignorance and disgusting comments on this thread is something unreal. Society today is pretty fcked up. You know something? I, quite frankly, don't give a fook if I offend some stupid ignorant moron when I'm feeding my baby. I try to be discreet (I don't want my breasts on show for the whole world to see) but at the end of the day, sometimes you just can't help it if baby starts squirming / wriggling or gets upset for whatever reason. And in those circumstances, well I couldn't care less if people see the food source for my baby. My complete focus is settling my baby. They are boobs, big deal. Quit being so bloody precious. OMG nipple! Boobs! On show! :rolleyes:

And finally, it has been asked numerous times on this thread but to those poor sensitive souls who get offended in a restaurant, why aren't you offended if another mother feeds her baby with a bottle?

It's complete ignorance and a lack of education in this repressed country.

On a side note, I haven't experienced negative comments when out in public feeding my baby but if I did, I would be "politely" telling them to please Fook off.

Breastfeeding in Public places

Comments