Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ladies vs. Women: Breastfeeding Smackdown
In the August issue of Glamour, National Review contributor and Independent Women's Forum Policy Director Carrie Lukas explains, in very small words, why breastfeeding moms should keep their nips in check:
There are lots of things that we aren't allowed to do in public. People can't walk down the street naked or have sex or even drink from an open container of alcohol....Of course infants should be fed when they are hungry, but nursing mothers should compromise by using the ladies' room.
The weirdest, and by far the most enjoyable aspect of this debate (other than the lactivists themselves), is the opportunity to watch socially conservative women try to take down serious, often stay-at-home mothers--normally posited as paragons of womanly virtue--rather than the usual sparring partners, academics and manly flight attendants.
Jim Henley|7.12.05 @ 1:54PM|#
As the father of two kids, I would certainly have wanted them to be fed in public toilets as often as possible. Didn't work out.
Jim Henley|7.12.05 @ 1:55PM|#
Of course, I can still make them eat in the john if I get takeout . . .
|7.12.05 @ 2:00PM|#
I first took notice of this issue while in high school in the
early 90's. At the time, I had the same reaction as any teenaged
boy: whip 'em out girls.
I say the same now, but mainly because women have joined the
workforce in greater numbers as other halves of dual-income houses,
and keeping your baby with you is probably much better for it in
the long run than pawning it off on some incompetent day care
center. If your spawn is non-disruptive, then carry it around with
you and when it's hungry, give it a tit. That is after all the
primary use of one's gazongas, and it's little more than our
society's long-held puritanical squeamishness at the naked form
that even makes this a debate in the first place.
|7.12.05 @ 2:01PM|#
"Indedpendent Women's Forum" is the most inaccurate activist
group name I've seen yet. They're not independent, either as a
group, or in the philosophy they espouse. Their leadership includes
men, and they don't advocate for women, thus negating that
statement that they're a Women's group. And it's not a forum,
defined as a space for competing ideas to be aired and
discussed.
Sort of like when you see the words "Democratic People's Republic"
in a country's name.
|7.12.05 @ 2:03PM|#
As far as the Ladies Against Women's comparison goes, both
sexual exhibitionism and public drinking carry with them an
implicit threat of disorder. Who hasn't seen a crowd hooting at a
girl showing off? Or a drunken fight/brawl/riot/whatever?
On the other hand, how often is there a disruption caused by babies
eating breastmilk?
|7.12.05 @ 2:10PM|#
I really can't fathom what people are objecting to with breastfeeding in a public place.
|7.12.05 @ 2:14PM|#
You know, with how little clothing some young women are wearing these days, have a baby attached to the nipple may actually be covering up more skin than was previously covered.
|7.12.05 @ 2:18PM|#
Wasn't this an episode of Married With Children? Is a breast ever less titillating (no pun intended, it's just a bonus) than when a woman breastfeeding? Why is this an issue? I'd rather have a child eating than screaming like a banshee because it's hungry.
|7.12.05 @ 2:20PM|#
They're not independent, either as a group, or in the
philosophy they espouse.
How so? Who are they "dependent" on, and are they any more
dependent on them than any other group? And what is their
philosophy dependent on? I'm not sure that claim even makes any
sense.
Their leadership includes men,
So?
and they don't advocate for women,
What does this mean? That they don't advocate for some verson or
other of special treatment or special privileges for women? From
what I've read, they are all for social and legal equality for
women, and they have rather old-fashioned ideas that manners and
mores can be protective of women in a way that is positive, not
negative.
And it's not a forum, defined as a space for competing ideas to
be aired and discussed.
Their ideas compete with leftist feminista claptrap, the purveyors
of which have called for them to be silenced by barring them from,
say editorial pages or college campuses. Plenty forum enough for
me.
|7.12.05 @ 2:21PM|#
Oddly, it's the children in public who aren't breastfeeding that are most objectionable.
|7.12.05 @ 2:33PM|#
I'm disappointed that this thread has degenerated into a serious discussion of breastfeeding, feminism and public decorum while completely ignoring the issue of hot airline stewardesses.
|7.12.05 @ 2:38PM|#
Stevo-
Good thing. If this thread descends into sexual banter Mona might
cancel her subscription.
|7.12.05 @ 2:38PM|#
RC,
The group itself is dependent on the same handful of conservative
funders who bankroll the rest of the right wing blab industry, of
phony think-tanks-that-aren't-actually-think-tanks.
The philosophy they espouse is that women should be dependent on
men.
Something that bills itself as a "women's" something or other
should actually consist of women, or it's not actually "women's."
Quick, who doesn't belong in a "men's" room?
"Their ideas compete with leftist feminista claptrap, the purveyors
of which have called for them to be silenced by barring them from,
say editorial pages or college campuses."
You mean like how Cathy Young and Kathleen Parker can't get
published in national newspapers?
"Plenty forum enough for me." Yes, the public sphere, the press,
the government, and the universities do function as a forum, in
which advocates of one position can make their case. But one of the
collections of advocates banding together to make the case of one
particular viewpoint is not a forum, as the Ladies Against Women
claim to be.
|7.12.05 @ 2:39PM|#
Mrs. Hugginkiss (yes, I'm a dude) picked up the copy last week
and laughed out loud when she read the article. Breastfeed in the
bathroom -- where are you gonna sit? On the crapper?
I don't find breastfeeding objectionable but one thing I would ask
of the ladies, however: a little warning would be appreciated. I
was at my boss's house one time to congratulate her on the birth of
her first-born, and in mid-sentence she took out a booby and stuck
it in her baby's mouth. Not only was this woman not unattractive,
but as previously noted, she was my boss. Where do I look?
Am I supposed to keep talking? Should I leave the room? What are
the social protocols?
A little warning is all I'm asking.
|7.12.05 @ 2:41PM|#
It may come as news to the Independent Women's Forum, but many women are able to breastfeed their children fairly modestly. I recall once being at church and glancing to my side and noticing that the young Mennonite mother sitting next to me was quietly nursing her baby. (I assume she was Mennonite from her dress, though this was a Catholic church.) If you paid attention to the position of the baby's head, you'd realize what was going on, but you'd really have to be staring in order to see any skin. And yes, if the baby suddenly pulled off, you'd catch a glimpse of nipple, but the mother could almost instantly cover up. I was struck by how perfectly appropriate the scene was. Years later, after I got married and had children, my wife regularly nursed our babies at church, without giving anyone an eyeful of tit. I just don't see the problem.
|7.12.05 @ 2:45PM|#
"It may come as news to the Independent Women's Forum, but many
women are able to breastfeed their children fairly modestly."
Why, you'd almost think they were reaching for reasons to conclude
that, sadly, there just isn't any option except for women to stay
home.
|7.12.05 @ 2:51PM|#
"People can't walk down the street naked or have sex or even
drink from an open container of alcohol"
Well, that last bit about alcohol sure shows she doesn't live here
in New Orleans. We don't have any problem at all with people
drinking alcohol in public. Well, as long as it's in a plastic cup
(broken bottles being something of a public health hazard to those
drunken tourists falling in the gutters, after all. ;))
Jeff|7.12.05 @ 2:55PM|#
I believe that children should not be let out of the house until at least age 11. If they need fresh air they can be dangled out of windows.
|7.12.05 @ 2:57PM|#
are they proposing legislation about it
yet?
No, but there ought to be a LAW. Get it?Is this mic on?
Whatever happened to the Ladies Against Women anyway? They were
pretty inspired.
Vache Folle|7.12.05 @ 3:02PM|#
What exactly is it about a breasfeeding mother that anyone finds offensive? I'm really at a loss. Fat guys in speedos I understand as offensive, but breastfeeding? Ladies, you can lactate all you want on my property.
|7.12.05 @ 3:05PM|#
I think the appropriate thing to do is simply let out a good old belly laugh at the IWF.
|7.12.05 @ 3:07PM|#
Vache Folle,
Its the same neo-Puritan mentality which led Ashcroft to cover up
the semi-naked statuary.
|7.12.05 @ 3:18PM|#
socially conservative women try to take down...
I guess that would make them reactivist lactivist activists.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Funny how a request for self-control is objected to by
"libertarians." The line between libertarian and libertine is
apparently quite slippery.
PS: I have no position one or the other on breastfeeding in
public.
|7.12.05 @ 3:20PM|#
Am I the only one who finds the whole breast-feeding thing gross? Not that we need laws, but a little puritanism here might not be a bad thing.
|7.12.05 @ 3:25PM|#
"Funny how a request for self-control is objected to by
"libertarians."
Let's take another look at the excerpt, shall we?
"There are lots of things that we aren't allowed to do in
public."
...That doesn't look like a "request for self-control" to me, does
it really look like that to you? ...or were you just
sayin'?
|7.12.05 @ 3:27PM|#
A little self control, please, ladies! If your three month old
is crying with hunger, you should display the discipline that is
becoming for a woman, and make him wait until you get home to
eat.
That's what, two, three hours, max?
|7.12.05 @ 3:29PM|#
I've been moanin' about the lack of issues that appeal to
Soccer/Security Moms for a long time, and this is exactly the kind
of thing we can use to appeal to them.
...Oh please, please, please, some prude somewhere, please
introduce an ordinance to prohibit breast-feeding in public!
|7.12.05 @ 3:31PM|#
Jeff -- I like your suggestion about 11 yo/dangling babies out of windows. Of course under this new child-rearing plan, Michael Jackson suddenly becomes a model parent.
|7.12.05 @ 3:36PM|#
Mona might cancel her subscription
I subscribed for the first time yesterday. Yay, me!
|7.12.05 @ 3:38PM|#
Good for you, Dave! Now you have leverage--whenever you see
something here you don't like, you can get all huffy and threaten
to cancel it! Leverage is everything.
(Back when I was banned for that twelve-hour period, I made it a
point of honor to tell Cavanaugh that "Unlike Mona, I will not be
cancelling my subscription.")
|7.12.05 @ 3:38PM|#
Hugginkiss and Seamus both raise good points. I'm as libertarian
(and libertine, and liberal in the classical sense) as the next
guy, but I've about had it with public behavior that seems
oblivious to context. As if there are no other people in the
shopping mall to witness you picking your nose, soul-kissing your
girlfriend, or discussing the fertility test via mobile phone. We
hardly need a law, but if the lactivists can't get a hedonist like
me on board, they probably have a really hard time with
the Focus on the Family crowd.
My favorite saying regarding libertarianism is "don't shit where
you eat." (e.g. no one would see a need for public nudity laws if
no one ever took off their clothes in public). I was going to use
this make a point, but it kind of takes on a funny double meaning
in this context.
|7.12.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Damn, Kelso ruined the streak we had going where no one accused any of us of being libertine and not libertarian.
|7.12.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Yeah, the thread where you got "banned," then only suspended,
was good background reading for me.
I found it the other day because of some of the recent speculation
about formerly-active posters. Along with most on that long-ago
thread, glad you made it back.
|7.12.05 @ 3:48PM|#
I like anti-nudity laws, mainly because I have some seriously unattractive neighbors, but I must admit there's no good, logical reason for them (it's not as if I don't have a good idea of what most people look like without their clothes anyway; my mom gave me a birds-and-the-bees book back when I was five). Likewise, I don't really like to see women breast-feeding, but there's no logical reason for this, and I'm not going to support a law whose sole purpose is to prevent me from having to feel uncomfortable.
|7.12.05 @ 3:53PM|#
"Back when I was banned for that twelve-hour period..."
Jennifer:
I remember Mona's silly threats...but were you seriously banned
from here for 12 hours? Or was that a joke that went over my
head?
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 3:54PM|#
...nursing mothers should compromise by using the ladies'
room.
That doesn't sound like a threat to me, but hey, I'm not the one
forcing a business to allow breastfeeding am I?
|7.12.05 @ 3:59PM|#
Steven J. Kelso, Sr. (et al),
Sorry, but there's nothing libertine about breastfeeding, unless
you're a combination milf-sicko and voyeur. These people are
insanely Puritan and egocentric to think that that bare tit has any
relationship to them. Those whiners are the ones that need to
exhibit some self-control. To wit: Look away and shut the fuck
up.
|7.12.05 @ 4:03PM|#
This is really a perfect example of where civlity (ie commonly-agreed upon rules of decorum) is more effective than law. To make a law about this is silly.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 4:06PM|#
Well thank you, smacky. I appreciate you deciding what we should all think and say. We bow to your wisdom. [clicks heels smartly]
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Libertine means unrestrained by convention or morality and I
believe that the definition fits. If you are uncomfortable with
that, maybe you should check yourself.
Self-government means just that, the governance of self. Does every
dot and tittle need to be regulated by the government?[pun
intended]
|7.12.05 @ 4:17PM|#
Actually, I bet it's rather tasteful - to the baby. :)
Steven,
No, thank the Women Haters' Assosciation for suggesting action
against nursing mothers. As if they didn't already have enough to
deal with, let's restrict them legally. I really don't see how you
think it's so distasteful - as many other people already noted in
this thread, and as I have witnessed - I don't think I've ever seen
a breastfeeding mother exposed unneccessarily, if at all. Secondly,
I am asking the question: Distasteful to whom? A person must have a
really weird mindset to find a problem with your typical nursing
mother, who does not expose herself very much at all in public. I'm
so tired of people who aren't comfortable with their own sense of
humanity and sexuality trying to tell other people how to behave.
If you don't like being in a public place, then stay
home . No one will miss your Puritanical attitude.
(Aside rant: My extra-big pet peeve is hypocrites who have no
problem with teenage and other young girls dressing like total
sluts, porn, and heavy makeup, but then who oppose nursing mothers
in public.)
|7.12.05 @ 4:19PM|#
I found the best way to deal with a woman breast feeding in public is to jump up and down while pointing and screaming like Chris Griffith , "Boobie! Boobie!"
|7.12.05 @ 4:22PM|#
Libertine means unrestrained by convention or morality and I
believe that the definition fits. If you are uncomfortable with
that, maybe you should check yourself.
Morality? Last I checked, giving a nursing mother a hard time and
denying a baby food is more immoral than feeding a child. Sorry,
but you lose on that one. Again, I am questioning your assumption
that a bare breast is immoral, you dumb Puritan.
As for convention -- what is conventional? I thought breastfeeding
in public is pretty conventional. Why would all these people have
something to say on the matter otherwise? They wouldn't, unless it
was pretty common to see women doing this.
If you don't buy that arguement, then how about this one: what's so
wonderful about defending convention (i.e. "traditionalism")? Is
there some moral virtue in simply defending status quo? (Or "status
quo" according to you?)
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 4:27PM|#
Now you are restricting me to my home? What gives you the
authority to make such a proclamation?
Breast milk is much healthier than that canned or bottled crap; I
encourage all mothers to breastfeed. Should the law say you can or
you can't breastfeed in public? Either way, it seems to me that you
are breaking with libertarian principles--using the law to
transform society in your image.
I don't think breastfeeding is distastefull in the slightest, but
who am I to tell Sam Grocer or Sally Retailer? Are all business
public property now?
|7.12.05 @ 4:28PM|#
Just occurred to me--I'm surprised nobody's arguing this on the grounds of sexism: men can go topless in public, why not women? (I know that in a couple of places the no-topless-women-in-public laws have in fact been rescinded.)
|7.12.05 @ 4:30PM|#
Stephen-
I see some online dictionaries do offer that definition of
"libertine" but it's pretty clearly an incomplete one: you wouldn't
use it to refer to someone who was unconventional or immoral in
*any* sense (i.e. no competent English speaker would refer to a
serial killer--immoral--or a mere eccentric--unconventional--as a
"libertine" in virtue of just those properties). It'd be limited to
those whose unconventionality was expressed specifically in some
hedonistic, pleasure-seeking, sensualist way. And as smacky
suggested, it seems misguided to assume there's anything especially
sensual about breast feeding just because nipples are involved.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 4:32PM|#
Tradition is a pearl that our fathers hand down to us. Do we
keep it clean and shiney? Or do we cast it among swine?
While I'm not Puritan, I wouldn't trash them like you do. You
wouldn't be sitting in the freest country in the history of the
world if it wasn't for their search for the freedom to live as they
chose.
Be carefull with the gift you've been given; there is no law that
say your freedom can't be lost.
|7.12.05 @ 4:32PM|#
Seriously,
There is nothing wrong with nursing in public (Unless the child is
three like the one next to me on a recent, socially awkward plane
ride.) Just show a little consideration for those who aren't that
comfortable with it. Throw a blanket over your shoulder or at least
give fair warning. Like it or not, we live in a repressed society;
you can't just whip out a tit and expect no one to react. Just
because something is perfectly within your right to do doesn't mean
you shouldnt find a polite way to do it.
|7.12.05 @ 4:35PM|#
Tradition is a pearl that our fathers hand down to us. Do we
keep it clean and shiney? Or do we cast it among swine?
Steven, arguing for something on the grounds that it's traditional
is basically the same as admitting you have no grounds here at all.
Your argument could have been (and often was) used to block every
bit of progress humanity has won since the Stone Age.
Like I said before, I don't like seeing women breast-feed, but I'm
not going to support a law just so I don't have to think,
"Eeeew."
|7.12.05 @ 4:36PM|#
To add to my last post: I might support a no-breast-feeding law if someone gave me some good reasons for it, but "tradition" or "it offends people" just isn't good enough.
|7.12.05 @ 4:39PM|#
Steven J. Kelso,
Well, now, don't put words in my mouth.
1.) I'm not "restricting" you to your home. I'm just saying, if
people have such a problem with the usual things that go on in
public, then there is always that option.
2.) I never suggested making laws of *any* kind, even for
pro-breastfeeding. No, I don't believe pro-breastfeeding laws
should be enforced on private property. If you own the business, go
ahead and ban breastfeeding. The mothers who are nursing can (and
will) just find somewhere else to shop.
men can go topless in public, why not women?
Jennifer,
That is something that I never understood, especially as a young
child. That double standard was reinforced to me at an early age:
as a young sprout, I was quite a tomboy and would emulate my big
brother in many ways. Sometimes he'd take his shirt off while
playing in the summer, and I'd do the same. When we'd sit down to
the dinner table as a family, my parents would insist that
I put my shirt back on, but they'd let him keep his off. I
protested to no end that if he got to keep his
shirt off, then why couldn't I?
Eh, I still don't really get it, I guess. Although strangely
enough, the older I get, the less I understand women who can even
walk around in bikini tops at water/amusement parks. It seems too
overexposed for my taste (which could well have more to do with
fashion than with puritanical objections). I guess I grew some
shame at some point (probably after that last 20lbs. I put on after
high school).
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 4:40PM|#
Mr. Sanchez: While I agree that Libertine can't be used in those
cases you present, I believe that smacky proves my point by
focusing on sex and nudity. I have made no such arguments; why am I
being attacked as "Puritan?"
As I said, I have no strong position either way. Nobody has
disputed my property rights statements. Am I to gather from that
that we are in fact dictating what people do on private property.
Is this a libertarian principle?
|7.12.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Smacky-
You too? I remember once, when I was about seven, I emulated my dad
and took off my shirt on a hot summer day. I didn't get in trouble,
but I put my shirt back on pretty fast because I was ticked off
that my parents thought it was so goddamned funny.
On the other hand, I personally benefited from this double standard
in the past--in college and grad school I made SERIOUS money as a
topless dancer, whereas if women were allowed to go topless in
public I would've had to work as a waitress or something.
|7.12.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Kelso,
Arguments from tradition are inherently fallacious. We are a
society of change. Get used to it.
And arguing that I or any other person MUST worship my ancestors is
a bit silly. Who is the authoritarian here? You!
|7.12.05 @ 4:51PM|#
ralphus,
Of course I am all for politeness. I'm not "pro-rude, self-centered
asshole" or something.
smacky proves my point by focusing on sex and
nudity.
Steven,
1.) How have I proven your point? More importantly, what
is your point? I thought you didn't have a position. (Did
gaius marius learn to type with capital letters or
something?)
2.) I am not focusing on sex and nudity(at least not on
this thread). You are the one who misused a term denoting
sexual and hedonistic freedom, and I was simply pointing
out that breastfeeding does not (or at least according to my sexual
morality, should not) fall into that category.
|7.12.05 @ 4:54PM|#
It never ceases to amaze that whenever a weak argument is
trounced that tradition becomes the last, thin reed upon which
people make their stand.
Anyway, as I understand it, basically the "tradition" of not breast
feeding in public is from the 1930s onward.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 4:56PM|#
If we all did whatever we wanted in public, what kind of society
would we have? While anarchy sounds good compared to the
totalitarian offerings of the left, wouldn't that be quite
messy?
There is no law that makes you stop cussing in the presence of a
Rabbi, but isn't that something we should do? Showing a little
respect for other people's beliefs is not a bad thing. It's OK to
to be nice. Especially if you are on a cellphone--nobody cares what
you had for dinner last night or who you are sleeping with, be
quiet!
"Progress," like truth, cane sometimes be hard to find. People who
call themselves "progressive" are handing me an ideology that has
been tried before, yet I'm satnding in the way of "progress?"
There is no new evil (or good) under the sun.
|7.12.05 @ 4:57PM|#
If we all did whatever we wanted in public, what kind of
society would we have?
Nobody is saying "do whatever you want in public;" we're saying,
"Don't make laws that restrict behaviors which hurt nobody." And
being offended, or thinking "Oh, yuck," does NOT count as being
hurt.
|7.12.05 @ 5:00PM|#
I would've had to work as a waitress or
something.
I worked as a waiter for many years and really enjoyed it. Worked
damn hard at it too (a lot harder than I work now, that's for
sure). People have such an aversion to the very idea of waiting
tables. What gives?
Anyway, on topic, it is virtually impossible for a waiter to not
notice a woman breastfeeding in a restaurant due to the angle of
the table. Plus, you really are supposed to look at people at least
initially when taking their order, so I've seen a bazillion
mammaries being used as god intended in my lifetime. Not once was
it ever the slightest bit arousing.
Believe it or not, we did have complaints from other customers
about it. I'm proud to say that my managers never gave an inch to
those people. They didn't even get a free dessert and that was
almost an impossibility where I worked.
|7.12.05 @ 5:01PM|#
Steven,
Thanks for the profound post. I have a novel idea: let's ban
stupidity. (It won't be easy).
Brian Hawkins|7.12.05 @ 5:04PM|#
The only time public breastfeeding ever bothered me was the time
a woman I was talking to at a party started feeding her ~5-yr-old
son. Seriously.
"Do you guys mind if I breastfeed?"
"Oh, no, not at all" (thinking: where's the baby?)
Then this kid *walks* up to her, climbs into her lap, and she whips
it out. Uncomfortable, to say the least.
|7.12.05 @ 5:05PM|#
Steven,
Cell-phone abuse is a thousand times more obnoxious than public
breastfeeding and yet I would still oppose a law against it.
Does that make me an anarchist? Pretty thin stuff there.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|7.12.05 @ 5:08PM|#
Where do I look? Am I supposed to keep talking? Should I
leave the room? What are the social protocols?
"Nice tit." Was probably out of the question, then?
|7.12.05 @ 5:08PM|#
started feeding her ~5-yr-old son.
Ok, now that's just fucked up. Perverse is the more appropriate
term.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|7.12.05 @ 5:11PM|#
If your three month old is crying with hunger, you should
display the discipline that is becoming for a woman, and make him
wait until you get home to eat.
I know you try REALLY hard to be witty, and in nothing else you get
an A for effort as the wit rarely shines through, but you've heard
of breast pumps, yes?
|7.12.05 @ 5:15PM|#
started feeding her ~5-yr-old son
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
Regarding the Puritanism of public breast-feeding, I have one thing
to say. In Muslim countries, public breastfeeding is not uncommon.
When you start out-Puritaining Muslim nations, you've gone too
far.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 5:15PM|#
Your sexual morality rules? Nobody else matters? I don't think
it's sexual (once again, you're on that sex kick) but I respect how
other people feel.
Let us attack tradition, those fools who came before us new
nothing! While I was not using tradition to defend
my position, I will be more than happy to defend tradition. If you
wish to overturn tradition, it is up to you to prove that a
tradition is wrong. Why does red mean stop? Why Red, Yellow and
green on stoplights? Beats the hell out of me. Now, it is tradition
that these are so. This is how traditions begin. We except it as
right that red means stop. The universe was created with red
meaning stop!
Tradition is the excepted way that the universe should be as of
this point. Slavery's a tradition? It's wrong, change it! Should
men treat women exactly the way that they treat other men?
Tradition says no. Prove why it should not be so, but just claiming
to be a "free-thinker" is not enough.
|7.12.05 @ 5:16PM|#
smacky,
I would never accuse you of being pro-rude. In fact I would like to
join your pro-topless women in public movement. Do you have some
literature you can send me? Preferably with pictures.
|7.12.05 @ 5:20PM|#
This is really a perfect example of where civlity (ie
commonly-agreed upon rules of decorum) is more effective than law.
To make a law about this is silly.
Agreed, but I don't recall anyone calling for a law on this. In
fact, the quote above (no link to the articel) is perfectly
consistent with asking people to think beyond their own narrow,
narcissistic little selves and show a little consideration for
those around them who may not care to watch their rug rat
slobbering and puking all over mama's teat.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 5:22PM|#
Since you can only respond with name calling smacky, I accept
your admission of defeat.
PS: in some cultures, it is common for older children to
breastfeed. Yet you find this "perverse?" Hmmm...sounds familiar,
now where did I hear that argument before? Oh yea, that was the
point of the post, making fun of people who find public breast
feeding "yucky?"
mk: I agree, cell phones should not be banned by the government.
Thank you for fighting an argument that wasn't made.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|7.12.05 @ 5:24PM|#
That doesn't sound like a threat to me, but hey, I'm not the
one forcing a business to allow breastfeeding am I?
This is my problem with it. If I own a restaurant, I don't want
ANYONE flopping their tits on the table, not just pregnant women. I
have a no shirt policy in effect for good reason - no one wants to
see what most people have under there -- it makes the dining
atmosphere and experience excatly the opposite of what I'm going
for.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 5:25PM|#
The governor of Ohio signed last week a law allowing breast
feeding in public. Businesses that break the law will be
fined.
Who's telling who what to do?
|7.12.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Who's telling who what to do?
The government is telling everybody what to do as usual.
|7.12.05 @ 5:28PM|#
gaius marius is curiously absent from this thread, which seems tailor-made for his musings on the (deserved) decline and fall of Western Civ due to the erosion of traditional yadda yadda.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|7.12.05 @ 5:28PM|#
There is nothing wrong with nursing in public (Unless the
child is three like the one next to me on a recent, socially
awkward plane ride.) Just show a little consideration for those who
aren't that comfortable with it. Throw a blanket over your shoulder
or at least give fair warning. Like it or not, we live in a
repressed society; you can't just whip out a tit and expect no one
to react. Just because something is perfectly within your right to
do doesn't mean you shouldnt find a polite way to do it.
I don't mind babies nursing in public either, but I do respect the
rights of private business to make the choice. If I own a business
and don't find it acceptable to have that activity going on, you'd
best head out to the car to feed the hog.
|7.12.05 @ 5:30PM|#
If you wish to overturn tradition, it is up to you to prove
that a tradition is wrong.
Steven,
See my above posts regarding my defense of lactating mothers. The
fact that I have to come to the defense of (mostly) considerate,
harmless people says something, I think. Yes, I believe my posts
above state clearly why I don't approve of the tradition of
lambasting unsuspecting women for (in most cases) no good
reason.
To all of the crybaby men who don't like to look at
"non-attractive" breastfeeding moms and insist on complaining about
it: grow up, for most of you, the third grade happened a long time
ago, so you shouldn't be acting like fussy 8-year-olds. (You are
also probably the type of "progressives" who think there should be
laws forcing stewardesses and other female public workers to wear
makeup).
To reiterate: I never supported any legislation of any kind, pro-
or anti-breastfeeding.
|7.12.05 @ 5:31PM|#
Mr. Kelso - Red probably means stop because red is a universal
biological warning/showoff color. When you see red, you stop,
especially when that red is on a snake, or a tree frog, or a
spider, et cetera, et cetera.
Secondly... I think breastfeeding older children is perverse. I
don't want to see it. However, I also don't want to see it banned.
Oh my God! I don't need my personal preferences imposed on everyone
else? I must be one queer duck in your mind.
I guess the bottom line is, there's a big difference between being
uncomfortable around an activity and going "eeeeeewwwww..." and
being uncomfortable around an activity and saying, "Sweet Jesus on
a pogo stick, we need a law to protect my virgin eyes from the
unspeakable mammarian evil that walks among us!"
|7.12.05 @ 5:32PM|#
RC,
I like to think that Gaius took the summer off to conquer Gaul or
take a tour of the provinces.
|7.12.05 @ 5:34PM|#
Since you can only respond with name calling smacky, I
accept your admission of defeat.
PS: in some cultures, it is common for older children to
breastfeed. Yet you find this "perverse?" Hmmm...sounds familiar,
now where did I hear that argument before? Oh yea, that was the
point of the post, making fun of people who find public breast
feeding "yucky?"
Who's namecalling? Breastfeeding a five-year-old child is
scientifically perverse . Human children grow teeth at a
certain age because nature expects them to stop feeding on their
mother. It's basic science. Cultural arguements are irrelevant. For
quoting Latin, Steven, you sure as hell don't know your word
etymologies.
|7.12.05 @ 5:36PM|#
Kelso,
While I was not using tradition to defend my
position...
Actually you were. And of course "tradition" is on the side of the
breast feeders. Do you realize many tens of thousands of years
people have been publicly breast feeding their children? Take a
class in human evolutionary development.
As to the Ohio law, I believe you are confusing what Ohio has done
with the free choice that some of us are advocating. But hey, you
can continue to drag in inapposite all day if you like.
R.C. Dean,
Those who are uncomfortable with breast feeding are the narcissitic
ones.
|7.12.05 @ 5:41PM|#
Those who are uncomfortable with breast feeding are the
narcissitic ones.
It's true. People like that think the world centers around their
sexual arousal or social approval. Bulletin to the overgrown
children of the world : It's not "All About You, All The Time".
(Just in case your parents never told you that).
|7.12.05 @ 5:46PM|#
I do think a private business can handle it how they want. If
they want to be uptight it's within their right to alienate a
customer.
Overall I find the people who get worked up about this stuff as
annoying as the women who treat breast-feeding like it's a feminist
statement. If you want to do it do it and don't make a big deal out
of it. If you don't like it ignore it and don't make a big deal out
of it. Whatever your opinion, we certainly don't need a law
preventing or protecting public breast-feeding.
I would however support a law that bans the taking of umbrage.
|7.12.05 @ 5:50PM|#
Tossing a breastfeeding woman out of a business is bound to be much more of a spectacle than letting her go quietly about her business.
|7.12.05 @ 5:50PM|#
I'm with RC Dean, here. I'm opposed to a law either in favor of
or in opposition to breast feeding. Still, I don't want to see it.
And before someone begans the 'puritan' harrangue, it's not about
sex.
If women insist on breast-feeding in public, I'll simply turn away
and go elsewhere. But I'd prefer it if civility prevailed here, and
they found someplace private to suckle their offspring.
|7.12.05 @ 5:52PM|#
Speaking of civility and social behavior and such, exactly when did the parents in this country abandon any pretense of controlling their children? Blithely unconcerned while their caterwauling rug-monkeys run amuck. Instead of outlawing breast feeding, let's outlaw children in public, period.
|7.12.05 @ 6:00PM|#
Mr. Howley,
Some topics beg for visual aids and photographs.
In this case it's me that is begging.
How can I make up my mind without visual examples?
|7.12.05 @ 6:07PM|#
Smacky,
Heh, don't try running for office with an attitude like
that.
An attitude like what?
(Oh no you di'in't! Oh no you di'in't!)
And why would I want to run for public office? To swindle the
American public some more? No thanks, I'm a libertarian.
|7.12.05 @ 6:09PM|#
Jennifer wrote:
On the other hand, I personally benefited from this double
standard in the past--in college and grad school I made SERIOUS
money as a topless dancer
I always thought the stripper/topless dancer making money while in
college/grad school was an urban legend. The things you learn
here...
Since SJK Sr. seems to have great respect for tradition, I nominate
him as Gaius Marius' fill-in on this thread.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 6:17PM|#
Thanks for the debate; I'm glad to see my libertine argument
proven true by so many of you. Talk about sore winners. You will
not be satisfied until everybody agrees with you, and for the same
reasons!!! What totalitarian impulses.
Not once have I advocated government involvement, yet you'd think I
wanted to turn the USA into the Vatican (without the buggery of
little boys.)
Breastfeeding in public is a tradition? Funny, I never remember
seeing it much before. This is America, not some hut village in the
3rd world (the "progressives" are trying, though.)
I see nothing in science that says a child can't breastfeed AND eat
food. Babies eat out of those little jars and then wash it all
down.
|7.12.05 @ 6:21PM|#
Yes, Kelso, you're right. Us nasty libertarians are all about freedom, and if you don't want to be free, by God, we'll put a pistol to your head and make you free.
|7.12.05 @ 6:23PM|#
"Human children grow teeth at a certain age because nature
expects them to stop feeding on their mother."
In fact, babies can nurse for quite some time after they acquire
teeth. Usually they avoid biting their mother (though my wife had
some very painful episodes when our last would chomp down just as
he was falling asleep). In the Second Book of Maccabees, the mother
of the seven martyred brothers speaks to one of her children and
mentions that she had nursed him for three years (2 Mac. 7:27). Our
children generally weaned by age three (though by that time, and
for months earlier, they had only been nursing for comfort and to
help them fall asleep).
|7.12.05 @ 6:35PM|#
Seamus,
I believe everything you say. But the child in question was 5! Not
3.
As an aside, whoa! -- Kelso, if you look anything like the pic that
mediageek posted, then I would sincerely like to apologize for
arguing with you by taking you out for dinner. Better yet, I'll
make it for you. Say, 8pm, my place? (I think I can dig up some
lactation pills somewhere before then).
|7.12.05 @ 6:38PM|#
smacky (what an appropriate name for this thread!),
"Breastfeeding a five-year-old child is scientifically
perverse."
I can't vouch for it's veracity, but I read that hunter-gatherer
cultures commonly breastfeed until 4 or 5.
At any rate, breastfeeding can be done very discreetly by covering
the shoulder with a cloth - nobody need even see the baby. I know
because my wife did this with our kids many times in public. Nobody
was the wiser.
Tim Cavanaugh|7.12.05 @ 6:54PM|#
It may come as news to the Independent Women's Forum, but
many women are able to breastfeed their children fairly
modestly.
Public policy blowhards are not human, and therefore everything
about human behavior comes as news to them.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|7.12.05 @ 7:00PM|#
Tossing a breastfeeding woman out of a business is bound to
be much more of a spectacle than letting her go quietly about her
business.
Yet well within their right to do so.
|7.12.05 @ 7:05PM|#
"I believe everything you say. But the child in question was 5!
Not 3."
Well, in that case, your argument from the presence of teeth proves
too much, as it would make nursing three-year olds as
"scientifically perverse" as the nursing of five-year-olds.
|7.12.05 @ 7:05PM|#
"If we all did whatever we wanted in public, what kind of
society would we have?"
I think we'd call that a free society, sir.
|7.12.05 @ 7:09PM|#
Yet well within their right to do so.
Except apparently in Ohio... But businesses certainly make silly
policies everyday.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 7:10PM|#
A free society? Really? You let some of the kids in the
neighborhood spend a fews hours with you without supervision in an
movie and restaurant and then tell me how "free" you feel.
Liberty--no; Libertine--yes
|7.12.05 @ 7:12PM|#
Uh, mediageek--I am a libertarian.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but weren't you all for cracking down on
mothers breastfeeding?
Regardless, you can thank me later after dinner with smacky.
|7.12.05 @ 7:20PM|#
There's a very well-researched chapter on breastfeeding in
Edward Tenner's book, Our Own Devices: How Technology Remakes
Humanity, which discusses the extensive benefits to both
mother and child in terms of growth, prospects for childhood and
adult health, immunities and obesity, and remarks upon the fact
that primate studies generally link weaning to the emergence of the
first permanent molar, for which the median age is 5.5-6 years old.
Take that for what you will.
Expecting breastfeeding mothers to limit feeding their children to
a) the home or b) a room where people piss and shit is just
reactionary puritan stupidity.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 7:26PM|#
mediageek: thanks, but no--I was not. I was challenging the
bigotry of the "enlightend" left-wing libertine.
As for dinner, my wife has been pregnant 7 times; it seems like
she's been pregnant for most of our marriage--take those pills
early, I'm thirsty.
|7.12.05 @ 7:28PM|#
I was challenging the bigotry of the "enlightend" left-wing
libertine.
So thinking that a woman SHOULD be allowed to breastfeed in public
(even though I personally do not like to see it) makes me a
bigot?
|7.12.05 @ 7:33PM|#
"A free society? Really? You let some of the kids in the
neighborhood spend a fews hours with you without supervision in an
movie and restaurant and then tell me how "free" you
feel."
I managed a restaurant in my youth. The closest I ever got to fired
was one night when the owner came and saw some kids runnin' around.
I learned quick, the policy was, if kids are runnin' around
annoying other customers, the waiters should converge on the table
remove everything, and, at the same time, the manager should ask
their parents to leave and to never come back.
...A lot of people have been wonderin' lately why movie ticket
sales are down. ...maybe it's all the freakin' kids talkin' etc.
during the movie? I suspect the theatre chains think as much,
'cause Cinema de Lux charges enough to keep most kids out now--and
their attendance numbers are just fine--and if you talk during the
film, security will walk you right out of the place. ...Ditto a
General Cinemas theatre I went to last weekend--they had a security
member, before the movie started, explain that if someone talked
during the movie, and it bothered you, you should raise your hand,
and a security guard will come to assist you. ...and a Security
guard stood there in the theater the whole movie long.
You don't think the solutions to annoying children in restaurants
and obnoxious teenagers in theatres is another law, do you?
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.12.05 @ 7:42PM|#
Jennifer: no.
Tom Crick: No, as with most things, we should create a society
where we sometimes curb our own passions in public instead of doing
whatever we want. Time was, parents took better care of that kids.
That tradition has been replaced with touch-feely left-wing drival.
But as we've learned today, traditions suck.
But hey, if it feels good-do it (and do it wherever you want, no
matter what your neighbor thinks!) Who are you to say those kids
can't be free?
|7.12.05 @ 8:00PM|#
Mr Kelso is like gaius, what with the tradition and all. (Just
an inside joke for the faithful, Mr Kelso, not trying to take a jab
at you.)
Mr Kelso - I don't think traditions suck, per se, but I think that
believing they are a panacea is incorrect, as well. As I like to
tell gaius, it's all about personal responsibility, not about doing
something polite because it's 'traditional' to do so.
But I see you're not calling for any laws being passed to stop
public breastfeeding, you're just asking if it needs to be done.
And what I think is that it'll depend on who and where. And isn't
that what a lot of things should boil down to? I mean, if it's
offencive to you, avert your eyes, or leave, or even ask politely
"can you please breastfeed your child somewhere else, it's making
me uncomfortable". (And yes, I know that some people would get all
indignant, but fuck 'em...a big problem in this society is that
people won't communicate and get all passive/aggressive and
complicate the matter.)
People should police themselves, for the most part, especially when
it comes to social situations that are ambiguous, at best, like
breastfeeding your child.
|7.12.05 @ 8:04PM|#
I mean, if it's offencive to you, avert your eyes, or leave,
or even ask politely "can you please breastfeed your child
somewhere else, it's making me uncomfortable".
I swear to Dog, if I were a woman, and was breastfeeding my baby,
and somebody said that to me, I'd punch 'em right in the fuckin'
mouth. No ifs, ands, or buts. If they're uncomfortable,
they can leave, as long as the mother is being
undemonstrative and polite. Christ, people, it's a child, eating. I
mean, what the heck?
|7.12.05 @ 8:29PM|#
Coming late to this long thread, I first had to search for Mona.
Danged if Jennifer hadn't used her name in vain. Well this
antequated equipment I have here will only find one instance, so,
thanks to Jennifer, I had to scan through the remainder by hand, as
it were.
No matter. While I was slowly scrolling down, I got to thinking
this is an issue of aesthetics, something joe is an expert on. (I'd
now search for "joe," if I could.)
Anyhow, joe, isn't this issue of a piece with urban renewal and
fashions in architecture, and so on ...?
I mean one man's "yuck" is another man's "hubba-hubba,"
right?
The money my city spends to clean up after it's residents right
around me here is incredible. A certain (high) level of litter is a
thing of beauty to my neighbors, and government is just frustrating
them... wasting my tax dollars to do so.
Related thought: Is above mentality killing "Hooters" as a
restaurant chain?
|7.12.05 @ 9:00PM|#
An attitude like what?
I was just making the point that "People like that think the world
centers around their sexual arousal or social approval." would
constitute the majority of the voting public and they don't like
being told to grow up. You got no argument from me.
Anyway, your revulsion at the thought of running for office would
be one of the reasons why I would vote for you.
|7.12.05 @ 9:02PM|#
Ha! Phil just proved that I was correct in assuming some people
would become indignant. Which is why I put in my disclaimer.
For the record, Phil, I completely agree with what you said.
Although I still submit that people aren't communicative enough.
Like if someone's pissing you off, shouldn't you be able to say so
without getting punched in the mouth? When I said what I said, I
was mainly thinking about being somewhere where you couldn't get
away, like on a long train, bus, or plane ride.
But now that I'm writing, I realise that I could really care less
about someone breastfeeding in public (or, I should say, I realise
that I remembered I could care less). I just like to argue
that there shouldn't be laws passed whenever I get the chance!
:)
|7.13.05 @ 12:10AM|#
Related thought: Is above mentality killing "Hooters" as a
restaurant chain?
No. The fact they can't even build a sandwich properly is what's
killing them.
|7.13.05 @ 1:31AM|#
I think perhaps it's time for the lecture again.
YES. We know that private property owners should be able to do
whatever they damn well please on their property. If I want to
operate a restaraunt, and I don't want women to be breastfeeding in
common public areas, I should have the right to kick them out on
their matronly ass (or, perhaps, charge them for the privilege of
breastfeeding in the dining room. how much is it worth to you,
lady?).
BUT. Just because a business owner is well within his right to do
as he pleases with his own property, doesn't mean that we, even
though we're libertarians, have to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with
him and approve of every decision he makes, no matter how
ridiculous or closed-minded. In fact, we can even publicly
DISAPPOVE of his actions, and perhaps even ridicule them. Really,
if we disagree with them, we SHOULD voice our disapproval and
contempt, because, as good libertarians, we know that the way to
effect a change is not through compulsion, but through persuasion
and voting with our pocketbooks.
So, yeah. We realize that a restaraunt owner can, if he so pleases,
restrict breastfeeding to restrooms or other non-public areas.
Shouldn't keep us from pointing out that it's a damn fool rule
based on nothing but either misguided Puritanism or just too much
of an "eww, icky" reflex.
|7.13.05 @ 4:15AM|#
I'd say that anyone who feels threatened or is offended by a
mother nursing a baby must have a psychic railroad tie stuck up
his/her ass.
Just don't look! It's that easy.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|7.13.05 @ 7:31AM|#
Lowdog: No harm; no foul. Don't be so dismissive of tradition;
you may find one of your favorites dissapears one day without even
realizing it.
Steven Crane: Yes! Exactly the correct way to deal with most
situations. There should be a law against people who say "there
should be a law." :)
|7.13.05 @ 8:27AM|#
Jenna, I mean Jennifer,
You were banned for 12 hours? Do tell.
Smacky you can walk around my house topless all you want. I love
boobies. Skip the lactating pills though.
I don't know how I feel about a hot chick whipping out her boobie
to feed her kid right in front of me. I am not sure if it is
arousing or not. In a way it could be. The age of the kid is
irrelevant. It would be kind of weird if the husband started
sucking tit right in front of me.
|7.13.05 @ 8:30AM|#
MK
"People have such an aversion to the very idea of waiting tables.
What gives?"
I tried working as a waitor. It didn't work though, I didn't have
the temperament.
|7.13.05 @ 9:47AM|#
Kwais-
I don't even remember the "grab my buttocks" thread, so I honestly
can't say. I was just being snarky; Mona used to threaten
subscription cancellation with the same regularity most people
reserve for changing their socks, and then in that thread a few
days ago (which I read, but in which I did not participate since I
had nothing to say) she griped about posts filled with sexual
comments and me; it was the thread where you asked her why my name
was mentioned but she didn't answer. So when Stevo made that
comment of his I made a joking response in turn.
These threads are starting to have as much back story as an epic
novel. There's even character development, as in the case of the
California professional student turned East Coast scientist.
MK-
I personally have an aversion to waitressing because A) I don't
have the temperament; B) the money's a LOT better as a dancer; and
C) if you're a waitress and a jerk sits in your section you have no
choice but to deal with him, but if you're a dancer and a jerk
walks in you can just move to a less jerk-intensive part of the
stage.
|7.13.05 @ 10:35AM|#
There's even character development, as in the case of the
California professional student turned East Coast
scientist.
But the best character development has been the French Marine
turned law student in Vermont now resurrected as NC soon to be
lawyer. And in all incarnations a thing for Civil War
fantasies.
|7.13.05 @ 10:37AM|#
Bar Harbor-
I'd actually thought about mentioning him, but in most novels,
"death and reincarnation" is not the same thing as "character
development."
|7.13.05 @ 10:41AM|#
Jennifer
Ah, yes. My mistake. Not so much character development as
intriguing narrative, what?
|7.13.05 @ 10:50AM|#
I do notice, however, that the reincarnation of Gary seems a lot
nicer to me than Gary the original. Which suggests that not only is
there an afterlife, but that people who spend time in the afterlife
come back more kindly predisposed toward Yours Truly.
As an atheist, I honestly don't know what to make of such
metaphysical conundrums. On the other hand, I myself was Banned for
Life for Twelve Hours, so the fact that I'm posting here now
suggests that even atheists can be Born Again.
|7.13.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Lowdog: No harm; no foul. Don't be so dismissive of
tradition; you may find one of your favorites dissapears one day
without even realizing it.
You killed Gaius!!!
Jennifer,
Who is Gary reincarnated? How have I not noticed this? Which poster
is it? And why were you banned for twelve hours, and when was this?
And where is the post where Mona was complaining about the sexual
innuendoes? Sorry for all the questions.
|7.13.05 @ 10:59AM|#
I just sent an email to Jen and Mo about said French Marine. I
didn't want to blow his cover.
I wonder if I could do a better job about concealing who I am. I
think I could.
All he would have to do is spend 3 or more posts without talking
about how great France is. He could still demonstrate a knowlede of
history, there are many knowledgable people on this site.
I wanted to ask the identity question to Dr T, but he has a fake
email address.
He should get a real emai address so that I can send him email
questions about the identity of posters, and Smacky should get a
real email address so that I can stalk her and send her naked
pictures of myself.
Just kidding.
BTW, Jen, that post where I asked Mona why she didn't like you, was
not the "Grab Buttocks" one, it was the one above it, the
"Londonstan" one. I think.
|7.13.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Smacky,
See the posts by Hakluyt. Sometimes if think it is, sometimes not.
Although if it is, he must be on sedatives now.
|7.13.05 @ 11:18AM|#
Someday I might actually get off my lazy ass and create a real
email address for H&R. Someday.
Ah, sweet lethargy.
|7.13.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Jenn-
Interesting point on the "back story". Perhaps libertarians are not
as anti-social, self-absorbed, cold-hearted, and misanthropic as
generally believed (with the possible exception of Sam). While the
two major political parties are pursuing the "big tent" strategy to
expand their voter base, we libertarians tend to remain in our
isolated pup tents. The fact that we enjoy each others' company,
even at the arm's length of the Internet, gives some hope that we
can become a more popular movement without falling prey to mindless
collectivism.
On the subject of breastfeeding - it is nobody's business except
for the mother's (while acknowledging the right of private property
owners to control their premises). I resent having to feed my
little ones (technically "headlight feeding") in the garage area or
in back of the parking lot - but I yield to the wishes of the
parking lot owner.
|7.13.05 @ 12:40PM|#
thoreau had theorized that Hakluyt is GG/JB/M/JB. Since he was
the first to crack the JB/GG nut, I will concede to his
observation. If it is, it's good to have his more polite version
back.
Like kwais, I think I could hide it better. I'd have to keep my
head down in any MidEast culture thread or anything regarding
Egypt, but I'm sure I could mange.
|7.13.05 @ 12:43PM|#
"I don't mind babies nursing in public either, but I do respect
the rights of private business to make the choice."
Let's count this as my perfunctory comment on the capacity for
individuals to have their liberty intruded on by private parties,
not just the government.
Somebody post a perfunctory denunciation based on defining your
conclusion, and that'll be that.
|7.13.05 @ 12:45PM|#
Mo,
I think thoreau is right about Hakluyt/GG. If you look for one of
the threads about France nearby, you'll see he is knowledgeable
about all things France. Plus, he did a triple post! And he uses
those leering smiley faces. :)
|7.13.05 @ 12:50PM|#
As an aside, couldn't he have picked an easier-to-spell/remember
handle? Hakluyt? I predict I'm going to misspell that a lot. What's
up with all the double vowels in people's names, anyway?
Keep it simple, smacky, says I.
|7.13.05 @ 1:21PM|#
it's good to have his more polite version back.
Really, you think so? I almost prefer his rude, temper-tantrum
version. Better he be fiesty than lobotomized, says I.
Yarrghh, why am I posting in pirate-speak today?
|7.13.05 @ 5:00PM|#
I was standing in line at a La Salsa at a mall once when a woman
standing in front of me was breastfeeding her baby. Yes, I said
standing in line.
I don't want to watch your baby sucking on your tit in public. It's
disgusting, especially at a restaurant. The thought of breast milk
(bodily fluid) accidentally dripping on the table is disgusting.
(BTW I'm female)
I guess common courtesy doesn't mean anything anymore.
drf|7.13.05 @ 5:17PM|#
we'll be sure to consult with you to get a universal, blanket measure of "courtesy" based on your views before acting next time. how's that?
|7.13.05 @ 6:15PM|#
I'll make a deal - to the extent that mothers feel they should
be able to breastfeed anywhere, at anytime, without any attempt to
maintain a bit of privacy, I will deal with my mighty dripping
sinuses anywhere, at anytime, without any attempt to maintain a bit
of privacy.
Isn't that fair? What could be more natural than trying to free
yourself from the snotty horror of allergies?
|7.13.05 @ 6:23PM|#
I just made this big long post in reply to passingthru, and it's
gone. Gone! Dammit. All these wasted years.
As I tried to reply a moment ago: I think passingthru has
a point concerning hygeine, contamination, and disease
transmission. In fact, I think certain diseases (H.I.V., for
example), are transmittable through breast milk. Still, I'd like to
qualify my earlier arguements by reminding you that I was defending
people who use their sense of common courtesy and logic when
choosing a place to feed their baby. I'm not advocating
breastfeeding near a contaminable food area, or during a
presentation that the mother is giving, or at the top of the big
hill on a roller coaster. I don't really want breast dribble in my
nachos, either.
|7.13.05 @ 10:09PM|#
This whole thread is based on a mistaken premise. The majority of social conservatives have acted as Ms. Howley would have wanted and supported the lactivists. Ms. Lucas is an exception. Public breastfeeding has been endorsed by Michelle Malkin, for heaven's sake, and if I had the time I could link to about a dozen devout Catholics denouncing bottle feeding as symptomatic of anti-"culture of life" mentality.
|7.17.05 @ 7:05AM|#
I think, a lot of fuss is being made of a small problem.
Nursing mothers has to keep with them a long piece of cloth with
them, so that they can cover up and feed the baby. Here in india,
most Nursing mothers travel in public without any problem and this
is never any issue here.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245