Public Breastfeeding to Become Civil Right

by W.F. Price on April 4, 2012

I don’t have a problem with women nursing in public, restaurants, or wherever they please, but some people might not like it, and why shouldn’t they be able to prevent it in their own places of business? Sometimes, when you have small children, it’s obnoxious when restaurants make it clear that you can’t seat them wherever you please, but if it’s really that offensive why give them your business?

A new law proposed in Seattle would make nursing a civil right, enforceable by the Civil Rights Office:

Under the proposed ordinance, mothers can breast-feed at a time, place and in the manner they choose. They do not have to go to a restroom. They do not have to cover the baby with a blanket or towel. The owner, manager or employee of a store, restaurant or other public place cannot request that the mother move or leave.

Nelson said that individuals who feel their rights have been violated would be able to file a charge with the Civil Rights Office, which would investigate the complaint and could assess a fine.

Nelson said her office also is able to publicize the ordinance and the rights of nursing mothers.

“If a woman is in a restaurant and is told she can’t breast-feed, she can say, ‘Yes I can. It’s the law,’ ” Nelson said.

Given our high unemployment, it doesn’t make sense to place even more restrictions on businesses, and make operation any more difficult or risky. One wrong move by an inexperienced employee and you could find your business sued into oblivion by an offended woman with a smart attorney. It is these kinds of rules and regulations that keep setting the bar higher and depressing hiring, and for a dubious public good. When I say dubious here it isn’t because breastfeeding itself is “dubious,” but rather that the ability to breastfeed literally anywhere probably confers only a tiny benefit, if any. For example, one can pump the milk at home and take it to the store, feeding the kid from a bottle. Or, even better, breastfeed before going to the store.

Sometimes, when you try to legislate a perfect society, what you end up with is one in which only a few people can make the cut, and the rest are simply culled from the ranks of the employable. This is how the nanny state slowly strangles the economy. The more “rights” we confer on customers, the more of a hassle it is for employers, and the more they scrutinize potential employees.

{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }

Norm April 4, 2012 at 09:40

I heard an American woman on the left wing CBC being interviewed a few weeks ago and she said she noticed young children in France very rarely have tantrums. What the parents do is not force or tell their children not to eat everything on their plates. They are told to at least try everything on your plate. This woman married a Frenchman and lives in Paris. She mentioned that when she visits the USSA and meets with her friends, her friends after a few glasses of wine start complaining and putting down their husbands. She said that is very uncommon in France. This is what us red pill men knew all along, but coming from an American woman is more eye opening.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 1
Doublemindedman April 4, 2012 at 09:59

Breastfeeding is natural and really shouldn’t be restricted. I don’t really have a problem with a business owner placing reasonable restrictions, but a corporation is NOT an individual and cannot have rights similar to a natural person. It is, by definition a creation of the State with rights and protections granted to it by the State. If a business owner wants to retain rights, he should not incorporate.

Also, you cannot switch back and forth between bottle and breast. The child will prefer the bottle due to faster flow. This causes numerous problems with the feeding which is, by all accounts, the healthiest form, and breast feeding results in tremendous cost savings in healthcare and creates a smarter child (up to 10IQ higher) which will likely be more productive later in life.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 40
James April 4, 2012 at 10:00

These women fight for the right to breastfeed in public, but NO WHERE do they fight for the RIGHTS of men and fathers.

They fight for the right to dress like a whore in public, their “Slutwalks”, but no where do they fight for the RIGHTS of men and fathers. So they have the free time to run around shouting for the right to dress and act like a whore, but they don’t have the time to defend the RIGHTS of fathers and men?

Is it obvious yet that western women have COMPLETELY BETRAYED men?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 15
Troll King April 4, 2012 at 10:02

Welmer, did you see this?

I posted it on the last article but it is towards the bottom.

I thought it was HILARIOUS!

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/04/03/planned-parenthood-and-tucker-max/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
keyster April 4, 2012 at 10:25

“I don’t really have a problem with a business owner placing reasonable restrictions,…”

Than you shouldn’t mind a business owner having the freedom to choose not to allow breast feeding among his other patrons.

“…but a corporation is NOT an individual and cannot have rights similar to a natural person.”

A corporation is an individual, because if it weren’t you’d have to sue all it’s shareholders individually, if you were seeking damages for something, rather than an “individual” entity.

“It is, by definition a creation of the State with rights and protections granted to it by the State.”

That’s incorrect.
A corporation is created by individuals, who have an idea and access to capital. The State can only collect taxes and impose restrictions and regulations (see new breast feeding law above).

“If a business owner wants to retain rights, he should not incorporate.”

Incorporation isolates the individual’s assets from liability; like from being sued for not allowing breast feeding at his establishment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 9
Ryu April 4, 2012 at 10:45

Okay. But if a man stares or leers, will that be a form of harrassment? I can see women having the right to clear out a room or space if the kid needs a drink. Of course, it will take time to reach that point.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 5
Like a G-6 April 4, 2012 at 10:46

This one I agree with. Boob is never bad, and I’d rather all those juniors out there get tit-milk instead of pasteurized cow’s crud.

Really the laws on nudity are kind of dumb IMO.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 22
Anonymous age 69 April 4, 2012 at 10:48

In Mexico, I see three kinds of conduct by breast feeding women.

First, they are very discreet. They use the blanket shield, put if up first, then apparently bring the breast out under cover and feed under cover.

Second, they cover until the baby latches, then relax the blanket and the baby hides the breast.

Third, the woman flips up her blouse, exposing this lovely breast, then moves the baby up to it.

I am not going to deny that I like the sight of a lovely breast, engorged with milk. However, I don’t find it appealing to my prurient interests, just a lovely sight. I was raised by my mom, who breast fed her kids, so when there is a baby clamped on that breast it no longer constitutes to me a sexually attractive appendage, but a baby feeder.

And, I assure you, after an adaptation period, the sight of a nursing baby will no longer bother you one way or the other.

I did have one sight of a breast, once, that appealed to my prurient interest. My wife’s cousin had a new baby boy. I went to the house to see it. I told the wife why I came. She was breast feeding it, and without blinking an eye, moved the baby around so I could see him. Her nipple was covered by being in the baby’s mouth, but the ring around the nipple was the loveliest blue. I was more than enchanted.

I asked many people what would make that ring around the nipple blue, and no one knew for sure.

Several years later, I mentioned it to the wife of my best friend, the doctor. She told me she helped her husband with deliveries, and women with indigenous ancestry often have blue around the nipples. She does not know if it is only when the women are pregnant or not.

That particular woman’s breasts, I would love to see again, heh, heh. But, in general it is no big deal because of my background.

