From ElizabethP:
Yes, the Facebook thing is just so silly. I really don't understand what their rationale is. Good for you for blogging about it, Amy. And Happy New Year. 
From A Sarah:
Seriously! It's like, "How dare anybody do anything that might confuse Dude Nation for half a second!?"
Boo, Facebook!
From Caryn:
LiveJournal did something like this a few years back, too.
From Changes2009:
1) Over 50% of the population has only to look down to see breasts (their own).
2) A large portion of the population has *been* breastfed or *seen* their mother breastfeed their siblings.
3) Breastfeeding is allowed *in public* in most places in this country.
4) If you find breastfeeding erotic, maybe that is a fetish thing. But we don't outlaw the showing of, say, feet on profile pictures because someone may have a foot fetish. Just saying.
So, what exactly is Facebook trying to accomplish? If children want to see HARD CORE porn, they have only to go to one of *several* free sites that offer some interesting clips...
From Holly:
Facebook is upset about it because it is (or at least started as) a college site with college aged men on it. Men don't want to think of breasts as good for anything other than sexual gratification. Granted, I would never show myself breastfeeding on the internet (I had a hard time breastfeeding in public with blankets) but it's not right to ban it like that.
From Holly:
And it's so hypocritical anyway. A friend of mine has pictures up of her taking body shots off of another girl's clothed crotch. You're telling me that's not obscene but a baby breastfeeding is? I'm confused.
From Susanne:
"Men don't want to think of breasts as good for anything other than sexual gratification."
Why do you persist in broad stereotypes about everything, Holly? Men aren't one monolithic unit with unified opinions on anything. I guarantee that there are also women who are made uncomfortable by the breastfeeding pictures. I personally think that's their problem, of course, since no one is forced to troll on Facebook for photos of other people, but it's not some sweeping "men feel this way" and "women feel that way."
From Susanne:
"1) Over 50% of the population has only to look down to see breasts (their own)."
That's a really poor argument, though, because 50% of the population has a vagina, and 50% of the population has a penis, but Facebook is within its rights not to allow pictures of either on their site. Make a better argument!
From Liz1:
Holly, don#t want to be mean - I really don't - but I think you are confused. You defend public masturbation as a right, but huddled in a blanket to breast feed?
This is one bit of women reclaiming their bodies I wholeheartedly support.
From Ericacrochets:
I wonder... I'd be very surprised that college men were "reporting" pictures to Facebook as indecent. More likely that they were gawking at them, "har har har--look, a breast!" And it seems more likely that it was women, "A breast! I don't want to see other women's breasts!"
But who knows? It probably isn't right to generalize eithr way. I know the airline incidents seem to typically involve female flight attendants or other female passengers being "offended."
From Ericacrochets:
Anyway, I wonder if these people who are so upset at the sight of babies at the breast do in art museusm or Catholic churches where they have paintings and statues of Jesus at Mary's breast? Do they shield their children's eyes? Do they just faint when they travel in Latin America? Do they write to the National Geograhpic demanding they take indecent pictures of breasts and butts out of their magazine?
Never mind. I guess these aren't the types of people who visit cultural and historical sites, travel to other countries, or read. Otherwise they might have a little perspective.
From Holly:
I have a problem with public masturbation. However, a woman masturbating alone (or with her husband) in the privacy of her own labor room for the intent of possibly augmenting contractions is not public masturbation. To describe that scenario as assault is actually offensive to those who have been actually assaulted.
Now, about me and breastfeeding. I am a modest person. More than that, I hated breastfeeding. I hated pretty much every part of breastfeeding. I hated people watching me breastfeed. So, yes, I had a problem with breastfeeding in public. I don't like to draw attention to my breasts, and a baby sucking on them in public would definitely draw attention. I actually hate my breasts too, even though they are pretty average. I'm getting a boob job as soon as I start making my own money. Maybe when I have porn star breasts I won't mind people staring at them, but right now, no thank you.
From Susanne:
"I actually hate my breasts too, even though they are pretty average."
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, and that you feel you "need" a boob job. Don't start calling ME a tool of the patriarchy though -- I'm not the one hating my own breasts or saving up for a boob job.
From Holly:
Well, Susanne, you are a tool of the patriarchy. But that is beside the point. I hate my breasts because they have deteriorated in size and shape since I had my kids. I'm not asking for anything I've never had (I'm exaggerating about the porn star breasts- I really just want a perky, gravity-defying C cup). I just want what was there before (well before I was a full B, so what I was before plus a little tiny bit extra). A Humpty Dumpty put-the-mother-back-together-again mission. Jack them up, shove some silicone in them and give me a tummy tuck while you're at it. I've had more than one friend of mine tell me that it's socially irresponsible for me to fix my body after the kids. I disagree. It's my body and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. As it is, though, I only want modest procedures done to reinstate the body I had before I had children- for my benefit and no one else. Thankfully we have the technology to do that now- so long as you have 20K+.
From Ericacrochets:
"Maybe when I have porn star breasts I won't mind people staring at them, but right now, no thank you."
Chances are, they won't function well for breastfeeding after your surgery, so you won't have to worry about it, will you? Fine by me. I think infant formula in an excellent alternative, and no one should breastfeed if they don't like it.
But it's a confusing stance coming from someone who just said, "Men don't want to think of breasts as good for anything other than sexual gratification."
And yet that is how you think of your own breasts? You had a HBAC in order to avoid a repeat c-section (you put your child's life at risk to avoid surgery) but you will undergo completely elective surgery just to make your breasts meet an unreasonable standard set by our society?
This is a strange sort of feminism.
From Holly:
Actually, I have a good friend who had a boob job at 18 and then went on to have a kid 10 years later, and she exclusively breastfed (through pumping, she also worked full time) for over a year. She didn't have any problems. From what she says it depends on the type of boob job you get- where they cut. But I don't care about what impact it will have on breastfeeding. Breastfeeding isn't that important to me anyway.
From Ericacrochets:
"I'm not asking for anything I've never had (I'm exaggerating about the porn star breasts- I really just want a perky, gravity-defying C cup)."
It may be what you want, but almost nobody has this kind of rack after pregnancy or after getting a little older. That's fine, as long as you recognize that you are holding your body to a standard that is impossible without surgery. And that you will have continued maintenance on those implants for the rest of your life.
From Holly:
Well, I'm not getting a boob job for sexual gratification. I'm getting them for my own gratification. *I* want them pretty- for me. Although I realize it's a little contradictory. I'm against men viewing breasts as only sexual objects, but I also want pretty breasts. So...huh. The contradiction doesn't bother me.
From Holly:
My friend has never had to go in for "maintenance" on her fake breasts. She's had them for about 15 years.
I refuse to let childbirth suck the life out of my body. I'm reclaiming it. How can that not be in line with feminist ideals?
From Holly:
I'm half-way kidding. I understand how other feminists might be a little put off by my decision to get implants. But other people's opinions about it don't bother me. I can see the cognitive dissonance in it, but it's a cognitive dissonance I'm comfortable with. The results will be worth giving into the patriarchy the couple of hours I'm in the OR.
From Holly:
Also, I'm not just confining the Humpty-Dumpty project to just my breasts. I also want a tummy tuck and some lipo in my thighs, but that will have to be a different procedure. Apparently you can't have all of it done at one time, so the boobs get to go first.
And that's the end of my posting, for real.
From Susanne:
A truly empowered feminist, upon realizing that she hates everything about breastfeeding (which you're entitled to feel, of course), wouldn't have been afraid to have gone to formula and moved on, because a true feminist doesn't have to prove her Self-Sacrificial Mother credentials. A truly empowered feminist wouldn't have paid one bit of attention to her husband's "opinions" on whether she was entitled to have pain relief or whether she was sufficiently pleasing to her midwife. You're hardly a standard-bearer for feminist ideals.
From A Sarah:
I've had more than one friend of mine tell me that it's socially irresponsible for me to fix my body after the kids. I disagree.
Holly, believe it or not, I'm right there with you. Only for me it's my belly. I wish I hadn't been formed to look at my post-two-kids redundant belly skin and think, "Yuck. What is that? I don't even look like myself." But I do. I've made tremendous strides in getting the body-hating voices out of my head, particularly about body size. But the saggy belly - not to mention the itchiness and the back pain from having no more abdominal strength - really get to me. Honestly, though, it's mostly how it looks.
I wish things were different, that the enemy didn't have outposts in my head, but I'm not there yet. But I also don't think that the onus is on women, exclusively, to render sexism (pardon the phrase) impotent. I believe myself negatively judged based on my belly because in fact I am, and so are most of us. Would that I could shrug that off with 100 percent feminist bravado all the time, but I can't be brave and strong every second. Thus, a tummy tuck is something I've considered, for when we have the money. Do I pretend that that's an unassailable choice? No, but then, I'm also basically okay with people assailing my choices sometimes so long as they agree that it's mine to make. When self-acceptance becomes one more hurdle that you have to jump to prove yourself a worthy woman, then it's not doing anyone any good.
From A Sarah:
^Should read, "But I have." not "But I do." Sorry.
From LDS2:
I think both sides are kind of silly on this one. Facebook for reasons already stated and 100,000 for getting bent out of shape over it. Honestly, if this is the biggest problem they have they are very lucky indeed.
From ElizabethP:
I doubt it's the biggest problem any of them have. Do you never register an opinion about something that is other than "the biggest problem you have"?
From Holly:
Susanne, There are many flavors of feminism. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. My decision to get breast implants would probably be considered more third wave.
From Jolene:
"And yet that is how you think of your own breasts? You had a HBAC in order to avoid a repeat c-section (you put your child's life at risk to avoid surgery) but you will undergo completely elective surgery just to make your breasts meet an unreasonable standard set by our society?"
Feels terrible when you can't steriotype somebody into a box, huh?
From Holly:
No, but then, I'm also basically okay with people assailing my choices sometimes so long as they agree that it's mine to make.
I'm with you, Sarah. It's my body and I will make a "socially irresponsible" choice with it if I feel like it. 
From Ericacrochets:
"Feels terrible when you can't steriotype somebody into a box, huh?"
I admit to being confused when I can't understand someone's logic.
From A Sarah:
(singing along) "I understand you have hurt feeeeelings, ladies, but seriously, women's issues are kind of silly, let's focus on the things that really maaaaattter..."
Oh my gosh, I haven't heard that one in, like, forever. What with it being so long since the Democratic primaries, and with my having long since abandoned the whose-is-bigger environs of DailyKos... I almost can't believe I still remember the words!
From Holly:
Susanne, You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to *me*. You know nothing about me, honestly. You have no idea where I've come or where I've been. So, you can kindly go fuck yourself (but BY GOD if you do decide to fuck yourself, please do it alone in the dark in a locked closet in your own home and don't tell anyone, otherwise it's public "fucking yourself" and you can get arrested for that sort of sick stunt).
From Holly:
Oh, and that was in response to trying to teach me WWATFD (What would a true feminist do?) as if you invented the idea of women's liberation.
From Susanne:
Goodbye, Holly. And everyone else. Have a nice day!
From Caryn:
I have a problem with public masturbation. However, a woman masturbating alone (or with her husband) in the privacy of her own labor room for the intent of possibly augmenting contractions is not public masturbation. To describe that scenario as assault is actually offensive to those who have been actually assaulted.
You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to *me*. You know nothing about me, honestly. You have no idea where I've come or where I've been. So, you can kindly go fuck yourself (but BY GOD if you do decide to fuck yourself, please do it alone in the dark in a locked closet in your own home and don't tell anyone, otherwise it's public "fucking yourself" and you can get arrested for that sort of sick stunt).
So Holly, how do you know whether or not I've ever been assaulted?
From A Sarah:
Wait - Susanne, that was a temporary goodbye, right? (I guess I do have your e-mail, but... well, I just wasn't sure from your comment. I'd sure miss your commentary.)
From Holly:
It's irrelevant. And I don't know why you linked those two posts together. They were separate and having nothing to do with each other.
From I am so wise:
Ladies, you should consider yourselves lucky. For men, there are few surgical options to correct our bodies when they fail to meet the unreasonable standards of women. So how about tummy tucks for some, boob jobs for others, and sympathy for the suffering inflict on the average man by the demands of TV.
Anyway, to my main point. Why Face book is in this situation.
The suppression of "natural" bodily functions is a long-term project of the Western world. It has nothing to with keeping females down or patriarchy because it has effected men just as much as women. It has generally revolved making things as the natural world is inferior to the inventions of man.
Looking at manner guides that started to gain popularity in the Middle Ages, you'll learn that eating with the elite was an experience. People had a tendency to touch themselves while dining, and then to dip their hands in the mustard. They urinated and at the dining table. Even poohing the hallway was the norm.
It sucked. Gradually, these manner guides advised against various forms of "natural" behavior. If you read the ones from the 10th century, you'll find admonishments against touching yourself at the dinner table. By the 14th century, because people had stopped playing with themselves, the guides stopped telling people not to do that. However, the guides began to admonish people not to fart or belch while dining.
Eventually, these prohibitions reached breastfeeding and it became less acceptable to do so in public.
Of course, rebellion is a good way to gain status in American culture. After all, nobody wants to be a tool of the man, patriarchy, or the Establishment, so every so often natural nature functions that are being suppressed (be it farting, belching, or breastfeeding) start conferring culture capital to practitioners, at least within a subculture. Some of these rebellions are short lived because, take for example farting, it’s nasty, nobody likes it, and after a short while the appeal fades and people lose cultural capital (aka cool points) for doing such things.
In some cases, it last longer, but history shows once enough people start doing something, that something loses its ability to confer cultural capital, and the elite, the cool, and the jet setters move on to something else.
Breastfeeding will probably the same route organic food. It’ll be popular while few people do it, or are perceived as doing it. Once everyone is doing it, well the cool kids will switch back to formula and praise technology. Just like processed foods have fallen out and back into favor.
Or course, everyone could respect Facebook’s right to association and go elsewhere.
From LadtinRed:
"Or course, everyone could respect Facebook’s right to association and go elsewhere."
ITA. Facebook doesn't say that BFing is obscene, they have restrictions against hosting photos of nudity and pornography. Facebook defines nipples and areola as nudity and are entirely within their rights to remove such photos. If people don't like it, they can go suck an egg!!! These women and their "protests" are a ridiculous example of just how narcissitic our society has become.
From LadyinRed:
Oh for heavens sake, I spelled my screen name wrong. Time to log off, I think!
From A Sarah:
If people don't like it, they can go suck an egg!!! These women and their "protests" are a ridiculous example of just how narcissitic our society has become.
They could suck an egg, or they could register their complaints like adults. They could also point out how easy it is for women's issues to be dismissed as histrionics and hurt feelings. They might even go so far as to say, "Hmm, why is that? Could there be some deep-seated reason?" This is known as critical thinking. Sorry you don't enjoy it, but you don't have to play.
From A Sarah:
I am so wise: Ladies, you should consider yourselves lucky. For men, there are few surgical options to correct our bodies when they fail to meet the unreasonable standards of women. So how about tummy tucks for some, boob jobs for others, and sympathy for the suffering inflict on the average man by the demands of TV.
Oh, I am so wise, we are all extremely sorry that your feelings got hurt by the oppressive images of men's bodies on television. I am sure you feel a lot of pressure to get fat and bald so that you'll be good enough to land the Hawt Chick Wife, like, oh, about a bazillion sitcoms portray. And of course, you probably get a lot of catcalls on the street; the fear of sexual assault by women is something you and your friends have had to contend with... and then there is the epidemic of male executives being fired left and right by their lady bosses for not having GINORMOUS SCHLONGS!! All of these would doubtless wound the male ego, and make life very hard to bear. Yet I notice that they did not, apparently, injure your self-esteem so much that you didn't still feel entitled to lecture the "ladies" on how we should feel about being female. Way to stay empowered, dude!
In any case, good luck with the farting thing. Do let us know if it catches on.
From Caryn:
It's irrelevant. And I don't know why you linked those two posts together. They were separate and having nothing to do with each other.
Because words mean things.
From LDS2:
Naturally, I complain about things that might not be the most important thing in the world, lately, I am annoyed that Giada di Laurentiis turns every frickin' thing into something Italian. I know that her arena, but a burger doesn't have to have an Italian twist nor does a New England clam bake. That said I don't start a big movement on Facebook about it, throwing up pictures in some hurt hurrumph.
And as a woman and a feminist, I don't even think that this is remotely close to a big woman's issue. I certainly believe that it's my right to say so. It's not getting women insurance coverage parity, or good affordable child care, or equal pay or anything of the sort so it is very much in the category of silly.
And as far as breastfeeding goes, I don't think anyone was nursing a tot at the time that they learned of this scandal and said, 'whoa, facebook doesn't allow pics of this -- off to formula for you!'
From Ericacrochets:
Yeah, but it only takes about 5 minutes to found a group on Facebook and about 2 seconds to join one. Another few seconds to add a breastfeeding pic that's already on your computer. And you can do it in your pajamas while breastfeeding. It's not as if people are spending valuable time on this Facebook group that would otherwise be spent saving the world.
From Emma B:
as a woman and a feminist, I don't even think that this is remotely close to a big woman's issue. I certainly believe that it's my right to say so. It's not getting women insurance coverage parity, or good affordable child care, or equal pay or anything of the sort so it is very much in the category of silly.
As a woman and a nursing mother, I'm going to disagree with you. I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about Facebook policy -- I don't even have a Facebook account, and wouldn't post nursing pics if I did -- but I do take issue with the attitudes of the Facebook staff, and the members who complained about nursing photos, and the members who support that viewpoint. Those attitudes make it possible for nursing mothers to be discriminated against in more important ways, like employer pumping accommodations or harassment for nursing in public places.
In my experience, people who express those attitudes generally haven't thought the issue through beyond "boooooooobs", whether they find that titillating or disgusting. They're hung up on the "breast" part of breastfeeding, and they forget or discount the importance of the "feeding" part. They think of it in the same terms as we've hashed out ad nauseam in the masturbation thread -- their right not to be subjected to the sight of my breast (or even the awareness of it, in some cases) trumps my right to feed my child. Nursing is okay as long as it's done in private, not on the park bench or in the restaurant or on one's Facebook page.
I sharply disagree with that opinion, and feel I should be able to feed my baby any place where I'd be allowed to give him a bottle, without being forced to wear a burka in the process. To me, that *is* an issue on par with the things you mentioned; more, in fact, because I don't think affordable child care is a right in the same way as not getting arrested for nursing in Starbucks. So when I see something like the Facebook policy which is just a tangible formulation of the mindset I just discussed, I do feel a certain sense of obligation to stand up and say, hey, this isn't right.
As for the question of Facebook being allowed to run their site as they please, it's an accepted principle of American law that civil rights supersede businesses' right to free association. Facebook can enforce their TOS any way they like unless they're doing so solely for certain discriminatory criteria (age, race, gender, religion, veteran status, and increasingly sexual orientation). Many states, including mine, have breastfeeding laws on the books that explicitly state that nursing is a protected right, permitted anywhere the mother is otherwise authorized to be.
From LDS2:
Who gets arrested in Starbucks for nursing? This is being blown way out of proportion.
Guess what, you do get to nurse your child anywhere you want to. If this is on a par with the issues I mentioned, then I really don't want you at the vanguard of women's issues.
From LDS2:
Also, I like how you chose one of three things I mentioned. I guess you think it's more important that women get to post pictures on Facebook (and as I said in my original post, they're silly, too) than they get health care parity and equal pay for equal work. What's more human-rights-ier?
From Ericacrochets:
LDS2, are you on Facebook or have a you joined a group there? Being a member of a Facebook group just means that you get a line on your profile saying you are a member of the group. People usually don't check their groups or post there regularly or really do anything other than sign up for them. They are not as good a communication tool as, for instance, a yahoogroup or a blog.
The point of the Facebook group was just to show Facebook that lots of people think their policy is dumb, and I suppose it's accomplished that goal.
From Esther:
I think I need more education about Facebook before I respond to this.
Are the pictures in the public domain (e.g., someone's avatar or what comes up when you search for them), or do you actively have to go into someone's profile to see them?
From Ericacrochets:
Facebook banned profile pictures of breastfeeding. So, if Jane Smith had a picture of her infant at her breast as a profile picture, and you did a search for Jane Smith, you would see the picture (although it would be very small).
From Caryn:
their right not to be subjected to the sight of my breast (or even the awareness of it, in some cases) trumps my right to feed my child.
Right, and here the action in question is explicitly legal, unlike . But LJ, as I understand it, has banned nudity of any form in default pics for the past two years or so, and extended that to cover breastfeeding pics even though breastfeeding is exempt from federal nudity laws in the US.
From ElizabethP:
LDS2 said: "I guess you think it's more important that women get to post pictures on Facebook (and as I said in my original post, they're silly, too) than they get health care parity and equal pay for equal work. What's more human-rights-ier?"
What?
Where are you getting these strange ideas, LDS2? Certainly not from EmmaB's post. Again you are making a huge logical error.
Supporting something doesn't mean you DON'T support other things. Spending a minute to join a group on Facebook because you agree with its premise does not prevent you from working for any number of important causes.
And it is absurd to claim that doing so means you think that the Facebook issue is more important than health care parity or any other issue! Please, that is what is silly, not registering one's opinion about Facebook's policy.
By your logic, if you ever registered a complaint about a company's policy, you'd be saying that the issue you complained about was more important than ANYTHING else in the world and that by complaining you were proclaiming that you didn't care about *real* issues. Do you not see that this is just absurd?
