Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

Gaygooner

Why are men's nipples OK to show and women's not???

It smacks of a bygone era of them being "evil temptation" to a poor maligned man

Azalea

A crying baby doesn't have to be fed when you feel the need to urinate. God, the absolutely woeful "urinating/defecating/masturbation/sex is natural too" "argument" is still being resorted to?!

lazygal

Azalea wrote: »

A crying baby doesn't have to be fed when you feel the need to urinate. God, the absolutely woeful "urinating/defecating/masturbation/sex is natural too" "argument" is still being resorted to?!

Yes, it's really pathetic to compare a hungry baby to an adult needing to urinate.

Wonda-Boy

Maybe it was a guy and just wanted the other free one!!!

Wibbs

Azalea wrote: »

I'd say younger people remember it in rural Ireland - it was still happening in the '60s.

It was still going on in Dublin in the mid 70's. Crazy.

brian_7070

The real question here is why would someone take a photo of a woman breast feeding and then post it on the internet.

Penny Tration

osarusan wrote: »

Would you not agree that you have changed your tune a bit since earlier in the thread, when you were arguing that the way she was breastfeeding was designed to get attention?



And I don't get the 'ignore the baby on your breast' comment - breastfeeding takes time, and the mother can look round and carry on eating/talking without causing the baby any problems whatsoever. It seems like a petty dig to be honest.

Was she looking for attention by posting what she did? Sure. But as I asked you earlier:

I haven't changed my tune at all. I still believe the woman was feeding in such a way for attention - further evidenced by her reaction to someone allegedly looking at her.

As for your other question - I think she did both for attention

SEPT 23 1989

Most women don't breastfeed a baby in public the way the woman in the picture is doing it

seamus

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The bigger issue I've noticed from reading this thread is that people are breastfeeding 2 year olds!! WTF? That is weird.

WHO guidelines recommend two years of breastfeeding. It's "weird" insofar as it's not typical here in the western world, but there's not really any good reason why it's not done with the exception really of practicality. Up to about nine months, the child decides when they want to be fed, but after that you can add structure to meal times. So it's not like a woman has to whip it out in public to feed an 18-month old, parents can (and will) plan their day around where and when the child will be fed. At that age it's also not 8 times a day, you're talking maybe in the morning and before bed, so the disruption to someone's life isn't that big.

Funny thing though about WHO guidelines is that they're extremely high-level. The same guideline applies to the Duchess of Cambridge as it does to a woman living in a wattle hut in sub-saharan Africa.
It's noted that best outcomes are achieved when breastfed for two years, but that's when applied across an entire world of averages. In poorer countries, breastfeeding provides a constant source of wholesome and safe nutrition when the family's resources may be dwindling. It also makes it more difficult (though far from impossible) to fall pregnant again. You can see why this would lead to better child (and parent) outcomes on average across the world, but why it's probably less relevant for us 1%-ers here in the Western world to adhere strictly to it.

Wibbs wrote: »

It was still going on in Dublin in the mid 70's. Crazy.

Yeah, my mother-in-law would have still done this in 1975. I suspect though it probably depended on how devout the person was and the attitude of their local parish. My mother first gave birth and 1976 and she said that the practice was considered archaic by most people even then.

Utdfan20titles

Is it wrong to take a quick snap on your phone when the baby takes a little break?

intheclouds

How do women who want to breastfeed for 2 years+ manage about going back to work.

I am aware that workplaces must support breastfeeding but from a practical perspective - I am an hours commute, and travel a lot for work - so it just wouldnt be possible.

lazygal

intheclouds wrote: »

How do women who want to breastfeed for 2 years+ manage about going back to work.

I am aware that workplaces must support breastfeeding but from a practical perspective - I am an hours commute, and travel a lot for work - so it just wouldnt be possible.

Feeding a new born is different to a two year old. I went back to work when each child was 11 months. There would be a morning and evening feed. At weekends they might have more. My two year old gets a feed every morning and that might be it when I'm working late. When I'm off he might look for three or four feeds a day.

seamus

intheclouds wrote: »

How do women who want to breastfeed for 2 years+ manage about going back to work.

I am aware that workplaces must support breastfeeding but from a practical perspective - I am an hours commute, and travel a lot for work - so it just wouldnt be possible.

Well that's one reason a lot of women don't. Maternity leave is six months, so they aim to be phasing it out by that stage.

Many women will express - you stick it in sterile bags and freeze it, so the child can be fed by anyone else. But when the child is older, it's not an every two hours matter, you can phase it down to twice a day - morning and evening, and later on even once a day.

The babies also become more efficient. A newborn might take an hour or more to feed, whereas by a year old it's 5/10 minutes. So the disruption to your life is somewhat minimal - in fact easier than making lunch or even making a bottle.

You still need work/life to be conducive to it though. I know one woman who kept it up for nearly 3 years. She's a schoolteacher so morning and late afternoon feeds not an issue for her. If you were leaving for work at 7am and picking them up from creche at 5pm, it'd be more difficult.

Utdfan20titles

seamus wrote: »

. I know one woman who kept it up for nearly 3 years. She's a schoolteacher

She could just whip them out in the class and call it biology?

lazygal

Utdfan20titles wrote: »

She could just whip them out in the class and call it biology?

Would you cut out this nonsense. You're obviously just trying to sound funny and witty about breastfeeding and failing miserably. Are you aware of how three years old children breastfeed or are you actually interested? Or just poking fun at how children are fed?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Breastfeeding is totally natural and most women I know just do it quietly and discreetly and don't feel the need to make any big deal out of it.

Women like the one in that picture seem to see something unusual and noteworthy about breastfeeding and hence make a big, public, look at me everyone deal about it.

I don't know her motives for being obvious about it, but at the same time I take the point that she should be as free to feed her kid as she likes, and the people who are uncomfortable with it are the ones with the problem.

She might have been sticking it to a starer by giving them something to stare at, I don't know. Calling her attention seeking is fair enough, but the context she's seeking attention in might not be the way some people intend.

Had to laugh at someone remarking it was her second kid at 24 and implying she was obviously a certain 'type' because of this. AH never really changes, you'll always get someone trying to twist the knife in for no reason. Anyone who thinks feeding a hungry child is comparable with public masturbation needs to start thinking before they type, unless you actually intend to come across as a complete fool.

gimmick

Can I ask why was someone taking a photo of her breastfeeding? Did she ask someone or was it someone getting a cheap thrill?

Seems like a completely staged story to me.

One eyed Jack

gimmick wrote: »

Can I ask why was someone taking a photo of her breastfeeding? Did she ask someone or was it someone getting a cheap thrill?

Seems like a completely staged story to me.

I'm guessing she'd a friend with her and told her to take a photo of her "staring someone down"... The weird thing is, she's wearing glasses, so you can't see her staring at anything or anyone, all you can see is her breastfeeding her baby and nobody actually around her taking a blind bit of notice.

It has a woeful whiff of "social experiment" off it.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point was referring to the attitude that "if other people are offended by my behavior, fcuk 'em", and what I'm saying is that it's not a good attitude to have

I would say it is a perfectly good attitude to have if there are no other reasons other than personal offence to want them to change their behavior. But you have already shown yourself to be someone who takes offence at the smallest things, like people merely holding hands in a restaurant.

I, for example, really do not like to see massively obese people poured into extremely tight Lycra cycle pants and coming into German Beer gardens sweating in the summer. When it happens however I realize I am the one with the problem, not them, so I merely turn away. I do not throw around some nonsense about them being inconsiderate to my feelings.

The same should be true of things like public breast feeding or mild PDA like hand holding. It would be the observers problem not theirs, and the observers personal offence is your issue, not theirs.

If however one can level genuine arguments other than "That offends me"...... which one can very much do for your fantastical analogy to flashing ones penis at people......... then that is a different story. But so far I have not heard one argument ever, least of all from you, against public breast feeding or why someone engaging in it needs "consideration" for others. I simply see nothing worth the consideration.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The easiest and most convenient way to do it is simply to pull up their top and expose the nipple

Not always true as it happens. My own son for example needs not just the nipple exposed but due to irritations and sensitive skin needs the clothing pulled far enough away to avoid any and all contact. Otherwise his skin gets red raw.

So quite a lot has to be exposed. And of course people mention the option of using some kind of cover like a muslin cloth or some such. All well and good unless you have a baby that panics when you try it.

And that is just one example of an exception to the "rule" you have, simply, made up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's standard practice for anyone with babies that they prepare beforehand - nappies, milk, etc.

More making stuff up from you. Actually many people can not pre-prepare milk in this fashion at all. The level of their supply simply is not enough. And even when they can prepare milk before hand, many children do not take the bottle and refuse it. So some people simply can not engage in the types of "perpetration" you discuss here.

Yeah_Right

^^^

I'm confused. Are you saying the person who is offended is the problem or the person committing the so-called offence?

Kev W

Yeah_Right wrote: »

^^^

I'm confused. Are you saying the person who is offended is the problem or the person committing the so-called offence?

The person who is offended is the problem.

AnonoBoy

It's a simple issue really:

"Listen the constitution says I can bring a gun into a creche to protect myself from any toddlers that might turn out to be armed and dangerous - THAT'S MY RIGHT AS A MERICAN - but you cannot feed your child in public in case I accidentally see you and become slightly uncomfortable because I've got some weird hang ups about breasts for some unknown reason. That's just the way it is and if you don't like it darlin' you can f*ck off back to commie France or wherever you came from."

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm confused. Are you saying the person who is offended is the problem or the person committing the so-called offence?

I am saying that if someone is offended by something, then they have the issue, not the person causing the offence. And I mean that in the context of issues where people are not doing anything wrong. One Eyed for example is offended by people doing Hand Holding PDA in restaurants, and he feels the people holding hands are being inconsiderate. The same is true for many people in relation to public breast feeding.

Since there are no arguments from that kind of person that the person is actually doing anything wrong however..... their offence is their own problem.... not the problem of the source or cause. People holding hands for example do not need to be considerate of Restaurant Cranks.... because there is nothing they should be considerate of by merely holding hands.

Ave Sodalis

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Since there are no arguments from that kind of person that the person is actually doing anything wrong however..... their offence is their own problem.... not the problem of the source or cause. People holding hands for example do not need to be considerate of Restaurant Cranks.... because there is nothing they should be considerate of by merely holding hands.

Are you sure he's offended by that? I mean there's a difference between not liking and being offended by something. I don't like PDAs either. It think they reek of a lack of self control, whilst being controlling of each other. To me, nothing says "this person is mine, back off everyone else!" like a PDA. That doesn't mean I'm offended by it, I just don't like them. There's a big difference between a PDA and breast feeding.

Kev W

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. I don't like PDAs either. It think they reek of a lack of self control, whilst being controlling of each other. To me, nothing says "this person is mine, back off everyone else!" like a PDA. That doesn't mean I'm offended by it, I just don't like them. There's a big difference between a PDA and breast feeding.

There's a big difference but they also have a lot in common, such as the fact that some people don't want to see them and the fact that that is their own problem.

Yeah_Right

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am saying that if someone is offended by something, then they have the issue, not the person causing the offence. And I mean that in the context of issues where people are not doing anything wrong. One Eyed for example is offended by people doing Hand Holding PDA in restaurants, and he feels the people holding hands are being inconsiderate. The same is true for many people in relation to public breast feeding.

Since there are no arguments from that kind of person that the person is actually doing anything wrong however..... their offence is their own problem.... not the problem of the source or cause. People holding hands for example do not need to be considerate of Restaurant Cranks.... because there is nothing they should be considerate of by merely holding hands.

Right. Thanks for clearing that up.

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?

One eyed Jack

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. I don't like PDAs either. It think they reek of a lack of self control, whilst being controlling of each other. To me, nothing says "this person is mine, back off everyone else!" like a PDA. That doesn't mean I'm offended by it, I just don't like them. There's a big difference between a PDA and breast feeding.

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.

Kev W

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Right. Thanks for clearing that up.

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?

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

Ave Sodalis

Kev W wrote:

There's a big difference but they also have a lot in common, such as the fact that some people don't want to see them and the fact that that is their own problem.

At the same time, breast feeding needs to happen but PDAs don't. I don't think anyone has the same reaction to PDAs as breast feeding (unless they have severe issues with being single). Nobody is horrified or disgusted at PDAs (unless it's sex) but people are horrified and disgusted at breast feeding simply because it involves boobs.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

sbsquarepants

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

Ally Dick

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

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.

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?

Ally Dick

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.

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 ****.

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.

Ally Dick

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

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.

lazygal

Ally Dick wrote: »

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

Who defined them thusly?

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!"

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.

Ally Dick

lazygal wrote: »

Who defined them thusly?

Science