I am not disagreeing with the comments about women wanting unlimited rights for themselves while not giving a hoot if men live or die.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 18
Geography Bee Finalist himself April 4, 2012 at 10:55

Will Senegalese and Malian (and other West African) women who happen to be in the Seattle area be permitted in between breastfeeding their newborns to tug on their breasts to make them as saggy as they would like? (This cultural practice does not appear to cost any money in West Africa.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
DirkJohanson April 4, 2012 at 11:14

I have an idea: let’s open a coffee shop or something in seattle and pay hot single mothers to hang out breastfeeding all day. The customers can be unpaid assistants, holding the breasts in place and even taking the first sips just to make sure the breastmilk is ready to drink. We can call it Starboobs or something.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 11
Geography Bee Finalist himself April 4, 2012 at 11:19

Did they remember to deny this “right” to HIV-positive mothers as well?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Lsmbr April 4, 2012 at 11:35

Taking a dump is natural too, but you don’t see me doing it at the table.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 10
Rebel April 4, 2012 at 11:37

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 20
Bizzman662 April 4, 2012 at 11:37

While minding my own business at the coffee shop…….A super hot mama next to me takes off her top…….If I happen to look at her engorged, beautiful boobie while she plops it at the table across from me to feed her starving baby..

Do I get charged with:

A. Domestic Violence
B. Sexual Harassment
C. Rayyype
D. All of the above

Who knows??

Could be all of the above the way the laws change so fast around here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 6
Wilson April 4, 2012 at 12:01

The people who complain about breastfeeding are ridiculous, but saying that it is a “civil right” greater than the right to property debases the term. If a woman keeps her boob out long enough can she take up residence and eventually get a squatter’s deed?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Binxton April 4, 2012 at 12:26

The more “rights” we confer on customers, the more of a hassle it is for employers, and the more they scrutinize potential employees.

The more rights we confer on society’s diverse citizenry, the more tyrannical society must become.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
Anon April 4, 2012 at 12:41

This is not a post about breast feeding. It’s a post about how women endlessly litigate to put one female behavior after another into the legal code. It’s a post about how women seek to put each and every behavior of every man on the planet under a microscope and examine it for “correctness”, with women as the arbiters of correctness. By putting harsh constraints on every conceivable male behavior into the legal code, they enlist the brutal power of men with guns (police officers in the street, bailiffs in court and corrections officers in prisons) to enforce their idea of correctness.

That’s what this post ismabout. IMHO, anyway.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 5
DCM April 4, 2012 at 13:06

It’s a small step toward females going topless wherever men can and breasts losing the power of surprise.
Females can’t tell the difference vetween surprise and arousal; boobs won’t become uninteresting, just commonplace.
Of course the next barrier is females acting offended while showng them where they demanded to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Boxer April 4, 2012 at 13:40

I’m sure this’ll get the usual suspects all riled up, but I see nothing wrong with this. Breasts are designed to feed infants. Most people these days see them as receptacles for silicone implants — which is fine, but they have a first purpose.

While I enjoy seeing a hot chick’s boobs as much as the next fella, breastfeeding is not an erotic pursuit (not to a normal man, anyway) and as such I don’t really care if women whip a teat out and shove it in the mouth of their sprog. It strikes me as sorta puritanical to think that this is frowned upon.

Regards, Boxer

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 17
shiva1008 April 4, 2012 at 14:54

> Breastfeeding is natural and really shouldn’t be restricted.

So is taking a shit.

A chaste woman should not bare her breasts in public. This should only be done in the privacy of the home. Unfortunately Americans have no culture so they don’t understand this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 9
woggy April 4, 2012 at 15:02

What if some guy masturbated in a cup in a public place, ( his urologist wants a sperm count so princess can “have it all”) since the sight of living, breathing women (rather than the “stapled” masturbation aids) is what he needs to turn him on while he does his “manly” duty.

Think there might be an uproar at the public sight of a “bull” being “milked”?

Ridiculous, I know…

So, let’s back way down on the outrageous scale and just say that a man offers a very audible prayer of thanks and blessing over a restaurant meal.
Think someone will feel offended? Will they feel as if their oh so fragile civil rights have been trampled by this expression of religious belief in public?
Betcha they will, and it’ll be outlawed to even bow your head in silence while mama is oozing milk in the next booth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
Tom936 April 4, 2012 at 15:13

I have no problem with breastfeeding in public. But I have a problem with the bad arguments being raised by Doublemindedman.

Since breastfeeding isn’t important one way or the other, I was going to ignore it. But his post is so typical of the way that Leftists argue. So I felt there might be some good to be done by holding its flaws up to the light.

Doublemindedman April 4, 2012 at 09:59
Breastfeeding is natural and really shouldn t be restricted.

Terrible argument. All the other bodily functions are natural too. None of them should be restricted?

I don t really have a problem with a business owner placing reasonable restrictions, but a corporation is NOT an individual and cannot have rights similar to a natural person.

I call BS. You don’t care whether a restaurant is owned by a corporation or by an individual. You’d support the breastfeeding law either way. The article even mentioned a restaurant’s “owner”, clearly an individual. You just ignored that part.

There’s more in the same vein, but I’ve made my point.

This style of argument is indicative of the way Leftists argue and think. There’s no honest attempt to argue the issues. In his (or her) own ears, his post must sound very sophisticated, making (irrelevant) statements about corporations and natural persons. But it all lacks the most basic quality of a good argument, which is addressing the point. Anybody can make pseudo-sophisticated points if they just throw them out there regardless of relevance.

And then there are the pronouncements littered throughout. Breastfeeding “really shouldn’t be restricted”. Well, who says so? That’s the conclusion that your argument is supposed to support, Doublemindedman. It’s not something that you should lob out there in the first sentence, consequent to nothing more than “it’s natural”.

Again this is typical of Leftist argument. Politically correct pronouncements are littered here and there and everywhere without any real regard for whether they belong in that particular place in the flow of the argument.

And I have no problem with breastfeeding in public and no particular affection for Social Conservatism either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Anonymous April 4, 2012 at 16:20

A couple of years ago I was at a store that sells childrens’ goods (toys, clothes, baby furniture, etc.) Through a set of double-doors at the back of the store, there was an enormous lounge filled with recliners, sofas, changing tables, etc. It was obvious that the store spent a great deal of money so that mothers would be able to take care of their children’s feeding and changing needs in this room without being forced to use, for example, the bathrooms (which are often not sanitary enough, women complain).

At that moment the lounge was empty. But when I turned back into the store, I noticed a mother on a recliner breastfeeding her child inside the store (literally 10 feet away from the spacious, immaculate room set aside for just that purpose).

This incident tells you all you need to know about women and the issue of breastfeeding in public.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
DCM April 4, 2012 at 17:35

The argument that something is “natural”, as has been pointed out here, is useless, childish, and meaningless.

The problem is that breasts are also a sex characteristic, emphasized in some societies more than others. Females don’t want them not to be since it diminishes their sexual power but they want to be able to feed what babies they haven’t had cut out and killed something better than formula. They also want to use that wish to start trouble. Females thrive on trouble and drama.

