Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

Options
1…910121415…23

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    This is it really, I'm not at all "offended" by PDA's, nor am I "offended" by women breastfeeding in public. What bothers me is some people's attitudes -

    "I'll do whatever I like in public and I don't care what you think, but don't you dare stare at me"...

    If a person takes the position that they need have no consideration for other people, then their complaints about people having no consideration for them, tend to ring a bit hollow.

    But breastfeeding isn't doing "whatever she likes", it's feeding her child, which is generally considered a thing you're supposed to do.


  • Options
    #333
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Are you sure he's offended by that? I mean there's a difference between not liking and being offended by something.

    Enough that he would seek, and expect, the owners of the cafe to do something about it. Which is analogous to what this thread is about too. Quite often people can not simply stop looking at something that bothers them, but in fact they have to demand they stop, or that someone step in and do something about it.

    Yet if the target of this ire is doing literally nothing wrong..... such as say holding hands or feeding a baby..... then I think the problem is the observers alone.
    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    Now if someone is offended by my actions, do I have the right to be offended by them being offended? Or does that put me in the wrong as well? Does it make me worse than them as I would be Offended 2.0 or are we equal morons?

    Probably a bit of both. I myself am not offended by the offence of Restaurant Cranks. But I am happy to point out their offence is groundless on things like this.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    If a person takes the position that they need have no consideration for other people, then their complaints about people having no consideration for them, tend to ring a bit hollow.

    The issue for me is that doing something like THIS is not showing a lack of consideration for others. Because no consideration was warranted in the first place. Hand Holding and Breast feeding? Really people? More and more people are just looking to feel offended it seems.

    I will, for example, show ample consideration for others before I engage in any actions that are worthy of consideration for them. You would not for example find me entering a restaurant with a very loud portable stereo system blaring out rap music. But some actions simply do not warrant it.


  • Options
    #334
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,971 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Kev W wrote: »
    It would make you odd, at least. Being offended by someone else's being offended makes no sense.

    That's my point. And I think that's Jack's point.

    The woman that started this got pissed off because someone was supposedly offended by what she was doing. That makes her a moron.


  • Options
    #335
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kev W wrote: »
    But breastfeeding isn't doing "whatever she likes", it's feeding her child, which is generally considered a thing you're supposed to do.


    Yes, and I don't have any issue with breastfeeding as I already said, numerous times. What I do have a problem with, is the attitude that they need show no consideration for other people, and yet they expect other people to show them consideration by not staring or whatever. If they don't like people staring at them, then by your standards, that's their problem!

    The woman in the OP had to look around to find someone who she claims was disgusted, yet from the photograph, the other diners don't seem all that perturbed, so if she has to go looking for someone to be offended, who's really the one with the issues there?


  • Options
    #336
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    That's my point. And I think that's Jack's point.

    The woman that started this got pissed off because someone was supposedly offended by what she was doing. That makes her a moron.

    Except she wasn't pissed off because of that person feeling offended, she was pissed off because that person felt offended and then proceeded to act as if her offence should take precedence over the feeding of the child.
    She is looking at me with disgust and shaking her head with judgement in an attempt to shame me and indirectly tell me without words that I am wrong and need to cover myself.

    It's one thing to be offended and quite another to act on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yes, and I don't have any issue with breastfeeding as I already said, numerous times.

    I never said you did.
    What I do have a problem with, is the attitude that they need show no consideration for other people, and yet they expect other people to show them consideration by not staring or whatever. If they don't like people staring at them, then by your standards, that's their problem!

    What consideration should have been shown?
    The woman in the OP had to look around to find someone who she claims was disgusted,

    Who said she went looking for someone to be offended? You can easily find something that you weren't looking for. I found fifty quid on the street once, I wasn't looking for fifties.
    yet from the photograph, the other diners don't seem all that perturbed, so if she has to go looking for someone to be offended, who's really the one with the issues there?

    So it's all or nothing? Does a majority of the people in the restaurant have to be giving her grief or it doesn't count?


  • Options
    #338
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    What I do have a problem with, is the attitude that they need show no consideration for other people

    They don't. They are doing nothing wrong. So no consideration is warranted.


  • Options
    #339
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Now that is a nice pair of knockers - well at least I think it is, some little creature was blocking my view:mad:


  • Options
    #340
    Ally Dick
    Registered Users Posts: 12,679 ✭✭✭✭Ally Dick


    If you don't want people to stare, don't get them out in public. Go to another room to do it


  • Options
    #341
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    If you don't want people to stare, don't get them out in public. Go to another room to do it

    Why are people staring in the first place? Never seen a breast before? But no hide it away in another room to protect the poor easily offended folk.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    If you don't want people to stare, don't get them out in public. Go to another room to do it
    What's 'them'? Do you mean breasts that are designed for feeding children? Which room should one go to do 'it' in, by which I assume feed children?


  • Options
    #343
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    If you don't want people to stare, don't get them out in public. Go to another room to do it

    Because it's really too much to expect people not to stare, right? The mother is doing nothing wrong, but should modify her behaviour to accommodate the people who are being rude. Gotcha.

    Mothers have a legal right to feed their babies and not be required to go somewhere else - even assuming somewhere else is available. And no, feeding your kid in the toilets isn't a reasonable alternative to a moronic adult being expected not to stare. Demanding 'consideration' while not displaying any is typical of a lot of entitled people who would like the world to work only in their favour.

    As always, the option is available for the offended, uncomfortable, or disgusted, to avert their gaze and look at something else.


  • Options
    #344
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,971 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Kev W wrote: »
    Except she wasn't pissed off because of that person feeling offended, she was pissed off because that person felt offended and then proceeded to act as if her offence should take precedence over the feeding of the child.



    It's one thing to be offended and quite another to act on it.

    Oh no! Someone is looking at me in disgust and shaking their head! The pain! The agony! The distress! How will I ever recover! Seriously, whoopty f-ing doo.
    Ignore them and get on with your day.

    If they came over and said something or yelled out something, then you would be justified in re-acting otherwise, who gives a ****.


  • Options
    #345
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,572 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    They don't. They are doing nothing wrong. So no consideration is warranted.

    Indeed. There has been quite a bit of 'I've got no problem with it as long as they try to be discreet about it.' but the corollary of that is that 'if they are not discreet about it, I've got a problem with it'.

    Ergo, it is an act about which people should be discreet. Except it really isn't.

    As I said way earlier in the thread:
    osarusan wrote: »
    Also, there is, in my opinion, a fairly significant difference between attempting to be discreet (why should they?) and attempting to make a scene (why should they?).

    That picture (is that all we have to go on?) tells us nothing though.


  • Options
    #346
    Ally Dick
    Registered Users Posts: 12,679 ✭✭✭✭Ally Dick


    Breasts are secondary sex organs. Discretion should be the order of the day in public


  • Options
    #347
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    Breasts are secondary sex organs. Discretion should be the order of the day in public

    OK. Can I have a second nomination here for stupidest post of 2015.


  • Options
    #348
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    Breasts are secondary sex organs. Discretion should be the order of the day in public
    Who defined them thusly?


  • Options
    #349
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    Oh no! Someone is looking at me in disgust and shaking their head! The pain! The agony! The distress! How will I ever recover! Seriously, whoopty f-ing doo.
    Ignore them and get on with your day.

    If they came over and said something or yelled out something, then you would be justified in re-acting otherwise, who gives a ****.

    By that same token:

    "Oh no! someone is feeding their child! I must make sure that they know that I do not approve! It is absolutely my business how people feed their children!"


  • Options
    #350
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    They don't. They are doing nothing wrong. So no consideration is warranted.


    And that's fine, play on.

    The people staring don't feel like they're doing anything wrong either, so they don't feel any consideration for her is warranted.


  • Options
    #351
    Ally Dick
    Registered Users Posts: 12,679 ✭✭✭✭Ally Dick


    lazygal wrote: »
    Who defined them thusly?

    Science


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    Breasts are secondary sex organs. Discretion should be the order of the day in public

    Secondary organs are only those organs outside of the primary reproductive system, that are unique to males or females of a species. Mammary glands exist to provide milk for infants, not just to adorn page 3. Most people are adult enough to be able to discern the difference between an infant being fed, and sexual display.

    There's nothing to be discreet about.


  • Options
    #353
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    And that's fine, play on.

    The people staring don't feel like they're doing anything wrong either, so they don't feel any consideration for her is warranted.

    Why are they staring so?


  • Options
    #354
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ally Dick wrote:
    Breasts are secondary sex organs. Discretion should be the order of the day in public


    Oh no!! Bewbs!! So if they're secondary sex organs... what's their primary function? Ohhh wait!


  • Options
    #355
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    Science

    Get outta here!


  • Options
    #356
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    And that's fine, play on.

    The people staring don't feel like they're doing anything wrong either, so they don't feel any consideration for her is warranted.

    They may not feel like they're doing anything wrong, but they are doing something wrong. They are deliberately trying to make another person uncomfortable while they feed their child. They don't have to do that and no good will ever come of it. There's no excuse for it.


  • Options
    #357
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    And that's fine, play on.

    The people staring don't feel like they're doing anything wrong either, so they don't feel any consideration for her is warranted.

    But they are doing something wrong, and she isn't. Big, big diff.


  • Options
    #358
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    Breasts are secondary sex organs. Discretion should be the order of the day in public

    My beard is a secondary sex characteristic. Should I have to cover it in public?


  • Options
    #359
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Very much a non-story, although I do find it surprising how many people are so upset by the concept of breastfeeding. Actually, I'm rather curious as to when breasts became such a taboo subject. It's not that long ago that having an uncovered breast was the height of fashion - although oddly, it doesn't seem to make it into the official portraits of the era.

    Let's look at it another way - who is most inconvenienced? A new-born to 1 month old will be feeding up to between 8-12 times a day. It drops a bit between 1-2months to 7-9 times. Some babies will have a schedule of every 90s mins or so, some will be up to 3 hours.

    Breastfeeding a perfectly natural (and safe) process. Before anyone comments that excretion is also a natural process, I'll add that breastfeeding is also perfectly safe to those around, and does not cause objectionable smells and mess either.

    So, who is more inconvenienced? Someone who can't bear the sight of breasts if they're not in a sexual situation, or the new mother that has to be sure to remain tied to the house for several more months just in case she gets caught in a public place where the sight of her baby feeding might cause someone of fragile disposition to either swoon or..what, be aroused?

    http://nationalreport.net/nyc-police-officer-kills-baby-breastfeeding-argument/

    I take back my "non-story". While this specific incident IS a non-story, there's far too much rubbish about breastfeeding being "indecent". Breasts can be sexual, sure, but so can legs for heaven's sake. The radically offended could do with a bit more copping on and a bit less freaking out over an entirely harmless and necessary job.


  • Options
    #360
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kev W wrote: »
    They may not feel like they're doing anything wrong, but they are doing something wrong. They are deliberately trying to make another person uncomfortable while they feed their child. They don't have to do that and no good will ever come of it. There's no excuse for it.


    Try telling them that and they will come back at you with your own attitude -

    "I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm entitled to stare if I want, if you have a problem with it, that's your problem, not mine".

    Now, not for a minute am I excusing people staring, but what I'm trying to get across to you is the consequences of the attitude that someone thinks they need have no consideration for other people - they're going to get exactly the same attitude back.

    Of course it's not right, but some people will decide what's right and wrong for themselves, and put their own feelings ahead of others. Some people will be considerate of other people, and that can apply to any scenario you like.

    We're not animals who need to walk around naked in public either, but do people have a right to do it? Some people think they do, and fcuk what anyone else thinks, nudity is the most natural thing in the world, right? Anyone who has a problem with it, they're the people with the problem.

    The point is, most women who are breastfeeding in public, you wouldn't even know they're doing it, and I fully support women who choose to breastfeed. What I don't support, is attention seeking behavior. I guess it just comes down to a judgment call in each individual scenario whether someone isn't looking to draw attention to themselves, or they are.

    As I said from the beginning of this thread - attention seeker seeks attention, and gets it. There's really nothing more to this story.

    (I read the article underneath the picture, and it didn't change my opinion that this woman was more concerned with making a statement about women breastfeeding in public, than she was about just simply feeding her child and getting on with her day)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,246 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    I hope she brought enough for everyone.


Advertisement