Poll
Question:
What is your position of women breastfeeding their children in public?
Option 1: Women should be allowed to breastfeed their children pretty much everywhere
votes: 35
Option 2: Women should be allowed to breastfeed their children in some public places, but this should not happen e.g. in restaurants, churches etc.
votes: 12
Option 3: Women should only be allowed to breastfeed their children in private places (e.g. toilets, privacy of their homes etc.)
votes: 6
So, since there is recently an outbreak of these crazy cunts who insist they should have a right to squirt their bodily fluids into the gaping maws of their spawn where innocent people may be watching and having their dinner or a polite conversation ("OMG, it's all natural and everyone has been breastfed." Yeah, everyone also takes a shit but I wouldn't want someone to pull down their pants and take a dump at a next table when I am having a steak, you stupid bitch), I decided to ask Languish what the common opinion is.
I tried to keep the opening post neutral so my personal opinion is not known until later.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2012, 03:49:41 AM
I tried to keep the opening post neutral
and clearly you failed.
It is almost a complete non-issue for me. I've never encountered a situation where breastfeeding was a problem. And I rarely go to family restaurants.
I agree it is as disgusting as seeing Homosexuals out in public, they should be kept in closets.
Crazy Ivan, you are a fucking retard.
katmai, I am also not fond of PDAs really, whether straight or gay.
Breastfeeding >>>> hungry kid wailing.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2012, 03:49:41 AM
("OMG, it's all natural and everyone has been breastfed."
Actually, some people are bottle babies.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2012, 03:49:41 AM
So, since there is recently an outbreak of these crazy cunts who insist they should have a right to squirt their bodily fluids into the gaping maws of their spawn where innocent people may be watching and having their dinner or a polite conversation ("OMG, it's all natural and everyone has been breastfed." Yeah, everyone also takes a shit but I wouldn't want someone to pull down their pants and take a dump at a next table when I am having a steak, you stupid bitch), I decided to ask Languish what the common opinion is.
How is this opening post neutral/hiding your opinion? :huh:
Languish and irony don't mix it seems.
Having written an extremely vitriolic and unobjective opening post, I thought only idiots would not get that following it with a sentence about trying to be neutral was a case of blatantly obvious irony.
Now I'm wondering if I was right or not.
Maybe it's a cultural thing that Germans and Flems are dumb?
I am sure everybody got it.
Your problem is that your extremely vitriolic and unobjective opening post doesn't differ much in style from your usual posts.
Still, two people didnt get it, it seems.
Btw, I am not saying that the opening post was a "joke". That's how I feel. It's just that I'm not as self-unaware not to realise that it was vitriolic. Hence, the auto-ironic jab at the end.
I feel like I need to offer didascalia with my posts.
Public places are fine and I think most countries have laws allowing public breastfeeding anyway. Private businesses, churches, etc, should have the right to decide their own policy.
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2012, 06:16:34 AM
Your problem is that your extremely vitriolic and unobjective opening post doesn't differ much in style from your usual posts.
He does irony and trolling as well as analogies and anal sex.
:cool:
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2012, 05:22:08 AM
Crazy Ivan, you are a fucking retard.
katmai, I am also not fond of PDAs really, whether straight or gay.
and again with the ad homs. It's almost as if you talk with your crapper.
Quote from: Syt on February 25, 2012, 06:38:46 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 25, 2012, 06:16:34 AM
Your problem is that your extremely vitriolic and unobjective opening post doesn't differ much in style from your usual posts.
He does irony and trolling as well as analogies and anal sex.
indeed.
Women should have the right to go topless in public, baby or no.
:cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 25, 2012, 07:29:44 AM
HOTT Women should have the right to go topless in public, baby or no.
What feels weird is when you make eye contact with the mother. :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2012, 10:16:57 AM
What feels weird is when you make eye contact with the mother. :lol:
I stare them down just to be creepy.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 25, 2012, 10:32:45 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2012, 10:16:57 AM
What feels weird is when you make eye contact with the mother. :lol:
I stare them down just to be creepy.
:lol:
I'M NEXT
:cool:
See, this is the problem with filthy fucking lawyers.
This poll needs a "Martinus - Breeders are evil" option.
I don't like the breastfeeding in public and think that mommies can used pumps and bottles in public. I was breastfed as a kid (norgy, slargos, dicky, bogh and havard can testify to my size) and I am not against breastfeeding in general I'm just against other people doing it in public in front of me. There are way to breast feed without exposing the boobies as well as ways of providing privacy for breastfeeders. Those are options that I'm happy with.
Having talked to quite a few people working in hospitality here in town I know that cafes often try to sabotage the maternity leave mommies that spend all day at cafes (imho if you poison your body with caffein you shouldn't be breastfeeding, but then again I'm not female nor do I know if this is actually true) by making it hard to park strollers (curbs and steps at entrance) and making sure the background music wakes baby up from time to time.
Give cafe owners the choice of banning it or not then I am sure they will ban it and specialized nursing cafes will be the only places where it is permitted.
Martinus fails at humor, then whines when people don't "get it"? Okay.
I could not care less.
Mainly because I don't think breastfeeding is much like taking a shit.
What is a lot more interesting is that the resident extrovert gay guy proves again that other than being gay, he is about as ultra-conservative and intolerant as, I don't know - slargos? Dorsey? Lettuce?
Quote from: Iormlund on February 25, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 25, 2012, 07:29:44 AM
HOTT Women should have the right to go topless in public, baby or no.
I'm not saying they shouldn't use discretion in choosing when and whether to exercise that right, of course.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2012, 11:18:39 AM
See, this is the problem with filthy fucking lawyers.
I think it's less of a lawyer thing when it comes to Marti's little bitches, and more of a homo-nazi fag thing.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2012, 03:49:41 AM
So, since there is recently an outbreak of these crazy cunts who insist they should have a right to squirt their bodily fluids into the gaping maws of their spawn where innocent people may be watching and having their dinner or a polite conversation ("OMG, it's all natural and everyone has been breastfed." Yeah, everyone also takes a shit but I wouldn't want someone to pull down their pants and take a dump at a next table when I am having a steak, you stupid bitch), I decided to ask Languish what the common opinion is.
To be fair the babies do shit in public.
It doesn't bother me at all :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2012, 04:42:22 PM
To be fair the babies do shit in public.
It doesn't bother me at all :mellow:
It smells rather bad. :lol:
No to restaurants, yes to churches.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2012, 05:23:46 PM
No to restaurants, yes to churches.
"What would baby Jesus do?"
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2012, 03:49:41 AM
So, since there is recently an outbreak of these crazy cunts who insist they should have a right to squirt their bodily fluids into the gaping maws of their spawn where innocent people may be watching and having their dinner or a polite conversation ("OMG, it's all natural and everyone has been breastfed." Yeah, everyone also takes a shit but I wouldn't want someone to pull down their pants and take a dump at a next table when I am having a steak, you stupid bitch), I decided to ask Languish what the common opinion is.
I tried to keep the opening post neutral so my personal opinion is not known until later.
You dont like boobies or something?
Quote from: 11B4V on February 25, 2012, 05:29:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2012, 03:49:41 AM
So, since there is recently an outbreak of these crazy cunts who insist they should have a right to squirt their bodily fluids into the gaping maws of their spawn where innocent people may be watching and having their dinner or a polite conversation ("OMG, it's all natural and everyone has been breastfed." Yeah, everyone also takes a shit but I wouldn't want someone to pull down their pants and take a dump at a next table when I am having a steak, you stupid bitch), I decided to ask Languish what the common opinion is.
I tried to keep the opening post neutral so my personal opinion is not known until later.
You dont like boobies or something?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdawgterwho.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F07%2Fclose-up-implied-facepalm.jpg&hash=59eb6fef581a8e26129562fae8b8d1021f5e13dd)
My wife didn't ever do this but we honestly virtually never went out to a restaurant when our kid was still breastfeeding. I spent most of my adult life bashing parents who felt the need to bring infants into a sit down, family restaurant so I sure as hell wasn't going to be a hypocrite and do the same thing.
If you need to go out for a night you force the grandparents to watch the kid, and if you are some transient who has moved far away from your family then you can hire a nanny.
I have no issue with it though, and don't see why anyone would be bothered by it. (My opposition to bringing infants to a restaurant is based on the fact infants scream and cry uncontrollably sometimes, not on the basis of them sometimes needing to be fed.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 25, 2012, 05:44:42 PM
My wife didn't ever do this but we honestly virtually never went out to a restaurant when our kid was still breastfeeding. I spent most of my adult life bashing parents who felt the need to bring infants into a sit down, family restaurant so I sure as hell wasn't going to be a hypocrite and do the same thing.
Good, sane, considerate policy. Shame Dazzling Urbanites can't figure that one out.
Then again, they're used to traveling with their young on their back from tree to tree.
Never understood why people take their infants to restaurants. Why is this woman beating her child at a Don Pablo's at 10pm? BECAUSE HES FUCKING TIRED AND NEEDS TO BE ASLEEP
Hell, I don't even like taking the kids to Mickey D's. THE PLAYLAND IS A TRAP.
I still enjoy Queen Mart's angst at breeders. So angry, yet can't do anything about it.
BREEDERS RULE!
I don't object to breastfeeding. Between people talking on their cell phone, blue teeth, and sunflower seeds, if I paid attention to all the little things that annoy me I'd go quite mad.
Quote from: Jaron on February 25, 2012, 06:14:21 PM
sunflower seeds
Speaking of, I was at Target today and saw that they now make 'SunButter' (i.e. sunflower seed butter). :huh:
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2012, 10:16:57 AM
What feels weird is when you make eye contact with the mother. :lol:
Why would you be looking at her eyes? :huh:
Quote from: Habbaku on February 25, 2012, 11:56:25 AM
Martinus fails at humor, then whines when people don't "get it"? Okay.
Meh, I thought the joke was obvious, and I thought that people were re-trolling Martinus when they appeared to fail to get the joke.
Quote from: DGuller on February 25, 2012, 06:47:42 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 25, 2012, 11:56:25 AM
Martinus fails at humor, then whines when people don't "get it"? Okay.
Meh, I thought the joke was obvious, and I thought that people were re-trolling Martinus when they appeared to fail to get the joke.
Was it a Polish joke?
Quote from: DGuller on February 25, 2012, 06:43:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2012, 10:16:57 AM
What feels weird is when you make eye contact with the mother. :lol:
Why would you be looking at her eyes? :huh:
Slavs. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on February 25, 2012, 06:18:49 PM
Quote from: Jaron on February 25, 2012, 06:14:21 PM
sunflower seeds
Speaking of, I was at Target today and saw that they now make 'SunButter' (i.e. sunflower seed butter). :huh:
That'd be margarine? Or do they add them to real butter?
Since breastfeeding in public is less about the "crazy cunts" than their kids who kinda don't have all that much in the way of control over their bodies...
Sure, let's lock all kids away until they're toilet-trained (BTW, Marty, don't look now, but that baby at the next table just took a dump, right next to where you're eating your steak... in their diaper). Let's see how many more Martinuses that makes.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 26, 2012, 08:15:03 AM
Sure, let's lock all kids away until they're toilet-trained
That might just be Marty's problem anyway. A therapist would be able to tell.
I put this in the same category as kissing in public/PDA. If you don't like that, you will likely be against breastfeeding too.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 26, 2012, 08:15:03 AM
Since breastfeeding in public is less about the "crazy cunts" than their kids who kinda don't have all that much in the way of control over their bodies...
Because it certainly is the only way to feed them.
Looks like Martinus is crossing Seattle off his "Speedopalooza 2012 Tour" list:
QuoteBreastfeeding is now a civil right in Seattle
By Isolde Raftery, msnbc.com
It is now illegal for Seattle businesses to ask nursing mothers to stop, cover up or leave the premises, KING 5 News reported.
The Seattle City Council unanimously approved a measure Monday that makes breastfeeding a civil right. Although Washington state had enacted a similar measure in 2009, advocates said this measure would allow the city's Office for Civil Rights to enforce the law.
"The bottom line is, it's a health issue for our community," Councilmember Bruce Harrell said, according to King 5 News. Harrell sponsored the bill. "It's very clear the benefits of breastfeeding. What we want to do is move the needle in terms of community acceptance of breastfeeding by having our local civil office of rights enforcing the law."
Harrell argued that breastfeeding could reduce infant mortality rates among minorities. In Seattle, American Indian and African Americans have infant mortality rates two times higher than other groups, according to the city's human services department.
Other states have also given protections to breastfeeding moms. In New York, infants may accompany their mothers to a corrections facility if they are 1-year-old or younger. Virginian mothers may breastfeed on any land owned by the state. In Maryland, breastfeeding equipment is exempt from sales tax.
Do it if you have to, but for God's sake show some appropriate SHAME. Woman on the train with boob and baby head all concealed under the baby blanket? You're doing it right.
:lol: Just heard this on the radio on the way home. I guess it is a civil right for guys to watch.
They better make public urination a civil right too. Sometime you just gotta go. Stupid judgemental starbucks staff <_<
:P
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 09:37:37 AM
They better make public urination a civil right too. Sometime you just gotta go. Stupid judgemental starbucks staff <_<
:P
:lol: "C'mon, officer, don't talk--you'll make it climb back up."
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 09:37:37 AM
They better make public urination a civil right too. Sometime you just gotta go. Stupid judgemental starbucks staff <_<
:P
You think breastfeeding is the same public urination? What are you, Marty?
No but he should able to use the women bathroom if need be.
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2012, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 09:37:37 AM
They better make public urination a civil right too. Sometime you just gotta go. Stupid judgemental starbucks staff <_<
:P
You think breastfeeding is the same public urination? What are you, Marty?
obviously i'm exaggerating for effect, but both are a necessary bodily function. Necessity and "natural" are what most champions of public breast feeding use as justification. Personally i don't care where you feed your baby or how. Doing it in a restaurant kind of wigs me out, but whatever.
Quote from: Brazen on April 11, 2012, 09:21:41 AM
Do it if you have to, but for God's sake show some appropriate SHAME. Woman on the train with boob and baby head all concealed under the baby blanket? You're doing it right.
Yep don't see anything wrong with that.
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2012, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 09:37:37 AM
They better make public urination a civil right too. Sometime you just gotta go. Stupid judgemental starbucks staff <_<
:P
You think breastfeeding is the same public urination? What are you, Marty?
lol, I find it interesting he equates ammonia with breast milk.
Quote from: Brazen on April 11, 2012, 09:21:41 AM
Do it if you have to, but for God's sake show some appropriate SHAME. Woman on the train with boob and baby head all concealed under the baby blanket? You're doing it right.
Prude. :rolleyes:
New mommies have nipples like pencil erasers. You can open a beer bottle with those things.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 09:55:48 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2012, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 09:37:37 AM
They better make public urination a civil right too. Sometime you just gotta go. Stupid judgemental starbucks staff <_<
:P
You think breastfeeding is the same public urination? What are you, Marty?
lol, I find it interesting he equates ammonia with breast milk.
You don't want to know what in so of the milk you buy in stores. Ammonia (in piss form or other) is a common additive to hide that fact the milk is diluted.
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 10:00:53 AM
You don't want to know what in so of the milk you buy in stores. Ammonia (in piss form or other) is a common additive to hide that fact the milk is diluted.
HOW DAR YOU QUESTION CLOVERLAND WHOLE MILK
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 10:19:00 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 10:00:53 AM
You don't want to know what in so of the milk you buy in stores. Ammonia (in piss form or other) is a common additive to hide that fact the milk is diluted.
HOW DAR YOU QUESTION CLOVERLAND WHOLE MILK
:lol: Cow sourced piss if it makes you feel any better :P
See, this is why the concept of 'rights' is meaningless.
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2012, 10:54:12 AM
See, this is why the concept of 'rights' is meaningless.
Nigga, please. You know damned well you drink breast milk, too.
If it offends gays, then by all mean let's do it everywhere.
Gays want to kiss in public, but they can't stand breastfeeding?
Quote from: viper37 on April 11, 2012, 01:21:25 PM
If it offends gays, then by all mean let's do it everywhere.
Gays want to kiss in public, but they can't stand breastfeeding?
I don't see how any of that makes sense.
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2012, 10:54:12 AM
See, this is why the concept of 'rights' is meaningless.
Are you saying there is no right to bear/bare boobs?
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 11, 2012, 10:54:12 AM
See, this is why the concept of 'rights' is meaningless.
Are you saying there is no right to bear/bare boobs?
That's right.
I always get a good laugh at the thought of Marti being treated with the same intolerance he shows to others.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
I don't see how any of that makes sense.
Marti is all for equal treatment, but he denies to other.
Two guys kissing is disgusting. Breastfeeding is not.
My rights >> Marti's rights.
Quote from: viper37 on April 11, 2012, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
I don't see how any of that makes sense.
Marti is all for equal treatment, but he denies to other.
Two guys kissing is disgusting. Breastfeeding is not.
My rights >> Marti's rights.
I don't think he denies "to other." Has Marti said that heterosexuals shouldn't be able to kiss in public? How is a baby sucking on a breast similar to people kissing? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 11, 2012, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
I don't see how any of that makes sense.
Marti is all for equal treatment, but he denies to other.
Two guys kissing is disgusting. Breastfeeding is not.
My rights >> Marti's rights.
I don't think he denies "to other." Has Marti said that heterosexuals shouldn't be able to kiss in public? How is a baby sucking on a breast similar to people kissing? :huh:
That is some bad memory there Garbon. You ought to get that checked. Besides Grallon, who wants to send minorities to camps, Marti is the most intolerant member of Languish - and its a close call between Marti and Grallon.
In fairness Marti also disagrees with people kissing in public :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
In fairness Marti also disagrees with people kissing in public :mellow:
Ah, so then all of what Viper said is moot.
@CC - That might be the case but still I wasn't aware that Marti said gays should be able to kiss in public but heteros cannot.
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2012, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 09:37:37 AM
They better make public urination a civil right too. Sometime you just gotta go. Stupid judgemental starbucks staff <_<
:P
You think breastfeeding is the same public urination? What are you, Marty?
Of course they are not the same. Everyone has to urinate. On the other hand, if the whore didn't spread her legs or if she used a condom or a coat hanger, she wouldn't have to breastfeed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
In fairness Marti also disagrees with people kissing in public :mellow:
A better example for marti would be the banning of open toed shoes :P
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
In fairness Marti also disagrees with people kissing in public :mellow:
A better example for marti would be the banning of open toed shoes :P
I'm fine with that. Most people have ugly feet. And yeah, as Sheilbh pointed out, I'm not a big fan of PDAs, whether practiced by gays, straights or in between.
I'm actually even annoyed by people holding hands in public places, as this obstructs pedestrian traffic.
Is any of this serious enough to actually use to power of the state to ban it though?
Hell, I'd like to see people stop doing all of the above in public, including wearing flip-flops. But banning it? Nah.
I don't especially care to see it or find it sexual in any way, but there's no cause to ban it. I almost never see it, anyway.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2012, 02:35:21 PM
I'm actually even annoyed by people holding hands in public places, as this obstructs pedestrian traffic.
Think of it this way: there's a good chance of both going down a manhole. SHE WOULDNT LET GO
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 09:29:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2012, 02:35:21 PM
I'm actually even annoyed by people holding hands in public places, as this obstructs pedestrian traffic.
Think of it this way: there's a good chance of both going down a manhole. SHE WOULDNT LET GO
How many manholes are on sidewalks? :unsure:
edit: Oh but Marti doesn't want anyone down that. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 09:32:43 PM
Oh but Marti doesn't want anyone down that. :blush:
lulz, martipwn3d.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2012, 02:35:21 PMI'm actually even annoyed by people holding hands in public places, as this obstructs pedestrian traffic.
You should work on not getting annoyed by trivial things.
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2012, 02:35:21 PMI'm actually even annoyed by people holding hands in public places, as this obstructs pedestrian traffic.
You should work on not getting annoyed by trivial things.
Speaking as a pedestrian, as much as I want to support urban bike riders, and
some of my best friends are bicyclists, they can be a damn annoying trivial annoyance.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:57:57 PMSpeaking as a pedestrian, as much as I want to support urban bike riders, and some of my best friends are bicyclists, they can be a damn annoying trivial annoyance.
Well yeah. Definitely more so than people holding hands or breastfeeding.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:57:57 PM
Speaking as a pedestrian, as much as I want to support urban bike riders, and some of my best friends are bicyclists, they can be a damn annoying trivial annoyance.
Oh, totally fuck those fuckers. More obnoxious than motorcyclists, with less leather. Douchebags on wheels.
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2012, 10:02:03 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 11, 2012, 09:57:57 PMSpeaking as a pedestrian, as much as I want to support urban bike riders, and some of my best friends are bicyclists, they can be a damn annoying trivial annoyance.
Well yeah. Definitely more so than people holding hands or breastfeeding.
Well people holding hands can be annoying when walking down the street. Much like families they seem to act as though they own the entire sidewalk, which sucks if you want to walk somewhere quickly. That said certainly not something "annoying" enough to post online about. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:10:25 PM
Well people holding hands can be annoying when walking down the street. Much like families they seem to act as though they own the entire sidewalk, which sucks if you want to walk somewhere quickly.
They're less annoying to walk behind than a herd of Dazzling Urbanite Mmm-Hmmms.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 10:12:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:10:25 PM
Well people holding hands can be annoying when walking down the street. Much like families they seem to act as though they own the entire sidewalk, which sucks if you want to walk somewhere quickly.
They're less annoying to walk behind than a herd of Dazzling Urbanite Mmm-Hmmms.
That crowd has no problem letting me through. :)
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:13:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 10:12:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:10:25 PM
Well people holding hands can be annoying when walking down the street. Much like families they seem to act as though they own the entire sidewalk, which sucks if you want to walk somewhere quickly.
They're less annoying to walk behind than a herd of Dazzling Urbanite Mmm-Hmmms.
That crowd has no problem letting me through. :)
No kidding. If they only knew...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 10:16:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:13:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 10:12:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:10:25 PM
Well people holding hands can be annoying when walking down the street. Much like families they seem to act as though they own the entire sidewalk, which sucks if you want to walk somewhere quickly.
They're less annoying to walk behind than a herd of Dazzling Urbanite Mmm-Hmmms.
That crowd has no problem letting me through. :)
No kidding. If they only knew...
That I was fabulous? Oh they got that, boo.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
That I was fabulous? Oh they got that, boo.
Fucking sleeper agents. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
That I was fabulous? Oh they got that, boo.
Fucking sleeper agents. :rolleyes:
Now, now. Don't be jealous. :hug:
Quote from: HVC on April 11, 2012, 02:33:09 PM
A better example for marti would be the banning of open toed shoes :P
They should ban shoes that show the top of the feet but not the toe. Cause that looks weird.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:23:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2012, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
That I was fabulous? Oh they got that, boo.
Fucking sleeper agents. :rolleyes:
Now, now. Don't be jealous. :hug:
Au contraire, my swishy friend: little do my Corporate America(tm) masters know where my allegiance lies: with THE MOST REVEREND Al Sharpton!
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2012, 02:35:21 PMI'm actually even annoyed by people holding hands in public places, as this obstructs pedestrian traffic.
You should work on not getting annoyed by trivial things.
Why? If I try to suppress my annoyance, it's my problem. If I express my annoyance, it becomes someone else's problem.
If there is one thing wrong with the modern society, it's the fact that people don't tell other people that they annoy them often enough.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2012, 02:08:22 AM
Why? If I try to suppress my annoyance, it's my problem. If I express my annoyance, it becomes someone else's problem. [
What a bitch.
QuoteIf there is one thing wrong with the modern society, it's the fact that people don't tell other people that they annoy them often enough.
I don't know over there in your dirt farm, but with roughly over 15,000 homicides in 2009, I don't think that's a problem in the US.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 11, 2012, 05:49:49 PM
I don't especially care to see it or find it sexual in any way, but there's no cause to ban it. I almost never see it, anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2012, 03:47:50 PM
Is any of this serious enough to actually use to power of the state to ban it though?
Hell, I'd like to see people stop doing all of the above in public, including wearing flip-flops. But banning it? Nah.
Well it is actually now the opposite, kids. Since the creation of this histrionic thread, it is now a right in Seattle.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 09:18:10 AM
... it is now a right in Seattle.
Good for Seattle.
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2012, 12:04:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 09:18:10 AM
... it is now a right in Seattle.
Good for Seattle.
I don't think so. Seems like unnecessary intrusion by the government. If a restaurant doesn't want to let women sit around with their boob out, I don't see why the gov should forbid that.
Doesn't matter what Seattle does. It gave us grunge. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 01:32:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2012, 12:04:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 09:18:10 AM
... it is now a right in Seattle.
Good for Seattle.
I don't think so. Seems like unnecessary intrusion by the government. If a restaurant doesn't want to let women sit around with their boob out, I don't see why the gov should forbid that.
Just like the government should not prevent shop owners from deciding not to provide goods and services to blacks, gays and others a shop owner might choose to avoid having in their place of business.....
Or is it just ok when someone other than you is being adversely affected?
I name you Marti. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 01:37:31 PM
Just like the government should not prevent shop owners from deciding not to provide goods and services to blacks, gays and others a shop owner might choose to avoid having in their place of business.....
Or is it just ok when someone other than you is being adversely affected?
I name you Marti. :P
Yes because clearly asking a breast-feeding mother to cover up, use the restroom or step outside is the same as discrimination.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 01:37:31 PM
Just like the government should not prevent shop owners from deciding not to provide goods and services to blacks, gays and others a shop owner might choose to avoid having in their place of business.....
Or is it just ok when someone other than you is being adversely affected?
I name you Marti. :P
Yes because clearly asking a breast-feeding mother to cover up, use the restroom or step outside is the same as discrimination.
Because clearly asking a black person to use a different washroom or asking them to sit in a different part of the restaurant is the same as... oh wait, yes they are all forms of discrimination. Its just that one doesnt and will never affect you so its ok.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 01:41:34 PM
Because clearly asking a black person to use a different washroom or asking them to sit in a different part of the restaurant is the same as... oh wait, yes they are all forms of discrimination. Its just that one doesnt and will never affect you so its ok.
It isn't at all the same, even though you'd like to pretend you know all about discrimination. :rolleyes:
Breastfeeding is an action taken and not necessarily a necessary one. In contrast, a person can't actually stop being black (see Jackson, Michael). Asking a mother who chooses to breastfeed her baby in a restaurant to cover up or use the restroom for the duration of said activity isn't discrimination.
Personally doesn't really matter as those breastfeeding with their boob exposed doesn't really affect me (though seems a little boorish) but that's a far cry from becoming a legal right. :D
edit: Well I guess what I quoted you saying is all forms of discrimination but that's not at all the same as the breastfeeding issue.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 01:53:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 01:41:34 PM
Because clearly asking a black person to use a different washroom or asking them to sit in a different part of the restaurant is the same as... oh wait, yes they are all forms of discrimination. Its just that one doesnt and will never affect you so its ok.
It isn't at all the same, even though you'd like to pretend you know all about discrimination. :rolleyes:
Breastfeeding is an action taken and not necessarily a necessary one. In contrast, a person can't actually stop being black (see Jackson, Michael). Asking a mother who chooses to breastfeed her baby in a restaurant to cover up or use the restroom for the duration of said activity isn't discrimination.
Personally doesn't really matter as those breastfeeding with their boob exposed doesn't really affect me (though seems a little boorish) but that's a far cry from becoming a legal right. :D
edit: Well I guess what I quoted you saying is all forms of discrimination but that's not at all the same as the breastfeeding issue.
If you are breastfeeding your baby, breastfeeding said baby is in fact a necessary action. :mellow:
Maybe the Crown should come back when it's sober.
Quote from: The Brain on April 12, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
Maybe the Crown should come back when it's sober.
Seriously. Not really sure what that tautology has to do with anything.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 12, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
Maybe the Crown should come back when it's sober.
Seriously. Not really sure what that tautology has to do with anything.
You suggested that breastfeeding was not necessary. I disagree.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 01:53:48 PM
It isn't at all the same, even though you'd like to pretend you know all about discrimination. :rolleyes:
I am not pretending. I believe it is you who isnt entirely clear on what is and what is not discrimination.
Being married to a gay companion (or anyone) isnt a necessary action. Staying in a hotel room with your gay companion (or anyone) isnt a necessary action. The list goes on. Suffice to say if human rights law protected only those engaging in a "necessary" action we could do away with a lot of legal protections a lot of people currently enjoy.
So if I'm in a restaurant and I have to pee RIGHT NOW, it's discrimination if I'm asked to use the restroom and not the restaurant floor?
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:13:17 PM
So if I'm in a restaurant and I have to pee RIGHT NOW, it's discrimination if I'm asked to use the restroom and not the restaurant floor?
No, but if you're in a restaurant and your child is hungry but you're told your child has to go eat in the washroom, it is.
... or if you're told you have to eat in the washroom yourself.
The restaurant lets me eat food my mom brought to the restaurant? I say they're being pretty damn nice.
So it's actually a matter of location and you object to children being fed in the washroom? If a restaurant provided a covered booth for breastfeeding children, then it would be ok to ask the mother to go in it?
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:13:17 PM
So if I'm in a restaurant and I have to pee RIGHT NOW, it's discrimination if I'm asked to use the restroom and not the restaurant floor?
If you were an idiot you might take that position.
Is it discrimination if I come into a high-class restaurant and take off my shirt, but they request I put it back on?
Is it discrimination if I order food and it's taking too long, so I break out a burger of my own and they request I don't eat my own food in the restaurant?
I'm just trying to understand whether it's only discrimination if it is done against breastfeeding women, or whether other activities also count.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:22:54 PM
Is it discrimination if I come into a high-class restaurant and take off my shirt, but they request I put it back on?
Is it discrimination if I order food and it's taking too long, so I break out a burger of my own and they request I don't eat my own food in the restaurant?
I'm just trying to understand whether it's only discrimination if it is done against breastfeeding women, or whether other activities also count.
You are not understanding what discrimination is that is certain.
If the rule applies to everyone and anyone it is likely not discriminatory. That is why all the examples you used are absurd. They apply to everyone.
If the rule disadvantages a particular group
and that group is protected by human rights leglislation then it is discrimination under the law - that is a broad definition but it will do for the purposes of this thread.
gender and family status (including whether one has children or not) are protected status in most jurisdictions - along with race etc.
A rule that does not allow breast feeding disadvantages a protected group - women with children. That is prima facie discriminatory. The argument then turns to whether accomodating women with children to allow them to breastfeed is past the point of undue hardship (different jurisdictions word this test differently but they are all similar).
It is pretty hard to justify not allowing a baby to eat. It might upset the Marti's of the world. But frankly I view that as a positive outcome.
Is there a difference, from that perspective, between asking a woman to breastfeed a baby in a restroom, and asking her to change the baby's diaper in a restroom?
If yes, please explain what the difference is.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2012, 02:38:21 PM
Is there a difference, from that perspective, between asking a woman to breastfeed a baby in a restroom, and asking her to change the baby's diaper in a restroom?
If yes, please explain what the difference is.
QuoteIt is pretty hard to justify not allowing a baby to eat. It might upset the Marti's of the world. But frankly I view that as a positive outcome.
It is also odd, as already noted in this thread, that you equate the act of eating with the act of excreting. Again, a Marti thing which confirms my first observation.
I think not allowing a baby to poop can have equally deleterious effects on the baby as not allowing it to eat, at least for the same period of time as a restaurant meal usually lasts.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:22:54 PM
I'm just trying to understand whether it's only discrimination if it is done against breastfeeding women, or whether other activities also count.
Of course it's only discrimination against breastfeeding women.
QuoteI think not allowing a baby to poop can have equally deleterious effects on the baby as not allowing it to eat, at least for the same period of time as a restaurant meal usually lasts.
Baby's do shit more or less whenever they want.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2012, 02:41:59 PM
I think not allowing a baby to poop can have equally deleterious effects on the baby as not allowing it to eat, at least for the same period of time as a restaurant meal usually lasts.
But everyone recognizes that poop is dealt with in one area whereas food is dealt with in another. At least until I read this thread I thought all that was understood.
Anyway, since I never go to family restaurants (why does Mart?) I won't be affected by babies eating or pooping.
Okay, I understand that (though I don't think anyone here was suggesting not allowing a baby to eat). But what then if a restaurant makes a rule forbidding the baring of one's torso (a rather logical rule to make, especially if it's a fancy restaurant)? That would still effectively disallow breastfeeding (unless done while entirely covered), yet by your definition would not be discrimination since it applies to everyone equally.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:46:06 PM
Okay, I understand that (though I don't think anyone here was suggesting not allowing a baby to eat). But what then if a restaurant makes a rule forbidding the baring of one's torso (a rather logical rule to make, especially if it's a fancy restaurant)? That would still effectively disallow breastfeeding (unless done while entirely covered), yet by your definition would not be discrimination since it applies to everyone equally.
That's basically indirect discrimination. It would apply to everyone in theory, but in practice only mothers are likely to be baring one's torso. So it would be discriminatory against them.
In a situation like Seattle where they've said women can, by right, breastfeed then it would also clearly be an attempt by a restaurant to get around that.
But men can bare their torsos in a restaurant too. Why should that be forbidden to men but allowed to women? Men cannot be discriminated against, in your view?
By the way, earlier someone compared rules against breastfeeding to restrictions against blacks or Jews. That analogy is as bad as one of Marti's. Restrictions on a specific activity are not even in the same league with discrimination against an entire ethnicity.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
So it's actually a matter of location and you object to children being fed in the washroom? If a restaurant provided a covered booth for breastfeeding children, then it would be ok to ask the mother to go in it?
If the restaurant provided a comfortable and private place for breast feeding as a courtesy to their customers, I expect most mothers would take advantage of that. Who doesn't like being catered to?
On the other hand, if it's "go to this broom closet so you don't bother the rest of us" then I expect most mothers will not like it.
So really, I think it's a customer service thing more than anything else.
Oh, and does Seattle also consider breastfeeding in a church or a mosque a right? If yes, wouldn't it impinge on the rights of religious buildings whose standards of morality might conflict with having a bare-breasted woman in them? If no, then why are restaurants singled out, isn't this discrimination against them?
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2012, 03:01:30 PM
If the restaurant provided a comfortable and private place for breast feeding as a courtesy to their customers, I expect most mothers would take advantage of that. Who doesn't like being catered to?
What about if a restaurant did that, but the mother flatly refused to use it and insisted on breastfeeding in the middle of the restaurant anyway?
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:58:57 PM
But men can bare their torsos in a restaurant too. Why should that be forbidden to men but allowed to women? Men cannot be discriminated against, in your view?
Of course, but it's reasonable to ask men not to bare their torso. There's no real need for them to do so - there clearly is for a mother. That makes it a different situation.
It's a bit like requiring a literacy test for voting in Jim Crow laws. It's entirely possible that white voters will fail, but it's significantly more likely that black voters will. So while it was technically a colour blind test, in practice, it wasn't.
If you're saying it's discrimination to ban breastfeeding then you shouldn't be allowed to get around it by technicalities that 'equally' affect men.
I don't know how they breastfeed where you people live but when my wife was breastfeeding my kid you could barely see. Because a) there exist special clothing-items for breastfeeding (you know, where you can open up a part of shirt for easy access), b) baby's head covers boob and c) because a combination of a wiping cloth and arm covers the rest (as well as being ready for intervention when there's some regurgitation).
So what is bared is about the size of the baby's and most of not all is covered by said baby and other stuff. Result: good luck seeing much skin.
Given that most of us here live in the civilized world I can't imagine that mothers breastfeeding in your parts of the world go about it barechested and basically waving their boobs around for all to see.
Besides, the baby probably eats cleaner than most of the establisments customers :p
edit: a few pages back someone seem to think that it is easy logistics to pump and then give the milik via the bottle. Unless you've being doing the pumping regularly you can forget about it being easy logistics. It's not like with a cow that's milked once a day. Milking, and obviously the breastfeeding itself, is a matter of hours. There can be as little as two hours between a feeding session and depending on the feedinghabits and -speed of the baby using the breastpump is slower than just feeding. To actually build up a reserve of breastmilk (which you can put in the freezer) is not that easy as you must make sure you don't drain the entire breast (must be ready to provide for the baby) while making sure you don't only pump out the watery milk (you need to fatty milk too, and that takes a bit).
So while it's possible, it's certainly not easy
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2012, 03:06:30 PM
Of course, but it's reasonable to ask men not to bare their torso. There's no real need for them to do so - there clearly is for a mother. That makes it a different situation.
If one is going to argue these things on the basis of "real need", then there is also no real need for the mother to eat at a restaurant that bans breastfeeding. She can go to one that doesn't, or eat at home. Sure, the restaurant would lose her patronage, but that's their choice as a business. Laws forcing places of business to allow a specific activity on their premises are questionable to say the least.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 03:02:19 PM
Oh, and does Seattle also consider breastfeeding in a church or a mosque a right? If yes, wouldn't it impinge on the rights of religious buildings whose standards of morality might conflict with having a bare-breasted woman in them? If no, then why are restaurants singled out, isn't this discrimination against them?
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anti-discrimination laws in most jurisdictions require businesses to be treated like places of worship.
Why is this even an issue ?
Is it because some people can't think of breasts in a non-sexual context ?
I was somewhere yesterday and women was breast-feeding, what exactly is the 'disgusting' bit of this ?
It's generally no more revealing than a low cut dress, I think some people just need to lighten up and stop looking for things to complain about.
You know every time mongers puts a space between the end of sentence and the question mark, I want to club a baby seal.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2012, 03:55:33 PM
You know every time mongers puts a space between the end of sentence and the question mark, I want to club a baby seal.
Never heard that euphemism before, but what ever floats you boat ?
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2012, 03:01:30 PM
So really, I think it's a customer service thing more than anything else.
If that was the case, Seattle wouldn't need to enshrine it as a right.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 12, 2012, 02:58:57 PM
But men can bare their torsos in a restaurant too. Why should that be forbidden to men but allowed to women? Men cannot be discriminated against, in your view?
By the way, earlier someone compared rules against breastfeeding to restrictions against blacks or Jews. That analogy is as bad as one of Marti's. Restrictions on a specific activity are not even in the same league with discrimination against an entire ethnicity.
Its like the law that everyone is prohibited from sleeping under a bridge. Not a real problem for people with houses and only has application to the homeless.
As to your bolded part, as stated already this
is a prohibition against an identifiable group - women who have children. Unless of course you want to disagree with the way protected groups are defined in the civilized world.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2012, 03:01:30 PM
So really, I think it's a customer service thing more than anything else.
If that was the case, Seattle wouldn't need to enshrine it as a right.
You are right. Laws are required because there are people like Marti.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 01:53:48 PM
It isn't at all the same, even though you'd like to pretend you know all about discrimination. :rolleyes:
I am not pretending. I believe it is you who isnt entirely clear on what is and what is not discrimination.
Being married to a gay companion (or anyone) isnt a necessary action. Staying in a hotel room with your gay companion (or anyone) isnt a necessary action. The list goes on. Suffice to say if human rights law protected only those engaging in a "necessary" action we could do away with a lot of legal protections a lot of people currently enjoy.
Your examples fail as those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals. Pretty clear that it would be discriminatory to not allow them for gays...unless you are signing up for the gays have the same rights to marry individuals of an opposite gender. :D
A good example would probably be something akin to maternity leave...though I can see more of a compelling state interest in preventing mothers from being summarily dismissed than an interest in making sure mothers feel comfortable breastfeeding their children in restaurants.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 04:32:59 PM
those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals.
And being permitted to eat at a table is allowed to all patrons - except for this one.
Anyway you are missing the point. The rule has an adverse affect on an identifiable protected group.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 04:35:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 04:32:59 PM
those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals.
And being permitted to eat at a table is allowed to all patrons - except for this one.
As Brain kinda pointed out, restaurants generally don't allow anyone else to bring their own food. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 04:35:09 PM
Anyway you are missing the point. The rule has an adverse affect on an identifiable protected group.
Well they've only become a protected group under this new law, no? Before that mothers that wanted to breastfeed weren't seen as having the rights to breastfeed where they wanted.
Side question: how often are babies in restaurants, let alone breastfeeding?
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 04:35:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2012, 04:32:59 PM
those "rights" are already provided to heterosexuals.
And being permitted to eat at a table is allowed to all patrons - except for this one.
As Brain kinda pointed out, restaurants generally don't allow anyone else to bring their own food. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 04:35:09 PM
Anyway you are missing the point. The rule has an adverse affect on an identifiable protected group.
Well they've only become a protected group under this new law, no?
No, sex and family status have been protected for decades. I already dealt with this point above.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 04:50:39 PM
No, sex and family status have been protected for decades. I already dealt with this point above.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/breastfeeding-state-laws.aspx
While true that there are laws on the books to allow breastfeeding it seems like not all the states have jumped in (so I'm not sure sex and family status serves as the catch all protection here). California allows women to breastfeed in any public or private place but per that site, it isn't explicitly exempted from indecency laws. :D
Anyway, based on that I'll withdraw my tepid opposition.
Although if women are already permitted by law, in Washington, to breastfeed in public/private places, not sure what Seattle is doing. :unsure:
edit: I found it. Breastfeeding lobby wanted to drum up awareness.
Quote from: Brazen on April 11, 2012, 09:21:41 AM
Do it if you have to, but for God's sake show some appropriate SHAME. Woman on the train with boob and baby head all concealed under the baby blanket? You're doing it right.
How is shame related to the matter at hand?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
As to your bolded part, as stated already this is a prohibition against an identifiable group - women who have children. Unless of course you want to disagree with the way protected groups are defined in the civilized world.
Actually, no. Breastfeeding is not a group, it's a specific activity. If all women with children were completely banned from entering a restaurant, then it might be somewhat similar. As is, the two things are not at all comparable.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:13:16 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
As to your bolded part, as stated already this is a prohibition against an identifiable group - women who have children. Unless of course you want to disagree with the way protected groups are defined in the civilized world.
Actually, no. Breastfeeding is not a group,
There must be some kind of language barrier here. I have repeatedly referred to the people that carry out that activity -ie women who have children - as belonging to the protected groups of sex and familty status.
Of course the activity does not define the group. If one belongs to a protected group as defined by legislation then an adverse rule affecting the provision of goods, services or employment to that group will most likely be found to be discriminatory.
The defined by legislation bit is important because of course everyone discriminates every day in a number of ways that are not unlawful.
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, and in a privately-owned business no less. Because then there's no reason why any such activities could not be demanded to be protected, and I can think of a lot of activities that I'd rather not be guaranteed by legislation.
Again, I'm not arguing against breastfeeding (indeed, I've said that it should be totally fine in public places such as parks). I'm just arguing that private businesses should be free to decide whether to allow it or not, because it's not an activity that needs to be performed in those businesses and they are not created to provide service for it.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
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, and in a privately-owned business no less.
The legislation would be crap if they said you can't discriminate against mothers, but you can ban breastfeeding or other 'activities' associated with mothers. It would be like saying you can't discriminate against Sikhs but you can refuse to hire people with beards.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
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.
:frusty:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2012, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
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.
:frusty:
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. If that was really the case, why is this a state by state issue that states can choose to honor or not?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 01:14:51 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
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, and in a privately-owned business no less.
The legislation would be crap if they said you can't discriminate against mothers, but you can ban breastfeeding or other 'activities' associated with mothers. It would be like saying you can't discriminate against Sikhs but you can refuse to hire people with beards.
Of course no one is banning other activities associated with mothers. Are we violating the rights of a mother who can't bring her baby into a bar?
I'm just amazed that this is even something worthy of any kind of debate. A child needs to be fed, so a mother feeds it. Period. End of story. Why is this an issue? I've never understood why anyone would object to breastfeeding. Hell, until 60-some years ago, EVERYONE breastfed unless their child was too sick to suckle. It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years. Why is it one now? :hmm:
Women have gotten uppity, that's why.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2012, 08:15:35 PM
Women have gotten uppity, that's why.
I'll be honest: the most vitriolic complaints against breastfeeding that I've heard have come from women. Typically, women who have never raised an infant, but even mothers of infants can be downright hateful about it. It just stuns me. Why on earth does it matter?
I don't demand a man with crumbs in his beard be forced to eat in the restroom, no matter how gross I find that. Nor do I demand that a woman with a lot of cleavage cover up. If it bothers me, I don't look. No big deal. I'm actually pretty sad that laws have to be on the books to allow breastfeeding in public. That, to me, is ridiculous.
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2012, 08:24:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2012, 08:15:35 PM
Women have gotten uppity, that's why.
I'll be honest: the most vitriolic complaints against breastfeeding that I've heard have come from women. Typically, women who have never raised an infant, but even mothers of infants can be downright hateful about it. It just stuns me. Why on earth does it matter?
Because you people are your own worst enemies.
That's right, I went there. You people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Because you people are your own worst enemies.
That's right, I went there. You people.
:yes:
i agree.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2012, 08:24:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2012, 08:15:35 PM
Women have gotten uppity, that's why.
I'll be honest: the most vitriolic complaints against breastfeeding that I've heard have come from women. Typically, women who have never raised an infant, but even mothers of infants can be downright hateful about it. It just stuns me. Why on earth does it matter?
Because you people are your own worst enemies.
That's right, I went there. You people.
Oh man, you used the "YP" word!! :mad:
Quote from: KRonn on April 13, 2012, 08:42:37 PM
Oh man, you used the "YP" word!! :mad:
Didn't have time for "Bitches n' Hoes".
Restaurants can just implement an age requirement. If you have to be 5 y/o to enter only some Southern families will breastfeed.
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
I'm just amazed that this is even something worthy of any kind of debate. A child needs to be fed, so a mother feeds it. Period. End of story. Why is this an issue? I've never understood why anyone would object to breastfeeding. Hell, until 60-some years ago, EVERYONE breastfed unless their child was too sick to suckle. It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years. Why is it one now? :hmm:
I agree with you and presume it's mostly a case of "ZOMG FEMALE NIPPLE NOT COVERED BY CLOTH!!!!"
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2012, 12:35:48 AM
Restaurants can just implement an age requirement. If you have to be 5 y/o to enter only some Southern families will breastfeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxv6R9fUO74 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxv6R9fUO74)
I haven't said that for a while, so I thought I'd repeat.
Crazy Canuck, I hope you and your entire family die in a fire. Screaming. If I was religious, I'd pray for that.
That is all.
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
I'm just amazed that this is even something worthy of any kind of debate. A child needs to be fed, so a mother feeds it. Period. End of story. Why is this an issue? I've never understood why anyone would object to breastfeeding. Hell, until 60-some years ago, EVERYONE breastfed unless their child was too sick to suckle. It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years. Why is it one now? :hmm:
indeed.
+1
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 01:14:51 PM
The legislation would be crap if they said you can't discriminate against mothers, but you can ban breastfeeding or other 'activities' associated with mothers. It would be like saying you can't discriminate against Sikhs but you can refuse to hire people with beards.
Er, what's wrong with the latter? If your business requires your employees to not have a huge beard, you should be completely within your rights to refuse to hire such people. In fact, I'm pretty sure a lot of businesses in the western world impose certain conditions on the way their employees look.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 14, 2012, 06:10:24 AM
Er, what's wrong with the latter? If your business requires your employees to not have a huge beard, you should be completely within your rights to refuse to hire such people. In fact, I'm pretty sure a lot of businesses in the western world impose certain conditions on the way their employees look.
Well there's a difference between not having a 'huge beard' and having a beard at all. You're right that businesses can impose certain conditions, but that's the example normally given in British employment cases. Because you can't discriminate on grounds of religion. Given that some religions (like the Sikhs) prohibit shaving you can't require that employees are clean shaven because that's indirect discrimination against Sikhs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2012, 07:21:34 AM
Well there's a difference between not having a 'huge beard' and having a beard at all. You're right that businesses can impose certain conditions, but that's the example normally given in British employment cases. Because you can't discriminate on grounds of religion. Given that some religions (like the Sikhs) prohibit shaving you can't require that employees are clean shaven because that's indirect discrimination against Sikhs.
Yeah, and IMO "indirect discrimination" is a concept that can be taken too far, and can result in discrimination of its own.
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years.
So was the subjugation of women. :P
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 08:54:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years.
So was the subjugation of women. :P
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.
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2012, 10:02:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2012, 10:03:52 AM
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. :)
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2012, 10:02:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 08:54:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 13, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
It was a complete non-issue for thousands of years.
So was the subjugation of women. :P
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)
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 10:22:17 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2012, 10:35:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 10:22:17 AM
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. :D
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 10:48:31 AM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2012, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
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.
:frusty:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2012, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
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.
:frusty:
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. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2012, 03:00:53 AM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on April 14, 2012, 10:54:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 10:48:31 AM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 13, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2012, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 13, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
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.
:frusty:
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. :P
I dont even know what you are talking about now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2012, 03:00:53 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:01:34 AM
I dont even know what you are talking about now.
You deleted my adjoining question. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2012, 11:03:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:01:34 AM
I dont even know what you are talking about now.
You deleted my adjoining question. :unsure:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2012, 03:00:53 AM
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.
He's got you there, Marti. After all, you defend kiddierapists and babyhead fuckers.
My latest study is about formula.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:00:32 AMIf 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.
I don't think Marty would be particularly different if he professed religion. Some of the superficial rhetoric would perhaps change, but the fundamental nature would remain unchanged I expect.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 11:48:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:00:32 AMIf 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.
I don't think Marty would be particularly different if he professed religion. Some of the superficial rhetoric would perhaps change, but the fundamental nature would remain unchanged I expect.
I would think that at the very least, he would've been taught during childhood that homosexuality is wrong. Who knows how things could've changed in light of that?
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2012, 11:53:55 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 11:48:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:00:32 AMIf 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.
I don't think Marty would be particularly different if he professed religion. Some of the superficial rhetoric would perhaps change, but the fundamental nature would remain unchanged I expect.
I would think that at the very least, he would've been taught during childhood that homosexuality is wrong. Who knows how things could've changed in light of that?
Most homosexuals are taught that as children. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2012, 11:55:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2012, 11:53:55 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2012, 11:48:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2012, 11:00:32 AMIf 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.
I don't think Marty would be particularly different if he professed religion. Some of the superficial rhetoric would perhaps change, but the fundamental nature would remain unchanged I expect.
I would think that at the very least, he would've been taught during childhood that homosexuality is wrong. Who knows how things could've changed in light of that?
Most homosexuals are taught that as children. :huh:
Even in Poland? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2012, 11:55:17 AM
Most homosexuals are taught that as children. :huh:
Even in Poland? :huh:
Sure. They just have to have it repeated five times as often.
On topic, this week's TIME cover story:
http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1
(May be NSFW in prudish countries)
Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2012, 10:34:17 AM
On topic, this week's TIME cover story:
http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1
(May be NSFW in prudish countries)
See the Romney bullying thread for the damaging effects this twat will cause her kid.
I hate that they posed the pic like that. The kid is only three, not the five that he looks in it. Older than I'd be comfortable breastfeeding a kid, but not so old as to be akin to emotional abuse.
Of course, I do know a woman who breastfed her kids until they were going off to kindergarten. I found it... disturbing, but the kids are doing fine now. One will be going to Harvard in the fall. So whatever "emotional scarring" occurred didn't last.
Quote from: merithyn on May 12, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
So whatever "emotional scarring" occurred didn't last.
That you know of.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
That you know of.
True. I can only gauge based on what I know of those kids in particular and what I know of kids in general. They seem like normal, accomplished kids at the moment. Could end up in therapy, but it seems unlikely that it will be because of the breastfeeding, especially since most kids really don't remember much before their 10th birthday.
I should point out that seeing a mother breastfeed a walking child makes me uncomfortable, but I don't believe that it necessarily damages the kid. Generally, it's the other stuff she does that causes the issues, like your friend and her son.
I think children would remember being breastfed once in kindergarten.
Also going to Harvard isn't indicative of a lack of emotional scarring.
Quote from: merithyn on May 12, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
I should point out that seeing a mother breastfeed a walking child makes me uncomfortable, but I don't believe that it necessarily damages the kid. Generally, it's the other stuff she does that causes the issues, like your friend and her son.
Still influences and impacts his future relations with the opposite sex.
Look at Cal--breastfeeding was stopped too soon, and he hasn't been able to get massively obscene heifer fun-bags out of his fucking head since. Just imagine what damage the opposite does.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2012, 07:03:24 PM
I think children would remember being breastfed once in kindergarten.
Yeah, you would think so, but most kids really don't remember much before 5th grade. Bits and pieces here or there, but not anything of substance. Hell, my kids only vaguely remember that I was a stay-at-home mom until the eldest boys were eight. It's something they've been told, but not something they really remember.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2012, 07:25:11 PM
Still influences and impacts his future relations with the opposite sex.
Look at Cal--breastfeeding was stopped too soon, and he hasn't been able to get massively obscene heifer fun-bags out of his fucking head since. Just imagine what damage the opposite does.
What affect does it have on girl-children, then? :unsure:
I think I'm with Meri on this. Seeing an older child breast-feed seems very odd, even freaky, to me.
But thinking about it logically I can't imagine why it would be a problem for the child.
Quote from: merithyn on May 12, 2012, 09:56:47 PM
Yeah, you would think so, but most kids really don't remember much before 5th grade. Bits and pieces here or there, but not anything of substance. Hell, my kids only vaguely remember that I was a stay-at-home mom until the eldest boys were eight. It's something they've been told, but not something they really remember.
Well I'm only 26 and I still remember actual bits and pieces from childhood. Of course, largely things are tales from re-telling but I'd say I do have somewhat distinct memories of events that were emotionally charged/very visual.
I don't see why something as strange as this wouldn't stick out in one's memory. Even if just the memory of speaking about it to someone at school and being humiliated.
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2012, 10:36:24 PM
I think I'm with Meri on this. Seeing an older child breast-feed seems very odd, even freaky, to me.
But thinking about it logically I can't imagine why it would be a problem for the child.
Yeah. It bothers me to see it - really bothers me - but I know that's a visceral response. Ultimately, it's none of my business since it's not likely to seriously damage the kid. Like a lot of parenting decisions I disagree with, I have to just ignore it.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2012, 11:02:30 PM
Well I'm only 26 and I still remember actual bits and pieces from childhood. Of course, largely things are tales from re-telling but I'd say I do have somewhat distinct memories of events that were emotionally charged/very visual.
Right: bits and pieces that are emotionally charged. Breastfeeding wouldn't be important enough, I don't imagine, for them to remember. It would be like remembering the color of your pacifier or what your coat and hat looked like. Everyday things really don't leave much of an impression on little kids, and even at five, breastfeeding would be an everyday thing.
Quote
I don't see why something as strange as this wouldn't stick out in one's memory. Even if just the memory of speaking about it to someone at school and being humiliated.
It's strange to us, but it wouldn't be to them. And while kids can be rough on other kids, the bullying stuff wouldn't kick in until around 2nd or 3rd grade, by which time the whole breastfeeding thing would be completely forgotten. It seems unlikely that anyone would remember it, mention it, and get humiliated by it.
It's the reaction of other parents that cause the humiliation, anyway, so if people just shut up and minded their own business, it would be a total non-issue. Yeah, we have issues with it, but is it really worth hurting a child because we disagree with what his or her parents' decided to do? The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the only ones who cause the problems are those who are offended. If they're really concerned for the kid, they'd be offended elsewhere.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: merithyn on May 12, 2012, 09:56:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2012, 07:03:24 PM
I think children would remember being breastfed once in kindergarten.
Yeah, you would think so, but most kids really don't remember much before 5th grade. Bits and pieces here or there, but not anything of substance. Hell, my kids only vaguely remember that I was a stay-at-home mom until the eldest boys were eight. It's something they've been told, but not something they really remember.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
No offense but are your kids retards? FWIW I have normal memory volumes from I was 4 onwards, earlier than that it gets more spotty.
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2012, 12:04:50 AM
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
No offense but are your kids retards? FWIW I have normal memory volumes from I was 4 onwards, earlier than that it gets more spotty.
Yup. 4 is a good reference point; I can only recall one or two items before that, one of which was the day my baby sister came home from the hospital.
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2012, 12:04:50 AM
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
No offense but are your kids retards? FWIW I have normal memory volumes from I was 4 onwards, earlier than that it gets more spotty.
Even "normal memory volumes" for adults don't include the mundane. I don't remember a lot of the basic, everyday stuff that I did 10 years ago because they weren't memorable things. I have no idea what my dishes looked like then (they've changes several times since), what clothes I wore (except those in pictures), and even what color my hair was (like the dishes, it's changed several times since). They were everyday occurrences that didn't matter enough to bother remembering. Kids are the same, only more so.
What's been really interesting is that the elder two boys are starting to remember more of their childhoods now than they ever have. One will ask about some event we went to that before he'd completely forgotten. Another will talk about a person they'd known. It's like somehow the act of growing up has triggered those memories. A form of nostalgia, I guess.
My point is that if it's a normal thing to them - and no one makes a big deal about it - they're just not going to remember it as anything important, if they remember it at all.
It wouldn't necessarily be mundane though. One mention of it as a child to someone else and you've got built in trauma.
Besides, I threw in the visual as I still have vague visuals of what my pre-school looked like though I last visited the place when I was 4. Now I'm sure time and my immature vantage point have led me to a distorted memory of the place but the fact is that it still sits in my memory. Not sure it'd be too hard to have kept in a visual of sucking on a breast.
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2012, 10:36:24 PMBut thinking about it logically I can't imagine why it would be a problem for the child.
They fuck you up your mum and dad.
Whether the kid will remember still being breastfed at that age, and whether or not it's damaging isn't really the question in this particular case. The issue in this case is putting the mother and child on the cover of a major newsmagazine. Anybody really think that when the kid is in high school, some of his classmates aren't going to get ahold of that image and give him a really, really hard time about it? Even if there's not already some emotional scarring before that, there'll be plenty then.
Quote from: dps on May 13, 2012, 12:31:43 PM
Whether the kid will remember still being breastfed at that age, and whether or not it's damaging isn't really the question in this particular case. The issue in this case is putting the mother and child on the cover of a major newsmagazine. Anybody really think that when the kid is in high school, some of his classmates aren't going to get ahold of that image and give him a really, really hard time about it? Even if there's not already some emotional scarring before that, there'll be plenty then.
highschool? it probably started the day after the paper came out. All it takes is one parent to recongize the kid for all hell to break loose. Poor kid never had a chance :(
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2012, 12:04:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 12, 2012, 09:56:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2012, 07:03:24 PM
I think children would remember being breastfed once in kindergarten.
Yeah, you would think so, but most kids really don't remember much before 5th grade. Bits and pieces here or there, but not anything of substance. Hell, my kids only vaguely remember that I was a stay-at-home mom until the eldest boys were eight. It's something they've been told, but not something they really remember.
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
No offense but are your kids retards? FWIW I have normal memory volumes from I was 4 onwards, earlier than that it gets more spotty.
Yeah, no kidding.
Quote from: dps on May 13, 2012, 12:31:43 PM
Whether the kid will remember still being breastfed at that age, and whether or not it's damaging isn't really the question in this particular case. The issue in this case is putting the mother and child on the cover of a major newsmagazine. Anybody really think that when the kid is in high school, some of his classmates aren't going to get ahold of that image and give him a really, really hard time about it? Even if there's not already some emotional scarring before that, there'll be plenty then.
Absolutely agree with this for older kids, but this kid is only 3. Not quite as extreme as a kindergartner.. or older. As an example - and I actually know this child; he's graduating from high school with my son - I offer an example of how this really does affect these kids: 8-year-old still breastfeeding (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125961&page=1)
Kyle was pretty messed up for a long time. He's finally pulled himself together and is graduating with honors this year, but it was rough going. His mother is slightly insane - okay, more than slightly - and everyone in the schools knows her. She's run for the School Board, etc. Kyle is doing well
despite his mom. Of course, this is pretty extreme (he was taken away from her for six months because of this, and I actually agree with that decision).
To this day, Kyle is still known as the Breastfeeding Kid. It's incredibly sad because he's such a good guy.
This controversy has now hit the USAF. :P
Article includes potentially NSFW image....
http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11955844-military-mom-proud-of-breast-feeding-in-uniform-despite-criticism?lite
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 31, 2012, 02:26:26 PM
This controversy has now hit the USAF. :P
Article includes potentially NSFW image....
http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11955844-military-mom-proud-of-breast-feeding-in-uniform-despite-criticism?lite
Sign of the times, I guess. I remember the depressed, sinking feeling I got when I first saw maternity BDUs and realized that this was definitely not my father's or grandfather's military :mellow: