I would also like to add my agreement with your post, Romola. The offense is multiplied by referring to breastfeeding moms as ‘moomy’ and ‘cow’. I definitely think that any adult who cries ‘decency’ or ‘courtesy’, but will still yet resort to name calling and cheap shots of that caliber, needs to take a serious look in the mirror, and then decide who’s being rude and ill-mannered.
FB
There is a difference between breastfeeding and this analogy.
The legislatures of various states, the duly elected people’s representatives, have found breastfeeding merits the specific protection of the law. No legislature has acted for your trauma and med descriptions; there is no prevailing sense that your conversation is important enough to make a public policy that, notwithstanding the owners’ wishes, you be permitted to continue.
There IS such a finding with breastfeeding.
While you might have safely offered your analogy when the debates were ongoing to pass these laws, the fact is, NOW the laws exist. They represent the will of the people, expressed through the democratic process.
The same is true of milkshakes, soda, bread, and cheese, which are commonly sold in Burger King restaurants. It’s even true of breast milk!
The people watching can’t see inside his head. All they see is a person sucking on a breast. They can guess at his intentions, and some inferred intentions may offend them more than others, but so what? Maybe his wife is lactating and he just likes the taste of breast milk.
The ban has nothing to do with sex. If a woman were to expose her breasts for any other nonsexual reason (e.g. she spilled something on her shirt and wants to dry off), she’d be asked to leave, and/or arrested.
I agree. But that’s an argument against banning nudity, not against banning breastfeeding.
I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that it is inappropriate to demand, or even expect, other people to use, or even care about, the classic formulations or legal tests a court would use. If someone with a legal background wishes to add additional information I am welcoming of it. When someone comes in and acts as if my statements are wrong, then I would appreciate some actual criticism of substance. All I have recieved thus far is approbation for not using the proper legal terminology for what I called a “public place”, although I still maintain the meaning was clear in context. I was also criticised for using words which have specific legal meanings, like “reasonable”, in a non-legal sense. This usage apparently led Truth Seeker to believe I was asserting something I was not, namely something about the specific legal process of challenging a restriction on behavior in a place of public accommodation. None of this is substance, it is semantics. The word “reasonable” is not utterly reserved for legalistic use. I quoted from a county website on the topic of places of public accommodation. Apparently that isn’t good enough. I’m also supposed to reaseach the statutes that site was summarizing before citing it. Poppycock.
Again, show me where I have made an error of substance in my remarks about breastfeeding in public places. I have studied the laws regarding breastfeeding and while I am layman enough to throw around words like “reasonable” somewhat carelessly, that doesn’t mean I don’t understand the issue. Adding information is fine, but don’t make “corrections” which are nothing more than semantic nitpicks because the appropriate legal jargon was not used. Some level of semantic regularity is required for proper communication, but when you start demanding people become familiar with the ridiculously technical legalistic jargon of classic formulations and various tests then you’ve simply put up a barrier to communication.
If Qadgop gets a patient in his office and they say “it hurts here” he doesn’t demand that they describe the pain with the proper medical names of the nerves and organs in the region indicated, or I would certainly hope he doesn’t. He takes his own knowledge and maps it to what they are trying to express and then helps them get on with their lives. If they want to know what that thingy is called I’m sure he would gladly tell them, and that is perfectly in keeping with an expert sharing his knowledge. To make it a pre-requisite to a discussion of the issue, or to mock them for not caring about what the medical terms for the tissues in the affected area are, as Truth Seeker did, is simply a crock.
CrazyCatLady: Everyone must constantly make the decisions as to which potential sensibilities in their fellow human beings they will try to avoid offending. It all comes down to which sensibilities an individual considers worthy of the respectful act of attempting to avoid offending. I consider it reasonable to be offended by graphic descriptions of gunshot wounds and tumors during a meal, therefore I refrain from such topics of discussion within earshot of my fellow diners in a public resturant. Although doing so would certainly be within my rights(although a resturant owner may legally object to such a conversation and eject me/refuse me service on the grounds that I was offending other customers unnecessarially). I do not consider it reasonable to be offended by the act of nursing an infant/young child. As such I make little to no effort to refrain from offending those who may be offended by such an act.
