Breastfeeding in public places

[merithyn]

It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years.

So was the subjugation of women.

Actually not true. The subjugation of women (and slaves) has often come under fire throughout the ages. I'm fairly certain that feeding a child, however, has never been considered a "bad" thing to do.

[Sheilbh]

Actually not true. The subjugation of women (and slaves) has often come under fire throughout the ages. I'm fairly certain that feeding a child, however, has never been considered a "bad" thing to do.

There's a really interesting chapter on breastfeeding, wet nurses, authenticity, Rousseau and the pastoral in Citizens by Simon Schama.

[merithyn]

There's a really interesting chapter on breastfeeding, wet nurses, authenticity, Rousseau and the pastoral in Citizens by Simon Schama.

If I remember correctly, that chapter discussed how Beaumarcharis (sp?) wanted to encourage more breastfeeding at home rather than having it sent out to the country. The reason for that was because working mothers couldn't breastfeed and work, and the money was necessary to survive. So, they sent the infants away until they could eat regular food.

I'm not sure that counts as the same debate that's happening today, but yes, a pretty interesting conversation.

[garbon]

It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years.

So was the subjugation of women.

Actually not true. The subjugation of women (and slaves) has often come under fire throughout the ages. I'm fairly certain that feeding a child, however, has never been considered a "bad" thing to do.

Well certainly no one could ever be against breastfeeding in history because without it babies would have starved to-death (and even today can suffer from not being breastfed). I'm not sure anyone was making the case that babies shouldn't be breastfeed.  However, I think it might be disingenuous to say that there haven't ever been contentions around public breastfeeding as shown by the practice of hiring a wet nurse, in cases where the mother was perfectly capable of feeding the child herself.  (Although obviously there was a multitude of reasons for wet nursing)

[merithyn]

Well certainly no one could ever be against breastfeeding in history because without it babies would have starved to-death (and even today can suffer from not being breastfed). I'm not sure anyone was making the case that babies shouldn't be breastfeed.  However, I think it might be disingenuous to say that there haven't ever been contentions around public breastfeeding as shown by the practice of hiring a wet nurse, in cases where the mother was perfectly capable of feeding the child herself.  (Although obviously there was a multitude of reasons for wet nursing)

The last statement you make is most telling, I think. Admittedly, I haven't read a great deal on this particular subject. That being said, my understanding of the need for wet nurses had more to do with a show of wealth for the upper classes, the need to work for the lower classes, or simply the inability to produce enough milk by the mother (and a hundred other reasons in between). Wet nurses were not, however, shut away in a room to feed the children they cared for.

There are hundreds of paintings going back centuries of women breast-feeding children. So far as we know, there are no examples of special clothing created to cover a woman's breast while she fed her child. Rather, she simply popped it out over the top of her gown and fed the child, as is shown in the paintings. No veil to cover the skin or child's head, no special sewn-in flaps, etc. Breast-feeding was the natural course of things, as it is now. Or at least, as it should be now, except that as a culture we seem to be slipping frighteningly back into Puritanical ways.

[garbon]

Well certainly no one could ever be against breastfeeding in history because without it babies would have starved to-death (and even today can suffer from not being breastfed). I'm not sure anyone was making the case that babies shouldn't be breastfeed.  However, I think it might be disingenuous to say that there haven't ever been contentions around public breastfeeding as shown by the practice of hiring a wet nurse, in cases where the mother was perfectly capable of feeding the child herself.  (Although obviously there was a multitude of reasons for wet nursing)

The last statement you make is most telling, I think. Admittedly, I haven't read a great deal on this particular subject. That being said, my understanding of the need for wet nurses had more to do with a show of wealth for the upper classes, the need to work for the lower classes, or simply the inability to produce enough milk by the mother (and a hundred other reasons in between). Wet nurses were not, however, shut away in a room to feed the children they cared for.

I don't think it is the most telling. After all why would it be a sign of status? Oh yeah, you can pay someone so you don't have to indulge in bodily, base behaviors. I'm thinking particularly about the wealthy classes when looking back as I don't know why any of us would aspire to have a society that mimic the lived experiences of the historical working class.

[merithyn]

I don't think it is the most telling. After all why would it be a sign of status? Oh yeah, you can pay someone so you don't have to indulge in bodily, base behaviors. I'm thinking particularly about the wealthy classes when looking back as I don't know why any of us would aspire to have a society that mimic the lived experiences of the historical working class.

I believe it had more to do with not having to be tied to the child's whims and nature than indulging in bodily, base behaviors. It's the same reason women employed nannies; they could enjoy their children when they wanted to, but have nothing to do with the actual raising of them when they didn't. With breast-feeding, this was even more of an inconvenience, and it became a status symbol that they could afford someone to be tied down for them.

[crazy canuck]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group.

You are mixing up two things.

Human Rights law which identifies the kinds of status which are protected - including being a woman (sex) and having children (family status).

and the law in Seattle.

There is a fundamental failure of communication here.  I have been talking about the principles of descrimination as found in Human Rights law.  For some reason you continue to fail to understand that point.

Again I think you are going too far.

You can think that all you want.  Take it up with all the legislators across the world that have identified sex and family status as prohibited grounds for discrimination.

[garbon]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group.

You are mixing up two things.

Human Rights law which identifies the kinds of status which are protected - including being a woman (sex) and having children (family status).

and the law in Seattle.

There is a fundamental failure of communication here.  I have been talking about the principles of descrimination as found in Human Rights law.  For some reason you continue to fail to understand that point.

Again I think you are going too far.

You can think that all you want.  Take it up with all the legislators across the world that have identified sex and family status as prohibited grounds for discrimination.

Yes, please selectively quote so it sounds like I posted the equivalent of you're wrong.

[crazy canuck]

Crazy Canuck, I hope you and your entire family die in a fire. Screaming. If I was religious, I'd pray for that.

If you were religious you might be find personal improvement in a great many ways.  In fact the positions you take here often make me reconsider the potential positive value of religious teaching as the basis for moral and ethical thought.

[garbon]

I don't think it is the most telling. After all why would it be a sign of status? Oh yeah, you can pay someone so you don't have to indulge in bodily, base behaviors. I'm thinking particularly about the wealthy classes when looking back as I don't know why any of us would aspire to have a society that mimic the lived experiences of the historical working class.

I believe it had more to do with not having to be tied to the child's whims and nature than indulging in bodily, base behaviors. It's the same reason women employed nannies; they could enjoy their children when they wanted to, but have nothing to do with the actual raising of them when they didn't. With breast-feeding, this was even more of an inconvenience, and it became a status symbol that they could afford someone to be tied down for them.

Maybe but it seems hard to believe that people wouldn't have been scandalized if a wealthy mother went about with her baby breastfeeding.

[crazy canuck]

There's no language barrier, I understand what you mean. I'm just arguing that this legislation is crap because legislation should be protecting groups as a whole, not a specific activity performed by a group.

You are mixing up two things.

Human Rights law which identifies the kinds of status which are protected - including being a woman (sex) and having children (family status).

and the law in Seattle.

There is a fundamental failure of communication here.  I have been talking about the principles of descrimination as found in Human Rights law.  For some reason you continue to fail to understand that point.

Again I think you are going too far.

You can think that all you want.  Take it up with all the legislators across the world that have identified sex and family status as prohibited grounds for discrimination.

Yes, please selectively quote so it sounds like I posted the equivalent of you're wrong.

I dont even know what you are talking about now.

[garbon]

Crazy Canuck, I hope you and your entire family die in a fire. Screaming. If I was religious, I'd pray for that.

If you were religious you might be find personal improvement in a great many ways.  In fact the positions you take here often make me reconsider the potential positive value of religious teaching as the basis for moral and ethical thought.

Doubtful. Given Marti's tendencies, he'd probably just pick up on the more bigoted aspects.

[garbon]

I dont even know what you are talking about now.

You deleted my adjoining question.

[crazy canuck]

I dont even know what you are talking about now.

You deleted my adjoining question.

You said I was taking it too far when all I was doing was summarizing the basic tenants of human rights law found in jurisdictions across the western world.  In that context your question made no sense.  Basically you are making the same logical error as Viking.