Breastfeeding Mom in restaurant stare off...

Ally Dick

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.

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?

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!

namloc1980

Ally Dick wrote: »

Science

Get outta here!

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.

One eyed Jack

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.

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?

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.

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)

Potatoeman

I hope she brought enough for everyone.

Ally Dick

Kev W wrote: »

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

A characteristic is different to an organ

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You seem stuck on the idea that a woman breastfeeding in public is being inconsiderate. She is not.

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.

Those people are wrong though, because public nudity is illegal. Public breastfeeding is not. So the comparison doesn't really stand up.

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)

You really are stuck on your assumption that this woman went looking for attention.

Samaris

I would also say that staring is considered very rude in our culture and being stared at will often invite a response, not least glaring. So if someone makes a deliberately rude gesture to you - yes, including staring - one has a certain right to pick up the message behind it and react to it appropriately.

What constitutes an appropriate reaction is generally disagreed on, mind you.

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

You really are stuck on your assumption that this woman went looking for attention.

She has a blog on the subject and she has set up Intactalactavist Mama...so she may have had good reasons to want attention and a confrontation or story. Not that this means the other person could stare at her, but think her angle should be pointed out too.

Ally Dick

Kev W wrote: »

You really are stuck on your assumption that this woman went looking for attention.

She should have worn a poncho/shawl and fed the baby under it

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

You will have to take it up with them not me then, as I am commenting in general on things like breast feeding and PDAs and the like. I said nothing about staring.

It is you coming into this thread about breast feeding talking about showing consideration to others. Yet you have not shown any consideration is warranted.

lazygal

Ally Dick wrote: »

She should have worn a poncho/shawl and fed the baby under it

Do you eat with a poncho/shawl draped over you?

Kev W

Deleted User wrote: »

She has a blog on the subject and she has set up Intactalactavist Mama...so she may have had good reasons to want attention and a confrontation or story. Not that this means the other person could stare at her, but think her angle should be pointed out too.

Conversely, since she has a blog on the subject of course she's going to tell the story. If you have a blog on a subject you write about your experiences with that subject.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ally Dick wrote: »

She should have worn a poncho/shawl and fed the baby under it

There is no such "should" at all. Many people choose to do that... but that is their choice, not their obligation. In fact many people can not do it for various reasons. My own son, for example, panics.

Kev W

Ally Dick wrote: »

She should have worn a poncho/shawl and fed the baby under it

As has been pointed out:

a) she shouldn't need to

b) not everybody can.

lazygal

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no such "should" at all. Many people choose to do that... but that is their choice, not their obligation. In fact many people can not do it for various reasons. My own son, for example, panics.

I'd like to see my two year old stay under a poncho or shawl while feeding.

Samaris

Ally Dick wrote: »

She should have worn a poncho/shawl and fed the baby under it

It's okay, the bad, naughty breast isn't going to detach and come after you, even if it's not restrained by a shawl.

Tbh, I'd put the comfort of the baby and the parent over the rather ridiculous disgust of whoever this mysterious other patron was.

Breastfeeding in public is perfectly legal in Ireland (and in most other western cultures), end of.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

You seem stuck on the idea that a woman breastfeeding in public is being inconsiderate. She is not.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that I have a problem with women breastfeeding in public. I don't, I never have, and I never will.

Those people are wrong though, because public nudity is illegal. Public breastfeeding is not. So the comparison doesn't really stand up.

Within the context of people doing what they feel they should be entitled to do regardless of any consideration for other people, the comparison absolutely stands up. There's plenty was illegal in the past and people still did it regardless of whether or not it was illegal, so making the point that something is illegal, is the point that doesn't stand up when it comes to some people's attitudes that they are entitled to do what they want regardless of consideration for other people.

You really are stuck on your assumption that this woman went looking for attention.

Considering she admits herself that she engaged in a "stare-off", it's a valid interpretation of her motives. As far as I'm concerned, all she's done is made it that much harder for other women to breastfeed in public because they'll feel like they can't without someone staring at them, when in fact most people aren't actually all that interested in what other people are doing.

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

Conversely, since she has a blog on the subject of course she's going to tell the story. If you have a blog on a subject you write about your experiences with that subject.

Oh true.

But it's one of those things that might make people go "hmmmm". Pity she didn't get a pic of the other person staring, might have addressed any doubts about the story.

NachoBusiness

Kev W wrote: »

You seem stuck on the idea that a woman breastfeeding in public is being inconsiderate. She is not.

How about totally naked, Kev? How about a woman that takes all her clothes off in Burger King just to breastfeed and takes some selfies while she's at it. I know it won't happen, but if it did, would you considerate that inconsiderate? Or is it that once a woman's nipple is insider her child's mouth she becomes incapable of being inconsiderate? That seems to be what you're, rather naively, suggesting.

You really are stuck on your assumption that this woman went looking for attention.

She did. Quite clearly. Many like her too. One did it on the cover of Time.

https://twitter.com/MrNachoBusiness/status/674230275694583809

c_man

I'm not buying it happened. Anyways, yeah sure mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in public. Why on earth not?! Can't say I've ever seen someone take offence to it irl!

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

I would also say that staring is considered very rude in our culture and being stared at will often invite a response, not least glaring. So if someone makes a deliberately rude gesture to you - yes, including staring - one has a certain right to pick up the message behind it and react to it appropriately.

What constitutes an appropriate reaction is generally disagreed on, mind you.

I think it's generally agreed among adults that the best way to deal with someone staring at you is to ignore them.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You seem to be stuck on the idea that I have a problem with women breastfeeding in public. I don't, I never have, and I never will.

Yet you repeatedly say the breastfeeding mother is being "inconsiderate".

Within the context of people doing what they feel they should be entitled to do regardless of any consideration for other people, the comparison absolutely stands up.

Except breastfeeding is not something a mother "feels that she should be entitled to do", it's something she is entitled to do. By law. Unlike public nudity. So the comparison does not stand.

There's plenty was illegal in the past and people still did it regardless of whether or not it was illegal, so making the point that something is illegal, is the point that doesn't stand up when it comes to some people's attitudes that they are entitled to do what they want regardless of consideration for other people.

You still haven't demonstrated why a breastfeeding mother should consider anything but the fact that her child is hungry.

Considering she admits herself that she engaged in a "stare-off", it's a valid interpretation of her motives.

How so? The other person was still the one to initiate. If they had have minded their own business there would have been no problem.

As far as I'm concerned, all she's done is made it that much harder for other women to breastfeed in public because they'll feel like they can't without someone staring at them, when in fact most people aren't actually all that interested in what other people are doing.

Interesting theory.

I'll put that to the women on the thread:

Do you feel like this story would make you

a) less comfortable with breastfeeding publicly
b) more comfortable with it or
b) no different?

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's generally agreed among adults that the best way to deal with someone staring at you is to ignore them.

Oh, it is, but it's generally agreed that the act of staring is rudeness on the side of the other person.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

How about totally naked, Kev? How about a woman that takes all her clothes off in Burger King just to breastfeed and takes some selfies while she's at it. I know it won't happen, but if it did, would you considerate that inconsiderate?

What has that got to do with the price of herring? It's fine to whistle, but what if you go around whistling through a megaphone, is that insulting? Would you, while defending the act of whistling consider THAT inconsiderate?

The only possible response to such a daft argument is "whut".

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Or is it that once a woman's nipple is insider her child's mouth she becomes incapable of being inconsiderate? That seems to be what you're, rather naively, suggesting.

Er, no, it's being suggested that the very act of placing your nipple into your baby's mouth to feed them is not actually either inconsiderate to those in your general vicinity or indeed illegal.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

She did. Quite clearly. Many like her too. One did it on the cover of Time.

https://twitter.com/MrNachoBusiness/status/674230275694583809

God forbid anyone breastfeed in public and point out clearly and firmly that they are perfectly within their rights to do it. And god forbid anyone make a damn statement that it's just fine to normalise this rather than act like it's a shameful act that should be made secret and verboten and thus encourage the ridiculous idea that the primary function of the female breast is to incite lust. It isn't. It's to feed a damn baby.

Kev W

NachoBusiness wrote: »

How about totally naked, Kev? How about a woman that takes all her clothes off in Burger King just to breastfeed and takes some selfies while she's at it. I know it won't happen, but if it did, would you considerate that inconsiderate? Or is it that once a woman's nipple is insider her child's mouth she becomes incapable of being inconsiderate? That seems to be what you're, rather naively, suggesting.

While we're being ridiculous, what if there was a bomb in her boob and the only thing that kept it from going off was if she breastfed right at that moment? And this was the one time she forgot to bring her collapsible Breastfeeding Tent?

She did. Quite clearly. Many like her too. One did it on the cover of Time.

https://twitter.com/MrNachoBusiness/status/674230275694583809

OH NO! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE! MY ONE WEAKNESS! SJW POWERS... FADING! I'M MELTIIIIIING!

Samaris

Kev W wrote: »

Interesting theory.

I'll put that to the women on the thread:

Do you feel like this story would make you

a) less comfortable with breastfeeding publicly
b) more comfortable with it or
b) no different?

Honestly? Annoyed that because someone might be rude to me, I should have to go out of my way to stay as close to the house as possible so I can nip in every time my child is hungry (see previous 9-12 times a day!) rather than get on with my life and the necessary things that require me to leave the house while still being able to feed the small creature that is dependent on me for food.

Yes, I am easily upset by negative attention, being stared at, or people acting disapprovingly towards me, and I would have difficulty with breastfeeding in a public place. If people could mind their own business and treat it as a normal function of a nursing mother, that would be very nice, thankee.

Others might react in a more belligerant way, breastfeeding in an entirely "screw you" manner and daring anyone to take umbrage with their legal and natural right to do so, and still others might try to feed their baby with a ridiculous tent of shawls and scarves and the like just so the nosey can't get involved.

Why -do- we have this mad fascination with female breasts being forbidden and mildly unnatural things, but it's grand for men to go about topless? I've been mulling it over and I really can't come to a sensible conclusion about it. It's -helpful- to be able to support them with bras and the like, but when did it go from "practical" to "neccessary"?

topmanamillion

NachoBusiness wrote: »

She did. Quite clearly. Many like her too. One did it on the cover of Time.

https://twitter.com/MrNachoBusiness/status/674230275694583809

A woman beast feeding wouldn't bother me at all but this picture is horrendous. This is just attention seeking plain and simple. This young lad must be at least 5,well passed the age where he should be exclusively on solid nutrition.
Also, scarla for him when his friends pull this out at his 21st!

Kev W

topmanamillion wrote: »

A woman beast feeding wouldn't bother me at all but this picture is horrendous. This is just attention seeking plain and simple. This young lad must be at least 5,well passed the age where he should be exclusively on solid nutrition.
Also, scarla for him when his friends pull this out at his 21st!

Agreed. Though even the cover describes it as an "extreme".

NachoBusiness

Samaris wrote: »

What has that got to do with the price of herring? It's fine to whistle, but what if you go around whistling through a megaphone, is that insulting? Would you, while defending the act of whistling consider THAT inconsiderate?

The only possible response to such a daft argument is "whut".

How is it daft when it's exactly the issue here. I am attempting to find out if Kev is willing to agree that yes, it is possible for a woman to be inconsiderate whilst in the act of breastfeeding. If he does that, then it is just a matter of finding out where the line is for him and believe it or not he will then show himself to broadly be in agreement with most people on the thread which he is arguing with. So far though, he seems to be just acting as if it is impossible for women to be inconsiderate while breastfeeding. That somehow the very act itself means the woman must be angelic.

Er, no, it's being suggested that the very act of placing your nipple into your baby's mouth to feed them is not actually either inconsiderate to those in your general vicinity or indeed illegal.

Nobody suggested that.

God forbid anyone breastfeed in public and point out clearly and firmly that they are perfectly within their rights to do it. And god forbid anyone make a damn statement that it's just fine to normalise this rather than act like it's a shameful act that should be made secret and verboten and thus encourage the ridiculous idea that the primary function of the female breast is to incite lust. It isn't. It's to feed a damn baby.

Oh give it a rest with the sanctimony. Almost everyone on the thread that believes this woman was looking for attention ALSO believes that it of course should be a woman's right to breastfeed in public and that there is nothing shameful in it. Maybe if you actually attempted to take user's points on board rather than be hell bent on painting them as some kind of prudes you'd realise that.

intheclouds

topmanamillion wrote: »

This young lad must be at least 5,well passed the age where he should be exclusively on solid nutrition.
Also, scarla for him when his friends pull this out at his 21st!

A woman who lived on my road growing up used to breast feed each subsequent kid but let the previous ones have a "bitty" - I remember her letting her then 10 or 11 year old son have a "bitty" at one point. That poor child must have serious issues now.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

Others might react in a more belligerant way, breastfeeding in an entirely "screw you" manner and daring anyone to take umbrage with their legal and natural right to do so, and still others might try to feed their baby with a ridiculous tent of shawls and scarves and the like just so the nosey can't get involved.

This, exactly this, is what I'm trying to get across to people. It's not the act of breastfeeding at all that bothers me. It's the attitude, the "stare-down", the "I'm now going to focus on staring you down because you're staring at me" kind of thing.

This woman could easily have done what most people around her were doing - ignore someone staring at her, like most people were ignoring her breastfeeding. She went out of her way to make a point that was literally so, so unnecessary IMO.

Kev W

NachoBusiness wrote: »

How is it daft when it's exactly the issue here. I am attempting to find out if Kev is willing to agree that yes, it is possible for a woman to be inconsiderate whilst in the act of breastfeeding.

You could have just asked me that. Yes, it is possible for a mother to be inconsiderate while breastfeeding. She could, for example, stab several other patrons (assuming she has a free hand) while screaming, "THIS IS FOR YOU, NACHO, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN FOR YOU!!!"

In this case however, she did not.

If he does that, then it is just a matter of finding out where the line is for him and believe it or not he will then show himself to broadly be in agreement with most people.

I draw the line at actual inconsiderate behaviour. Excessive noise, throwing food, murderous rampages, singing "Angels" at the top of one's voice, etc.

So far though, he seems to be just acting as if it is impossible for women to be inconsiderate while breastfeeding. That somehow the very act itself means the woman must be angelic.

Perhaps you can point out where exactly I gave you this idea? As far as I can tell I've only commented on whether or not the act of breastfeeding is in itself inconsiderate (it isn't). I have not to the best of my knowledge implied that breastfeeding mothers should enjoy a weird form of diplomatic immunity.

Samaris

NachoBusiness wrote: »

How is it daft when it's exactly the issue here. I am attempting to find out if Kev is willing to agree that yes, it is possible for a woman to be inconsiderate whilst in the act of breastfeeding. If he does that, then it is just a matter of finding out where the line is for him and believe it or not he will then show himself to broadly be in agreement with most people on the thread which he is arguing with. So far though, he seems to be just acting as if it is impossible for women to be inconsiderate while breastfeeding. That somehow the very act itself means the woman must be angelic.

Quite honestly, I don't see what your point is. Of course one can be inconsiderate while doing pretty much anything, and I certainly didn't read Kev's comments as insisting anything else. Your hyperbolic argument just plain doesn't prove your point. The act of breastfeeding, which was, I believe, what we were all discussing, is not in itself offensive. Of course if she did a strip tease on a table while breastfeeding and danced a fandango, people might well find it rather offensive (and also pretty bewildering), but I think the specific act of breastfeeding in the middle of it wouldn't be what people were talking about.

The act itself is not indecent.

One can be offensive in doing anything, including breastfeeding, walking, reading, talking, eating and doing a handstand. This does not actually make breastfeeding, walking, reading, talking, eating or doing a handstand offensive acts in and of themselves.

Or have I missed something here?

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Oh give it a rest with the sanctimony. Almost everyone on the thread that believes this woman was looking for attention ALSO believes that it of course should be a woman's right to breastfeed in public and that there is nothing shameful in it. Maybe if you actually attempted to take user's points on board rather than be hell bent on painting them as some kind of prudes you'd realise that.

"She should be feeding the baby under a shawl!"

Yep, it's her right to breastfeed in public. It is considered rude to stare and make disapproving motions at someone for doing something legal and (debatably) appropriate. So what's the problem?

That the whole thing went viral is more a symptom of today's obsession with tiny incidents being talked about all over the world than anything else. Maybe she was "attention-seeking", maybe she wasn't, but when you get right down to it, she wasn't actually doing anything wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This, exactly this, is what I'm trying to get across to people. It's not the act of breastfeeding at all that bothers me. It's the attitude, the "stare-down", the "I'm now going to focus on staring you down because you're staring at me" kind of thing.

This woman could easily have done what most people around her were doing - ignore someone staring at her, like most people were ignoring her breastfeeding. She went out of her way to make a point that was literally so, so unnecessary IMO.

Aha, right, I follow you there. Yeeah, I see your point. But people is people and react differently to feeling themselves being disapproved of, especially when they feel they're not doing anything wrong. Back after the marriage referendum, I wore my multicoloured jacket outside in the city, partly because I like it, and partly in celebration of it going through. I was called a fag and a slut amongst other things, mostly by young men in cars, because shouting at lone people in the street from a moving vehicle is amongst the bravest things one can do in front of one's mates. Now, I could have removed the jacket, kept my head down and tried not to attract attention. I could do what I did, which is smile rather triumphantly at them and walk off with my head held high and my jacket remaining both on and multi-coloured. I could have attacked them with a brick.

I didn't need to wear that jacket. I didn't need to look like I was celebrating a hard-won victory which I'd helped battle for. I didn't need to acknowledge them with even a scornful look, much less a probably rather smug expression. But on the other hand, was it really so wrong? If there should be no shame in doing something legal that does not, after all, impact anyone else, why should one not do it because some people think it's indecent? Particularly when no-one can really make a decent point for why it SHOULD be taboo. Why should people meep into a corner because of bullies - and make no mistake, trying to shame someone for feeding their child (or wearing a multi-coloured jacket) IS bullying - even if they do it in a way that is suggestive of making a statement. There would, after all, be no need to make the damn statement in the first place if it wasn't for those same rather bullying attitudes.

NachoBusiness

Kev W wrote: »

While we're being ridiculous, what if there was a bomb in her boob and the only thing that kept it from going off was if she breastfed right at that moment? And this was the one time she forgot to bring her collapsible Breastfeeding Tent?

All you're doing is trying to dodge the question as if you answer it honestly, and accept that yes that would be a state of undress and would be wholly inappropriate and unnecessary in order to necessitate breastfeeding, then you would have to concede other users points in the thread. What you'd much rather do is strawman people by implying their argument is that breastfeeding is always inconsiderate, period.

OH NO! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE! MY ONE WEAKNESS! SJW POWERS... FADING! I'M MELTIIIIIING!

Very mature and yet another attempt at dodging a point which was put to you. You seem incapable of accepting that there are some women that use breastfeeding in the media, under the guise of making it less taboo, as a means of getting attention. Nobody is saying all women who partake in these stories, articles, docus etc are, or even the majority, but without question there are some where it is quite clear that it is their main goal. In my experience other women can spot this quicker than men. Like I said, you're naive if you think that they all have noble reasons for what they do.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I am attempting to find out if Kev is willing to agree that yes, it is possible for a woman to be inconsiderate whilst in the act of breastfeeding.

I agree that it is definitely possible for a woman to be inconsiderate while breastfeeding.

I don't see any reason to believe that this woman set out to be inconsiderate though. In my opinion, a lack of discretion is not inconsiderate.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If he does that, then it is just a matter of finding out where the line is for him and believe it or not he will then show himself to broadly be in agreement with most people on the thread which he is arguing with. .

I don't really think so. Apart from a few total morons saying 'what about masturbation/pissing in a bottle', the line regarding what is acceptable/inconsiderate is exactly what is causing the disagreement.

I think much of the argument that she's looking for attention comes from her posting the picture and comments - it's undeniable that she made those posts to get attention.

But there seems to be an extension of the argument that because she posted the photo and the comments she did, therefore it's clear or obvious that she actually set out to breastfeed in a way that would promote some kind of reaction from a customer.

I don't see any reason to think it is more likely that she set out to get a negative reaction from a customer than it is likely she simply responded to a negative reaction from a customer.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

That the whole thing went viral is more a symptom of today's obsession with tiny incidents being talked about all over the world than anything else. Maybe she was "attention-seeking", maybe she wasn't, but when you get right down to it, she wasn't actually doing anything wrong.

See, here's the thing - she must have, on some level, felt that she was doing something wrong, because she chose to make a point of it (claiming she was motivated by breastfeeding mothers everywhere, who apparently needed her to stand up for them even though most women are able to breastfeed in public not a bother!), and she got pure paranoid about it then claiming someone was looking at her in disgust.

We'll never know what way the other woman was looking at her, but paranoia can fuel all sorts of misinterpretations.

kylith

Can someone please explain exactly how breast feeding is inconsiderate?

intheclouds

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See, here's the thing - she must have, on some level, felt that she was doing something wrong, because she chose to make a point of it (claiming she was motivated by breastfeeding mothers everywhere, who apparently needed her to stand up for them even though most women are able to breastfeed in public not a bother!), and she got pure paranoid about it then claiming someone was looking at her in disgust.

We'll never know what way the other woman was looking at her, but paranoia can fuel all sorts of misinterpretations.

Thats a weird logic!

She felt she was doing something wrong because she chose to make a point of it? How does that make sense?

Kev W

NachoBusiness wrote: »

All you're doing is trying to dodge the question as if you answer it honestly, and accept that yes that would be a state of undress and would be wholly inappropriate and unnecessary in order to necessitate breastfeeding, then you would have to concede other users points in the thread. You'd much rather strawman people by implying their argument is that breastfeeding is always inconsiderate.

Unless other users are attempting to make the point that the woman in the Op was naked then I have to concede no such thing. And the contention that breastfeeding in public is inconsiderate has been made on this thread so it's not a strawman.

Very mature and yet another attempt at dodging a point which was put to you. You seem incapable of accepting that there are some women that use breastfeeding in the media, under the guise of making it less taboo, as a means of getting attention. Nobody is saying all women who partake in these stories, articles, docus etc are, but without question there are some where it is quite clear that it is their main goal. In my experience other women can spot this quicker than men. Like I said, you're naive if you think that they all have noble reasons for what they do.

I never said a word about what reasons "they all have".

So what if

some women that use breastfeeding in the media, under the guise of making it less taboo, as a means of getting attention

?

As long as the result is the same (diminishing the taboo), who cares why they're doing it? If I rescue a drowning child because I want my name in the papers more than I want to save the child's life, the child still gets rescued. The motivation is hardly relevant.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See, here's the thing - she must have, on some level, felt that she was doing something wrong, because she chose to make a point of it (claiming she was motivated by breastfeeding mothers everywhere, who apparently needed her to stand up for them even though most women are able to breastfeed in public not a bother!), and she got pure paranoid about it then claiming someone was looking at her in disgust.

We'll never know what way the other woman was looking at her, but paranoia can fuel all sorts of misinterpretations.

Well you're just brilliant at telling us what other people think, why they do things and what their plan is, alongside telling breastfeeding women how to do it properly (without exposing more than a nipple) and that pumping is only marvellous. You should really join La Leche International, I'm sure they'd be delighted with an advocate like you.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Can someone please explain exactly how breast feeding is inconsiderate?

It isn't, it's people's attitudes can be inconsiderate, and that can apply in any scenario, and if people have this attitude that they are entitled to do something without due consideration for other people, then those people need to come up with an argument as to why they are entitled not to consider other people, but other people must be considerate of them!

Smacks of hypocritical double standards to me tbh. I have no problem with hypocritical double standards personally, but I keep mine to myself.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It isn't, it's people's attitudes can be inconsiderate, and that can apply in any scenario, and if people have this attitude that they are entitled to do something without due consideration for other people, then those people need to come up with an argument as to why they are entitled not to consider other people, but other people must be considerate of them!

Smacks of hypocritical double standards to me tbh. I have no problem with hypocritical double standards personally, but I keep mine to myself.

How exactly are women breastfeeding supposed to be considerate of others apart from the child they are feeding? Is there any difference in how bottle feeding women should be considerate?

NachoBusiness

Kev W wrote: »

Agreed. Though even the cover describes it as an "extreme".

Oh so if the media publication point out that it's being done for attention seeking reasons, that negates the attention seeking? Yeah, that makes a bunch of sense.

Samaris wrote: »

The act of breastfeeding, which was, I believe, what we were all discussing, is not in itself offensive.

Has ANYBODY so far said it was?

Of course if she did a strip tease on a table while breastfeeding and danced a fandango, people might well find it rather offensive (and also pretty bewildering), but I think the specific act of breastfeeding in the middle of it wouldn't be what people were talking about.

When I put the question I said it would never happen and so quit suggesting that I posed it suggesting anything otherwise. The point is that Kev was implying that the very notion that a woman could be being inconsiderate whilst breastfeeding was wrong. I was obviously trying to make the point that there is a state of undress which everyone would see as being unnecessary and so the only real argument is where the line is, NOT whether it is possible or not.

The act itself is not indecent.

Again, nobody said it was.

"She should be feeding the baby under a shawl!"

See, now you're doing exactly what I was doing. I exaggerated the level of undress with my point and now you are exaggerating the opposite, but yet you played dumb a minute ago and said you didn't know what my point was. Hhmm.

Yep, it's her right to breastfeed in public.

Nobody said it wasn't.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It isn't, it's people's attitudes can be inconsiderate, and that can apply in any scenario, and if people have this attitude that they are entitled to do something without due consideration for other people, then those people need to come up with an argument as to why they are entitled not to consider other people, but other people must be considerate of them!

Smacks of hypocritical double standards to me tbh. I have no problem with hypocritical double standards personally, but I keep mine to myself.

I'm sure you'll agree yourself there's a lot to unravel in that one!
Specifically about the part I've bolded, what exactly is the thing she did without due consideration for other people?

Samaris

Sorry, OEJ, I had edited my previous comment to respond to your earlier comment, but this conversation is so fastmoving that the whole thing had gone onto the next page by the time I was done! So I have partly answered your last comment with my previous one

But there IS a problem that many women HAVE faced, that people think their breastfeeding in public is wrong and indecent - I linked a story a couple of pages back where an NYPD officer confronted a woman breastfeeding in public, accused her of breaking the law (which she wasn't), and eventually grabbed her so roughly that she lost her hold on her child and the baby died of massive head injuries. There ARE problems with this attitude and while this incident is a small and idiotic one, it is symptomatic of a much wider issue. I'm sure thousands of women do it every day without incident, and thousands more do it and get continuous disapproving looks and snide comments that they just don't bother to talk about. But after long enough of it happening, yep, quite likely some people will respond more aggressively. As I said before, people is people and people don't always respond to aggression to them (including passive-aggression) with nobly taking the higher road. And maybe they shouldn't always be expected to.