At the moment, in most states, the majority of the population, as represented by their legislatures, agree with me that being offended by someone nursing in public is unreasonable and have taken steps to protect nursing in public. Even if the person offended is in a position where they would normally have the authority to stop such a behavior, such as the person taking offense being the owner of a public resturant, the state has extended its hand to shield the nursing mother from any actions this person may take as a result of their feelings.
Enjoy,
Steven
Nicely summarized, Mtgman.
I also note that we have yet to get any noncircular answer as to why public breastfeeding is so onerous and repellant. We’ve had strawmen by the dozen, we’ve had the most pathetic attempts at analogies I’ve seen in my time on the SDMB, but not one single meaningful answer that doesn’t appeal to false logic, false outside authority (“many people” or “vast majority”) or make correlations that a blind man couldn’t see through. (Breastfeeding is so very much like discussing disgusting topics at the dinner table. :rolleyes:)
The weight of the anti-breastfeeding position certainly isn’t enhanced by such bankrupt attempts at arguing in its favor.
I’m wondering if the people that complain about the breastfeeding in public are the same ones that bitch about the baby crying because it’s hungry. I personally would rather glance at a breastfeeding mother with a quiet baby than have to sit and eat next to a baby thats screaming at the top of it’s lungs because it can’t eat.
To me, a “real apology” is one I don’t have to ask for. How can ANYONE be comforted by an apology they have to force someone to say?
There are a lot of things that are legal that may make some people uncomfortable. In some places, women are able to be topless in public (::waits for all of the guys to post stupid comments::), it’s legal to empty a colostomy bag in public, and it’s legal to smoke in many public places. I can’t imagine being so narcissistic that I would be so damned offended to have someone ASK me to stop doing something, that I’d DEMAND a formal apology and then whine about not getting the one I wanted to the media. I could understand if they said “Go to the bathroom or get out.” or “Go to the bathroom or we’ll shoot you.” Let’s get a grip.
To me, it smacks of a setup for a lawsuit. I agree with Quietman, that no legal department would be allowed to issue the apology suggested earlier in this post. It would truly be opening themselves up to be sued.
She was breast feeding her baby, someone asked her (probably due to a complaint from another customer) to stop or perhaps do it in the bathroom. This has happened in our hospital waiting room before, we simply escort the woman to somewhere that she can feed in private. To be honest, I don’t really want to see a woman’s boob while I’m eating either and I’m a woman too.
“Sometimes you gotta break the rules.”
– old (and failed) Burger King slogan
Thank goodness the legislators were intelligent enough to realize that a baby’s right to get the best possible care from it’s mom, i.e. breastfeeding, overrides any possible discomforts that immature prudes might feel.
I think that the people who have wandered into this thread, scratching their heads, and saying “What about my rights? I don’t want to see breastfeeding in public!” really only care about themselves in this, and not the good of society.
I’ll say it again, I think it’s quite darkly amusing that a woman can bare the sides, top or bottom of her breasts in a daring outfit, and not get as much “sanctioned by certain ordinary people” name calling, scorn, and prudish waspishness thrown at her as a good mother, breastfeeding her child will. Some people in this culture have serious issues and hangups that they are not willing to admit to, or try to overcome. Instead, they cling to them, and frantically look for any tiny thing they can argue with so they can keep them. Sheesh.
General:
I personally would prefer to never be anywhere near a baby, as they smell, make annoying noises, turn adults into baby-talking idiots and often scream. (IMO).
I’d also prefer to not see council-worker’s-bum (I think it might be called plumber’s crack in some regions), and people wearing clothes that are either so big, they hide nothing, or so small everything bulges out the top. I’d also like to never see a guy staring at my tits or arse. And ugly people, I don’t ever want to see another one of them. People having bad hair days should stay out of my line of sight, as should people who have pimples, talons instead of fingernails or those who wear the colour beige.
Unfortunately, it isn’t GooWorld, and so I see things, daily that I’d probably prefer not see. I realise that I live in a world that wasn’t created for my comfort, a world which I have to share (with way too many people, I might add) with others. Because I have to share this world, I try my best to be considerate of others. Up to a point.
I see two solutions. Make that person over there stop doing “X”, because I don’t want to see it. Or move those fantastically moveable eyeballs (great, aren’t they?) in another direction.
Can you imagine a world where everything slightly offensive to anyone has been removed? I’d die of boredom.
The sight of council-worker’s-bum doesn’t physically hurt me, it doesn’t stop me from going about my normal day, it doesn’t even truly offend me. I’d just prefer not to see it, so I move my damn eyeballs somewhere else and the problem is solved. (please note, I am NOT comparing breastfeeding to bum crack, I’m talking in general about things that a person may not wish to see)
Specific:
Stop comparing breastfeeding to other things. There’s nothing it compares to, as it’s a pretty unique function.
If someone has a problem with it, I see no reason why everyone else has to curb their behaviour when it truly has no impact on anyone else. If I’m wrong, I’d love to hear what kind of true impact it could possibly have, as I haven’t heard of any yet.
The only possible thing I could think of to object to is the fact that breastmilk is a potentially bio-hazardous substance, but I haven’t exactly heard of an epidemic of people being hit by flying breastmilk. When that happens, yes, breastfeeding should be done in private, as I would think I have more right to not be hit by the flying breastmilk than a mother does to breastfeed anywhere or a baby does to have instant food. Until it actually impacts me though, I get to look away, not insist they behave to my expectations.
Whoever said it was much nicer to accidently observe the back of a baby’s head than hear the thing screaming its head off was right. The screaming actually impacts others, the quiet feeding does not.
Also wanted to add that I don’t understand asking for or demanding an apology. That sort of apology is meaningless, IMO. YMMV, of course.
Perhaps manners have gone by the wayside, but thing I’ve noticed is that society has lost the place for the entire family. I don’t want to see little kids in a movie theater anymore than any of you, but back in the day, let’s say 500 years back and more, there was no place that you couldn’t take Granny and all the kids. Now, no one wants to see a crying baby, and some people do not want to see a flash of naked breast, so the only alternative is to confine Mom and kid within their home.
What a great way to limit post-partum depression. Keep Mom completely out of society.
**
I never thought I’d get dissed on this board for supplying accurate and detailed information.
Here’s the problem.
This statement – along with all the other similar ones you made – is complete crap. It is not a “nitpick” to point out that this is a steaming pile rather than an accurate summary of existing U.S. law. Now you may not care but there may be others reading this thread who do want the straight dope.
As for “butting in,” you’re not having a conversation in a restaurant here. In posting on a public message board, it’s more like standing on a soapbox preaching on a street corner. When you start spouting gibberish you’re going to have to expect a few hecklers.
If you don’t want to discuss legal tests or statutes, then stop publicly pontificating about the law. If you and like-minded folk want to have a private conversation to air your views on topics you know nothing about, that’s your business. Just make sure y’all hit the stove when you spit.
The statement you quoted is accurate. All you have to do to see this is realize that the word "unreasonable’ means “the court will use a reasonableness test” only in your own mind. The rest of the population seems to have no problem with the statement since they are parsing it with the common denotations of the words. If you still dispute the accuracy of the statement please feel free to re-phrase your objection with the understanding that we are speaking of general principles instead of specific legal procedures.
The fact is a court can review the restrictions placed by the management/owner of a place of public accommodation and can throw them out if they feel it is warranted. If a business makes such restrictions and is found to have wronged the public by abridging some right, even if it was not previously explicitly protected, the owner/manager’s restriction can be struck down and they can be punished. The only flaw in the statement you quoted is that it used the “reasonable” keyword(inherited from the layman’s summary of King County law) which seemed to imply, at least to you, that the courts would use the legal construct known as a “reasonable test” to make the determination. Again, this is semantics, not substance.
If you wish to correct my pontifications about the law then do so on substantial, not semantic, grounds. The usage of the word “unreasonable” became an assertion about the tests a court of law would use only in your own mind. I am not responsible for your misinterpretations of my statements, and I would gladly have clarified that I wasn’t referring to court procedures if you had only asked. I have pointed out more than once now that I was not referring to specific rules of procedure, but general principles. A business sets up a place of public accomodation. They agree to abide by the laws of the locale regarding civil rights and criminal issues(they can’t grant their members immunity from murder if it was committed on their premises for instance). They also agree to submit their decisions regarding issues which are not explicitly prohibited/protected under existing law to a court for review if they are challenged. If the court finds them objectionable(substitute this for “unreasonable” in the above quoted segment if you feel it makes a difference), then the business owner agrees to end the practice and accept any punishment the legal process may mete out.
I have no general objection to people providing accurate and detailed information. In fact I greatly welcome it and I welcome criticism of substance. What I object to is unfounded criticism. Someone telling me that my statement is a “steaming pile” when the flaw is in their reading, not my writing. That I find objectionable.
Enjoy,
Steven
mtgman, not having observed you to be particularly stupid in the past, I must not be explaining things sufficiently. The statement of yours I quoted is not accurate. Let me give an example using your own words.
**
If you file an action against the owner on these facts, I can tell you the outcome right now. Regardless of how offensive he thinks it is, the judge will say, “If you don’t want to sing “Born to Be Wild” while standing on your head, eat somewhere else. Now get out of my courtroom. Next!”
You do not understand how U.S. courts work or what they do. I could explain in more detail, I suppose, but it would require the use of “lawyer-y language” and I don’t want you to break out in a rash.
To sum up, you have no right to patronize any particular business. So long as he does not illegally discriminate, the owner can serve, or not serve, anyone he chooses. Since no business owner has any legal obligation[sup]1[/sup] to serve any particular person, no U.S. court will attempt to determine whether those decisions are offensive, unreasonable or even simply arbitrary.
In any event, this has become a hijack. I suggest you open a new thread if you actually want to understand how these things work. While I only have a passing familiarity with U.S. law in this area, I’m sure it will attract the attention of other, more expert dopers as well.
[sup]1[/sup] Once again, there are some limited exceptions to this, e.g., common carriers.
I am very sorry, but I think it’s gross for a woman to whip out her tits in public. I’m a woman and I would never do that. Why can’t these women either a) pump their breasts and feed the baby with a bottle or b) find a more private spot to do it so people don’t have to see her milk-engorged breasts while they are trying to eat? Why must they insist on doing in in front of everyone?
What I don’t get is, when most women cringe at bearing their breasts in public when not breast feeding, why is it suddenly just fine and dandy if there’s a baby involved? Please, oh, please will someone answer this? And please don’t give me some line like “it’s a natural thing…” Blech.
Dude, come on, I don’t buy that. I know many women who have no problem pumping their breasts and keeping a supply in the refirgerator. And if they had done this from the beginning, there is no reason the baby should shun a bottle. Lots of babies feed from both bottle and breast with no problem.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Twiddle *
As a breastfeeding mom who does nurse in public frequently (my walking, talking 15-month-old - horrors! :rolleyes: )/QUOTE]
Why is a 15-month-old still being breastfed? Um, aren’t they weaned off the teet by that age? Can you imagine having memories of sucking on your mother’s breast? A kid that old is old enough to remember that. I am very sorry, Twiddle, but in this day and age that just strikes me as odd. And why would you want to do that to yourself…have a walking, talking child suck on your breasts and keep your milk flowing for over a year after he’s born? Flame me if you will, but that is something I hope I never, ever see.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by nyctea scandiaca *
**
I hope you also never see someone who believes in “Attachment Parenting” Many of them breast feed their children until they are 3, 4, even 5 years old. Tis gross.
Oh good, fodder for another four pages! :rolleyes:
Good thing, because I’ve never seen a breastfeeding mother “whip out” her breasts in my entire life. Seriously. Where do you live that this even comes close to representitive of the process? You make it sound as if breastfeeding involves standing on the table, tearing off your shirt, shaking your breasts in opposing circles all while wearing a flaming hat and singing Yankee Doodle Dandee at the top of your lungs.
Because there’s a baby involved, you twit. A baby that is likely fussy or rooting, squirming or screaming, or any and all of the above because he is hungry. Many infants need to eat every two hours easily and when a baby is hungry, a good mother feeds him–regardless of those sacrifices she might have to make to do so. For breastfeeding mothers that means things like suffering through periodic bouts of sore nipples, allowing for a little bit of lost modesty, and having to put up with random ignoramouses like you.
Dude. What you will or will not buy really has no bearing whatsoever on the fabric of reality.
I am a breastfeeding mother. As such, I feed my baby every two to three hours. Pumping in between these feedings will produce maybe an ounce and can take up to thirty minutes. Even while I’m working and am able to pump twice a day with a number of hours in between I’m still lucky if I take home five ounces at the end of the day. So, from your font of apparently endless wisdom on this subject, where do you suggest I get the extra breastmilk from to prepare bottles?
Seems much more practical, rational, and convienent to me to just feed my baby in the manner to which we are both accustomed. If that bothers you, well–that makes me kind of happy to be honest. From your three ridiculous posts above I’m pretty sure that you’re the type of person it would give me great pleasure to annoy.