Complaining about Facebook's policies (or not doing so) says NOTHING about someone's commitment to social change or the way they prioritize the importance of various feminist causes.
From Emma B:
Who gets arrested in Starbucks for nursing? This is being blown way out of proportion.
Guess what, you do get to nurse your child anywhere you want to. If this is on a par with the issues I mentioned, then I really don't want you at the vanguard of women's issues.
I should have expanded a little bit, and that sentence should read "on par with some of the things you mentioned" -- both insurance coverage parity and affordable child care fall into the category of positive rights, while civil and constitutional rights are negative rights, and I don't personally believe the government has any business attempting to provide the former. It's perfectly possible to believe in equality for women without espousing those components of a particular political philosophy. Gender-based employment discrimination is a constitutionally-protected civil rights issue, as is nursing; your local day care center's prices are not, and health care coverage isn't either.
As for the question of getting arrested for nursing, it occasionally happens that women are told to leave a business for nursing in public. Applebee's got in trouble for this a year or so ago, as did Delta when a nursing mother was kicked off the plane, and Ronald McDonald House. The threat of being arrested is implicit in being told to leave a place of business, else one could simply say, "no, I'd rather not". If a business has the right to ask you to leave, for whatever reason, they also have the right to call the police and make you leave if you don't want to go, or their "right" amounts to nothing more than the right to make frowny faces at you.
I realize you didn't bring up a business's right of free association -- that was "I am so wise". However, that's where the arrested-at-Starbucks comment comes from. If a private business has the right to refuse service or employment for any reason they like, they can do all sorts of despicable things like refuse to serve black people, or fire Muslims simply because of their religion. US civil rights law asserts that there are a very few situations, the ones I named above, which are so important that they override the business's right to independent operation. In the absence of a law specifically protecting breastfeeding as a civil right (which about ten states do not currently have), Starbucks may certainly ask you to leave for nursing in their store, and call the police to have you arrested if you don't. It's hardly unheard of for nursing women to be told that they need to go do it the bathroom or use a blanket, and while it doesn't come to police intervention often, it's the unspoken corollary.
From Emma B:
Also, I like how you chose one of three things I mentioned. I guess you think it's more important that women get to post pictures on Facebook (and as I said in my original post, they're silly, too) than they get health care parity and equal pay for equal work. What's more human-rights-ier?
It's perfectly fair to pick one the three things you mentioned and discuss it. You don't specify that child care is less important than equal pay -- in fact, you list it first -- implying that they're roughly equivalent.
Again, I couldn't care less about Facebook per se, but I care very much about being able to nurse my child whenever and wherever I want. I don't think Facebook's actions necessarily constitute discrimination in themselves, but I think they're expressive of the attitude that produces and supports that kind of discrimination, and therefore that I ought to stand up and say, hey, I think you're wrong. It's the same way I'd criticize someone for making an offensively racist statement, without necessarily turning it into a federal civil rights lawsuit.
And yes, when you get right down to it, I DO believe that negative rights have priority over positive ones, even if the negative right in question is relatively unimportant, or the positive right seems like a huge social good. I also think a drug dealer's right not to have her home searched without a warrant is more important than the right to health care coverage. More precisely, I don't consider the latter to be a "right" at all, and therefore it carries less legal weight than something which *is* a clearly defined right, regardless of the relative moral value.
From Liz1:
What I find so fascinating on here is that the issues are invariably so complex and tangled. Generally, with abstract ideas I like to try to think my way through the complexities and arrive at a defensible, if partial, conclusion. But often, with these issues, I can't. Unlike some others, who seem to be able to quickly polarise these things into simple black and white.
Truth be told, I would have my suspicions of a woman who posted a picture of herself breastfeeding on a public forum. Why that picture, what is it she is intending to say about herself? I understand the appeal of such a photo, the thrill and the specialness to the woman herself - how it encapsulates a certain precious aspect of her relationship with her child, even a possibly justified sense of achievement. But made as a public statement, I think it takes on rather less innocent cast. Nevertheless, a public statement that breasts as titillation are just fine, breast as functional are not has to be challenged. Do I think it is as important as affordable childcare? Well, frankly, I have a bit of a problem with the idea that the answer to the oppression, economic and social, of mothers lies in paying someone else to look after the children. It may make a difference, it may be a huge help to many,it may to some extent be the best that can be hoped for at the moment, but I think long term there ought to be better solutions than enabling mothers to fit better into a patriarchal model.
Funny old world. I find women who want to be in your face about breastfeeding five year olds a bit strange. My problem, I suppose. I find the idea of women having to huddle in public bathrooms outrageous and disgusting.
In the summer, I spend quite a bit of time on the beaches of the South of France, where breasts are about as sexual as your big toe. Not to the self-conscious young girls with their "perky" implants, but to everyone else. (And am I the only one who finds stick thin girls with globular breasts a bit like Barbies?) Very liberating, I find it, very natural.
If women for whatever reason want to make childbirth sexual, then they cannot complain if if other people persist in making a sexual connection with breasts and feeding. My own view is that female sexuality is a lot more complex than the push the "button" get the reward comic book version that men construct for their own amusement.
From lurker:
I think it started with a man (or boy not sure which) starting a "breastfeeding is disgusting" group.
From lurker:
Here is his infuriating group description and news:
"There are lots of people for breastfeeding... but I can't find a group that is against it. Breastfeeding in public is obscene and immodest. Do it in private, I don't want to see your breast, and if you didn't have an infant, you likely wouldn't whip your breast out for all to see as you'd feel you were being 'slutty' or some other similar thing."
"Recently, Facebook has started 'pulling a myspace' by not allowing people to post profile pictures of babies nursing. The pictures have been reported as 'obscene' and have been removed- their posters warned not to repost or fear being kicked off of Facebook.
We support this 110%.
Facebook, we thank you, and we are glad that you realize that nursing moms everywhere have no right to show pictures of their bare breasts, even if covered by a child's mouth, bottle-feeding does NOT = breast feeding, a bottle isn't a human being, it isn't displaying it's flesh in an obscene and immoral fashion."
From Liz1:
I don't think it is infuriating. I think it is pathetic bordering on comic.
Are breasts only obscene and immoral when they have an infant attached, or generally? If this guy has a problem when confronted with breasts in general, he must spend an awful lot of time being upset.
When I was (very) young, it was considered shocking to show your knees when sitting. Tugging one's skirt to make sure they were covered was a reflex action for most women. My mother, a very straight-laced woman, wouldn't let me wear jeans as a teenager. Women wearing trousers were banned from some public places. Laughable, nowadays, when pictures of celebrities of flashing their crotches get published widely, and the bum-cracks of fat youths are on unappealing display. I fear Mr. Disgusted is wasting his breath.
From LadyinRed:
A lot of people totally misunderstand what is going on at Facebook. They are NOT banning photos of breastfeeding. Users can still have photos of breastfeeding on their pages. Facebook IS removing photos that contain "nudity" as being defined by the presence of nipples or areola. That is their perogative, they are a private company and if they make the rules that they won't host photos of nudity, users should abide by them or go elsewhere.
From Caryn:
But if breastfeeding is legally exempt from nudity laws, why aren't breastfeeding pictures exempt from nudity laws?
From LadyinRed:
"But if breastfeeding is legally exempt from nudity laws, why aren't breastfeeding pictures exempt from nudity laws?"
For the same reason you can't smoke in someone else's house. You have the legal right to smoke (or breastfeed) but you don't have the right to do it on the premises of someone else's property when it is forbidden. FB is "private property" and they get to make the rules. It says alot about certain aspects of society that there are so many people who just can't understand this. It is sad that modesty and good taste have to be mandated and I applaud FB for not buckling under public scrutiny.
From Liz1:
Hang on a minute! When did modesty and good taste become some kind of objective standard? Is breastfeeding an example of immodesty and bad taste, or only publishing photographs of breastfeeding?
From Caryn:
But as Emma's already pointed out, breastfeeding is a protected civil right in about 40 states, which trumps the right of the business.
From LadyinRed:
"Is breastfeeding an example of immodesty and bad taste, or only publishing photographs of breastfeeding?"
Have you seen some of the photos that FB removed? Some of them just show a naked breast, baby isn't even latched on, others show topless women nursing with one breast, whilst the other is fully exposed. Yet others show way more breast than baby. IMO, and the opinion of FB, showing that much naked breast to is in poor taste. FB isn't arbitrating an objective standard, but rather drawing a line between what photos they are willing to host and those that they will not. Breastfeeding is fine, topless nudity is not. Very simple.
From delurker:
Sure, Facebook has the "right" to declare these photos obscene. But Facebook users also have the "right" to let the company know they find the policy ridiculous. I don't think the fact that a business is legally within its rights to do something obliges customers to never raise a single objection to anything any business does ever.
If you click over to Dr. Amy's Open Salon blog post, she has an example of a photo that was declared obscene. There is no nipple. There is no areola. Seriously, you can see more boob in most bathing suits than in the picture. But I seriously doubt a photo of a girl in a bikini would be considered obscene. The policy is being applied in more heavy-handed way to photos of breastfeeding babies than it is to other photos that show portions of women's breasts. That says they find something inherently obscene about a baby eating, not that they are just applying their nudity policy across the board.
From LadyinRed:
"But as Emma's already pointed out, breastfeeding is a protected civil right in about 40 states, which trumps the right of the business."
Where to the rights of the individual stop and the rights of private businesses to refuse service begin? I am Canadian, so I am somewhat ignorant on American laws. Take airlines for expample. On your boarding pass it says that the airline reserves the right to refuse service to any one for any reason. Or coffee shops that have signs saying that they reserve the right to refuse service to people who are barefoot, topless or wearing roller skates? Schools can send children home for wearing inapproriate clothing or jewellry. Restaurants can refuse service to people who are not dressed according to the dress code(long pants, tie, etc) Catholic churches can refuse to marry a couple if the bride has bare shoulders. In every case the individual has the legal right to be barefoot, topless, in casual clothes or bare shouldered, but the private business doesn't have to serve them until they comply with the standards of the business. Same with Facebook. They don't have to host photos that violate their standards.
From AA:
To Emma B's point about fear of being arrested in Starbucks-it is a real fear. I live in a state where breastfeeding is not a protected right-just about 18 months or so ago a woman was asked to leave an IParty store because she was discreetly nursing her 3 month in a back aisle (while sitting on the floor). A major uproar ensued and now the corporate IParty parent has made it a "breastfeeding friendly" business. But it brought out tons of the "breastfeeding in public is immoral people"-many of them men which I find completely and totally interesting.
Most women breastfeed discreetly in public. I always did. Most of the time one would never even know what I was doing save for the 2 second flash of nipple during the latch process.
At my previous job which I started when my son was six months old required me to sit in a cube. I let my employer know before I started that I would need a private area to pump 3x per day and that I did not want to use the bathroom as it had no plug. I was assured it would be fine. When I got there though, it turned into an office wide nightmare. The office manager and HR director (it was a small family business) tried to force me to use the handicapped bathroom where most people retreat with their newspapers for some quality time during the day. It was repulsive. Every room I suggested or tried was shot down. I went to the President of the company (who was mortified that his daughter was so callous) who assured me a private office whenever I needed it. It lasted one day before I was locked out of there too. Everyone in the office knew about it-it was beyond mortifying.
I ended up accepting my current job which allows me to work from home (negating the pumping issue which is moot now that my son is older) but I made a point of stating how horrified I was at their inability to accommodate a nursing mother and that I hoped my experience would make it easier for the next woman in my position. I lasted six weeks there-and granted my new job is a better career opportunity but I was nearing the end of my rope with frustration at being mocked and shunned for pumping. It's sad that in 2008 (this was last year) that pumping would be such an issue-at a high-paying white collar position none-the-less.
Unfortunately stunts like calling breastfeeding "nudity" and "obscene" allows people to perpetuate this stance and ultimately harms the cause for those of us that are just trying to work and continue nursing. I wasn't in public-I just wanted a room that I could use for 10 minutes 3x a day without fear of being walked in on.
Additionally, when I resigned and gave my two week notice, I also stated that I would be working from home during that time and would come in for meetings as necessary. Given the hostile work environment created by the office manager, I didn't feel comfortable being in the office, let alone pumping. They didn't question it-they let me work from home with no problem. I think they were just happy I didn't try to sue them.
From LadyinRed:
Some of the banned photos can be seen here: http://www.tera.ca/photos6.html
From Emma B:
Where to the rights of the individual stop and the rights of private businesses to refuse service begin?
The dividing line in American law is that *civil* rights take precedence over businesses' rights. A restaurant can kick you out for wearing a black shirt, but not for having black skin. In the latter case, a black person's civil right not to be discriminated against on racial grounds trumps a business's right to refuse service.
In the states which have laws to that effect, breastfeeding is a civil right, and has the same protected status as race, national origin, religion, etc.. My state's law states that a woman is allowed to nurse anywhere she is otherwise authorized to be, which means that my freedom to nurse my child does trump private businesses' rights. If I'm allowed to sit on a bench at the mall with my baby, I can't be de-authorized from sitting on that bench just because I then proceed to nurse him. The mall can kick me out for a wide variety of other reasons, but not specifically for breastfeeding.
From Alexis:
LadyInRed, your understanding of the law is incorrect. Civil rights trump the rights of businesses to decide who their patrons are or what they may do. "For any reason" doesn't mean you can refuse service to black people, or women, or any other legally protected group. Nursing-protection legislation extends this to nursing mothers. If they would otherwise have a right to be there (i.e. not tresspassing) they have te right to nurse.
BTW, BC and Ontario specifically protect the rights of nursing mothers:
http://www.infactcanada.ca/
Breas...ding_Rights.htm
From Elizabeth:
As for the question of Facebook being allowed to run their site as they please, it's an accepted principle of American law that civil rights supersede businesses' right to free association. Facebook can enforce their TOS any way they like unless they're doing so solely for certain discriminatory criteria (age, race, gender, religion, veteran status, and increasingly sexual orientation). Many states, including mine, have breastfeeding laws on the books that explicitly state that nursing is a protected right, permitted anywhere the mother is otherwise authorized to be.
IANAL but I think this is incorrect.
First, the "right" to breastfeed in public is statutory, not constitutional. I guess if laws protective of breastfeeding didn't exist, one could challenge them on a constitutional basis, but we don't know how that would turn out. It's certainly not on a level with Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches, for example.
Second, people aren't actually breastfeeding at some facility Facebook owns. The right to actually breastfeed, at any time or place, isn't in play at all, and it's silly to pretend that it is.
Third and most important, Facebook has a First Amendment right to choose what it will let people publish on their site. Media outlets are not public accommodations like restaurants and hotels - they can discriminate all they like, including among what are considered protected classes WRT public accommodations, employment etc. And they absolutely have a right to discriminate as to the content of what appears on their site. The right to publish what you want is equally the right not to be forced to publish what you don't want. This goes right to the distinction between negative and positive rights that you pointed out: there is no positive right to force other people to publish your content. If the Facebook breastfeeding posters can't get FB to come around voluntarily - and I fully support them in trying to do so - they have no choice but to either go along, or migrate to friendlier sites.
From Elizabeth:
AA, working for a family-owned business, particularly a white-collar one, is a recipe for trouble in most cases. I'm glad you were able to move on.
LadyinRed, those pictures are cute. If you're trying to persuade people that FB's decisions are morally (as opposed to legally) justified, you're off the mark.
About individuals' rights vs. businesses in the U.S.: unless otherwise provided by legislation (such as the breastfeeding laws), businesses can kick anybody out for any behavior they don't like, as long as it's not really a pretext for discriminating against protected groups (e.g. racial or religious). Churches and other truly non-profit private organizations are protected by the First Amendment; an ultra-Orthodox synagogue that makes women sit behind a screen can't be brought up on discrimination, and neither can a White Nationalist political group that denies membership to blacks. And of course, anybody who's publishing anything is absolutely protected from being forced to publish content for any reason at all. But freedom of speech is a whole different issue from freedom of association.
From Susanne:
"Third and most important, Facebook has a First Amendment right to choose what it will let people publish on their site. Media outlets are not public accommodations like restaurants and hotels - they can discriminate all they like, including among what are considered protected classes WRT public accommodations, employment etc. "
Exactly. Just like an Orthodox Jewish networking site, for example, could refuse to host pictures of married women with uncovered hair, or any woman wearing shorts and a tank top. They aren't prohibiting the act of wearing shorts (etc) itself, just the use of their servers etc to transmit pictures of it.
"just about 18 months or so ago a woman was asked to leave an IParty store because she was discreetly nursing her 3 month in a back aisle (while sitting on the floor)."
I don't know what an IParty store is, but here's the thing. A store has the perfect right to ask me not to plop myself down on the floor and block the aisles, because they are not providing those aisles as my personal seating areas. Whether or not I'm feeding a baby with breast, with bottle, playing scrabble or balancing my checkbook is irrelevant to that. If I were a store owner, I wouldn't take kindly to someone sitting on my store floors and going about their business either.
From Pharmacist:
--I don't know what an IParty store is, but here's the thing. A store has the perfect right to ask me not to plop myself down on the floor and block the aisles, because they are not providing those aisles as my personal seating areas--
Well, as has already been covered, under some states laws, the woman can not be asked to leave a store for breastfeeding--regardless of whether she is sitting on the floor (and I highly doubt this woman was completely blocking the aisle, given that aisles have to be big enough for wheelchair accessibility by law.
--At my previous job which I started when my son was six months old required me to sit in a cube. I let my employer know before I started that I would need a private area to pump 3x per day and that I did not want to use the bathroom as it had no plug. I was assured it would be fine. When I got there though, it turned into an office wide nightmare. --
Oh my. I'm the kind of person, I would have just started pumping at my desk....that may have helped them find me a private office. (in fact I have pumped before in front of co-workers, when there wasn't any private room available except the bathroom.)
From Liz1:
Well, there are some of those photos that I don't find particularly appealing but not a one that I would find obscene. I find "Look at me being a wonderful mother" a bit boring, and bf propaganda more so, but the idea of anyone being upset, offended or corrupted risible. Storm in a D cup?
From ElizabethP:
delurker said: "Sure, Facebook has the "right" to declare these photos obscene. But Facebook users also have the "right" to let the company know they find the policy ridiculous. I don't think the fact that a business is legally within its rights to do something obliges customers to never raise a single objection to anything any business does ever."
Yes! This!
From Ericacrochets:
"If I were a store owner, I wouldn't take kindly to someone sitting on my store floors and going about their business either."
Well, we don't know how wide the aisles were or if it was blocking anyone. I frequently sit on the floor in bookstores, for instance, and no one has ever told me I had to move or was causing a fire hazard.
If they told her, "I'm sorry, but you're blocking people--would you mind moving to a folding chair over here," that would be different. In most states, the law allows women to breastfeed in the grocery store, in Walmart, in Target, etc., and they cannot be asked to leave for breastfeeding.
From I am so wise:
"I am sure you feel a lot of pressure to get fat and bald so that you'll be good enough to land the Hawt Chick Wife, like, oh, about a bazillion sitcoms portray. And of course, you probably get a lot of catcalls on the street; the fear of sexual assault by women is something you and your friends have had to contend with... and then there is the epidemic of male executives being fired left and right by their lady bosses for not having GINORMOUS SCHLONGS!! All of these would doubtless wound the male ego, and make life very hard to bear"
Guys have enormous pressure to maintain body standards that meet media specifications, which is why men have eating disorders (http://menshealth.about.com/od/conditions/a/
eating_disorder.htm). ANd other body issues (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15160230/)
Also men are frequently victims of dating violence. Some of it comes from their partners, a lot more comes from disgruntled x-boyfriends and husbands.
As for telling women what to do, men have to do that because women frequently are unable to do it. Just look at this website. You believe in "natural childbirth" which as Mead will tell you her memoir was invented by men. Ricki Lake plagarizes (yes, she steals them without proper credit) the arguments that doctors made in the 1850s and later in the 1910s against painkillers in birth. The Soviets had to invent Lamaze in order for Soviet women.
In fact, with the exception of the Apgar score, men have been responsible for every major change, for good or bad, in childbirthing for the last few hundred years.
From Susanne:
"Well, we don't know how wide the aisles were or if it was blocking anyone. I frequently sit on the floor in bookstores, for instance, and no one has ever told me I had to move or was causing a fire hazard."
But they would have every right to. And the fact that you were breastfeeding at the time would be irrelevant. And stores are not *required* to provide you seating for whatever activity you decide you happen to want to do in that store at the time.
Some time ago, there was some group of stupids who got all worked up that some store (Victoria's Secret perhaps?) didn't want them sitting in their dressing rooms and breastfeeding. Well, duh, nitwits, VS doesn't want people sitting in their dressing rooms and bottlefeeding either. Or doing crossword puzzles or knitting or playing Monopoly. VS has every right to restrict their dressing rooms for the purposes of trying on clothes and not every customer's pet activity. And VS is not required to "get you a chair" if you decide to breastfeed, any more than if you decide to bottlefeed, do a crossword puzzle, knit or play Monopoly. Go find a bench in the mall or whatever and that's totally cool, but don't be so entitled to think that breastfeeding mothers / babies get to be exempt from normal social rules of conduct.
From Yehudit:
don't be so entitled to think that breastfeeding mothers / babies get to be exempt from normal social rules of conduct.
+++++++++++++
Is it okay in your universe to question, or even challenge, the 'normal social rules of conduct' which in any case change over time. Acting as though you are exempt (and thereby challenging the status quo) might be one mechanism for achieving that change. After all, it is not as if these rules are god given, is it?
From JJ:
"In fact, with the exception of the Apgar score, men have been responsible for every major change, for good or bad, in childbirthing for the last few hundred years."
Oh yes, and women have totally had equal access to education, leadership positions, and the professions, particularly medicine, in the last few hundred years.
From Liz1:
Well. Mr. Wise, being a fellah, and some women being daft enough for anything, I'm sure you can find someone to supervise. Most women have been socialised to listen to men talking rubbish without protest since early adolescence. Think you might have a hard time convincing anyone here though, unless you improve your reading skills.
From Liz1:
Is it okay in your universe to question, or even challenge, the 'normal social rules of conduct'
Why phrase the question so provocatively? Is it not possible to believe that there are some rules of conduct that are common sense and for the general good, and some that should be challenged on principal? If one woman feeds her child in a changing room because it seems convenient at that moment, does that mean all women have the right to insist that they can do it en masse? Don't you think that perhaps that is not quite the same as being asked to leave a restaurant, and might make women seem rather...silly?
From Yehudit:
Is it not possible to believe that there are some rules of conduct that are common sense and for the general good, and some that should be challenged on principal?
++++++++++++
Of course, and in a discussion about them I would want to talk about what made them either common sense or something that should be challenged on principle. The mere fact that something is a normal social rule of conduct tells us nothing about whether it is a good, bad or indifferent rule.
From Emma B:
First, the "right" to breastfeed in public is statutory, not constitutional.
So are most civil rights, which were originally enumerated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in the Americans With Disabilities. The distinction between statutory rights and constitutional rights is pretty meaningless here, as businesses must respect state and federal laws specifically prohibiting discrimination, and establishing breastfeeding as a protected class. They can do whatever they want aside from those laws, and they're free to take legal action to challenge the laws' constitutionality, but until then, the laws hold.
Second, people aren't actually breastfeeding at some facility Facebook owns. The right to actually breastfeed, at any time or place, isn't in play at all, and it's silly to pretend that it is.
If you'll notice, I said that I don't think Facebook's conduct is discriminatory per se, just that it is expressive of the attitude which produces discrimination. I find it objectionable, which is why I think the appropriate response is to object to it. You'll notice I did not suggest they be sued for civil rights violations, as would be warranted if we were talking about actual breastfeeding.
Third and most important, Facebook has a First Amendment right to choose what it will let people publish on their site. Media outlets are not public accommodations like restaurants and hotels
This is an interesting point, because it's not actually clear that Facebook is a media outlet. It is are a social networking website, and all content on the site is user-generated. They're in the same class as Blogger and the Haloscan software I'm using to write this comment, and it's my view that they are more akin to an ISP than to the New York Times. If so, they are actually public accommodations, and the law applies.
From Caryn:
Third and most important, Facebook has a First Amendment right to choose what it will let people publish on their site.
Right. They're not banning breastfeeding while you use the site; they're not removing access to your civil right to breastfeed.
It's odd -- it's sort of like saying that women can vote all they'd like, but shouldn't walk into their business with a picture of themselves voting -- but it doesn't impinge on the right to vote.
I don't think the fact that a business is legally within its rights to do something obliges customers to never raise a single objection to anything any business does ever.
Exactly, and this extends beyond businesses. My example from last thread: adultery is legal in many places, but does that mean it's right for people to commit it?
From Yehudit:
If showing pictures of women putting their ballots in the box were banned on public decency grounds, that would tell us something about attitudes towards the act being represented. And it would make me very concerned for my voting rights.
From Jolene:
Looking through the banned pictures, I think the reason Facebook finds them objectionable is that they are "normal" nursing boobs. IE, it they were perky silicone bulbs on teenagers, they'd be A-OK.
There is the "ick" factor. Who wants to look at sagging, over-used, 30 something boobs laying over flabby stomachs? (no matter what they are being used for)
From Emma B:
Exactly. Just like an Orthodox Jewish networking site, for example, could refuse to host pictures of married women with uncovered hair, or any woman wearing shorts and a tank top. They aren't prohibiting the act of wearing shorts (etc) itself, just the use of their servers etc to transmit pictures of it.
Well, this brings religion into the mix, which is a whole other level of protected content, and is therefore not a very good parallel. Let's say instead that it's a standard poodle owners' dating service, and that they're banning photos of all other dog breeds. That's probably OK, because such a site is much closer to the traditional concept of a media outlet. They've got a specific content focus, and actively involve themselves in their users' posted information to meet that focus. They're already editing for content, which is a key distinction in making them a publishing outlet.
Now let's say that the Blogger management decides to delete all blogs of people who own dogs other than standard poodles. That's far more questionable, because Blogger is not a publishing company -- it's a software company. That the software is used to publish content, doesn't make them a media outlet, any more than a printing-press manufacturer is a newspaper. They host content, in the same way a bookstore hosts books, and a bookstore is not a media outlet either. It's probably still okay, though, because dog breed ownership doesn't have any special legal protection, so breed discrimination is okay. But if Blogger decides to delete the blogs of all Jewish bloggers, is that okay?
IANAL, but I do serve as a system administrator for a hosting company, and I also run a discussion forum, so I've made a good amateur study of the issue. In my judgment, the discussion forum has rights that the hosting service doesn't have. The moderated discussion forum might be able to pull it off, but the hosting company would be on much, much shakier grounds. Facebook is not precisely either, but it's my belief they are closer to the hosting company.
From Emma B:
VS has every right to restrict their dressing rooms for the purposes of trying on clothes and not every customer's pet activity. And VS is not required to "get you a chair" if you decide to breastfeed, any more than if you decide to bottlefeed, do a crossword puzzle, knit or play Monopoly.
Well, this gets into the point I brought up above about where the mother is "otherwise authorized to be". If a mother is only authorized to use a dressing room for the purposes of trying on clothing, then yes, she has to leave when she starts doing anything other than trying on clothing. However, if the store doesn't make a stink about women standing in the dressing room for ten minutes talking on their cell phone, then they can't make a stink about women sitting in the dressing room for ten minutes feeding their babies.
In my own personal dressing room experience, stores aren't exactly policing their dressing rooms that heavily. The inference is that a certain amount of non-clothes-trying activity is allowed, and if that's so, then breastfeeding can't be singled out as a forbidden activity.
From Kat:
"In my own personal dressing room experience, stores aren't exactly policing their dressing rooms that heavily."
I don't know the story about VS and the BF'ing mom, but if they aren't policing their dressing rooms, how would they even know she was BF'ing? I can only imagine it was because she was taking a really long time and somebody knocked. Meaning, it probably wasn't the BF'ing that was the problem but keeping it tied up.
From Caryn:
If showing pictures of women putting their ballots in the box were banned on public decency grounds, that would tell us something about attitudes towards the act being represented. And it would make me very concerned for my voting rights.
And then you might do something like question whether or not you wanted to be a member of the community, or if you found that you valued other services provided to you by the community too much to leave the community, you might join with a group of like-minded people to protest the behavior, right?
From Yehudit:
if you found that you valued other services provided to you by the community too much to leave the community, you might join with a group of like-minded people to protest the behavior, right?
+++++++++
Indeed, which is what is happening here, right?
In fact, if any organization with cultural influence banned representations of women voters (on grounds that such images were offensive) I would be moved to protest, regardless of whether I personally valued their services.
From Yehudit:
Oh, and my reason for doing so would be that if an organization with cultural influence decided that representations of women voters are offensive, it would be indicative of a cultural climate in which women's participation in public life was under threat.
From Caryn:
Indeed, which is what is happening here, right?
Exactly.
From AA:
The IParty (which is a store that sells themed party supplies) Manager threw her out SPECIFICALLY because she was breastfeeding-not because she was sitting in a back aisle of the store (not blocking anyone or anything). He went on to further say that if she had brought a bottle with her he would not have objected to her feeding her baby and he "understood babies get hungry when you are out." So it was the act of breastfeeding that was the issue-which prompted the corporate party of IParty to change their policy and allow women to breastfeed in ALL of their stores.
As for dressing rooms-I've nursed in many a dressing room and never once been "policed" while in there. Most maternity stores will offer up their dressing rooms so you can nurse. Let's face it-a lot of stuff goes on in dressing rooms that has nothing to do with trying on clothes (changing babies, cell phone conversations, time outs for children-I've seen it all). Most retailers have no clue what goes on in there and if you push a carriage in with you, most won't bang on the door and demand to know if you are nursing or not.
The bottom line is that NO ONE objects to bottle feeding babies anywhere and anytime. Store aisles, dressing rooms, restaraunts, etc. People are not discriminated against for bottle feeding in public. But women ARE discriminated against for nursing or pumping which is why 40 states have laws making it lawful to nurse wherever a mother is authorized to be.
There is a bill pending in my state lesgislature right now about this very topic and I can only hope it is passed.
Pharmacist: I contemplated pumping at my desk-my husband was encouraging me do to it but this particular group probably would have had me arrested for it! I've pumped with coworkers before too-in a shared office, etc but this would have been RIGHT in the middle of the office in plain view of the lunchroom. It's pretty bad when male coworkers (with children of their own) are offering up their offices because of it. Seriously-it was an office wide issue. Ugh. I'm so glad to be GONE!!!
From Susanne:
"Let's face it-a lot of stuff goes on in dressing rooms that has nothing to do with trying on clothes (changing babies, cell phone conversations, time outs for children-I've seen it all). "
This is interesting to me, because it's never ever occurred to me to use a dressing room for anything other than the purpose of trying on clothes. I don't think of it as my private spot away-from-home for me to do what I want, but apparently some do. I would change a baby in a bathroom where I had running water and could dispose of what I needed to, not a dressing room. Yuck.
"The bottom line is that NO ONE objects to bottle feeding babies anywhere and anytime."
Sure they do. Places that babies (however fed) don't belong. Like yoga class.
And yeah, I would think someone who just plopped down on the floor at Target and started to bottlefeed was a little clueless. Go find a bench like a normal person.
From Jen:
""The bottom line is that NO ONE objects to bottle feeding babies anywhere and anytime."
Sure they do. Places that babies (however fed) don't belong. Like yoga class.
And yeah, I would think someone who just plopped down on the floor at Target and started to bottlefeed was a little clueless. Go find a bench like a normal person."
Ok, but in places where babies are normally allowed (since I believe that is what AA was referring to)? For instance, do we ever hear of women being asked to take their bottle-fed babies to the restroom in a restaurant? Asked to cover the baby's head when bottle-feeding outdoors, etc?
And, of course, just cause you thought someone clueless for plopping on the floor to feed their baby doesn't really mean anything...other than you think they're clueless
From Ericacrochets:
"And yeah, I would think someone who just plopped down on the floor at Target and started to bottlefeed was a little clueless. Go find a bench like a normal person."
I agree it would be unusual, and I personally would prefer to feed the baby in my car. But sometimes you can't find a bench, maybe it's really cold outside, or you haven't checked out yet, and the baby is screaming...
In the early months of breastfeeding, the amount of time a baby spends at the breast can be massive, depending on the strength of the baby's suck, the flow of the milk, etc. And breastmilk digests really fast. I found myself in a position a couple of times where I was out for a walk in my old neighborhood with a screaming 4-week-old, who had woken up before I expected. I wanted just to plop down on the curb and feed him, but didn't feel comfortable in front of someone's house, so I had to let him scream for 15 minutes while I walked home as fast as I could. If I'd had a bottle with me, I think it would have been more socially acceptable to sit down on a curb and feed him.
From Emma B:
Agreeing with Erica here, from experience. I usually think people will be more offended by a screaming baby than a nursing mother. I've nursed in dressing rooms too, and it can be easier than a bench, since there's no need to fool with a blanket.
It's hard to get an appreciation for the sometimes-complicated mechanics of nursing unless you've done it. It's really not like a bottle that just happens to be attached to your body.
From Liz1:
In my early days with two small children, I formed the impression that the "adult" world would much prefer it if mothers and children stayed behind closed doors for, say, the first ten years, and that there wasn't a lot of tolerance for small children anywhere. Lots of lip service "admiration" for mothers, not a lot of tolerance.
From AA:
I nursed at my older son's yoga class-no objections there. It's all about context. Would I even bring my baby to my heated flow yoga class-no-so it's really a moot point. I have never even seen a baby in my adult yoga studio.
The point was NOT that she plopped down, it was that the store objected to her nursing there. They probably would have objected to her using the bench outside which was more obvious and in plain sight of anyone entering or leaving the store.
I "plopped" down in the aisle at the library because it was more discreet than the chairs in the middle of the room or the bench outside. I had a restless 3 year old that wanted out of the house, and a 4-week old infant. Should I have just stayed home and inside because I wasn't yet a nursing pro? No-I went to library, to the child friendly children's room and when my baby woke up hungry I picked an aisle where my son could play with books and I could turn my back and face the books for more privacy. Is that socially objectionable? Should I have gone to the bench out on the street and watched my 3 year old have a tantrum while my little one progressed to full on scream mode making latching way more obvious and difficult? Now that would be objectionable and I would have opened myself up to way more scrutiny than the aisle I chose to sit down and nurse-where BTW no one saw me let alone objected to my actions.
You can't have it both ways-you can't tell women to be discreet but then tell them to use a bench or a more public venue when you don't like where they picked to be discreet-be that a dressing room, back store aisle, or what not.
Either women are allowed to nurse where they are "allowed" to be-or not. End of story.
From Susanne:
Don't look at me, I'm not "telling" women to be more discreet. I've never noticed a bfing mother in any way that was inappropriate -- every one I've ever seen was just going about her business and there was nothing for anyone to object to. I can certainly see your situation at the library and understand why you'd sit there vs chairs in the middle. I still think plopping down in the aisles at a party store or the aisles of Target is a bit odd, but whatever
From AA:
I don't disagree that an store aisle is an odd place to go But having had that panicked feeling of "oh no my child is hungry NOW" I can relate somewhat to why she did it. Personally, I would have gone out to my car where I spent some quality time those first few months-thank god for tinted windows!
From Liz1:
Could we perhaps agree that there are some times when plopping on the floor in a store is appropriate and some times when it isn't? (wouldn't think anyone could object to a children's library)
And could we also perhaps agree that sometimes this is a real and important issue, and sometimes it is fake excuse to make a fuss? And that women might be taken more seriously if they could tell the difference?
From flim flam:
i'm no lactvivst but still, anywhere you can bottlefeed it should be okay to breatfeed.
i wonder if there's a little bit of old school american puritanism going on here? because honestly, in australia it's really not a big issue.
i've breasfed pretty much everywhere, particularly with my daughter who seemed to get hungry at the worst possible times. I refuse to feed my babies in a toilet with the smell of urine and faeces all around. yuck!
(you can call it a restroom/bathroom all you like but it's still a toilet).
The whole fuss around janet jacksons nipple a couple of years back (nipplegate?) was utterly incomprenhensible to most of the rest of the western world. it's just a breast people!.
In a culture saturated with sexualised images of woman and tits everywhere why is a baby at the breast so confonting?. It's a strange world where i can switch on the TV and see women getting raped, murdered, stalked and mutilated by serial killers and their bodies laid out naked on a slab ( CSI, criminal intent etc) but a picture of a breastfeeding women is offensive....
From flim flam:
and yes liz1, i think sometimes it is an excuse to make a fuss and feel persecuted ( a la the sarahz's of the world) and we do indeed need to be able to tell the difference. there is such a thing as common courtesy. just because you can doesn't mean you always should. i never fed in front of my babies great grandad because it clearly made him uncomfortable. he's in his 80's and it's just plain rude to deliberately make someone feel bad.
From Indy:
I think Liz1's words are very wise. This is a battle worth fighting, but efforts would be much more effective if they were directed at realistic situations.
Nothing is wrong with breastfeeding in a food court off to the side. But, someone sitting on the couch in the center of the front door at Pottery Barn doing so (which I have seen recently) is a bit over the top.
After all, even lactivists love to espouse the bonding aspects of it, don't you want to be at least a little bit discreet about that special time together? Or is the purpose to advertise how good of a mommy you are?
People are a lot more understanding of things if they aren't shoved down their throats. If I see someone giving a mother a hard time about breastfeeding in a non-advertising manner you can bet I'll be all over the complainer's rude ass.
It does make me wonder a bit what the fuss over Facebook is all about. What are the motivations for posting the images? Is it to brag or show off? Breastfeeding is a good thing, but why post pictures of it other than for exhibitionism? To me, it creeps me out knowing that someone might be using my images for an, umm ... unintended purpose ... if you know what I mean.
From Christy:
LadyinRed-- I think you're misinformed. They've removed PLENTY of pictures that had NO nipple or areola in them at all. It's all been very haphazard.
Also, why post pictures? Because breastfeeding is just another of those precious moments we have with our babies. Why post pictures of them sleeping in that cute position you find them in, or of them seeing a puppy for the first time, or anything? Because it's a sweet and precious memory of their baby/childhood we want to remember and share.
From Kat:
I have to agree that sometimes posting pictures of breastfeeding is a good thing. The "why" about it may be for bonus points or it may be to normalize it once again. I wish people could see a discreetly feeding woman and think nothing of it. We aren't there yet and that is a shame.
From Ericacrochets:
I agree with Christy. I don't have many pictures of myself breastfeeding, but I like looking at breastfeeding pictures.
Why LadyInRed, do you think that in religous imagery, there are so many pictures of Jesus at Mary's breast? Because breastfeeding is very meaningful to many people.
I wonder why people post drunk images of themselves and their friends acting stupid and drunk. Also crossdressing. I don't see the point in it, but they're not doing anything illegal, and Facebook has no reason to remove them.
From Ericacrochets:
"I wish people could see a discreetly feeding woman and think nothing of it. We aren't there yet and that is a shame."
It's only conditioning that makes it a shock for us to see a woman's bare breasts--there are many, many cultures where it's not a big deal to be topless, and it is only in very, very recent history that it was shocking to breastfeed in public. I hope that first we will get used to seeing discretely feeding women and then eventually the sight of a breast won't shock us at all.
Even I, who have always been a supporter of breastfeeding, felt uncomfortable around other women breastfeeding until I had gotten a lot of practice with it (being around other women breastfeeding). Our culture just loads us up with a lot of baggage in regards to breasts.
And if we were used to seeing real breasts, then maybe women won't feel like they have to pay thousands of dollars to look like Barbie.
From Indy:
Well, I have many pictures of those "precious moments" of my children as well. Pictures of things like their first bubble bath in the big tub or when the little one thought it was funny to run away from Daddy chasing her with her clothes that one morning. You won't see me sharing those memories on the Internet either.
If you want to change the stigma associated with showing bare breasts to go away you are going to have to convince an awful lot of people to not be sexually stimulated by seeing them. Good luck and I will support you if you can do it.
From Liz1:
...you are going to have to convince an awful lot of people to not be sexually stimulated by seeing them...
I don't believe for a minute that this has got anything to do with being sexually stimulated. I don't think it has that much to do with the policing of women's bodies that at its extreme leads to the wearing of the burka either. Where are the protests about thong swimsuits, tits on TV and as someone mentions above, the use of women's bodies to constantly tease, titillate, and sell?
No, I think this is motivated by a puritanism that has little to do with sexuality, and a lot more to do with images of mothers, and a rather interesting fear of what is "natural". Paint childbirth as painless and gore free, and "natural" appeals. It's sexy! Engorged dripping breasts are the antithesis of that.
From Susanne:
I personally feel a bit uncomfortable if I'm next to a woman breastfeeding, because I feel like I'm intruding on something very private. And I still can't help but think "ouch" and want to cross my arms over my chest at the thought. Having said that, that's totally my problem / issue, not hers. I've sat next to women on airplanes and women on the beach who were bfing and made pleasant chit-chat with them appropriate to the situation and they wouldn't sense my discomfort -- the discomfort is my problem, not theirs. Frankly I've never seen any woman breastfeeding in any "hang-it-all-out" manner IRL, which leads me to suspect that the vast majority of women are discreet (and by discreet I don't mean blanket over the head, that to me screams "guess what I'm doing) and there are a few who want to make a statement about it. Some of the photos were definitely "statement" photos, but others were as innocuous as can be.
From Jen:
"If you want to change the stigma associated with showing bare breasts to go away you are going to have to convince an awful lot of people to not be sexually stimulated by seeing them."
So do you believe that people in cultures that don't have the stigma don't find breasts sexually stimulating? I believe Liz1 was talking about bare breasts in France, and it wasn't a big deal...do the French not find breasts sexually stimulating? Personally, I think it's all about context...it seems only in our culture do we want to think the breast is sexual in EVERY context.
From Liz1:
I think this is a complex and intriguing question - and I am no expert. Are all men turned on by viewing all and any breast in any context? No idea, but I doubt it. And if they were, is it their responsibility to deal with those feelings, or does the responsibility lie with the owner of the breast?
I do think it is heavily dependent on context and cultural norms. Sex in the head is probably far more of a problem than biological responses.
From Susanne:
"If you want to change the stigma associated with showing bare breasts to go away you are going to have to convince an awful lot of people to not be sexually stimulated by seeing them."
I think it's really odd how you're jumping to believing that the discomfort is about the sexual nature / stimulation of women's breasts. One can think that breastfeeding is a private matter without objecting on the basis of She's Showing Her Sexy Lady Parts.
From Yehudit:
One can think that breastfeeding is a private matter without objecting on the basis of She's Showing Her Sexy Lady Parts.
++++++++++++
Surely the only way that one can think of breastfeeding as a private matter is to think of breastfed babies as belonging to a private domain (and their mothers too).
From Susanne:
Huh? I don't understand your last statement at all. And I totally think women have the right to breastfeed in public -- any place where it would be appropriate for them to bottlefeed or otherwise care for a baby. I think there are some places where it's inappropriate to do so -- but it would be equally inappropriate to bottlefeed a baby in those places as well. I definitely think some women think that breastfeeding gives them some magical right to do it wherever they please, kind of like how you see people changing their children's diapers in public places (outside bathrooms), and I can object to someone changing a diaper on a bench at the mall, but not because I'm seeing Baby's Private Parts.
From Susanne:
"Either women are allowed to nurse where they are "allowed" to be-or not. End of story."
But just because you're allowed to be someplace doesn't mean you're entitled to do everything-you-want-to-do in that someplace. I'm entitled to go into a dressing room to try on clothing; I'm not entitled to go into a dressing room and take it up playing scrabble for 30 minutes, so I fail to see why I'm entitled to take it up to feed my baby (by WHATEVER method). I'm entitled to breastfeed my baby on the bench at the mall, but I'm not entitled to change her diaper there and the mall management has a right to object. I'm entitled to BE in the party store, but I'm not entitled to sit down on the floor of that store and make myself at home and just do my own thing.
From Liz1:
Generally speaking I would have to agree with you that feeding a child does not belong to a private, intimate sphere. On the other hand, isn't that a bit disingenuous? What about the private, intimate, bonding aspect of it? The public acceptance of "forbidden" display? What if your child wants to eat (messily)a burger and fries in the public library?
From Yehudit:
kind of like how you see people changing their children's diapers in public places (outside bathrooms), and I can object to someone changing a diaper on a bench at the mall,
+++++++++++
Indeed, and that's because soiled nappies are not something you want to see in a public space. However, the length of time spent changing a nappy is insignificant, compared to the length of time that breastfed babies spend feeding. Also, nappy-changing in private does not particularly penalize the person who does it (beyond the inconvenience of finding a baby-changing facility). By contrast, breastfeeding in private can penalize the person who does it, since it means that means that the woman must spend relatively long periods with her baby as sole companion.
While the timing of feeding at the breast can be manipulated to some degree, it remains the case that babies feel hungry when they feel hungry - and they let mothers (and everyone else) know it. They also feed at different rates - some quickly, some slowly (a bit like adults really). This being the case, mothers are not entirely in a position to predict when or for how long their breastfed babies will need to be fed.
If breastfeeding is a private act (for whatever reason) then breastfed babies belong in a private domain (and their mothers too).
From Yehudit:
What about the private, intimate, bonding aspect of it?
++++++++++
But is the bond of parent and child something that must not be exhibited in public? Remind me not to give my children hugs and kisses when I pick them up from the childminder.
From Susanne:
"You can't have it both ways-you can't tell women to be discreet but then tell them to use a bench or a more public venue when you don't like where they picked to be discreet-be that a dressing room, back store aisle, or what not."
There is a distinction that's being lost here. Within public spaces (and let's keep this to a typical mall just for argument's sake), there are spaces within there that you are in essence "renting" for your own purposes during the time you occupy it, and spaces that are still not intended for your-use-to-do-whatever-you-want.
As an example, let's take playing scrabble. It's innocuous, harms no one, doesn't disturb anyone, isn't indecent, etc.
If I go to the mall, I AM entitled to sit on the bench in the mall and take out my scrabble board. I AM entitled to sit in a food court area and play scrabble as long as I like. I AM entitled to play scrabble while I'm waiting for my food in a restaurant. Those spaces are set aside to be "my resting space" to do what I please, within appropriate limits of not disturbing others.
But not all public areas in our hypothetical mall are for me to do whatever-I-want. The dressing rooms are not my personal resting spaces for me to do what I want. The floor of a store is not mine to do what I want. I am entitled to be in those spaces, but I am not entitled to use them for any purpose that comes to my mind, the way I could with the bench in the mall or the food court type of area. The store can easily say "We reserve the rooms for trying on clothes" or "We can't have people sitting on our floors, please get up." DEven though my scrabble game is perfectly non-offensive. Don't you see the difference?
There's a huge distinction IMO, and it seems to me that overly-anxious lactivists blur the difference between breastfeeding on the bench or chair or restaurant where they are entitled to be, and breastfeeding on the floor of the store, where no one is "entitled" to sit for any reason.
And that's why they shoot themselves in the foot, because they confuse the very real "I'm entitled to sit on the bench or in the restaurant and breastfeed" with the annoying, pompous, entitled and tacky "I'm entitled to just plop wherever I want to and take up whatever space and time I want to breastfeed and if you don't like it, too bad." No, having a nursing baby doesn't give you license to plop wherever you want to and take up whatever space and time you want. You don't get special dispensation.
From Yehudit:
What if your child wants to eat (messily)a burger and fries in the public library?
+++++++++++
Children are not allowed in the kinds of libraries I tend to use. When lastborn was tiny and I was on maternity leave, it caused me huge inconvenience not to be able to pick up a book when I was with him, even if he was asleep in his sling (thus causing no inconvenience to anyone). But rules are rules. (Indeed, I was told that since I was on maternity leave I shouldn't be using the library anyway - engage womb, disengage brain, apparently....)
As for not allowing food and drinks - well, the usual reason given is risk of damage to books. In this respect, feeding from a breast would seem to pose less potential for accident than from a bottle (short of a very dramatic milk ejection reflex).
From Susanne:
"By contrast, breastfeeding in private can penalize the person who does it, since it means that means that the woman must spend relatively long periods with her baby as sole companion."
But I've not SAID women need to breastfeed in private. You're arguing something I haven't said. I'm arguing the distinction between said woman sitting on a bench and doing so, versus commandeering a dressing room or plopping down on the floor of a store. The first one is more "public" but I think she has FAR more right to sit on the bench in the mall and breastfeed, than she does to commandeer spaces that aren't hers to commandeer for any reason other than the reason intended by the store owner. Because she has no more "right" to sit on the floor of the store and breastfeed than I do to sit on the floor of the store and pull out my scrabble game. The not-very-bright lactivists don't get the distinction.
From Emma B:
One can think that breastfeeding is a private matter without objecting on the basis of She's Showing Her Sexy Lady Parts.
Can you elucidate what you think is private, other than sexy-lady-parts? The simple act of a baby eating isn't innately private, I don't think -- you wouldn't feel that way about a baby being bottlefed, or given a jar of baby food, I assume. Yes, there's the magical special preshus bonding, but you can bond and snuggle with your baby while bottlefeeding him, or even without feeding. Plus, breastfeeding doesn't *have* to involve that -- sometimes you do it while you're on the phone or reading a book or posting a comment on Homebirth Debate.
Other than the breast involvement, I don't see the inherent privacy of the act. Would you explain why you feel that's so?
From Susanne:
I want to be clear - when I talk about private, I'm talking about *my own* feelings, not where the woman has the right to breastfeed. As I've said before, she has every right to sit on the bench (etc) in a public setting and breastfeed. I've sat in hotel lodges around a fire with women who were breastfeeding. I've sat in museum cafeterias and Starbucks and around a hotel pool and other similar places with women breastfeeding and they had *every right* to do so. So when I talk about private, I'm talking about *my own personal* feelings when I'm next to a woman doing so, NOT that she is obligated to do so in privacy. Make sense?
Now, to your question. It feels, *to me* that I am witnessing an intimate act. Not a "dirty" act, not a "sexual" act, but just one that's very personal and intimate, and that I feel like I'm a bit of a voyeur by being around it. Which again, isn't this woman's problem, and she needn't remedy it by scurrying away, so I am NOT suggesting it's anything other than my feelings.
From Susanne:
Let me ask the question another way. How many of you would (hypothetically of course) take your breast pump to the mall and start pumping away, whether it's on the bench, on the floor of the store, whatever? Would you do so directly in front of other people (excluding friends / loved ones, or lactation consultants / medical professionals who were helping you)? There's nothing WRONG with pumping, it's not "sexy", it's not "dirty," it's not "obscene," but I think most people would consider it a private act, that they would prefer not to perform in front of other people, and I think most people would find it odd to go to Starbucks and have someone sitting next to them whip out and start using a breast pump.
Is pumping a private matter, typically? Can it be a private matter just because it's private, and not because it's "too sexy"?
From Liz1:
Yehudit, I wasn't referring to the ordinary displays of affection between mother and child, but that mysterious process known as "bonding" - you know, the one that is ruined forever if everything isn't "just so".
That children are somewhat out of place in academic libraries comes as no great surprise to me. But you seem a lot more sanguine than I was at the idea that mothers can comfortably be disqualified from the adult world for the duration. For a lot of years, where I went, my children went, and I feel very strongly that there is plenty of room for change in the assumption that it is OK and socially acceptable to treat mothers as pariahs. Children should not dominate or disrupt adult spaces, and the kind of Mama that expects the world to share her indulgence of her little precious is a menace to us all but as children are a public good, I think some of the comfortable assumptions about where mothers should and shouldn't be deserve questioning.
From Myriam:
I think the difference with pumping is that there is no urgency involved. Babies have to be fed when they have to be fed; they have no conception of being able to hold on for 15 minutes or that the hunger they are feeling will be relieved shortly.
Apologies, Susanne, if that doesn't really address your point. I haven't read this thread carefully.
From Susanne:
It doesn't address my question, though; is it a private act, that most people would feel uncomfortable doing in a public space and/or that most people would feel uncomfortable inadvertently witnessing (if they were not a friend/family member/healthcare worker)? I understand that it's a *different* act, with less *urgency.* But the urgency of an act isn't really related to the privacy of that act, or the "right" to do it anyplace one happens to be.
From Yehudit:
the one that is ruined forever if everything isn't "just so".
++++++++
That would be the kind of bonding that is a myth, right? So I'm not sure why we're introducing it here as a factor in the *real world* of breastfeeding women/breastfed babies in public spaces.
As for mothers being comfortably be disqualified from the adult world for the duration, I don't know why you say I'm sanguine....
From Yehudit:
Well, you see a bodily fluid squirting into a container, and get an eyeful of a the woman's massively elongated nipple through the clear plastic funnel. (I guess opaque could be sold for the purpose, should public pumping ever catch on). So I guess the a squeamishness factor is potentially greater.
You also generally see more breast than with breastfeeding (since in breastfeeding the view of the breast is interrupted by the head and body of the baby).
I'm not sure if those make a categorical difference though.
From AA:
"There is a distinction that is being lost here."
I don't think it is. I have said many times that it is all about context. If it's not an appropriate place for a baby, then it's not an appropriate place for breastfeeding either.
Women breastfeeding in dressing rooms or store aisles is no different than women bottlefeeding in these same places. It's just more socially acceptable to see a woman (or man) bottlefeeding on a mall bench than it is to see them breastfeeding. Before I was really good at breastfeeding (for at least the first 8 weeks) I sought out discreet places to nurse to ease my own comfort level. Some stores (such as Nordstrom's) have very nice women's lounges separate from bathrooms that are wonderful-but not all malls have Nordstroms so you take the next best option. I would never go to a super busy store with a long line for the changing room and occupy a room for a long period of time-that is rude. But a quiet store, with many open dressing rooms-I would have taken my bottlefeeding baby there too to cut down on distractions. And honestly, most store owners DON'T care. In fact, many children and maternity stores welcome nursing or bottlefeeding mothers in their dressing rooms.
As for pumping in public that is a totally insane comparison. It is possible to pump discreetly but to pump effectively you are basically sitting topless with your nipples in clear sight being pulled by an electric pump.
Breastfeeding makes some people uncomfortable and the vocal ones say something. I am not some flaming lactivist-but I do resent being told that I'm doing something improper if I utilize an empty dressing room, or the back of a quiet library to feed my child.
Arguments like this send the message that if you nurse and are not comfortable subjecting yourself to a public bench in a mall you should just stay home. If you aren't comfortable in plain sight of everyone, then don't seek out a more quiet place because you're "taking advantage" of a business.
When my youngest son was a couple of months old we were all out at the mall on a rainy Sunday. He woke up in the sling hungry and we were at Babystyle because my older son liked to ride around on their little cars (I guess we were taking advantage there too because we weren't going to buy the car but we did let him ride on it while we looked around the store). I told my husband I was going to walk to Nordstrom's to feed him and the sales clerk overheard me. She ushered me into the dressing room and told me to nurse there. There was no need to trek across a large mall to a nursing lounge.
We ended up buying a cute little onsie because after riding the toys and using the dressing room I felt I had to do something.
I guess though I should have just stayed home.
From Susanne:
"Women breastfeeding in dressing rooms or store aisles is no different than women bottlefeeding in these same places."
Am I not making myself clear? I don't think I have any "right" to use a dressing room to spend 20 minutes bottlefeeding my baby either! Or play scrabble! Or take a nap! Or sip my latte and paint my nails! Or to do ANYTHING, for that matter, other than try on clothes, because the dressing room is not "mine" to do with it what I want!
I can think of no place where bottlefeeding is appropriate where breastfeeding wouldn't equally be. Stop trying to suggest that I am saying that some public places are bottlefeeding-appropriate but not breastfeeding-appropriate, because that's not what I'm saying.
From Susanne:
'Arguments like this send the message that if you nurse and are not comfortable subjecting yourself to a public bench in a mall you should just stay home. If you aren't comfortable in plain sight of everyone, then don't seek out a more quiet place because you're "taking advantage" of a business."
Maybe it's just habit. It would never have occurred to me to think of a store dressing room as a quiet place for my convenience to do whatever I might want peace and quiet and privacy for. I think of it as a space the store provides me for the explicit purpose of trying on clothing. Is this really a common POV? Learn something new everyday.
From Susanne:
"I told my husband I was going to walk to Nordstrom's to feed him and the sales clerk overheard me. She ushered me into the dressing room and told me to nurse there."
Certainly there's nothing wrong with that, because the store invited you. How nice of the clerk -- seriously! You don't see a difference between that, and someone tying up a dressing room with their own activities?
From Ericacrochets:
"Some stores (such as Nordstrom's) have very nice women's lounges separate from bathrooms that are wonderful-but not all malls have Nordstroms so you take the next best option."
Good to know!
From Ericacrochets:
"Maybe it's just habit. It would never have occurred to me to think of a store dressing room as a quiet place for my convenience to do whatever I might want peace and quiet and privacy for"
I have never breastfed in a dressing room. I certainly would not stand in line and then take up 45 minutes in there while other people are waiting to try on clothes--that would be quite rude. In a store that's not crowded, however, and has available rooms, I don't see anything wrong with asking to use the room to feed your child. Or if the rooms are not being monitored, to just go on in and use them. So, yes, I agree that breastfeeding mothers don't have some kind of "right" to hog dressing rooms.
If stores find that it is a problem, it might benefit them to put a couple of small armchairs in the back of the store and maybe a "breastfeeding friendly" sign.
From Kat:
I don't see the argument here. Or am I missing something? Susanne isn't saying it should be kept private and at home. She is just making the logical point that you don't lay down in the middle of the mall to feed your baby because he likes that position. Feed your baby all you want but don't do anything you wouldn't do if you were bottlefeeding. Seems reasonable.
I can also agree with Susanne that it is semi-private activity that doesn't need to be private. Does that make sense? What I mean is that it would bother me when people would engage me in conversation while BF'ing. It wasn't a magical moment I was experiencing but it was just odd when sitting on a bench at the mall trying to feed the baby and move on a co-worker would stop by and have a conversation with me. It was part (my boob is in my baby's mouth right now) and part (while breastfeeding I go completely dumb) and part (this is just odd).
That could be just me though.
From Esther:
I can't get behind this campaign, though I see nothing offensive about breastfeeding per se, even in public (if done discreetly, and no, that doesn't mean 'nurse in a burka'). I don't see the problem with the nursing pic posted in Amy's essay, but some of the ones in the link posted by LadyinRed strike me more as lactofanatics acting out than a sincere attempt to promote breastfeeding, frankly.
Just a few points regarding the Facebook incident (which is not, IMO, the same as campaigning to prevent nursing women from being kicked out of Taco Bell):
* If I understand correctly, the purpose of Facebook is for people to post pictures of themselves so old friends can get in touch. I can't imagine posting a pic of your nursing baby from an odd angle would be very helpful for that. There's also the issue we've discussed here more than once in the context of homebirth - why do women feel they need to define themselves according to a bodily function of theirs (in this case, functioning breasts)?
* I wrote a blogpost about breastfeeding in public and linked to a picture of an actress breastfeeding most indiscreetly. More than 3 months later, I get numerous hits via Google Images daily by people looking for "hot breasts exposed", "sexy nursing", and other such search terms. I might add that many if not most of these hits are "Oh, we're sooo blase about tits" Europe. (Apparently some European men have yet to get the memo).
If I were the owner Facebook, I wouldn't welcome such company myself. Let the horny men seek their images on porn sites.
* I'm not so sure it's a good idea to sexually desensitize men to breasts. It's possible to own up to the fact that breasts have more than one function (for most of the world that owns computers, certainly) while encouraging BF, even in public.
* Courtesy can't be legislated on a nationa level, but a private website can insist its members be considerate of others' feelings.
From Susanne:
"I don't see the problem with the nursing pic posted in Amy's essay, but some of the ones in the link posted by LadyinRed strike me more as lactofanatics acting out than a sincere attempt to promote breastfeeding, frankly."
Completely agree.
From Alexis:
The thing about privacy, though, is that many women would, all else being equal, prefer to breastfeed somewhere private (or at least semi-private--so they might not feel the need to go into a bedroom when at someone's house, but would prefer not to do it in the middle of the mall) for reasons which may or may not have to do with modesty. (If you have an easily distracted baby, feeding--breast or bottle--in the middle of a crowded place can be difficult. And modesty doesn't just mean the acceptability, or lack thereof, of breasts--many women may be uncomfortable at showing other parts of their bodies.)
However, all else is not equal. Baby wants to be fed NOW, somewhere appropriate isn't easily available, whatever. So, as much as some women value quiet or privacy in theory, they're not always willing to be inconvenienced for it.
Theory and reality are not always aligned...
From Alexis:
I would certainly understand if facebook had deleted the ones where the woman is completely topless or the baby is not latched on--having a baby in the frame doesn't make it a breastfeeding photo. However, they haven't even been enforcing their own rule correctly--many of the deleted photos meet their own stated criteria. Facebook dug their own hole on this.
From Esther:
Ericacrochets:"I have never breastfed in a dressing room. I certainly would not stand in line and then take up 45 minutes in there while other people are waiting to try on clothes--that would be quite rude. In a store that's not crowded, however, and has available rooms, I don't see anything wrong with asking to use the room to feed your child. Or if the rooms are not being monitored, to just go on in and use them. So, yes, I agree that breastfeeding mothers don't have some kind of "right" to hog dressing rooms."
If that happened over here, I would think the store owner would offer the woman a chair to sit in wherever the nursing mother felt comfortable. There was a woman nursing a small baby (discreetly in the sense of not showing excess breast, but it was perfectly clear what she was doing) in one of the aisles at my local supermarket the other day. One of the employees had set her up with a chair. Nobody thought it scandalous, of course.
From Ericacrochets:
"It wasn't a magical moment I was experiencing but it was just odd when sitting on a bench at the mall trying to feed the baby and move on a co-worker would stop by and have a conversation with me."
Well, I wouldn't mind this at all. In fact, it makes me feel more comfortable if people just treat me like they normally would. But I have spent so many hours of my life (spread over more than 3 years) breastfeeding that it really feels no different than breathing, as in automatic.
From Ericacrochets:
"I'm not so sure it's a good idea to sexually desensitize men to breasts. It's possible to own up to the fact that breasts have more than one function (for most of the world that owns computers, certainly) while encouraging BF, even in public."
A few generations ago in the USA, it was shocking to show a woman's thigh. Even though it may be erotic to look at an individual woman's thigh, men don't do around with hard-ons when around women in miniskirts or when women wear bathing suits.. I guess they are "densensitized." Men can still find an attractive pair of breasts to be erotic even if they are used to seeing them. But it allows women more freedom.
Why shouldn't I be able to sunbathe or garden topless in my backyard if a hypothetical old guy down the street who has breasts from being fat can mow the lawn topless if he wants to?
Nipples can be erogenous zones on men, but we don't force men to cover them at the beach.
Throughout most of history in most parts of the world, breasts were not this BIG DEAL SUPER EROTIC parts of the body.
From delurker:
So I wasn't going to say anything else, but all this talk about the dressing room versus the food court made me realize something. Some of you are treating the mother who wants to use the dressing room as imposing herself more upon the store/society in general, but the REASON a woman would want to use a dressing room is because she wants privacy. She doesn't want to use the food court or a bench or whatever because she feels self-conscious or is worried someone will say something. If women felt more comfortable about breastfeeding in public, I don't think you'd see them taking up a dressing room for half an hour (and I don't totally disagree with those who say it has the potential to be an imposition - it does - depending on how long the baby takes to feed). Me, I would use the food court. I never had a problem with anyone confronting me about breastfeeding in public, but you do see times where people have complained about women breastfeeding in restraunts. Because women get more crap for doing it the places that I would agree are more "appropriate" for it, it seems a little unfair to get on the case of the woman who tries to use the dressing room.
From Alexis:
(clarification - by "somewhere appropriate" I don't mean "appropriate for breastfeeding", I mean that it's suitable for doing so privately should one wish to. I just realized it could be read both ways.)
From AA:
Delurker: you summarized my point exactly.
From Margaret:
facebook: I've thought that was such a silly restriction.
i have seen horrible stuff, and outright porn on facebook. But breastfeeding is "offensive"?
Commenting by HaloScan