I’d like to get females in the US to be able to be topless wherever men are because their surprise or shock value will be lost and therefore their power. I see breastfeeding as a way to lead to this incrementally.
Incrementalism has worked well for the left — why shouldn’t sane people use it.

Men won’t lose interest in tits any more than they lost interest in legs when females started wearing short skirts circa 1920 (and have never ceased to). If men lost interest in legs there would be no leg porn, which is abundant. Feminists believe they will, creating their lezparadise where they can show off to females and men won’t “bother” them.
Men’s sexual fixations or fetishes or whatever you call them are established early in life, relatively independently of fashion and custom. Females don’t understand this any more than they understood that if feminism came to the fore men would cease behaving as they did in the 1950s.
Feminism is THEORY, not pragmatism or science. It is doctrine that feminists must follow and they ignore reality that contradicts it, though reality does enrage them.
A grasp on reality will enable their quicker defeat…
Undermining their sexual power is one way to victory and we see that it’s working or they more and more of them wouldn’t be public sluts. Slutwalks are because men pay less attention, not more.
So let’s get a couple of female generations used to being topless.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
AAvictim April 4, 2012 at 17:38

I look at it from a property rights perspective. Now the politicians can do what they want for “public” property but store owners should have the right to deny someone from breast feeding much like they will deny business to someone without shirt and shoes. Women can choose to go to a different establishment. I think the points are spot on about shitting or masturbating inside a store because it is “natural.” Sex is natural so if you go by that argument sex in public should be allowed. Of course this is not about logic, it is about emotion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Renee April 4, 2012 at 17:43

Let me ask you this, would any of you eat a meal in a bathroom, especially a public bathroom?

From my experience, any time I’ve seen a woman breastfeeding, nothing was shown. Everything was covered up in a blanket.

And comparing breastfeeding, basically eating, to taking a sh*t….seriously?

Shiva,
A chaste woman should not bare her breasts in public. This should only be done in the privacy of the home. Unfortunately Americans have no culture so they don’t understand this.

This is an example of the issue of breasts being seen as nothing but sexual objects. Are they, yes, but they’re ALSO a source of food for babies. There’s no reason whatsoever why breastfeeding in public should be such a big freakin’ deal, especially since everything’s covered up most of the time.

For example, one can pump the milk at home and take it to the store, feeding the kid from a bottle. Or, even better, breastfeed before going to the store.

From what I’ve read from breastfeeding mothers online, it’s not that simple. One mom said something like how some babies may not like feeding from a bottle, and other moms mentioned that babies are CONSTANTLY hungry so feeding them before leaving may not even work (going by memory here).

As for breastfeeding being a civil right, while the hearts of the people proposing the law are in the right place, going as far as calling it a CIVIL RIGHT…I’m not too sure. Welmer makes some valid points.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 20
W.F. Price April 4, 2012 at 17:53

From what I’ve read from breastfeeding mothers online, it’s not that simple. One mom said something like how some babies may not like feeding from a bottle, and other moms mentioned that babies are CONSTANTLY hungry so feeding them before leaving may not even work (going by memory here).

-Renee

Well, all I can say about that is that my ex was perfectly happy to let me feed the kids pumped milk from a bottle while she went out and did other things. I was happy to do it, too. Frankly, if you want daddy to pitch in and help feed the babies with natural milk, you’re going to have to let him give them a bottle for obvious reasons. Also, my kids seemed fine with either a bottle or a teat. My son didn’t even care about a pacifier – his main concern was food – although my daughter used one for a while after she was weaned.

Bottles aren’t ideal, but they do the trick. And anyway, teats generally produce more milk than a baby needs, too, so overfeeding isn’t really the issue — you just have to learn to pace the babies (prevents barfing).

piercedhead April 4, 2012 at 18:51

And comparing breastfeeding, basically eating, to taking a sh*t….seriously?-Renee

Ha Ha!

I was wondering how long a woman would come up with this (seen it all before).

Here we have women arguing that since breast-feeding is natural, one should be able to do it in public – and then a man will say “since taking a dump is also natural, why shouldn’t I be able to do that in public too?”

And right on clue, a woman will jump out and say “how dare you compare breast-feeding with taking a dump!”

We are not dealing with thinking intelligence chaps. Only a big ball of fluffy, pleasant emotions at war with other nasty, unpleasant emotions.

At least it is amusing as it it is predictable.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7
Charles Martel April 4, 2012 at 18:58

Boxer
I’m sure this’ll get the usual suspects all riled up, but I see nothing wrong with this. Breasts are designed to feed infants.

I guess I’m one of your usual suspects but I couldn’t agree more. The USA is one of very few countries where the importance of breastfeeding to infant health is not widely accepted.

But breastfeeding in public? There are very few places in the US where you might be exposed to this, er…..exposure. Seattle, Berkeley, Boulder, the People’s Republic of Cambridge. It’s a short list. There are whole states where you have a higher risk of being hit by lightning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
GT66 April 4, 2012 at 19:06

Bill, be careful. You’re displaying the characteristics of a good and observant father. You know the feminists don’t like us stepping out of our roles as sex starved, abuser buffoons. You might just incur wrath for that and for calling out sweety on the superiority of the teat for the purpose of conveniently supporting her argument.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Charles Martel April 4, 2012 at 19:07

Renee
As for breastfeeding being a civil right, while the hearts of the people proposing the law are in the right place, going as far as calling it a CIVIL RIGHT…I’m not too sure. Welmer makes some valid points.

I agree with you, Renee. My problem with breastfeeding is not the infant and the breast it’s attached to, it’s, er, the breast and the woman it’s attached to. As usual, breastfeeding is all about HER rights, with no consideration given to the feelings or dare I say it, rights, of the maybe dozens of people around her. My sister once ripped me a new one in a pub because she didn’t like the EXPRESSION on my FACE when she whipped the ole titty out. I didn’t say anything but I got a two minute lecture from sis because she could tell what I was THINKING. LOL.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
GT66 April 4, 2012 at 19:12

Charles Martel April 4, 2012 at 18:58
” The USA is one of very few countries where the importance of breastfeeding to infant health is not widely accepted.”

Breast feeding or breast milk? Because AFAIK, EVERYONE knows breast milk is superior EXCEPT feminists for whom the “formula is just as good” fad was popular a few decades ago as it was seen as another way to convince women that they should be rotting in the office and not worrying about their baby’s food options.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
piercedhead April 4, 2012 at 19:18

While I enjoy seeing a hot chick’s boobs as much as the next fella, breastfeeding is not an erotic pursuit (not to a normal man, anyway) and as such I don’t really care if women whip a teat out and shove it in the mouth of their sprog. It strikes me as sorta puritanical to think that this is frowned upon.

I quite agree that breast-feeding has no erotic value to the average men (it is actually a turn-off) but there are reasons for restricting it that have little to do with puritanism. Breast-feeding is the exchange of body fluids, at body temperature. Throughout history, cultures have recognised the public health dangers associated with large-scale exposure to this, and although they may not have understood why, they have known that quarantining certain kinds of activity leads to healthier societies.

The New Zealand Maori, for example, will not eat from a table that anyone has sat on, and they also have rather strict cultural beliefs about sectioning women discharging menstrual blood.

Our ancient beliefs about sectioning breast-feeding women, and keeping them separate from others most likely lie in public health concerns.

Now you may be quite content to sit next to a breast-feeding baby, but should that child vomit up its dinner (as infants are wont to do) in near proximity, I suspect you would see it about as welcome as someone’s spit landing on your plate.

Personally, I would rather stay at home to dine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
GT66 April 4, 2012 at 19:19

to continue: I don’t see what breast feeding adds above being fed breast milk from a bottle other than as a few have stated for pacing purposes.

Personally, I could give a shit where a woman breast feeds. I just don’t think it should be yet another law and TBH, I think the proprietor that owns and pays for his or her establishment has the right to set some rules as to how people should behave in that space. And, for all the screeching women do about men being offended or bothered by breast feeding in public, I have yet to meet a man that said he was. Now other women, well, many, many of them seem to be annoyed by it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
AndrewV April 4, 2012 at 19:49

I am going to agree with others who have pointed out that this demand is nothing more than a means to advance a political agenda.

I also believe that the denizens of the USA would be correct in viewing this as yet another attempt by your Cultural Marxist to advance their agenda.

However,

Here in Kanukstan women have the right to go topless courtesy of Gwen Jacob, but sadly I have never seen any woman exercise this right, apart from the odd woman breast feeding, which to the best of my knowledge is also non-issue here.

I am also going to also point out that in many parts of Europe and the 3rd World this is also a non-issue.

I also suspect, that not many women in the USA will actually exercise this right, given my understanding of your culture.

But from where I am sitting it is not a big loss, unless many of your waddling land beasts decide to up the ante and demand the same rights as Gwen Jacob, and then actually exercise them.

YMMV

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel April 4, 2012 at 20:01

GT66
Breast feeding or breast milk? Because AFAIK, EVERYONE knows breast milk is superior EXCEPT feminists for whom the “formula is just as good” fad was popular a few decades ago as it was seen as another way to convince women that they should be rotting in the office and not worrying about their baby’s food options.

Good point. Breast milk. Paying some other woman to feed soy-based formula to your infant while you play cubicle jockey is insane and cruel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel April 4, 2012 at 20:07

AndrewV
Here in Kanukstan women have the right to go topless courtesy of Gwen Jacob, but sadly I have never seen any woman exercise this right….

You’ll have to go to New York for that, where the legal right of women to go topless is well-established.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
PeterTheGreat April 4, 2012 at 20:20

I see nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public. Pre-bottle culture, all women breastfed. And, as they had their babies with them in public, they breastfed in public.

Anti-breastfeeding people are creating problems where none should exist. This is a natural function. Babies want fed often. This anti-natural mindset reminds me of a woman who wouldn’t drink cows milk from a farm. Why? “Because it isn’t natural.” When asked what was natural, she replied, “You know, milk from stores, in cartons.” Duh!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
Scattered April 4, 2012 at 20:25

“Let me ask you this, would any of you eat a meal in a bathroom, especially a public bathroom?

From my experience, any time I’ve seen a woman breastfeeding, nothing was shown. Everything was covered up in a blanket.

And comparing breastfeeding, basically eating, to taking a sh*t….seriously?”

This is entirely irrelevant. The point is not whether it is reasonable or not to allow breast feeding.

If a property owner doesn’t want you breast feeding on his premises (for whatever reason) who are you or anyone to tell him he is obligated to service you. It is his property, if you don’t like his rules then you leave. Its that simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Renee April 4, 2012 at 20:59

Scattered,
This is entirely irrelevant. The point is not whether it is reasonable or not to allow breast feeding.

I was only responding to specific points and reasoning I’ve seen in this post. I made a separate point about civil rights at the end of my comment.

piercedhead,
I’m fully aware of the earlier comment about breastfeeding being natural. All I’m saying is that while the two are considered under the natural category, it’s still two different actions. There are plenty of things that are natural that we don’t do in the bathroom, eating is one of them.

Nothing to do with “fluffy emotions, etc” as you put it. Why doing #1 or #2 is the first thing some people link breastfeeding to, I don’t know…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
Scattered April 4, 2012 at 21:37

“I made a separate point about civil rights at the end of my comment.”

A weak point, saying “I’m not too sure” doesn’t cut it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
piercedhead April 4, 2012 at 21:40

“Why doing #1 or #2 is the first thing some people link breastfeeding to, I don’t know…..”-Renee

But I do know.

For many of us, breast-feeding is icky. That is the scientific argument.

You may dismiss it easily if you like, but I suspect you would find the sight of someone else’s turd while you are eating also icky. The rational you may say “but that turd is a good 4 yards away. It is down wind. It cannot possibly harm me”. Yet the sight of that turd will affect your appetite for no good reason whatsoever.

Or perhaps when you are eating a piece of phlegm might land on your plate after someone with a pulmonary infection has had a good heave. Your rational mind might say “why should I let that bother me? Why not go ahead and eat it with all the spaghetti sauce it landed on. After all, it cannot possibly survive the gastric acids in my stomach”. Or perhaps you are a little more cautious and you ask for the serving staff to remove the unwelcome gobble. After all, it cannot possibly have infected the entire dinner.

Of course you don’t!!!

You refuse to continue eating any of it!

And not because it is the rational thing to do, but because all your instincts say “ICKY, ICKY, ICKY”.

You have a right to your instincts. So do I.

You might believe you women are made of angel dust, and that even your body fluids are heavenly, but I do not. At the very least I find them repellant. Not worse than menstrual blood, or nose bogies, or turds, but roughly about the same. I cannot tell the scientific reason for this. All I know is that I do not want to eat in close proximity to any of it.

There is only one person in the whole world, besides yourself, who will happily ingest your glandular secretions, and that is because he or she has already spent 9 months habituating himself to your infections. For the rest of us, it is a health risk. Nature is well aware that we may miss out on a good education, so Nature planted a simple idea in our minds “if it’s icky, avoid it”.

Go ahead and legislate unsafe law in restaurants if your vanity will override our right to what is hygenic. I will obey my instincts. If you find yourself alone in restaurants with nobody else around but nursing mothers, do not blame me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Renee April 4, 2012 at 22:16

Piercedhead,
I simply don’t equate turd or phlegm with breastfeeding. That’s just me. Babies need to eat like anyone else. And yes, you go ahead and do you. My problem is when all the apprehension involving breastfeeding has to do with the fact that it involves a boob and nothing more (especially when most of the time you don’t even SEE anything).

You might believe you women are made of angel dust, and that even your body fluids are heavenly, but I do not.

Way to over-exaggerate lol. And who said anything about legislating law?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12
AndrewV April 4, 2012 at 22:34

@piercedhead April 4, 2012 at 21:40

ICKY?

If indeed your sentiments about breastfeeding are held in common within your community, approximately where is this?

I am also curious about what religious denomination (if any) is dominant in that area.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Rob April 4, 2012 at 23:12

The Jiggly Room

Just have a good look at them, and don’t avert your eyes.

If they want to show their tits, look as closely as you would like. There is no law against eyesight.

It is a shit test. Women never show their tits by accident.

Or, as said above, complain to the owner on your way out, and explain why you are leaving.

You know, most married women don’t like other women whipping out their tits in front of their husbands either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Rob April 4, 2012 at 23:17

You might also loudly comment, “Whoo Hoo! Titties!”

Cause there’s no law against saying that either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Paul Murray April 4, 2012 at 23:27

“Breastfeeding is natural and really shouldn’t be restricted.”

So is taking a piss – another bodily function. Public breastfeeding is something primitive people do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Rob April 4, 2012 at 23:39

Renee showing up here yacking like this is ridiculous.

I think she should post a picture of her own tits to this blog, completely unashamed, and then she can continue talking.

This is just more of women trying to shit test the culture.

If it’s no big deal, then send us a picture of your tits.

Shake ‘em baby, don’t break ‘em.

Go topless, all of you.

I lived in Europe for a while, and by the time I came home to North America, I had seen so many tits, it took me a few years again to even give a crap about them.

Go for it, ladies.

You’ve got so few things men desire from you already, that it all boils down to Tits and Ass. Show the Titties all over the place, and you’ll end up with half the sexual allure.

Good Jorb.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8
James April 4, 2012 at 23:58

Peter-Andrew: Nolan© makes the claim that the men here condone and support criminal acts by women against men, especially in divorce. He makes the claim that many men in this place know that women commit crimes against men in the family courts. Crimes like perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse. He claims that he has asked THOUSANDS of men in places like these to step forward and join Crimes Against Fathers to fairly and justly put women on trial who are properly accused of crimes against fathers. He makes the claim that thousands upon thousands of men have refused to heed his call to give men a path to justice if they are criminally vitimised by women.

That would be men just like me. That would be fathers just like I hope to be one day.

I would like to verify if his claims are real.
Has he really called on thousands and thousands of men in places like this?
Have you really refused to heed his call to give men a path to justice by creating lawful courts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
Rob April 5, 2012 at 00:29

Peter Andrew Nolan hasn’t spent more than 5 minutes talking sense between screeching that shtick, and the ILLOOMINAUGHTY, that nobody here takes him seriously.

Nor should they.

Yack about the ILLOOMINAUGHTY all day, people suddenly don’t give a shit.

His problem, not ours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
Rob April 5, 2012 at 00:54

You can see the relativity of women, and why they shouldn’t have anything to do with politics or the law.

Renee will yack at us for days that “they are just boobs” – indicating that she should be able to whip out her tits anywhere, anytime, and nothing at all should be wrong with it.

But at the workplace, if Renee catches a man looking down her blouse, he will be a creep deserving of a sexual harrassment suit.

Just keep your fucking tits to yourself, and nobody will be harmed. It’s worked for thousands oif years in our culture.

Why do you have to shove your tits in our face today? What is the point?

It’s just a cultural shit-test, like feminism itself is, to see how far the wimpy men in today’s culture can be manipulated.

Women would really like nothing better than for men to take charge again, but until we do, they will shit test us culturally with this crap, hoping we say ENOUGH!

The longer we behave like SNAGS (Sensitive New Age Guys) the more ridiculous they will become until someone actually does tell them to stuff it.

It’s a shit test.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5
Renee April 5, 2012 at 01:53

Rob are you kidding me?!

This exactly what I’m talking about. I’m discussing breastfeeding and you equate it to me wanting women to go around topless and whipping them out whenever, going as far as to ask me to take pictures of mine and showing them off! Then you go on with a rant about sexual harassment lawsuits and the workplace. Wrong discussion. You’re making my point.

Again, MOST OF THE TIME, YOU DON’T SEE ANYTHING when a woman breastfeeds. Many times, she’s covered up with a blanket. She’s feeding a baby for crying out loud.

Good grief……talk about going all over the place.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15
Renee April 5, 2012 at 01:57

Edits (sorry Welmer – thinking faster than I was typing lol)
*This IS exactly…..

*Then you go on with a rant about sexual harassment lawsuits and the workplace. Wrong discussion. In the end, you’re proving my point…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9
Andie April 5, 2012 at 04:10

I don’ think this is a debate about breastfeeding at all. Breastfeeding is the cheapest and most nutritionally sound way to feed a baby and I’d wager that most men know that and support their children’s right to be fed the best food.

But, like anything else, it is used in an aggressive and controlling way for SOME women to assert their right to trump everyone else. In other words, it’s a way to be a smug fucking bitch at other people’s expense. And I would guess that women who are being criticized for public breast-feeding are behaving in a way that suggests they give not one rat’s ass about anyone else, and THAT is the problem.

I don’t think the right to breastfeed anywhere should be enshrined in law, anymore than the right to give your toddler a snack should be enshrined in law. Other people exist, they have feelings, their needs are as important as anyone else’s. Cripes. Isn’t this what we try to teach our toddlers so they don’t grow up to be gigantic self-entitled assholes?

That said, I breastfed all three of my children, pretty much anywhere. But I was discreet, I didn’t make a big deal out of it and I didn’t expect the whole fucking world to stop and acknowledge me.

Making breastfeeding a civil right is a cry for attention and a way to control public spaces. And heaven help the man whose gaze lingers on that breastfeeding mom for one second too long.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Emma the Emo April 5, 2012 at 05:51

I think property owners should decide if it’s allowed on their premises and or not. On the other hand, the world could use less sexual harassment and nudity hysteria. If they go ahead and make that a law, the former can become aggravated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
L April 5, 2012 at 06:46

Seriously, you’re making women breastfeeding about men, who don’t breastfeed? You would flip if a woman gave her opinion on men’s reproductive health, like prostate cancer, so why doesn’t the same rule apply to you all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13
Towgunner April 5, 2012 at 08:13

I don’t really have a problem with breast feeding in general, BUT, I have a huge problem with people that demand this should be codified into a “right” and have the attitude that everyone else’s “sensitivities” don’t matter. And this is what feminism has done for us – celebrating selfishness. I’m still of the opinion that a baby is a human being, which requires the utmost care and attention…if you think you may not be up to the challenge in the very least than…act accordingly e.g. don’t have a baby. Of course, that means you have to think before you act. And in an era of mass produced and accessible contraception, there should be no excuses. But “they” say contraception not full-proof…K, most things aren’t, maybe you shouldn’t have sex so much? After all, statistically speaking the more you have it the greater the chances of pregnancy…I mean is it too blasphemous to simply mention that sex exists for procreation? I’ll answer my question – yes it is, because all that matters in america 2012 is getting off and having someone else pick up the tab. So, single mom you can’t put your burdens on the rest of us because you weren’t responsible enough to handle your own actions. The only tragedy is that a baby is under care of an unworthy parent…so in the end the kids suffer the most. Way to go feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Rob April 5, 2012 at 08:24

Again, MOST OF THE TIME, YOU DON’T SEE ANYTHING when a woman breastfeeds. Many times, she’s covered up with a blanket. She’s feeding a baby for crying out loud. — Renee

You know, Renee, you are one of the most willfully dim women I have ever come across, and you’ve been doing this for several years now around the manosphere.

Got it, Renee, she whips up her blouse, undoes the cup on her bra, and exposes her nipple for only a few seconds before covering up. You think I don’t know how breastfeeding works just because I am a man? The breastfeeding bra was probably invented by a man because it has two parts that function in a mechanical way.

I can tell you, as a man, I find it the absolutely most odd thing that women do it the way they do – even in the privacy of their, or another’s, home. I’ve had some women who I’ve known for years, never in a sexual way, and when visiting them all of a sudden you realize that they are pulling out their tit – if only for a few seconds (what do you think women who flash their tits at a concert are doing?) and all of a sudden, there it is.

I mean, even in the privacy of a home, I find this an affront and it makes me uncomfortable. I will get up and leave the room out of embarassment for both myself and for her. And, quite frankly, I find it kinda rude that the woman simply doesn’t say, “Could you excuse me for a few moments while I feed my baby?”

You might tsk tsk that it is silly for men to feel that way, but the fact is, many men are caught totally off-guard by it, and feel uncomfortable because it goes against our society’s social mores. I’m sure in Africa where women run around with their tits out all day, nobody gives a crap, but in our culture, it is an assault against our social mores – and the reason men are uncomfortable is out of respect for the woman.

So, if women know that it makes men so uncomfortable because of our social mores – which women have re-inforced repeatedly with the “Look at my eyes, not my chest, pig!” – then don’t try to tell me that it isn’t a big shit test meant to shock, rather than something that simply doesn’t matter.

But I agree, if a woman wants to do animal functions in public without concern for the social mores of our society, then men shouldn’t give a crap either. In fact, it ought to be reasonable for men to directly talk about it to them while they are doing it. Like, “does it hurt your nipple to have it suckled on like that?” or “I’ve read before that some rare women have orgasms from breast-feeding. Are you one of them?” And they ought to answer deadpan seriously about it, rather than get angry. After all, those things are mere bodily functions at the animal level as well, and there should be no shame in discussing it with her.

Stop bullshitting everyone, Renee.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
Eric Wolf April 5, 2012 at 08:34

This is ridiculous.
I don’t personally have a problem with women breastfeeding in my presence (unless the mom in question is a complete war pig) but I understand that many people do.
If they do get this passed in Seattle, business owners can easily counter it by simply refusing to allow infants and toddlers into their establishment.
My girlfriend and I recently went to dinner at a restaurant that had this policy: no children. It was great to sit down and enjoy a meal and drinks without having to hear someone’s screaming brat in the background.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Towgunner April 5, 2012 at 09:21

Another point: In the free country I look forward too, this issue along with many others will be non-existent. The idea is to get government out of the private sphere altogether…let’s not forget that private businesses were part of our old freedoms. So, when this bloated, immoral, feminized state collapses so will all its rules. In a free country one business may allow breast feeding liberally but the other will be totally against it. It will be at the whim of the business owner, as it should and NOT some irrational select group of whinny feminist via the state. Importantly, if the business owner is good, he’ll make that determination based on his clientele or market. And too bad so sad that most people would rather have women unveil themselves in private. Oh, and this will impact all things to include the hiring of women. Frankly, I can’t stand working with women. In a free country, if I owned a company it would be none of the feminists or states business who I hire. This is why supporting a small constitutional-based government is key. Responding to Renee above – would you like to eat in a bathroom. It’s very a good point, of course not nor would I want my child, however, it’s not that cut and dry. Up until this point people were having babies and getting along just fine without having the right to breastfeed in front of complete strangers…I mean just how practical is liberating breastfeeding? I was breastfed in accordance to the culture of that time, so, was everyone else? Where and what is this huge breast feeding crisis? Give me a practical reason? If you say, discrete breast feeding is 100% causing gross birth defects etc, then by all means breast feed liberally. If not, than this isn’t a right, it’s a conditional issue and one that carries with it a tremendous amount of abstract value i.e. the feminist meme that women aren’t just sexual objects, breast shouldn’t be seen just for sexual purposes, women should be free to express or ‘it’s best for the children…blah blah, which once again reduces down to a simple crude ruse for exclusive female “empowerment”. I’m sorry, we live in a country where we are literally tearing down important and critical institutions in order to appease groups that are <1% of the population in some instances. They’ve outlawed the word “dinosaur” in the NY public schools for crying out loud. It strikes me odd that if breast feeding offends even 1 % of the population than shouldn’t we appease those people? No, because this whole grievance/victim ideology is total bull.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Renee April 5, 2012 at 09:51

Rob,
So, if women know that it makes men so uncomfortable because of our social mores – which women have re-inforced repeatedly with the “Look at my eyes, not my chest, pig!” – then don’t try to tell me that it isn’t a big shit test meant to shock, rather than something that simply doesn’t matter.

Or maybe it’s not a big sh*t test and has absolutely nothing to do with you or attacking men. I mean come on!

I’m not dim about anything, it’s my opinion. In the end, breastfeeding to me is not an affront to sexual or social mores. I understand people being uncomfortable about it because it involves a boob since boobs are seen as sexual . I just don’t expect any mom to drop everything if she’s out grocery shopping by herself with a baby or go to a public bathroom to breastfeed every single time. I understand that she has to feed her baby and the basic function of a breast has always been to feed a baby (and before anyone starts, eating and using the bathroom are two different things – at least to me). As long as she’s discreet about it as Andie said.

Seriously Rob, it’s OK for you for be bothered about it, but don’t get on me for not being bothered about it and equate it to me wanting women to run around topless for crying out loud! Apparently, a mature, polite discussion is impossible with you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9
Rob April 5, 2012 at 10:03

All truth is equal, as since my truth is equal to your truth, and in fact to all of society’s truth, I don’t have to listen to your truth or anyone else’s.

Without the Absolute Truth as a standard, the only way to have a functioning society is through totalitarianism. “What is not forbidden will be mandatory.”

Show us your tits, Renee.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
ahamkara April 5, 2012 at 10:17

I think the main problem here is exposing small businesses to lawsuits. After spending sixteen months in a court battle during my divorce, I can say with confidence that I would never voluntarily expose myself to these kinds of lawsuits by starting a business. You’d have to be crazy or desperate, or have a war chest saved up already for self defense. It doesn’t even matter if the accusation is true or not – it costs real money to defend yourself whether you’re guilty or not. So, anyone who has any instinct of self-preservation ends up working for large corporations so that lawsuits won’t fall on their heads. Then we complain about how corporations infect the political system with all their money and so on… they’re the only ones that can survive! And they love this stuff, because it kills off their smaller competitors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Renee April 5, 2012 at 10:18

Given our high unemployment, it doesn’t make sense to place even more restrictions on businesses, and make operation any more difficult or risky. One wrong move by an inexperienced employee and you could find your business sued into oblivion by an offended woman with a smart attorney. It is these kinds of rules and regulations that keep setting the bar higher and depressing hiring, and for a dubious public good.
……….
The more “rights” we confer on customers, the more of a hassle it is for employers, and the more they scrutinize potential employees.

I agree. When I saw the title of the post, I was taken aback simply by the idea of it. While I admit to not liking the idea of a woman discreetly breastfeeding and minding her own business being asked to leave a store or building….. going as far as to make breastfeeding a civil right? It really rubs me the wrong way.
…………………

Charles,
I agree with you, Renee. My problem with breastfeeding is not the infant and the breast it’s attached to, it’s, er, the breast and the woman it’s attached to. As usual, breastfeeding is all about HER rights, with no consideration given to the feelings or dare I say it, rights, of the maybe dozens of people around her.

I see your point. If she’s showing everything without consideration to others then that’s a problem. But if she’s being discreet about it, then to me, it’s OK. But of course, people will still be bothered by it. So the question is should she still accommodate the people around her, stop whatever else she’s doing, and leave an area, even though she’s being discreet. Honestly, I don’t think she should have to. That’s just my take on this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Rob April 5, 2012 at 10:27

Yes, Renee,

Because our society has never figured out before how women can breastfeed without whipping out their tits in public. For centuries, women didn’t walk around breast-feeding in public, and now, suddenly, after the convenience of the washer, the dryer, the stove, the fridge, the furnace, and the automobile, women are now suddenly so busy that they have to breastfeed wherever and whenever, and all of society’s centuries long social mores must be torn down to allow her to do it – by government force to boot!

Seriously now, I would suspect that even Victorian Era people, if they could see us today, would snicker at the absurdity of the government passing laws about breast-feeding. Kinda silly, isn’t it? We laugh at them for thinking even the legs of a table must be covered because of sexuality, but we think nothing odd of the government getting involved in breast-feeding. At least they didn’t pass bills in Parliament regarding the exposed legs of a table.

All things women = Relative Truth
Relative Truth = No Standards
No Standards = Totalitarianism or the Grass Hut

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
Lsmbr April 5, 2012 at 11:02

My “taking a dump is natural too” comment was not anti-breastfeeding; it was to point out that “it’s natural” is a week argument.

I’m not anti-breastfeeding, just anti-attention whoring.
As if men need another reason to look at women’s breasts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Peter South April 5, 2012 at 11:32

Show us your tits, Renee.

Cosigned – Tits or GTFO

It’s totally natural.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
Rob April 5, 2012 at 11:52

I kinda get a kick out of Renee claiming that because she doesn’t find it a sexual/social more that offends her, the opposite sex’s views of sexuality don’t matter. Got it – cause women don’t find boobs to be sexually alluring, it trumps that men do, and as visual creatures, they find it extremely difficult not to look.

About 15 or 20 years ago, I remember driving around town with a friend of mine. He had to take a whiz really, really badly and of course, gas-stations and restaurants only allow customers to use the restroom. So I pulled into an empty back-alley, he hopped out of the truck and went behind a dumpster. As he was doing his business, a cop drove down the alley, stopped, and wrote him a fine for indecent exposure.

I’ll tell ya, the urge to urinate must be 1,000 times stronger than the urge to breast feed. Yet one is illegal in public, even if you are going out of your way to be private and discreet about it, while the other has absolutely zero immediate urgency, but is shoved right in everyone’s face. By the way, I didn’t find it an affront to my sexual/social mores to see my friend taking a whiz behind a dumpster either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Dubcik April 5, 2012 at 11:56

The thing about this issue that really irritates me is that it really is a small minority of self-righeous women who are out there baiting business owners to complain, then they run to the media crying how their “rights” were violated because some business owner asked them not to breastfeed in their store.

In Canada, we have had a number of these stories show up in the media, and upon closer inspection we find out the women complaining is a member of a group of these shrill women who live, eat and breathe their right to breastfeed anywhere and anyway they want.

These are the same women who try to shame other women who, for whatever reasons, don’t or can’t breastfeed. This small minority of really vocal, annoying women are just like spoiled brats who end up getting what they want because everybody just wants them to shut up.

Seriously, has a child ever starved because a mother was asked to leave a store and go elsewhere to feed? Whatever, big deal, it’s not about YOU, it’s about your hungry kid! For hundreds of years, women have figured out how to breastfeed their babies, so a store owner asks you to leave. BIG DEAL. Go to the bathroom (most now have family areas), go to your car, the next store, go HOME. Do these women live at the mall or something?

These women need to get over themselves and just feed their babies as discreetly as possible, and if someone is offended, move on. It’s really not rocket science. It’s just bullying and a power grab.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Towgunner April 5, 2012 at 12:58

@ Dubcik:

I’d bet that these same annoying women also believe that the concept of childrearing as another oppressive social norm that violates their rights and keeps women down.

feminism simply contradicts itself out of existence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Towgunner April 5, 2012 at 13:02

@ Rob:

“I’ll tell ya, the urge to urinate must be 1,000 times stronger than the urge to breast feed. Yet one is illegal in public…”

Once the MRM gets some more steam going this is exactly what we should advocate in response to the equally silly notion of public breast feeding being a right. The intention wouldn’t be to ultimately get peeing in public as a right, though we shouldn’t be fined, it would be to underscore just how ridiculous this whole thing is. Then the two issues would cancel each other out and be dismissed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
SMC April 5, 2012 at 13:35

If breast feeding confers up to 10 IQ benefit why isn’t the state criminalizing mothers that don’t breast feed?

I support bf but not women’s rights to do it or not do it. It should be imposed ON THEM the same as we do with children.

And yes the next step will be asking men to leave who don’t avert their eyes “properly”.

Once one starts with the “rights” talk he has already lost. Especially true for “conservative” types who will never have enough power, ever to impose and maintain a “right”, given that all power is achieved through protectionism and imposed and insured by a state (which is inherently “socialist”).

Yes, why aren’t diseased mothers criminalized for passing on their diseases through breeding and breast feeding?

Will under 18 year old mothers be allowed to dis robe in public. What happens to those that “look?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
SMC April 5, 2012 at 13:45

“Rob April 5, 2012 at 11:52″

Good argument Rob.

———
Rob April 5, 2012 at 10:03:

All truth is equal, as since my truth is equal to your truth, and in fact to all of society’s truth, I don’t have to listen to your truth or anyone else’s.

Without the Absolute Truth as a standard, the only way to have a functioning society is through totalitarianism.

All things women = Relative Truth
Relative Truth = No Standards
No Standards = Totalitarianism or the Grass Hut

Bad argument.

Obviously liberalism has “absolute truth” behind it –its “absolute truth.”

None the less morality is still just made up from the relative perspective of the observer. His nature-nurture created chemistry/impulses feels a thing observed is good or not good; then, for groups, consensuses “absolutesizes” that, and the martial tendency in males conforms and the state imposes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Boxer April 5, 2012 at 14:27

Dear Pierced Head:

Now you may be quite content to sit next to a breast-feeding baby, but should that child vomit up its dinner (as infants are wont to do) in near proximity, I suspect you would see it about as welcome as someone’s spit landing on your plate.

Admittedly, I made my comment from my own perspective, as a dude who doesn’t date (or otherwise have anything to do with) single moms, who has no kids and doesn’t want any.

Now that I think about it, I realize that I can only remember one time when I noticed someone breastfeeding. It was a friend of my mother’s in childhood. I didn’t pay too much attention to it at the time, except to notice that it was happening.

What I am often annoyed with is parents (particularly mothers, but often dads too) who bring their infants and very young children to restaurants, and let them caterwaul and squawk for extended periods of time, expecting everyone within earshot to consider the baby’s tantrum to be cute or endearing or just tolerable. Clearly, the baby is not to blame for this, and I consider it poor form for the parents. I would actually much prefer a woman whip out a teat and shut her kid up, than to let it scream itself silly. I can turn my eyes away, but can’t direct my ears.

You have made some pretty cogent arguments re: sanitation. I don’t know that I consider it icky if it’s 4m away, but wouldn’t want some strange chick feeding a kid at my elbow.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
crella April 5, 2012 at 17:32

‘ we find out the women complaining is a member of a group of these shrill women who live, eat and breathe their right to breastfeed anywhere and anyway they want.

These are the same women who try to shame other women who, for whatever reasons, don’t or can’t breastfeed. ‘

Yes! These are the same fools who don’t want to merely breastfeed in public (and if done right you really don’t know a baby is being fed), but to expose themselves because ‘it’s natural’. They want to be able to be practically topless and breastfeed. It’s unreasonable, and they make every breastfeeding mother look like a nutter. The earth mother faction has always been a HUGE pain in the arse for the breastfeeding/natural childbirth circles.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Rob April 5, 2012 at 17:50

Heh, sorry, but I just can’t help but post this:

Married with Children, “Business Sucks” – 1994

When Al banishes a nursing mother for breast feeding her baby in the shoe store, Marcy and FANG holds a protest against Gary’s Shoe Store in order to have him lift the ban.

Present Beer Bellies (1 min)

National Feminists
Organization Against
of Neanderthal
Men Guys
Against
Amazonian
Masterhood

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Rob April 5, 2012 at 17:52

Dang, I guess you can’t leave open spaces in between, eh?

FANG means Feminists Against Neanderthal Guys

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Davd April 6, 2012 at 06:58

I don’t think i saw, above, much-of-anything about the best interests of the baby! Wouldn’t babies be best cared for at home, in a group of ten people or less, maybe up to twenty, that they can get to know? Isn’t taking babies along into large crowds of strangers, more for the convenience of the mother, or perhaps so she can show-off the baby, than for the good of the baby?

This discussion does not seem to be about mothers showing off their infants to kin and close friends; that’s normal. It seems to be about taking infants into public places for the mother’s convenience. I recall, when i was a preschooler rather than a baby, being dragged along with my mother while she went shopping for [decorative not utilitarian] hats and shoes. I thought it was a very NONfun way to spend a day. I did not learn anything useful or even memorable about women’s decorative shoes or decorative hats. I would much rather have been at home playing with my toys and perhaps in the company of a neighboring child or children. .. and i’m >90% sure that it would have been better for my development.

Taking an infant along on such a trip amounts, methinks, to trying to have too much–the stewardship that is motherhood plus the frivolities of fashion. I cannot ever recall a small child benefiting from its mother’s fashionable display.

Elaine Morgan did write [in _The Descent of Woman_] that breastfeeding is very pleasurable for mothers, as is nursing kittens for cats, etc. So distinct from whether to do in public what might be better done in private or a small mother-group for the infant’s best interests, it seems most or all breastfeeding mothers are getting some sensual jollies [whose comparability to men's sensual jollies i cannot assess, since i've not been a female.] Is the enjoyment of being suckled-on, something that ought to be on public display? or is it better experienced at home?

Not for me to decide unilaterally–but worth considering. My guess is that the mother nurtures her child, additional to the milk, better when she is not distracted by the public sphere; and that the family or small friendship group of parents [and perhaps older siblings, uncles, aunts, grandparents...] is the best place for infants and wee children to grow, until they have the mobility and language skills to function in larger company.

Parenthood is stewardship–combining service with authority. Discreet breastfeeding in a public place may now and then be good stewardship in context. Using an infant as a stage prop for an ideological conflict move, or to serve the mother’s non-maternal interests rather than the children’s* well-being, does not seem to qualify.

* (the infant’s siblings should also be in consideration)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
piercedhead April 6, 2012 at 14:04

“I simply don’t equate turd or phlegm with breastfeeding.”

I think you ran down that blind alley in your earlier post.

Since you avoid addressing the central theme of my posts – namely that breastfeeding in public is a public health risk – I accept that you concede the point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
fondueguy April 7, 2012 at 02:06

I don’t care about consistency and the fact that sex is natural and life creating…

I say let them! No reason we should force them to cover up so that breast become something powerful and alluring. It’s mostly women who slut shame anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
DCM April 8, 2012 at 04:07

“Rob April 4, 2012 at 23:39
…………….
………………
Go topless, all of you.

I lived in Europe for a while, and by the time I came home to North America, I had seen so many tits, it took me a few years again to even give a crap about them.
…………..”

Exactly what I mean.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
No Name April 15, 2012 at 03:26

After giving a great deal of thought to this matter (about 10 seconds) it occurs to me that this should indeed be a civil right but not for the mother. It should be the right of every man to stare at the naked breast of any woman who is breast feeding in public. And it should also be a a civil right for any baby to nurse at his mother’s teet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: