Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

Kev W

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Really? How did you get that from the pic in the OP? I mean all I see is an attention seeking lady in an uncomfortable looking position staring off into the distance, with plenty of people around her not paying any notice to her. I don't see anyone staring at her.

There was an issue here recently enough where some hotel had refused to allow the mother feed her child now, there's a real problem. There's an issue to go mad over.

The OP doesn't just link to a pic, does it? there's a story attached.

However let's assume the story is fake and the pic staged.

Does that mean that the events of the story never happen anywhere? Is the subject not worth speaking about in that case?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

That's what it is, a story. This thread has how many pages to it? What's the ratio of those who couldn't care less if a woman feeds her baby, over the idiots who would be offended?

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

The whole point was that someone did have a problem with her breastfeeding in public and made that known. Unless you now want to accuse her of lying or hallucinating?

Well, with no evidence, I'd suggest she could simply be mistaken.

Just because she believes someone was staring at her in disgust for breastfeeding doesn't necessarily mean it's true. They could have been staring at her in disgust for any number of reasons, they may not have been staring at her in disgust at all (the woman could simply have had an unfortunate visage), or she may not have been staring at this woman at all, but this woman claims a woman was staring at her in disgust for breastfeeding, which seems like the only logical explanation to her, based upon her own preconceived notions about other people's attitudes to women breastfeeding in public.

I can't tell you how many times I've met people who think everyone is looking at them, and it's turned out people either weren't looking at them at all, or they're completely misinterpreting the other person's expression, based upon their own insecurities about themselves.

One eyed Jack

crackers and cheese wrote: »

She could have been discreet but why should she?

She should be discreet if she's actually that paranoid that she thinks other people are that interested in her breastfeeding her child. That way she wouldn't have to be looking around to see who's looking at her.

Breaststroke have been far too sexualized for such a long time that we forget their original function

Most people are aware how breasts function, but to suggest that breastfeeding is their only function, is at best lacking in imagination. The idea that a woman's breasts should only be of any value for function only, is not only reductionist, but it's puritan thinking tbh.

Might as well tell all those women who have breast augmentation surgery that they don't need it because they shouldn't see their breasts as part of their sexuality or their femininity, no - women's breasts are only for feeding babies, even if a woman chooses not to have children, that's all she should think her breasts are for...

I don't think you'll ever get much traction with that argument tbh.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She should be discreet if she's actually that paranoid that she thinks other people are that interested in her breastfeeding her child. That way she wouldn't have to be looking around to see who's looking at her.

So we're back to your assumption that it was all in her head. Which is based on what again? Because unless you can back it up, maybe the idea that it's all in her head is all in your head.

Most people are aware how breasts function, but to suggest that breastfeeding is their only function, is at best lacking in imagination. The idea that a woman's breasts should only be of any value for function only, is not only reductionist, but it's puritan thinking tbh.

Might as well tell all those women who have breast augmentation surgery that they don't need it because they shouldn't see their breasts as part of their sexuality or their femininity, no - women's breasts are only for feeding babies, even if a woman chooses not to have children, that's all she should think her breasts are for...

I don't think you'll ever get much traction with that argument tbh.

You're right, which is why nobody is suggesting that that is their only function.

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

She should be discreet if she's actually that paranoid that she thinks other people are that interested in her breastfeeding her child. That way she wouldn't have to be looking around to see who's looking at her.

Again, that's not the way things work. The truth is, people do stare and have a problem with breast feeding. This thread is evidence of it. You'll change nothing by conforming.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Most people are aware how breasts function, but to suggest that breastfeeding is their only function, is at best lacking in imagination. The idea that a woman's breasts should only be of any value for function only, is not only reductionist, but it's puritan thinking tbh.

But their primary function is feeding and that is exactly what they're being used to do. Why would you try and sexualise them when that's not their purpose during feeding?

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don't think you'll ever get much traction with that argument tbh.

With respect OEJ, your own argument which you keep repeating has been discredited multiple times on this thread.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

So we're back to your assumption that it was all in her head. Which is based on what again? Because unless you can back it up, maybe the idea that it's all in her head is all in your head.

Back up there Kev - she made the original claim, it's up to her to produce evidence for her claims before she should expect anyone to believe her. I have no reason to believe her, and I have every reason to believe she has any number of ulterior motives for her claims for which she has no evidence.

There's enough evidence on her social media page to suggest that she courts attention and craves validation for her lifestyle choices, which of course influence her perception of other people.

You're right, which is why nobody is suggesting that that is their only function.

Statements like the one I quoted don't seem to acknowledge any function other than feeding children.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Statements like the one I quoted don't seem to acknowledge any function other than feeding children.

Just so we're all clear,what you quoted was

crackers and cheese wrote: »

She could have been discreet but why should she?

Which is a question, not a statement. and which you cut off before crackers&cheese got to:

crackers and cheese wrote: »

She could have been discreet but why should she? Breaststroke have been far too sexualized for such a long time that we forget their original function

(bolding mine)

Original function, not sole function.

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

Again, that's not the way things work. The truth is, people do stare and have a problem with breast feeding. This thread is evidence of it. You'll change nothing by conforming.

This thread is evidence of the fact that most people don't actually stare at all at women breastfeeding. Just look at the original picture again - people around her aren't staring at her. Look at lazygal's pics - people aren't staring. I would say it's a tiny, tiny minority of people who have a problem with breastfeeding. I don't see that there's anything to conform to, unless you have preconceived notions that other people have a problem with breastfeeding.

But their primary function is feeding and that is exactly what they're being used to do. Why would you try and sexualise them when that's not their purpose during feeding?

What you consider their primary function is your business, but I don't consider feeding their primary function. I don't have to try and sexualise them, at any time. A woman's breasts don't suddenly become unsexy when she's breastfeeding, and my wife would be pretty miffed when she was after giving birth if I told her to her face that her breasts right now are only for feeding. I understand where you're coming from and all, but I personally don't reduce a person's humanity, their sexuality, down to such cold, biological terms.

With respect OEJ, your own argument which you keep repeating has been discredited multiple times on this thread.

Fairness now sup_dude my argument has hardly been addressed at all, which is that this woman's own attitude is the cause of her own distress. If someone has preconceived notions about other people, then naturally they're going to influence that person's judgement. Instead of addressing my argument, what some people here want to do is suggest that I have a problem with women breastfeeding in public, and argue against that instead!

Why should I have to argue against something they claim I have a problem with, when I have said numerous times already that I don't have any issue with it whatsoever? It's like those people need to believe I do have a problem with it so their own prejudices are justified. Well that's good for them, but it does nothing IMO to change people's attitudes, it only makes people dig their heels in even further.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

Just so we're all clear,what you quoted was

Which is a question, not a statement. and which you cut off before crackers&cheese got to:



(bolding mine)

Original function, not sole function.

The statement I was referring to Kev, was this one -

crackers and cheese wrote: »

Breaststroke have been far too sexualized for such a long time that we forget their original function

I see function (singular), referring to their original function, as though it is their sole function before they were sexualised. You might as well be trying to bail the sea out with a teaspoon as try to suggest to people that they shouldn't find breasts sexual! :pac:

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

This thread is evidence of the fact that most people don't actually stare at all at women breastfeeding. Just look at the original picture again - people around her aren't staring at her. Look at lazygal's pics - people aren't staring. I would say it's a tiny, tiny minority of people who have a problem with breastfeeding. I don't see that there's anything to conform to, unless you have preconceived notions that other people have a problem with breastfeeding.

There are been multiple posts saying how breast feeders should cover up and be discrete. There has even been one or two who have said outright that they don't like seeing breastfeeding.

One eyed Jack wrote:

What you consider their primary function is your business, but I don't consider feeding their primary function. I don't have to try and sexualise them, at any time. A woman's breasts don't suddenly become unsexy when she's breastfeeding, and my wife would be pretty miffed when she was after giving birth if I told her to her face that her breasts right now are only for feeding. I understand where you're coming from and all, but I personally don't reduce a person's humanity, their sexuality, down to such cold, biological terms.

Breasts primary reason for existing is to feed. That is not my opinion. That is exactly why they are there. That is not their only reason but that is there main reason. You may not like that, or feel it's reducing people's "humanity", but it doesn't change the fact. I think the fact that you think they exist primarily for guys to get boners is more cold than them existing to feed and nuture a child.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Fairness now sup_dude my argument has hardly been addressed at all, which is that this woman's own attitude is the cause of her own distress. If someone has preconceived notions about other people, then naturally they're going to influence that person's judgement. Instead of addressing my argument, what some people here want to do is suggest that I have a problem with women breastfeeding in public, and argue against that instead!


Why should I have to argue against something they claim I have a problem with, when I have said numerous times already that I don't have any issue with it whatsoever? It's like those people need to believe I do have a problem with it so their own prejudices are justified. Well that's good for them, but it does nothing IMO to change people's attitudes, it only makes people dig their heels in even further.

And what you're doing is assuming everyone thinks boobs are only for feeding. We are all well aware of their sexual nature. This should not affect their other, primary function (yes, primary).

It's not the idea that you have a problem with breast feeding, it's the idea that there are no people who have problems with breastfeeding and that women are just imagining things and should therefore cover up.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The statement I was referring to Kev, was this one -





I see function (singular), referring to their original function, as though it is their sole function before they were sexualised. You might as well be trying to bail the sea out with a teaspoon as try to suggest to people that they shouldn't find breasts sexual! :pac:

If that's the statement you were referring to, why did you cut it out when you quoted that post?

Coat22

I can't stop staring at that photo - its a great tit

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

If that's the statement you were referring to, why did you cut it out when you quoted that post?

I didn't? I addressed it as a separate point within the same post?

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't? I addressed it as a separate point within the same post?

Looking again, yes you did. Sorry about that.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see function (singular), referring to their original function, as though it is their sole function before they were sexualised.

it is, though. That's a simple biological fact. yes, they also give us fellas big boners and that's great but that's a secondary function.

You might as well be trying to bail the sea out with a teaspoon as try to suggest to people that they shouldn't find breasts sexual! :pac:

Which is why, and i'll slow it down because you really seem to have trouble grasping this:

Nobody

Is

Suggesting

That.

Gaygooner

The only thing annoying me is "mom" in the title

lazza14

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right, 'twas a bit harsh in hindsight, I apologise for that much, but you're after leaving me even more confused now because your original point was referring to women breastfeeding -





So I have no idea what Janet Jackson exposing her breast has to do with that?

You do know that Americans are the largest producer and consumer of pornography in the world?

You do know that there are many lobby groups in the US who campaign against all forms of violence in the media?

Depending upon your perspective, you could think anything was prevalent in a society of 315 million people, but that doesn't necessarily mean it actually is! This relates back to the woman in the opening post - she imagines that other people have a problem with her breastfeeding in public, but the reality is that it's all in her head. She has an issue with breastfeeding in public so she projects her own insecurity onto other people as though they're the people who have issues.

Her issues are with herself, and I'd say that to any woman who felt like she couldn't breastfeed in public because she was paranoid that people might stare at her - that's her problem with herself, her own insecurity is what is preventing her from putting her baby's necessity before the opinions of strangers.

There's no need to 'normalise' something that's already normal in society.

OK my original point was about breastfeeding but can be extended to nudity, I do realise that the USA is the biggest
producer of porn in the world, but also one of the most conservative.

I dont want to generalise a country of 300 million people of course not, but its quite conservative there,
practically all beaches women can't even go topless, cant even imagine that on a european beach.

So people might not reflect this, but their laws seem to .

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

There are been multiple posts saying how breast feeders should cover up and be discrete. There has even been one or two who have said outright that they don't like seeing breastfeeding.

Well of course there are, but as a proportion of the number of posters who have no issue with breastfeeding, all you can pick out are a mere handful? That handful is hardly representative of society now in fairness. You're ignoring all the people who have expressly said they have no issues at all with women breastfeeding in public!

Breasts primary reason for existing is to feed. That is not my opinion. That is exactly why they are there. That is not their only reason but that is there main reason. You may not like that, or feel it's reducing people's "humanity", but it doesn't change the fact. I think the fact that you think they exist primarily for guys to get boners is more cold than them existing to feed and nuture a child.

If you want to get all technical and reduce human beings to merely their primate biological functions, then it's the primary function of the mammary glands in females that produce milk for nutrition. You may not like the fact that other people do not agree that the primary function of their breasts is to feed children. I never suggested at all that their primary function was for guys to get boners, I suggested that women themselves see their breasts as part of their femininity and their sexuality. I think the fact you think they exist just to feed children is implying that for women with no children, their breasts are redundant, and that to me is pretty cold.

And what you're doing is assuming everyone thinks boobs are only for feeding. We are all well aware of their sexual nature. This should not affect their other, primary function (yes, primary).

I don't at all assume everyone thinks breasts are only for feeding. I know all too well that it's only a mere handful of people who think that way. Thinking of women's breasts in a sexual way doesn't at all affect their primary function, but for some women, because they think of their breasts as sexual, they see exposing their breasts as immodest, regardless of their primary function or otherwise, which is why they may feel insecure about feeding their child in public.

It's not the idea that you have a problem with breast feeding, it's the idea that there are no people who have problems with breastfeeding and that women are just imagining things and should therefore cover up.

Of course there are people who have a problem with breastfeeding, but far more people don't care either way. I'm not suggesting at all that women should cover up, I wouldn't care if women went around topless (wouldn't recommend it in this weather though), but often times people who are insecure about themselves will look around to see who's looking at them, and they'll catch the eye of someone who will wonder what they're looking at, and then begins the stare-down. I'm suggesting that if someone is that insecure about themselves, then they probably should cover up. That's not telling breastfeeding women to cover up, it's suggesting that people who are insecure about themselves should probably cover up if they're insecure about people looking at them when they're not covered up.

I'm saying that insecure people should examine their own attitudes to other people rather than assume other people have any interest in them whatsoever.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She should be discreet if she's actually that paranoid that she thinks other people are that interested in her breastfeeding her child. That way she wouldn't have to be looking around to see who's looking at her.

Perhaps you could answer my previous questions?

How was she indiscreet?
How could she have been more discreet?
What constitutes discreet breastfeeding?

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well of course there are, but as a proportion of the number of posters who have no issue with breastfeeding, all you can pick out are a mere handful? That handful is hardly representative of society now in fairness. You're ignoring all the people who have expressly said they have no issues at all with women breastfeeding in public!

Yet the handful of people in the OP photo do?

If you want to get all technical and reduce human beings to merely their primate biological functions, then it's the primary function of the mammary glands in females that produce milk for nutrition. You may not like the fact that other people do not agree that the primary function of their breasts is to feed children. I never suggested at all that their primary function was for guys to get boners, I suggested that women themselves see their breasts as part of their femininity and their sexuality. I think the fact you think they exist just to feed children is implying that for women with no children, their breasts are redundant, and that to me is pretty cold.

Who are you addressing here? Nobody has said that! Literally not one person! Are you arguing with a ghost only you can see?

Ave Sodalis

One eyed Jack wrote:

Well of course there are, but as a proportion of the number of posters who have no issue with breastfeeding, all you can pick out are a mere handful? That handful is hardly representative of society now in fairness. You're ignoring all the people who have expressly said they have no issues at all with women breastfeeding in public!

In fairness OEJ, it doesn't seem to me that breastfeeding is something you've ever had to deal with.

One eyed Jack wrote:

If you want to get all technical and reduce human beings to merely their primate biological functions, then it's the primary function of the mammary glands in females that produce milk for nutrition. You may not like the fact that other people do not agree that the primary function of their breasts is to feed children. I never suggested at all that their primary function was for guys to get boners, I suggested that women themselves see their breasts as part of their femininity and their sexuality. I think the fact you think they exist just to feed children is implying that for women with no children, their breasts are redundant, and that to me is pretty cold.

For breasts to be redundant, they would have to have no function. Nobody has ever suggested this. I don't have kids so mine are not used to feed children. It doesn't take away from the fact that that is what they exist for. You see, it's not about whether you agree or disagree. It is quite simply a straight forward fact. You can disagree that eyes aren't primary there for seeing, but that doesn't make you correct. It also doesn't make it a cold, biological fact that lack humanity.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don't at all assume everyone thinks breasts are only for feeding. I know all too well that it's only a mere handful of people who think that way. Thinking of women's breasts in a sexual way doesn't at all affect their primary function, but for some women, because they think of their breasts as sexual, they see exposing their breasts as immodest, regardless of their primary function or otherwise, which is why they may feel insecure about feeding their child in public.

No, women tend to feel insecure about breastfeeding because of the people who can't see breasts for anything other than sexual.

One eyed Jack wrote:

Of course there are people who have a problem with breastfeeding, but far more people don't care either way. I'm not suggesting at all that women should cover up, I wouldn't care if women went around topless (wouldn't recommend it in this weather though), but often times people who are insecure about themselves will look around to see who's looking at them, and they'll catch the eye of someone who will wonder what they're looking at, and then begins the stare-down. I'm suggesting that if someone is that insecure about themselves, then they probably should cover up. That's not telling breastfeeding women to cover up, it's suggesting that people who are insecure about themselves should probably cover up if they're insecure about people looking at them when they're not covered up.

But that suggests that it's entirely in their own head when it's not! Breastfeeding causes problems in Ireland. It's not a normal thing to do. In concept, it's easy to say that breastfeeding is normal and that there isn't any judgement for those who do it, but the reality doesn't add up. Neither does your logic. Should a burns victim cover up? Or anyone with physical deformities? There's a good chance there will be people rude enough to stare at them (which does make people self conscious) so should they put a bag over their heads? Or should the people stareing cop onto themselves a bit?

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Perhaps you could answer my previous questions?

How was she indiscreet?
How could she have been more discreet?
What constitutes discreet breastfeeding?

She had her breast exposed in public, that was indiscreet, she could have been more discreet by not having her breast exposed in public. Discreet breastfeeding is constituted by your priority being feeding the child rather than looking around you to see who's looking at you, and then getting into childish staring competitions.

This stuff isn't rocket science, most people manage to do it without drawing attention to themselves.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She had her breast exposed in public, that was indiscreet, she could have been more discreet by not having her breast exposed in public.

So she should have covered up or maybe gone into the bathroom to feed?

Discreet breastfeeding is constituted by your priority being feeding the child rather than looking around you to see who's looking at you, and then getting into childish staring competitions.

Once again, you're ascribing motivation that's coming right out of your own head. How do you know she was looking around to see who was looking at her rather than just looking around because she's in a restaurant and people just tend to do that? When you're in a restaurant do you just stare at the floor?[/quote]

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She had her breast exposed in public, that was indiscreet, she could have been more discreet by not having her breast exposed in public. Discreet breastfeeding is constituted by your priority being feeding the child rather than looking around you to see who's looking at you, and then getting into childish staring competitions.

This stuff isn't rocket science, most people manage to do it without drawing attention to themselves.

How do you expect breastfeeding to be carried out without the breast being exposed?

How do you know that she was looking around? Isn't it as, or more, likely that her companion noticed someone staring and told her?

Diamond Doll

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She had her breast exposed in public, that was indiscreet, she could have been more discreet by not having her breast exposed in public. Discreet breastfeeding is constituted by your priority being feeding the child rather than looking around you to see who's looking at you, and then getting into childish staring competitions.

This stuff isn't rocket science, most people manage to do it without drawing attention to themselves.

Discreet breastfeeding isn't always possible. I never managed it. My boobs were leaking from when I was only 16 weeks pregnant, and I had a huge problem both with over-supply and with the baby not being able to latch. After my baby was born, any time he'd cry, both of my boobs would explode, milk squirting everywhere despite breast-pads. So there was lots of messing and swapping between boobs to try to waste as little breastmilk as possible. Also I needed to use a Latch Assist (a little trumpet-shaped yoke to vacuum out the nipple) and nipple shields (kinda like teats) just to get him attached. So it was never going to be discreet.

I did give up a few weeks in, so rarely had to attempt it in public. But if I ever exposed too much, it certainly wasn't out of seeking attention or anything like that. I know breastfeeding comes as the most natural easy thing in the world to many lucky mothers, but it's not always the case.

nozzferrahhtoo

Diamond Doll wrote: »

But if I ever exposed too much, it certainly wasn't out of seeking attention or anything like that. I know breastfeeding comes as the most natural easy thing in the world to many lucky mothers, but it's not always the case.

I think that generally sums it up. The majority of the cranks moaning about it come out with phrases like "Most women can be discrete about it, why can X, Y or Z not do so?".

And one wonders why, in their assumptions, such women are NOT being discrete about it. The assumptions you often here tend to be things like "Attention Seeking" or a "Desire to get someone offended".

Whereas I reckon the vast majority of the women NOT doing it discretely are not doing so by choice, but because they generally have one issue or another..... often entirely unknown to the observer.... as to why she simply can not do so.

It reminds me of those cranks who accost people coming out of disabled toilets or something shouting "You're not disabled, what were you doing in there" and then finding out the hard way that not all disabilities are visible or apparent to the ignorant observer, especially the ignorant observer determined to take exception and/or offense to SOMETHING. But what can you expect from a world punctuated by the type of crank who can find internal cause to take exception to things as simple as people daring to hold each others hand in their vicinity and feel they are warranted some kind of managerial action from whatever establishment it happened in?

One eyed Jack

sup_dude wrote: »

In fairness OEJ, it doesn't seem to me that breastfeeding is something you've ever had to deal with.

Well no, not me personally, but I've been in the company of many of my friends when they were breastfeeding their babies and we're having a chat over a coffee while they're breastfeeding their baby. I didn't take any notice, nor did anyone else in the restaurant, nor were we looking around to see who else was looking.

For breasts to be redundant, they would have to have no function. Nobody has ever suggested this. I don't have kids so mine are not used to feed children. It doesn't take away from the fact that that is what they exist for. You see, it's not about whether you agree or disagree. It is quite simply a straight forward fact. You can disagree that eyes aren't primary there for seeing, but that doesn't make you correct. It also doesn't make it a cold, biological fact that lack humanity.

Ok I don't think we're ever likely to see eye to eye on that one so I'm just gonna park it tbh.

No, women tend to feel insecure about breastfeeding because of the people who can't see breasts for anything other than sexual.

Why do you think they care for the opinions of strangers?

But that suggests that it's entirely in their own head when it's not! Breastfeeding causes problems in Ireland. It's not a normal thing to do. In concept, it's easy to say that breastfeeding is normal and that there isn't any judgement for those who do it, but the reality doesn't add up. Neither does your logic. Should a burns victim cover up? Or anyone with physical deformities? There's a good chance there will be people rude enough to stare at them (which does make people self conscious) so should they put a bag over their heads? Or should the people stareing cop onto themselves a bit?

What reality doesn't add up? I've met plenty of women who breastfed and that is their reality. That's why I'm saying that breastfeeding in public is perfectly normal, it's only because of their own paranoia that some women are averse to breastfeeding in public. That's their problem, with everyone else, not the other way around. They should be the people with a bit of cop on and grow up.

You're asking me should burns victims or people with deformities cover up as though I suggested that women who breastfeed should cover up. That's not what I suggested at all. I suggested that if someone is that paranoid about themselves (for whatever reason, if you must), they should probably cover up.

If I spent my day confronting people for staring at me, I'd get fcukall done in the day. I simply have better things to be doing. I had to get over my insecurities a long time ago because I realised that there's always going to be people who stare, but they're not actually doing anything physically harmful, so let them stare if they want to while I continue on about my business. Now if only I could convince my wife to think the same way when she sees people staring at me, that'd be great :pac:

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well no, not me personally, but I've been in the company of many of my friends when they were breastfeeding their babies and we're having a chat over a coffee while they're breastfeeding their baby. I didn't take any notice, nor did anyone else in the restaurant, nor were we looking around to see who else was looking.





Ok I don't think we're ever likely to see eye to eye on that one so I'm just gonna park it tbh.





Why do you think they care for the opinions of strangers?





What reality doesn't add up? I've met plenty of women who breastfed and that is their reality. That's why I'm saying that breastfeeding in public is perfectly normal, it's only because of their own paranoia that some women are averse to breastfeeding in public. That's their problem, with everyone else, not the other way around. They should be the people with a bit of cop on and grow up.

You're asking me should burns victims or people with deformities cover up as though I suggested that women who breastfeed should cover up. That's not what I suggested at all. I suggested that if someone is that paranoid about themselves (for whatever reason, if you must), they should probably cover up.

If I spent my day confronting people for staring at me, I'd get fcukall done in the day. I simply have better things to be doing. I had to get over my insecurities a long time ago because I realised that there's always going to be people who stare, but they're not actually doing anything physically harmful, so let them stare if they want to while I continue on about my business. Now if only I could convince my wife to think the same way when she sees people staring at me, that'd be great :pac:

Just because you haven't personally encountered a problem does not mean it's not a problem for other people or that those who do encounter it are just being paranoid.

dslamjack

Could Donald Trump not ban or shut this type of thing down as well?

One eyed Jack

Diamond Doll wrote: »

Discreet breastfeeding isn't always possible. I never managed it. My boobs were leaking from when I was only 16 weeks pregnant, and I had a huge problem both with over-supply and with the baby not being able to latch. After my baby was born, any time he'd cry, both of my boobs would explode, milk squirting everywhere despite breast-pads. So there was lots of messing and swapping between boobs to try to waste as little breastmilk as possible. Also I needed to use a Latch Assist (a little trumpet-shaped yoke to vacuum out the nipple) and nipple shields (kinda like teats) just to get him attached. So it was never going to be discreet.

I did give up a few weeks in, so rarely had to attempt it in public. But if I ever exposed too much, it certainly wasn't out of seeking attention or anything like that. I know breastfeeding comes as the most natural easy thing in the world to many lucky mothers, but it's not always the case.

I know it's not always possible of course, but I was just answering kylith's questions straight as I could.

Tbh I've tried not to listen too much to my friends going on about cabbage leaves and stuff, it's more than I need to know really, but sometimes their stories are hilarious, sometimes they're upsetting, but geez I can still use my best judgement in showing them some understanding when they're having difficulty or whatever, and I think most people are capable of that much, and that's why I don't like this idea being promoted in society by some people that people in society have issues with women who are breastfeeding in public. It just hasn't been my experience and it hasn't been the experience of any of my friends who have talked to me about it.

(Generally I don't ask about these sorts of things)

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

Just because you haven't personally encountered a problem does not mean it's not a problem for other people or that those who do encounter it are just being paranoid.

I never said it isn't a problem for other people Kev, I've actually acknowledged numerous times now that it is, but I'm saying that there are also people who will exaggerate and blow things out of proportion and blame their insecurities on "society".

Everyone has their issues, but how we evolved as a society was through cooperation, not confrontation.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't like this idea being promoted in society by some people that people in society have issues with women who are breastfeeding in public.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said it isn't a problem for other people Kev, I've actually acknowledged numerous times now that it is, but I'm saying that there are also people who will exaggerate and blow things out of proportion and blame their insecurities on "society".

Everyone has their issues, but how we evolved as a society was through cooperation, not confrontation.

So you don't believe people in society have issues with public breastfeeding but you do accept that people in society having problems with public breastfeeding is a problem for other people?

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

So you don't believe people in society have issues with public breastfeeding but you do accept that people in society having problems with public breastfeeding is a problem for other people?

I think both posts you quoted were quite clear. I know there are people in society who have issues with women breastfeeding in public, but they're only a problem if people choose to make them a problem. Someone staring at you could be staring at you for any number of reasons, and if the first conclusion you jump to is that they're staring at you because you're breastfeeding, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that at some level, you must see a problem with breastfeeding in public yourself, and I'm suggesting it's that line of thinking which puts many women off the idea.

They put themselves off the idea by thinking the way they do about what other people will think of them.

looksee

I don't think this is about public breastfeeding at all. Its about a group of people who take a reasonable situation and go to ridiculous extremes with it - like extreme feminists, right wing, left wing, whatever you want to discuss.

The pic is deliberately staged to make a point, but as usual in these situations they are doing more harm than good to their objective.

How is it staged?
A woman genuinely feeding will keep her attention within herself, not sit up like a meercat peering all around her looking for offence.

Her body is stressed and tense, not a natural reaction to breastfeeding

She appears to be wearing a bra under her top so pulling out one breast from the top would be ridiculously awkward.

It would need two hands to hold down the neckline and pull out the boob, that's a pretty big baby, how was she holding it as she did the manoeuvre?

She could have lifted her top, freed her breast and attached the baby from below, and with one hand, still hoisting up her top to show maximum boob if she really wanted to, but it would have been much easier and more comfortable - and not looked quite so ridiculous.

Wasn't it handy that she had someone poised to take a pic of her staring into the distance - a pointless pose, but it was obviously someone with an interest in the situation.

And after all that she did not make a point for freedom to breastfeed - which I agree with - quite the reverse.

inocybe

lazza14 wrote: »

OK my original point was about breastfeeding but can be extended to nudity, I do realise that the USA is the biggest
producer of porn in the world, but also one of the most conservative.

I dont want to generalise a country of 300 million people of course not, but its quite conservative there,
practically all beaches women can't even go topless, cant even imagine that on a european beach.

So people might not reflect this, but their laws seem to .

The US has a far higher breastfeeding rate than Ireland

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

How do you expect breastfeeding to be carried out without the breast being exposed?

Is this just going to be a series of questions or is there a point to all this, because I've already said that there's no need to expose more than is necessary if a woman wants to be discreet about it, and most women I know are discreet about it, for their own comfort. I'm not telling anyone they have to be discreet about it, but then if they choose not to be discreet about it, I'm not going to have any sympathy for them when they chose to draw attention to themselves.

Even in Diamond Doll's case above, or many of the posters who have contributed to this thread, they weren't exposing their whole breast to try and draw attention to themselves, they were doing what was necessary, and I think most people understand that in those situations it can make people uncomfortable to stare at them, which is why most people will ignore a woman breastfeeding.

How do you know that she was looking around?

From the photo? It's obvious her attention at that point in time isn't where it should be - on her baby, which kinda shoots a gaping hole in her ERF credentials that she prioritises a stare-off with a stranger over bonding with her own baby while she's feeding.

Isn't it as, or more, likely that her companion noticed someone staring and told her?

It's certainly possible, but I couldn't say whether it was more likely or not, and even then she still wasn't forced to look. That's the kind of mentality I'd expect of a secondary school teenager, not so much a grown adult, although with social media giving some people the outlet and the validation they crave, I'm being exposed more and more to adults with teenage mentalities.

super_furry

40 pages? I'm betting that this is another thread filled with new accounts railing against the "evils of feminism".

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

# Someone staring at you could be staring at you for any number of reasons, and if the first conclusion you jump to is that they're staring at you because you're breastfeeding, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that at some level, you must see a problem with breastfeeding in public yourself, and I'm suggesting it's that line of thinking which puts many women off the idea.#

So it was just a coincidence that this woman was staring and shaking her head at the time the mother was breastfeeding? If she hadn't been breastfeeding she still would have gotten that look?

looksee

Kev W wrote: »

So it was just a coincidence that this woman was staring and shaking her head at the time the mother was breastfeeding? If she hadn't been breastfeeding she still would have gotten that look?

Pity she wasn't in the shot, no-one else seems to be taking much notice.

Kev W

looksee wrote: »

Pity she wasn't in the shot, no-one else seems to be taking much notice.

She has her back to everyone else in the shot.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

So it was just a coincidence that this woman was staring and shaking her head at the time the mother was breastfeeding? If she hadn't been breastfeeding she still would have gotten that look?

It could be any number of reasons Kev, but for her own reasons, the woman in the photograph decided to make it all about herself. I don't know whether she would or wouldn't have gotten that look if she wasn't breastfeeding, and neither do you, which is why I wonder why you think she was only getting that look because she was breastfeeding?

Why does the woman in the photograph immediately assume that because she's breastfeeding is the reason she's getting that look of disgust from another woman?

Like I said, could be any number of reasons, for example the woman could be disgusted that she is gawping around her to see who's looking at her and not concentrating on feeding her child, or it could be because that's one fugly looking eye-blinding orange top she has on. Who knows?

Would have been nice to have her opinion though, then that would have provided balance and insight which is so badly lacking in this woman's story.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It could be any number of reasons Kev, but for her own reasons, the woman in the photograph decided to make it all about herself. I don't know whether she would or wouldn't have gotten that look if she wasn't breastfeeding, and neither do you, which is why I wonder why you think she was only getting that look because she was breastfeeding?

You're right, she probably just didn't like her glasses.

Why does the woman in the photograph immediately assume that because she's breastfeeding is the reason she's getting that look of disgust from another woman?

Giving a stranger the evil eye in a restaurant when they're doing no wrong is the act of a dickhead.

So we know the woman giving the look is a dickhead.

Having a problem with a woman breastfeeding in public is also the act of a dickhead.

As evidence goes it may be circumstantial but it's still compelling.

Like I said, could be any number of reasons, for example the woman could be disgusted that she is gawping around her to see who's looking at her and not concentrating on feeding her child.

This is plausible if we assume a degree of telepathy on the part of the staring woman. I'm not willing to make that leap.

Samaris

I don't see that her story is so utterly unbelievable. Everyone we see in the photo is just fine with it, but seemingly there is a tiny minority (one woman off-shot) that does, and is staring/making gestures that implies she is offended by what she sees. Well, so far those numbers fit with the responses in this thread! Most people are fine, some people have an issue. Assuming this woman isn't making it all up out of whole cloth, if someone was staring at her while breastfeeding and making gestures to indicate that she should cover up/is acting disgusted about it, it's -probably- not because she's wearing an orange top. Although there may well be people out there that are so terrified of the colour orange that they glare at anyone they see wearing it, I dunno. Just seems a tad unlikely.

It is a photograph, we only see this moment, where her attention is already shifted and she's sitting straight and angry, staring off to the side. There are any number of reasons why her attention might have been caught, including the person that took the photo having drawn her attention to it, even by looking back at the invisible woman himself. We can probably assume that she doesn't breastfeed all the time ram-rod straight and scowling!

Also, people have quoted her views, including the anti-vax thing. Well, people can be idiots and still be right at times. They're irrelevant to the situation at hand.

-Even if- the photograph was totally staged and no-one has ever given this lady even the slightest side-eye, it's lead to a rather interesting discussion on this thread here that actually somewhat vindicates her. A minority of people -do- have problems with public breastfeeding. A larger group are fine with it, but consider revealing anything more than the nipple to be attention-seeking.

Yep, the photo was convenient, although that's not so unusual these days where most people have phones with 8mgpx cameras that are very easily accessible. My personal response would not have been to snap a picture of my angry and distressed partner while someone was acting the wench at her, but hey, people are weird.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

You're right, she probably just didn't like her glasses.

That could well be a reason too!

Giving a stranger the evil eye in a restaurant when they're doing no wrong is the act of a dickhead.

That's entirely subjective. You and I see nothing wrong with a woman breastfeeding in public. You see something wrong with people staring. I don't, but that's probably because I'm used to people staring so it's become normalised to me.

Could the same thing happen for breastfeeding? Absolutely, but not if the woman in the opening post has anything to do with it!

So we know the woman giving the look is a dickhead.

Kev is that you making assumptions about someone you don't even know? About someone you've never even seen? And here was me thinking you were above that sort of behaviour!

Having a problem with a woman breastfeeding in public is also the act of a dickhead.

I'm not sure I'd even be thinking about someone who has a problem with a woman breastfeeding in public tbh, it'd depend on a number of factors before I'd form the conclusion that someone was a dickhead solely because they had an issue with a woman breastfeeding in public.

As evidence goes it may be circumstantial but it's still compelling.

One of those words doesn't belong in that sentence. Either evidence is circumstantial, or it's compelling. It can't be both.

This is plausible if we assume a degree of telepathy on the part of the staring woman. I'm not willing to make that leap.

You just did! You assigned all sorts of motivations to back up this woman's claim that the other woman was staring at her in disgust, when you've never even seen the other woman, never mind what way she was staring, or even if she was staring, at the woman in the opening post.

Why? Because confirmation bias is why - you believe that most people in society have issues with a woman breastfeeding, and that's why you want to believe this woman's account of events is true without any further examination necessary! That kind of thinking is exactly how Samaris got caught off guard earlier with the story about the female police officer in NYC wrestling a baby from a woman who was breastfeeding at the time. The story turned out to be a hoax, as do many of these stories, but still some people need to believe, and they don't want to examine anything critically when it fits in with their prejudices, as to do so seems to cause them discomfort.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kev is that you making assumptions about someone you don't even know? About someone you've never even seen? And here was me thinking you were above that sort of behaviour!

that wasn't an assumption, it was a deduction.

I'm not sure I'd even be thinking about someone who has a problem with a woman breastfeeding in public tbh, it'd depend on a number of factors before I'd form the conclusion that someone was a dickhead solely because they had an issue with a woman breastfeeding in public.

That's you. I think differently.

One of those words doesn't belong in that sentence. Either evidence is circumstantial, or it's compelling. It can't be both.

"Compelling" means "evoking interest".

You just did! You assigned all sorts of motivations to back up this woman's claim that the other woman was staring at her in disgust, when you've never even seen the other woman, never mind what way she was staring, or even if she was staring, at the woman in the opening post.

I didn't assign motivations, I just took the ones that were given at face value because I see no reason not to.

Why? Because confirmation bias is why - you believe that most people in society have issues with a woman breastfeeding, and that's why you want to believe this woman's account of events is true without any further examination necessary! That kind of thinking is exactly how Samaris got caught off guard earlier with the story about the female police officer in NYC wrestling a baby from a woman who was breastfeeding at the time. The story turned out to be a hoax, as do many of these stories, but still some people need to believe, and they don't want to examine anything critically when it fits in with their prejudices, as to do so seems to cause them discomfort.

Please direct me to where I've made the bolded claim, as I certainly don't believe it and would like to edit it accordingly.

namloc1980

super_furry wrote: »

40 pages? I'm betting that this is another thread filled with new accounts railing against the "evils of feminism".

That would be a losing bet.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

that wasn't an assumption, it was a deduction.

Nice! I'm going to use that in future when someone accuses me of making assumptions. I'll just say "that wasn't an assumption, it was a deduction", and let them figure out the difference :pac:

That's you. I think differently.

Obviously. The point being that because we think differently - your perspective, and my perspective, will also likely differ. I'm not sure there's much point in continuing on the discussion if you're going to continue to want to play words with friends instead of engaging properly in a discussion.

"Compelling" means "evoking interest".

Ahh, right, circumstantial evidence is compelling to you then? I'd be very skeptical of it myself, and I certainly wouldn't be as willing as you are to take it at face value.

I didn't assign motivations, I just took the ones that were given at face value because I see no reason not to.

There are plenty of compelling reasons not to take this woman's account of events at face value, but you seem more interested in circumstantial evidence that backs up your belief in her claims. I can see in that circumstance then why you feel no need to examine all the evidence critically (and even tbe lack of evidence, like a photo of the other woman in question).

Please direct me to where I've made the bolded claim, as I certainly don't believe it and would like to edit it accordingly.

That was a deduction

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You just did! You assigned all sorts of motivations to back up this woman's claim that the other woman was staring at her in disgust, /quote]

No, that's what YOU are doing. You're assigning motivations such as that she may have been glaring because she didn't like the mother's shirt. Motivations for which there is zero evidence other than your apparent dislike of the nursing woman because she dared to do something natural and normal as if it were, well, natural and normal.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

No, that's what YOU are doing. You're assigning motivations such as that she may have been glaring because she didn't like the mother's shirt. Motivations for which there is zero evidence other than your apparent dislike of the nursing woman because she dared to do something natural and normal as if it were, well, natural and normal.

I'm absolutely not assigning any motivations, at all. My point was that there could be any number of reasons why this woman was staring at her in disgust (as she claims), but this woman immediately jumped to the conclusion that her apparent disgust must be motivated by the fact she was breastfeeding in public.

I'm somewhat relieved to hear that any dislike of this woman is only apparent to you, because I don't particularly care for this particular woman either way, it's her attitude I dislike, and her subsequent actions where she felt compelled to get into a weird "stare-off" confrontation with a baby attached to her breast. That could easily have gone very badly for her.

Getting into stare-offs with people is neither natural nor normal, at least not among adults anyway. It's more common among children.