UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30342953

Nigel has once again shared some of his pearls of wisdom with us.

I find it perverse that we live in culture where people can happily sit at a table reading The Sun with page three but that a breastfeeding women fulfilling the natural function of her breast is made to feel uncomfortable. Why should she do something different because it causes embarrassment to others?

What the hell is 'ostentatious' breastfeeding? Some kind of ritzy, blinged up display with an announcement beforehand?

Nigel, I find you embarrassing, please go and sit in the corner.

In reply to TMM:


What's his policy regarding naked rambling?

In reply to TMM:

One of the things that confuses me about this whole thing is that of the many women I know who have had kids and choosen to brestfeed, none of them wanted to show off their boobs, and all carried a shawl amongst their baby kit for this reason, but I think this was more of a ocncenr for their modesty rather than worrying about what other people think.

Given the ferocious nature of the brest feeding movement, this could quite well be the hole that sinks the UKIP ship

In reply to balmybaldwin:

To be fair to him (I know, why should we?), it looks like he was asked about something he couldn't really give a toss about and tried to give a measured answer.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

In the last election I recall some of the political parties were trying to influence forums like mumsnet as they were aware what a vociferous and mobilising group they were.

I dislike the binary approach of NCT. I disliked their session intensely as they did not hold up to any form of scrutiny. When asked any questions that might involve FACTS rather than feelings they were distinctly short coming. I also felt that they set parents up for failure. When a 'natural' birth is not possible then you have to judge that against the prejudiced information they have been feeding you. Same issue with breastfeeding.

I just don't get what other people's problems are with someone else in the room, train, bus etc breastfeeding. Let them get on with it! Having a baby is hard enough work without needing to consider if you're some how offending the UKIP prude at the next table.

In reply to TMM: Unsurprisingly Farage has got the issue arse about face, there would have been no issue if Claridges had merely refused entry to the child.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


He said it was fine for a woman to be asked to "perhaps sit in a corner".

I don't think that is a 'measured answer.'

In reply to TMM:

Put him on the naughty step.

In reply to TMM:






I find it perverse that we live in a culture where people read The Sun at all, or that it even exists.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


To be honest, whilst I've not known anyone who wants to use breastfeeding as an opportunity to flaunt their boobs, I've never known any of my friends carry a shawl either (and I've only seen someone use one once). Breastfeeding simply isn't normally terribly revealing (as the pair of photos tweeted from Claridges demonstrate well).

In reply to TMM:

So if I meet Farage, can I accuse him of being openly ostentatious, tell him that I am embarrassed by his presence and ask him to sit in a corner under a blanket?

In reply to ByEek:

He has left himself open to every Dennis Pennis using that on him now. Having said he appears to be made from some Teflon coated Kevlar structure given the $hite he and his party spout. None of sticks and none of it damages him. Someone should call DuPont.

In reply to TMM:

What do you think Cleggnuts, and Camoron would've said to the same question? And who gives a flying Fcuk anyway?

In reply to TMM:


True - and I guess on this point, the number of people who genuinely care about or have an opinion on breast feeding is quite small so where there will no doubt be a quite a vocal who-har about it all, it doesn't really change much about him.

In reply to dek:


Well people clearly care enough to post, you for instance have joined the debate with your erudite observations.

I think that an astute politician in the 21st Century would seek to recognise the challenge of business to keep all their customers happy but that the rights of the mother to feed their child in an unfettered manner are more important than someone else's possible embarrassment.

Why should a mother alter perfectly reasonable and responsible behaviour as a result of someone else's possible embarrassment. Their embarrassment is a result of their own prejudice.

What do you think they may have said?

In reply to ByEek:

Ha! brilliant!

In reply to TMM:

Daily Mash - one step ahead of Farage again... It's like he think it's a geniune news source:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/society-obsessed-with-breasts-ex...

In reply to ByEek:


Nah. Not that you're embarrassed, but that you think someone else (unspecified) might possibly be embarrassed, so he ought to sit in the corner under a blanket just in case.....

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Seems more sensible to me. I don't have a problem with breastfeeding anywhere it's appropriate to bring children/babies, which is most places. However, there are some places, such as expensive restaurants where I think it's reasonable to expect not to have to deal with the general chaos and noise children inevitably bring.

In reply to ByEek:


Possibly, but it just adds to the views on women expressed by UKIP candidates, and some of the women's magazines (eg I've seen something in Marie Claire) have already made sure that these have been highlighted.....when you widen it from breastfeeding, it's a lot more people might care.

"Yes, of course we believe that women should be able to work, and do any job they fancy, just so long as they sit quietly in the corner and don't disrupt things too much......"
* All right, I made that one up!

In reply to TMM:


Doing it in Claridges as opposed to McDonalds.

In reply to MG:

Then ban children from the place completely. Not send the breastfeeding mums to sit in a corner.

In reply to dissonance:

Yes - that is exactly what I meant.

In reply to TMM: Many people in the service industry, male or female, prefer it if you uphold common decency and don't flop it on the table mid meal or while in the restaurant/coffee shop/bar. a shawl is such a simple thing for helping modesty the baby's warmth and general comfort of your table of friends, and the service staff trying to serve you.

I just don't get how we came from maintaining modesty in public to fighting about rights. The same goes for topless guys in public places especially indoors in cafe's and bars etc. the same goes for no knickers and a mini skirt in a night club,. The same reason Its frowned upon to get a willy out in the street.. even if you are about to perform a "natural function".

In reply to MG:

Personally I think its reasonable to expect that certain restaurants are small child free in the evening, but not during the day.

Generally speaking a breastfeeding baby is much less noise than a toddler.

I have no problem with well behaved children but I do find it irritating when people let their little darlings run around and disturb everyone.

In reply to Lukem6:

If you can't see the difference between feeding a baby and getting your tackle out then I don't see much point in debating the issue with you. Breasts are for feeding babies. Babies get hungry and mums want to sit comfortably whilst feeding. This is why mums sit in cafes bars or restaurants to feed.

In reply to marsbar:

A friend always used the shawl out and about to minimise distractions for the child... No distraction, child feeds efficiently, no shawl, child looking at movement, people, not eating, more wind etc.

Also, brrr..

In reply to TMM:

I always think that it is the person who feels uncomfortable about a mum breastfeeding should go and sit in a corner, it's they that have the problem.

And this business about it being a generational thing, my folks were born in 1913 and 1916 respectively and from real straight laced, petit bourgeois lower middle class backgrounds and they never had a problem with it, whether it was our partners doing the feeding or anyone else.

In reply to MG:

Which is a separate discussion and not what Farage talked about.

In reply to marsbar:

You must have missed my point about modesty. nearly everywhere has a problem with nudity in any form. The arguments has never really been about breast feeding but has always been about the necessity to show the breast or not.
...hence the multiple accounts of mothers using shawls to maintain modesty, which as stated is just more practical, less distractions and more comfort for the child.

Didn't face book have to change their policy recently due to this, from no nudity allowed to no nudity except in case of breast feeding. or something like that...then ask why showing off the entirety of your mamories been suckled on, on facebook was even necessary. a picture holding a baby would have been enough.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I agree. It isn't a generation thing. Some people have sadly been brought up with some rather odd ideas about human bodies. Not everything is about sex and modesty is an odd social construct at the best of times. I feel sorry for people who have a problem with breastfeeding. But it is clear to me that it is their problem.

In reply to Lukem6:

I find it astonishing that people get hung up about modesty in a society where I can't go in a newsagents without seeing boobs everywhere and the average teenage girl is showing more than a breastfeeding mum. Did you see the daily mash link above? It explains the situation clearly.

Breasts are for feeding babies. The polite thing to do when speaking to a woman (breastfeeding or otherwise) is look at her face. Breastfeeding mums shouldn't have to worry about modesty because they are not doing anything wrong. They don't have to hide under a shawl if they don't want to because they are not doing anything to be ashamed of. Modesty is suggesting shame and there isn't any.

In reply to TMM:

Brilliant. Farage being a bit of a tit about a bit of a tit.

jk

In reply to marsbar:

It doesn't really, it just does what it always does and produces a reasonably funny opinion piece.


Breasts are for attracting (and keeping!) a sexual partner too, they have more than one function. Would you be happy with someone playing with anothers breasts in a sexual way in public? It's nothing to be ashamed of and just as natural as breastfeeding.

I think Lukem6's point was more that we don't have to follow absolute lines and force people into accepting a situation they don't want. We could try to find a practical solution that doesn't inconvenience too many people and makes the majority of people happy. We don't have to say that because it's right that women feel comfortable breastfeeding (it is) and right that they should be supported in doing so (it is) that others shouldn't be accomodated where possible. Just because you don't like someone's position doesn't mean you shouldn't try to find a reasonable solution - and they don't have to justify their position for their opinion to be taken into account.

In reply to thomasadixon:

What would a reasonable solution be?

In reply to thomasadixon:

wow, you said it better than i, and i thankyou.

A lot of these topics are pretty much people going "I want it my way or else". Shopping centers refused people for things as simple as a baseball cap or a hoody but thats ok. In bars when this happens the person in question either takes it off and continues about there day or kicks off big time, when there is usually a middle ground.... I understand this example is a little off topic but the reaction is the same.

The company is always seen as being evil, but in my 10 years working in the service industry most of the times we have to do something like ask a lady or gent to cover up, its come after a complaint from a guest. Its a hard situation but after a couple of complaints the staff have to go over and act like a tit. Thankfully most people I've had to handle have been more than happy to oblige if explained to properly.... I guess it all comes down to you can't make everyone happy.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Well as I said, some people have a problem. Its their problem. So they can solve it by being less prudish. Or they can sit in a corner with a tablecloth over their eyes. Either is fine by me.

Or they could as I suggested stop looking at the boobs and look at the face.

Another one confused about the difference in sexual behaviour and feeding.

In reply to thomasadixon:


This is more that a bit silly.

In reply to thomasadixon:
>Just because you don't like someone's position doesn't mean you shouldn't try to find a reasonable solution - and they don't have to justify their position for their opinion to be taken into account.

Yes & no, I think. I'm definitely for allowing for people with a different point of view, but if people didn't have to justify their point if view, then people with strange/intolerant points of view about race and gender and sexuality could end up being allowed for. So it depends.

Possibly a side topic though...

In reply to Lukem6:

If a bloke has his tackle out then tell him to cover up. No issue with that. If a woman is breastfeeding, you tell the complainer that she has the right to do so and apologise because there is nothing you can do. Simple.

If you dont have the balls for that I expect you have a manager who probably doesn't want the bad publicity. Get them to deal with it. That is what they get paid for.

In reply to The New NickB:

It depends on the context, the most awkward i witnessed was a woman pulled it out and rested it on her table, but before she could feed her baby her food came. she just left it out until she finished eating and then forgot to feed her child anyway, afterwards her friends came over and apologized and said they felt awkward and embarrassed.

So my question is where do you draw the line between public nudity and breast feeding. a reasonable solution would maybe have been to lift the top up as supposed to down exposing less. some friends of mine wear a vest to fit that down and the top up, but mostly the prefer the ease of a shawl.

I would call that middle ground, if one end of the field says "flop it out", and the other end says "get out".

It would be great if people were not bothered by nudity but some are and should we not respect that when there is options to do so.

most retailers won't allow topless men to walk in on a hot day I've never complained at this, but I guess a topless man is different...some would say a topless men is less offensive as its a more common sight at a beach than a topless woman. just a thought.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I guess the question is if there *are* any "absolutes", though. There will still be the odd person who claims to feel uncomfortable if they have to sit next to a black person on a bus. Should they have their opinion taken into account? And if you believe they shouldn't, where do you draw the line?

In reply to Lukem6:

So your example is a woman who didn't breast feed, just got a breast out (I assume that is what you mean by 'it') whilst eating her food.

I once witnessed a 60 year old woman breast feeding a dog on the tube, that was a off as well, but generally we are talking about women breast feeding a child, usually pretty unobtrusively, but maybe (heaven help us) occasionally showing a tiny bit of flesh. Anyone offended by that really needs to grow up.

In reply to TMM:

I like boobies, get em out all over the place for me.

In reply to Carolyn:

If it was only the odd person then there would be no debate. an article would be posted and the forum would be one sided. I personally don't mind, but speak from working with a majority who did, and dealing with a general public who did. And in the few restaurant in a neighborhood that allowed parents.

In reply to TMM:

I think that if anyone gave my missus any trouble for breast feeding, they'd be treated to a broken nose from one or the other of us. Sleep deprivation is usually a valid defence for gbh

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

And on that note I leave you with the words of the delicious sadly late Patrick Swayze. Nobody puts baby in the corner.

In reply to Lukem6:

Personally I have never covered up with a shawl while breastfeeding and would dispute any argument about practicality. It prevents eye contact (and the bonding this brings), it's another thing to juggle when you're probably already struggling and it encourages the baby to fall asleep instead of finishing a full feed, which means you don't get a decent break before they need feeding again.

The absolute best thing for a baby, in terms of its nutritional and emotional needs, is to be breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months, yet in the UK the number of people doing this is 1%. 1%!!! So we should be doing our utmost to make women feel as comfortable as possible about breastfeeding publicly and normalising it as a sight, so that people are as used to seeing it as they are to seeing a pram being pushed around. Adding to anyone's struggle by insisting on shawls or corner seats or not offending anyone with a slight glimpse of - shock horror, SKIN! - just makes more people give up.

In reply to marsbar:


Ha! Brilliant

In reply to TMM:

You shouldn’t ever be made to feel uncomfortable about breastfeeding in public. In fact, the Equality Act 2010 has made it illegal for anyone to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave a public place such as a cafe, shop or public transport.

In my opinion , asking her to sit in a corner is effectively asking "can you please leave this public place".

In reply to MG:


WTH shouldn't families dine in expensive reataurants?

In reply to The New NickB:


Are you absolutely sure that you're not misremembering an old episode of The League of Gentlemen?

In reply to Lukem6:




Would that be a breast feeding tit?

Seriously though, by giving in to those that protest is that you are upsetting the one customer who has done nothing wrong. the ones in the wrong are the complainers.

Having worked in the service industry, I too shared your view. now I know better. A breastfeeding mother is not causing anyone any harm - quite the opposite and stigmatising public feeding is tantamount to denying a human right - that of the baby to receive a nutritious meal from a caring mother and the rights of the mother to provide that meal however they see fit.

In reply to Alyson:

I would defend to the death your right to get your jubblies out whenever, wherever and for whatever reason you want.

Where did you get that 1% figure from? When my daughter was born (2002) I'm sure all her pre-natal group were breast fed, although not upto 6 months as the advice at the time was to wean at 3-4 months.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


And this is another reason why uptake to breast feeding in public is so low - sexualisation.

In reply to TMM:



I meant that while these things are reported as if the politician (or whoever) has given a speech on the subject, it's actually that someone has sprung a question on them and they try to give an answer that they think will generally satisfy everyone, which is what I meant by "measured" - he tried to keep everyone happy with it.

I would, however, have thought he would have known better than risking the ire of Mumsnet and the Twittersphere, which seems to be some great angry beast just waiting to be "outraged".

FWIW, I think mums should be able to breastfeed in public. My wife did. It's natural.

In reply to TMM:

I think a lot of people are missing the most important part of what Farage said. He said that he thought businesses should be able to pick and choose their own rules about what is and isn't allowed in their establishments, and I think that tells you an awful lot about how his attitudes.

There aren't all that many steps between businesses being allowed to ban breastfeeding and 'no blacks, no irish'. And whilst that might seem a little extreme, I wonder what Nige thought about the B&B that turned away a gay couple a while back? Should they have been allowed to pick and choose what rules they imposed in their business?

The point about Claridges is that they broke the law, and I'd for one very much like to see them prosecuted for it.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:



Very good point.

The other point is that we live in a society where people who complain are overly pandered to. So managers in cafes etc will, when faced with someone complaining about a breastfeeding mum, attempt to resolve it by speaking to the mum, rather than telling the complainant to f*ck off and get a life.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt: I got it from UNICEF. It's from 2010 which is the latest year available.

http://www.unicef.org.uk/BabyFriendly/About-Baby-Friendly/Breastfeeding-in-...


You, sir, are a truly chivalrous gentleman!

In reply to TMM:

Why should she do something different because it causes embarrassment to others?

Depends on the company she is in. If there are older, more conservative people in the lounge near her then she could be more discreet in order not to disturb them. It's known as good manners, not disturbing people. If there are only younger people it's less of an issue.

In reply to Alyson:

There is a sharp drop-off from the initial rates of exclusive breast-feeding rate, isn't there?

I do wonder what they mean by "exclusive". Does it mean that mothers give up breastfeeding, that the children sometimes have a bottle, or that they are being weaned? Does it include expressed milk fed from a bottle?

Perhaps a statistic for predominately breastfed would be more illuminating.

I really can't understand why people would want the hassle and expense of buying and making formula, sterilising bottles etc. when it comes free and on-tap (I know that's not always the case, of course).

In reply to Clauso:


I wish I was!

In reply to j0ntyg:

Is it good manners not to upset old people who don't like black people too? Perhaps the man who was unfortunate enough to be on a train with an old lady who didn't like black people should have got off as it would be good manners.

Anyway its not particularly older people that have an issue.

In reply to marsbar:

That is a tenuous comparison. The thread is about a particular issue, not every possible situation in life.

In reply to TMM:

Non story. Artificial media furore helped by social media bollox.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Oh for goodness sake, get a sense of humour. And some lead in your pencil.

Despite your prude reaction, the unavoidable fact is that boobs are, and have been, sexual objects for quite some time.

On an attractive lady, I love to look at a pair like most men I know. Attached to a baby, they are about as sexual as a plastic bottle. In either case I'm perfectly fine for them to be on display.

In reply to The New NickB:

The argument that because something is natural it ought to be fine in public is more than a bit silly. The argument that because breastfeeding is what breasts are for it should be fine in any situation is silly. There's no logic behind people sensibilities and favouring one side when you could try and accommodate everybody isn't reasonable.

In reply to marsbar:

Or you can be a little bit considerate and everyone can get along. The things I've seen my sisters use in restaurants don't block you seeing the baby, just everyone else. Is being asked to use one of those really such an imposition?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

They've been used for feeding for A LOT longer.




You are clearly a sad man who likes to objectify women.

In reply to thomasadixon:


There's ample logic in favouring one side of an argument over the other... like when the other side is wrong



Yes it is an imposition. It implies the one doing the feeding is in the wrong.

In reply to TMM:

Just because it's against the law for businesses to discriminate against breastfeeding, doesn't mean that the mother shouldn't try and least be discreet about it.
The argument that people shouldn't be prudish about seeing breastfeeding and accept it, is bordering on selfish and shows little respect for people with a different outlook/opinion than their own.
Breastfeeding mothers should by all means be able to breastfeed in public, but it doesn't mean that they should just 'flop' it out and carry on with what they are doing as if nothing has happened and without it possibly affecting other people.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Of all the women I've seen breast feeding, none, absolutely none I saw just 'flopped it out' and all were being as discreet as one could possibly be.

The claridges incident clearly showed that the woman in question was actually being less discreet by having a huge napkin draped over her shoulder. there was a picture before and after and it was, in my opinion, very discreet and just looked like she was holding the baby close.

In reply to Alyson:

Sorry to pick on your post but it seems to typify the increasing modern attidude which can be summed up nicely with "F*ck you I'm all right!"

Rightly or wrongly some people don't wish to see breastfeeding in public. You seem to suggest that the 1 occasion every so often when you need to breastfeed in public will lead baby growing up to be an axe murdering physcopath because a shawl would prevent you bonding properly.

Going forward you've put everything away and finally FINALLY baby is asleep. Then horror horrors the man on the next table starts talking loudly into his mobile to hard of hearing granny. You know that if baby doesn't get his proper afternoon sleep he'll be up all night screaming. You ask the man to speak less loudly..... the answer is basically " F*ck you I'm alright" You move. Maybe its a hot day and the window is open. A man is smoking outside and the breeze is wafting the smoke inside you naturally don't want baby breathing secondhand smoke so as you can't shut the window ask him to move away from the window. He says "F*ck you I'm alright!" I'm allowed to smoke here YOU move.

What I'm saying is that yes it might be annoying but it's not going to kill you to coverup once in a while breastfeeding in public by extending that courtsey to others than maybe they'll reciprocate when you need something. Me! Me! Me! Makes for a pretty selfish unpleasant world.

Here endeth the lesson.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Of all the women I've seen breast feeding, none, absolutely none I saw just 'flopped it out' and all were being as discreet as one could possibly be.

OK, 'Flopping it out' is maybe a slight exaggeration in most cases, but it is fairly obvious that people who condone breastfeeding in public and in particular places like restaurants, see nothing wrong with doing it in full view and dare I say it, some are perhaps 'proud' to do so...
I personally don't care about it one way or the other, but I can equally see why some people might see it differently and maybe find it objectionable. In certain circumstances, is there any real hardship in the mother going somewhere a bit more private, even it means just turning around, etc.?

In reply to Indy:


I suspect what people learn from your "lesson" isn't what you want then to learn.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Why the hell should they go somewhere more private? why don't people just learn what is and isn't their business and stop getting offended by how others manage their bodies and their lives? It's not hard to change perceptions - I did mine.

In reply to all:

For those who think it's more 'discreet' to cover up your child with a napkin - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/breastfeeding-mother-told-to...

In reply to thomasadixon:
I assume you have no problem using a urinal in a restaurant toilet, after all you are engaging in the perfectly natural act of urinating.

I guess you might have a problem with someone in the restaurant toilet with you also with their knob out, but getting a blow job.

Both are perfectly natural uses of a penis, but one is fine in the restaurant toilet and the other isn't.

Whilst I don't want to compare feeding a baby to urinating, comparing a sexual act involving breasts to breast feeding, shows a complete disregard for a simple difference that is obvious to anyone with any sense.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Why the hell should they go somewhere more private? why don't people just learn what is and isn't their business and stop getting offended by how others manage their bodies and their lives? It's not hard to change perceptions - I did mine.

It's called respect for people with different opinions to those of your own.
Note: I didn't say they had to go somewhere private all of the time, just when it's obviously the best thing to do for all parties present and not just the mother. Also, I did say, that simply turning around might well be sufficient. Like most situations in life, it should be done on a case by case basis and not just done carte blanche.
Well done for changing your perceptions, you obviously think that all people should change to suit your way of thinking instead of maybe the mother compromising a little bit herself.

In reply to TMM:
I recently had a woman who started breast feeding ,on purpose, in anger!
All I said was 'you're not a proper mum, as you don't run with your baby in a buggy'

She took her bat well home, flopped one out and started to feed the kid! To be honest, I'd been fantasising about this woman getting them out for a while, and indeed, it was worth it

In reply to FactorXXX:

Condone is an interesting use of words. There is nothing to condone.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Farage isn't that stupid, but other UKIP candidates have gone on record to say exactly that (well, almost) - that business owners should be allowed to enforce a "no gays, no muslims" policy.

In reply to The New NickB:

Condone is an interesting use of words. There is nothing to condone.

Please don't turn this into a thread of perdantry...

By 'Condone' I meant agree with, etc. Apologies if it wasn't precisely the correct word to use.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I do actually think everyone should change their perceptions, for precisely the reasons I changed mine - because they were wrong. Breasts aren't sexual objects, women shouldn't be ashamed of feeding their child.

Answer me this - what's more important, feeding a hungry baby or not offending some stuck up prude you don't know?

In reply to Lukem6:


But majority opinion doesn't necessarily make something right, does it? Not many generations back the majority opinion in many communities would have been that white people were superior and should (for example) sit seperately on the bus to black people.

Mind you, I couldn't be certain some UKIP members don't still believe it.....

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Well done sir, I appreciate the naturalist lesson.


I guess youll need to ask my wife and three daughters about how I feel about women and the total respect that I have for the fairer sex.

Ok, so let's ask you a few questions.

Are you male?
Are you heterosexual?
Do you have perfectly normal relationships with women?
Do you appreciate the female form and, dare I say it, especially when they are naked?

If you answer yes to all of these questions then I suspect that like me, you are amongst the 99.9999% of nomal men in society. Objectification indeed. If you answer yes to number 1 and 2 but no to either 3 or 4 then I suspect, my friend that you are the sad one and perhaps you should get out more or get off your fragile soap box.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Answer me this - what's more important, feeding a hungry baby or not offending some stuck up prude you don't know?

Both are important.
That's the way the world works, you can't just change peoples opinions to suit your own.
Anyway, if the baby is hungry, why would taking an extra minute or two to move/turn around, etc. make any difference?

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


"Exclusive" generally means only breast milk (included expressed milk from a bottle) and drugs (ie paracetamol/Calpol, teething gel, etc). Any formula or solid food would stop it being exclusive.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

. Breasts aren't sexual objects,
Of course they are, otherwise there wouldn't be any babies?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Just because you have a wife and some kids doesn't mean you don't objectify women in one form or another.

Yes
Yes (like that matters)
By normal you mean I have a monogomous relationship, yes.
Yes I do but I can discern the difference between when a woman is bearing her breasts because she's trying to be sexy and when she's feeding her hungry child


I never realised it was that simple to tell a 'Normal' man from one who thinks a woman should be forced into a corner to feed her child. What even is a 'Normal' man? one that goes 'oooooh look at them melons, phwoar'? or one that dispises objectification of women forcing them to make choices that are against sensibility because it's somehow seen as 'wrong' to do what is perfectly normal and absoulelty their right?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Why should they turn around? what is it about breast feeding that is so offensive they should turn the other way?

In reply to FactorXXX:


It's a while since I saw one of those "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" signs.

In reply to The New NickB:

It's a while since I saw one of those "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" signs.

Why not go the full hog and mention the Nazi's and the Jews? Least that way, we'll get Godwin's out of the way nice and early...

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Perhaps this - https://twitter.com/_Paul_And_/status/540944060106960896/photo/1 - sums it up

In reply to FactorXXX:



I see what you did there. very good!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



Wrong. Breasts are indeed sexual objects. As are legs, bums, necks, backs etc. whether your faux proxy feminist assertions like it or not. In my experience, in the appropriate circumstances and with a loving and/or sexually attractive partner, most women would encourage it too. women are quite fond of a nice male physique too, you know.

Women are perfectly able to defend themselves about their own breasts. I don't think they need your misguided defence. Look up Milli Tant, the Viz character. Funny, you and she would get on.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Why should they turn around? what is it about breast feeding that is so offensive they should turn the other way?

I don't find it offensive, some people do. What's so difficult about showing a little respect for those who do find it offensive?
If breastfeeding was actually banned in public places, then having a discussion about it might be relevant.
It isn't. All that's been suggested, is that if needs be, the mother shows a bit of discretion. A bit of compromise from everyone, makes sense to me.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Ok, thanks for that. For the record I am a feminist. thanks for noticing.

Now, can look beyond the obvious ad hominem and give me your best real shot on why you think breast feeding mothers should be forced to cover up/hide in a corner/do it in a toilet or other location that's not in public?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:







Oh lordy, look how this started. I made a silly lighthearted comment about boobs. as I said, I am happy with baps out whether they are lunch or whatever. Feed away, ladies!

In reply to FactorXXX:

So why are you bothered that someone else might be offended? it's not your concern if someone else gets offended.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

your comment was sexist and your response was ridiculous.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



You been on the prosecco? Read my responses as I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I think ladies should feed as and when their babies need it. I dont care either way.

In reply to FactorXXX:



It seems you already have, well done. They of course aren't relevant.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Perhaps, mildly. I don't see flocks of women damning me for it so can't imagine it was that bad. Do they need you to shout on their behalf? Do you perceive them to be too weak.

and your response was ridiculous.

Which bit? Curious.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Oh the utter tyranny of it. Whats the world coming to when you can't get your baps out over some cucumber sandwiches a clotted cream & strawberry jam scone and a good pot of Earl Grey in Claridges?

Anyway in much less important news getting a basic education for girls is still a major problem in Afghanistan Reuters reported yesterday.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

So why are you bothered that someone else might be offended? it's not your concern if someone else gets offended.

Sorry, didn't realise that you actually had to be 'part of the opposition' to be part of this discussion and seeing it from a different perspective from yours.
Are you really trying to say, that I shouldn't have an opinion that might show some sympathy/empathy towards people that are offended, just because I'm not offended myself?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Bloody hell, the things blokes do to get their leg over...

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

No they don't need me to shout on their behalf but the more people who think it's wrong to be sexist speak up the quicker women will be able to live in a world where that kind of stuff doesn't happen.

I choose to speak up because I recognise the privilege I have as a white male in a seemingly patriarchical society

In reply to The New NickB:

It seems you already have, well done. They of course aren't relevant.

They're as relevant as blacks and Irish in this discussion i.e. none at all.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I just find it strange that you are not offended and yet seem to want to defend those who might be offended rather than the person with the real right.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

No they don't need me to shout on their behalf but the more people who think it's wrong to be sexist speak up the quicker women will be able to live in a world where that kind of stuff doesn't happen.

Asking mothers to show a bit of discretion whilst breastfeeding isn't sexist.

In reply to FactorXXX:



that's not what I was getting at. there was a bit of a diversion in the conversation to which this response was for.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Okeydokey.

Anyway, you enjoy yourself fighting the good fight. I've got to pick my wife up from a girls night out. Thinking about it, I perhaps shouldn't have let her go.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I just find it strange that you are not offended and yet seem to want to defend those who might be offended rather than the person with the real right.

I'm defending their right to be offended.
The person with the 'real right' can still breastfeed, just with the understanding that not all people want to see them openly do so and therefore should take that into account.
It's called compromise. Seemingly, in your feminist crusade, that isn't an option...

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

that's not what I was getting at. there was a bit of a diversion in the conversation to which this response was for.

OK, fair enough.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Go back and read the post, including what I am replying to, it ain't code.

In reply to FactorXXX:
The compromise is that they feed discreetly*, which in all the cases I've seen they were.


Unfortunately people will always get offended regardless of how discreet something is done and making a feeding mother cover up completely or making them hide in a corner isn't going to change that so they should put up with it or just shut up if they don't like what they see.


*I don't know any woman who wants random strangers seeing their breasts so being discreet is axiomatic to breast feeding

In reply to The New NickB:

Go back and read the post, including what I am replying to, it ain't code.

You comment about 'No dogs, blacks or Irish' was in reply to me and I really can't see what relevance it has to that post, or the thread in general. Maybe there has been a miss-understanding? If so, no problem. Just carry on as if nothing has happened, after all no one else will notice...

In reply to FactorXXX:


Have you seen the pictures associated with the article. She is perfectly discreet. The question is where the compromise line is, feeding under a sheet is well beyond that compromise line.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Your post asserted that you cannot change people's opinions just because they do match yours, but the fact is if those opinions are contrary to anti-descrimination legislation you can legitimately ignore them and if they are held and applied by someone providing a service you can prosecute them, as the Scottish couple who didn't want gays in their B&B found out. It's not really that difficult.

In reply to FactorXXX:





In what way was the Claridges lady not discreet? You couldn't see a thing. Feeding with a shawl or napkin or whatever is awkward and uncomfortable and actually more obvious than just doing it without.
If someone is offended by the sight of a baby snuggled closely to it's mother's chest (and thus covering it all with its own head) they don't need respect but to get a grip.

(N.b. I've fed two babies for 18 months each, without shawls or covers in public, in cafes and restaurants, on mountain tops, in old castles, museums, in shops, on public transport, pretty much anywhere my kids were hungry. (Admittedly once they ate more solids it became less). Thankfully never got challenged, apart from one old bat tutting once (who I simply ignored), much the opposite, if people noticed they made lovely comments.

It's a shame that this is still an issue to some. And even more that they ask Nigel for an opinion on pretty much everything now. Hateful arse that he is.

In reply to j0ntyg:



What age is older?

In reply to violentViolet:

Well said.

In reply to TMM:

I think if people are offended by the sight of a woman breastfeeding a child, or in some way find it uncomfortable or hell, in some way sexually suggestive, then the problems are with them. I appreciate that there is a naked breast involved, but come on, it's no different to feeding a baby with a spoon.

There are tons of things that we have consigned to dirty, horrible, taboo corners of our society because we are a bit embarassed and uncomfortable by them. For f*cks sake, I grew up with a HUGE complex about the word 'period' and 'tampon' purely because my mam was a little bit embarassed by them, and they were deemed to be a bit 'icky'.

Leaving home, experiencing life a little bit and then eventually moving in / marrying a woman with a seven year old daughter meant I had to get over my taboo, because god forbid I wasn't going to pass on that taboo to my stepdaughter and have her believe there was something 'nasty' about a natural process.

It's great that we are discussing this and getting these stupid taboos out in the open. There is nothing wrong with breastfeeding. Full stop. Shoving a woman into a corner, covering her in a blanket or pointing her towards a toilet is not the way to do it.

In reply to TMM:

https://www.facebook.com/womendefyukip/photos/a.816205191740318.1073741829....

In reply to TMM:
After all this folderol, let's see what he actually said;

Of course it bl**dy is.


If men had the baby feeding equipment instead of women you can bet they would be proud to feed and not dream of covering up.

In reply to stroppygob:

Ostentatious. Ffs. That is all. Get back to staring at bums

In reply to marsbar:

Happy too.

But what is wrong with the using the word "ostentatious"?

In reply to The New NickB:

Have you seen the pictures associated with the article. She is perfectly discreet. The question is where the compromise line is, feeding under a sheet is well beyond that compromise line.

Think everyone might be letting the Claridges incident effect the way that they are responding to the thread...

I tend to agree with you, as long as breastfeeding is done discreetly and with consideration it shouldn't be a problem.
However, some mothers do make it obvious and perhaps should take into account their local surroundings and adjust their behaviour accordingly?

In reply to marsbar:

Of course it bl**dy is.

Asking mothers to show a bit of discretion whilst breastfeeding isn't at all sexist. It's asking them as an individual to assess their environment and adjust their behaviour accordingly.

In reply to The New NickB:

Your post asserted that you cannot change people's opinions just because they do match yours, but the fact is if those opinions are contrary to anti-descrimination legislation you can legitimately ignore them and if they are held and applied by someone providing a service you can prosecute them, as the Scottish couple who didn't want gays in their B&B found out. It's not really that difficult.

You're making the same mistake again. You're comparing clear cut and logical decisions (Black/White/Gay, etc.) and comparing them against a scenario where compromise/sensibility is at the very essence of accepting breastfeeding in public.

In reply to FactorXXX:



It's nothing to do with women, Claridges, or breastfeeding! Farage used the word "ostentatious", and therefore must hang!!!

In reply to The New NickB:

In the above case it appears that the decision may have been wrong...
"A judge who condemned a Christian couple for turning away gay guests from their hotel yesterday said her decision may have been wrong."

Interestingly it would appear that providers of accomodation aimed at the gay market are fighting tooth and nail to be allowed to discriminate against straight couples....
"Mark Hurst, a gay-only guesthouse owner from Brighton, said his customers felt more comfortable in gay-only atmospheres."

Bit more reading via google and it's hard not to see the gay community as a bigoted bunch.

In reply to stroppygob:


what the f*ck are you on about?
Why would anyone give a toss about his use of ostentatious?
Apart from possibly some of his supporters who buy into his carefully crafted image of being the man down the pub.

In reply to FactorXXX:

You are really scraping the barrel with your argument. Why save the compromise for the woman feeding her baby and the sensitivity for the intolerant prude? In this case it is clear that the mother behaved perfectly sensitively and some other people acted like arseholes.

In reply to Indy:


Funnily enough, my only concern is for my baby - not for myself (you have to overcome a lot of self-consciousness to breastfeed in public, usually for a body which no longer looks quite like you want it to) and not for anyone else. When I'm feeding, my breasts are obscured by clothes and an entire human baby, a shawl isn't going to make any difference.

In reply to FactorXXX:


That's like asking people to slurp their soup less loudly or to eat with their mouths closed. Most people do it anyway but for those that don't, we don't ask them to eat in the toilet so they don't offend.

In reply to stroppygob:



I'd say that in the context he used it, ostentatious suggests some kind of flaunting - as if a woman might breastfeed in some kind of over-the-top manner. While I'd be quite pleased if I could do a headstand and breastfeed simultaneously, it's not going to happen at home never mind at Claridges. Also ostentatious implies that a woman might be daring to be chuffed with herself for successfully feeding her infant, whereas she should in fact be slightly ashamed.

In reply to Indy:


Which is why so many gay people don't engage with it, making it all the more important that they are fully and equally included in everything else, otherwise they're left stuck in a miserable rut between two "communities" - and I use the word loosely - who both ostracise them.

The gay community is a bit like the feminist movement - ideally they would plan to quietly fade away as equality becomes the norm. In not doing so they remain anchors to the past.

In reply to Alyson:

I'm wouldn't deny there are mothers out there that would be like that but theres smug assholes in everey demographic. including among Farage's peers (himself included).

In reply to j0ntyg:


And while we're at it, maybe we should expect homosexuals to be a bit straighter so as not to offend the bigots.

In reply to FactorXXX:

OK, so here are three statements:

"I don't mind women breastfeeding, I just think they should do it in the corner so I don't have to see them"

" I don't mind gays, I just think they should only kiss behind the bedroom door so I don't have to see them"

" I dont mind blacks, I just think they should only travel in the back of the bus so I don't have to see them"

In all three there is an implicit add-on of 'actually, it offends me'.

Now I'm guessing that you think there is a category difference between the first and the latter two. I don't. I would agree that there is a difference in severity between them, and I'm pretty sure that there's a difference in the proportion of people who hold each view. But in all three cases, I think they're basically the same thing - there is a characteristic, which the person has the absolute right to express, and which some people think should be supressed. And thankfully, in all three cases the law is plainly supportive of their rights.

I really do believe this is the thin end of the oft-quoted and oft-abused wedge. And one of the reasons this worries me is that I have a suspicion that dear old Nige wouldn't be too upset about driving that wedge a little further.

I know that your response to this will be to say that the three cases are different, that you can choose not to breastfeed in public. But gay people can choose not to kiss in public - should they have to?

And anyway, when there is clear evidence that breastfeeding for (at least) 6 months is massively beneficial, yet most mothers are not choosing to do so, and when shame and embarrassment is quoted as one of the reasons they don't - then we should get bloody militant about asserting that right.

In reply to all:

Just so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet - "The Equality Act - which came into force in 2010 - states that it is classed as sex discrimination to “treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding.”"

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breas...


It's pretty clear to me that asking a woman feeding a baby to cover up or otherwise be unfavourably treated is against the equality act

"Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding"

i'd would much rather see a child breast fed than one where they shovel apple stroodle into it's recalcitrant gob. The mush ultimately become mixed into the snotty candles, flobber and rapidly spreads around it's face, clothes, table and passing waiters and all the time smiling at you as as if to say "yes, isn't he wonderful".

Just what you want to see when you're tucking into your cream scone of an afternoon

bah......

In reply to FactorXXX:

This is getting like pantomime.

Oh yes it is.

In reply to marsbar:
The long slog to change attitudes is a pantomime at times. Women do think and adjust behaviour according to circumstances yet sitting in Clarridges or any other safe public venue isnt a place with circumstances where they need to adjust. My favourite contribution is the 99.999% normal man: its like the man concerned has never met anyone unlike himself.

In reply to Alyson:

This image popped up on my facebook feed with a clever comment about breastfeeding and medieval attitudes. To be fair though, I suspect breastfeeding on stilts whilst balancing a jug on your head actually might be just a tiny bit ostentatious.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQ50RVXCYAEbvlX.jpgarge

In reply to TMM:

To be honest I think that this breast feeding business is clouding the issue completely. I find it stunning that women aren't all made to sit in the corner regardless of breast feeding... :-p

In reply to deepsoup:

Now I feel like a total underachiever!

In reply to TMM:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mothers-to-stage-breastfeeding-protes...

In reply to Alyson:


I see what you did there.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I beg to differ.

>women shouldn't be ashamed of feeding their child.

Agreed


The first one. As to stuck up prudes, I think it is the civic duty of every right thinking person to make an effort to offend at least one of said prudes every day.

In reply to dissonance:



People here seem to;

In reply to marsbar:


Far more appropriate reaction than focussing on what Farage has to say.

In reply to stroppygob:
Yes, but I enjoy laughing at Ukip almost as muc;h as offending prudish people.

I was going to tell you that breastfeeding isn't ostentatious, but then I saw the picture with the stilts. Not to mention the great big jug.

In reply to TMM:

Isn't Claridges now owned by the people who bank roll Farage? Non Dom, non tax paying old school Tories.

What was he going to spout assuming the above?

D

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


No, but at a place like Claridges there is a high likelihood that they would be politely requested to follow the "norms of the establishment", and not slurp/eat with their mouths open. That wouldn't justify a bunch of campaigners to stand outside with their mouths open complaining their rights are being violated.

I'm all up for public breast feeding and tits in general. But there are times and places for all sorts of natural body functions. Luxury hotels in Mayfair tend to be quite restrictive on these. That's one of the reasons why guests pay silly money to stay there and really their prerogative.

Surely you can imagine circumstances where breast feeding, just like farting, burping, snoring, coughing, talking too loud, spitting, brushing your teeth, cleaning your ears, etc etc might not be acceptable. Many times there is no real reason why that is so, but you just have to accept every now and then that some people have sensibilities.

In reply to marsbar:


Was it a woman or a man who complained at Claridges? And if a women, does that still mean "its sexism"?

In reply to stroppygob:


When Claridge's senior staff decide to stand for public office I'll place a post on UKC to moan about them as well. Until then I'll focus some of my ire on the little Englander who seeks to take us back to some supposed golden period of history when everyone other than white men knew their place when deference was king and no one rocked the boat.

Please feel free to start your own thread about Claridge's, I would be tremendously supportive.

In reply to Falung:

I'm fairly sure the equalities act doesn't discriminate about who is complaining.

Sexism is about people being treated badly in a way that is specific to their gender. Its not actually what men do to women.

In reply to Falung:


Which is, in this case, illegal.

>And if a women, does that still mean "its sexism"?

Yes. You cannot complain at a man for breastfeeding. That is the asymmetry, regardless of the moron complaining.

In reply to Falung:


This was sort of my point - what are the chances a woman in a posh restuarant is not being discreet? The pictures prove this wasn't the case.


The fact that the hotel is seen as luxury or expensive does not exclude it from the law.


Breast feeding is not the same as darting, snoring or burping. There's no law that says you have a right to do those things and not be asked to stop etc.

In reply to TMM:
It doesn't particularly offend me to see someone breastfeeding but I don't really want it in my face when I'm eating, particularly if I'd paid a lot to eat in a nice, upmarket Establishment, somewhere I can expect to have a certain atmosphere and that being not one of a nursery.

I liken it to taking a piss when in the outdoors. Normal you'll go before you head out somewhere but occasionally you'll be caught short. It's a perfectly natural thing, we all do it and its what a penis is most often used for. It's not sexual when used in this way and there is nothing wrong with it.

However, you will still make an effort to be discreet, whether that's nipping behind a tree, wall, rock or bush. You don't stand in the open waving it around infront of everyone becuase allthough everyone does it and everyone knows what you're doing when you nip behind a tree, people don't want to see it. And I don't see any reason why the arguments for not being discreet with breastfeeding can't be applied to not being discreet with pissing.

In reply to TMM:

If someone in Claridges complained about the woman breast feeding, on religious or faith grounds and they requested the management to ask her to cover up more.

What then?
Purely hypothetical, I don't have an example.

In reply to Moley:

The law specifically protects breastfeeding women. It doesn't say anywhere in the law that God botherers have the right to make women cover up. Otherwise they would all potentially be making us cover our ankles and such nonsense.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Have you seen the photos? It wasn't in anyone's face except the baby. She was being discreet.

In reply to marsbar:

I wasn't referring to a particular occurrence, just the point in general. I did see the photos and yes it wasn't particularly outrageous in her case but some people are more sensitive than others.

In reply to Lord_ash2000 and Falung:

Genuinely bemused by some of the comparisons being made here. Farting, pissing, cleaning your ears - these all involve getting rid of something unwanted from the body and this is why they are done discreetly. They risk causing offence because we have inbuilt hygiene sensibilities to protect us from noxious substances.

The best comparison to breastfeeding is eating food or having a drink - activities one may do in... I dunno... a hotel, for example.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You struggle to see any difference between milk and piss. Do your friends often say they're not thirsty when you offer to make a cup of tea? :-P

In reply to Alyson:
Eating or having a drink isn't exactly acceptable in all situations either. Maybe it is entirely right that breast feeding can occur absolutely anywhere (in front of the queen, at a funeral, job interviews, in the office). But accepting that some people may feel it doesn't fit with required decorum at the dinner table doesn't seem to be asking too much. Certainly doesn't seem to warrant the in-your-face response of protest outside the establishment does it?

Getting rid of bodily waste doesn't need to be done discretely. In fact if it was a hygiene/contagion issue, being indiscrete would be better. Seems an arbitrary place to say one bodily function is acceptable and one isn't.

In reply to Falung:

Er.. yeah, righto.

In reply to deepsoup:

Burping and farting are also a normal part of the eating/digestion process. Yet I doubt anyone here would challenge the acceptable behavioral norm that says you shouldn't do both while eating your scones and early gray at Claridges.

They are all just pointless cultural taboos. There is nothing innately wrong with them and in some cultures a good belch while eating is considered fine table behavior. Just here, in good post-Victorian Britain, it isn't considered decorum. We're hardly have our rights crushed as a result, any more than is the occasional woman told to cover up because it might offend.

Whether its natural or not makes not a jot of difference. Some places maintain stuffy traditions. I'd be far more concerned about naval bases being built in Bahrain than some women being asked to be discrete in a posh hotel.

In reply to all:

I give up. These comparisons are ridiculous and I cannot continue trying to make people see the issue when they are clearly stuck in their sexist ways.

I wonder : how many of people who think the mother should be 'more discreet' are male? How many of them are female?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I was also wondering if the portion of the population not properly configured for breastfeeding can be in a position to determine whether it's acceptable in public or not - they're probably entitled to an opinion, but should it be valued ahead of those who actually have to do it?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
You really do seem to be on your high horse. Nothing is "sexist" about it and I don't think there are that many people here who think the mother *should* be discrete. Just some of us accept that others might feel differently and the simple act of covering up so as not to offend their sensibilities is not asking too much in the circumstances.

No one stopped her feeding. In fact it sounds like the request from the waiter was done in an extremely polite and reasonable manner, possibly even thinking she would preferred to have been offered a shawl. Somehow that left Ms Burns "completely shocked and appalled" and "humiliated". Fuksake.

In reply to Falung:

No, the point is not that we should all alter our behaviour until we can be absolutely sure not to offend anyone. The point is that people with stupid, outdated opinions should get used to being offended and shut up.

In reply to TMM:
The great irony of this thread and indeed life in general, it is those that rally against people taking offence, with accusations of humourless political correctness or of course the catch all 'guardianista' defending the right of somebody (it's not really clear who) to take offence at someone doing something as disgraceful as quietly and discretely feeding a baby.

In reply to Falung:


You don't see why she might be shocked, appalled and humiliated. Wow.

In reply to nufkin:

They can put their case for or against but if the general and legal concensus is against their opinion, they should be expected to accept it and/or just shut up and walk away and they should also expect criticism and ridcule.

In reply to Falung:


Yes I am on a high horse because I happen to know that ostracising a woman for feeding her baby is wrong and anyone who says it is wrong should rightly be told they are wrong. The Law says so, the people affected by it say so so we should just accept that we are going to see women breastfeeding in places some deem to be inappropriate or not being 'discreet' about it.


You can't belittle her feelings just because you think she's being upset for the sake of being upset. You don't know what she felt like, you were not there and you are most certainly not in a position to assume her feelings were false.

In reply to The New NickB:


and then tweeting pictures of herself/newspaper articles/ etc - could it possibly be as much to do with enjoying 5 minutes of fame ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Yeah because she wanted the world to see her tits...

In reply to Falung:


And again, all together boys and girls

"Oh yes it is"


Perhaps you meant to say nothing sexist about it in my old fashioned outdated opinion.

Otherwise, you are wrong.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I suspect it wasn't about fame. Most stuff like this on social media gets out of hand quite quickly. Maybe she posted the pictures to see if her friends agreed. Maybe she just wanted to avoid other mum's feelings being hurt.

In reply to marsbar:



http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/50-argument-...

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Whilst I am sure you have a point, you may wish to direct it at the opposition.

My suppoting evidence is the law of the land.

Theirs is opinion.

The law of the land says that their opinion is wrong.

In reply to marsbar:

exactly




saying something isn't so over and over again doesn't make it so!
saying something is so and offering evidence to back up one's claim does make it so!

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Or shaming Claridges, which I would be tempted to do. At the end of the day only she can answer that question.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Ostracised? Geezus. The woman herself implied she was politely offered a shawl. Breast feeders I've known have used one out of choice. That's hardly being ostracised. She wasn't told to stop breast feeding.

I think she sees herself as the center of the universe, with the world revolving around her and her baby.

In reply to marsbar:


That sounds very much like school children claiming their human rights are being violated when they're told to pull their socks up and tuck their shirts in.

If being offered a shawl to breast feed behind is sexist discrimination then I might as well go vote UKIP I guess.

In reply to Falung:

I was speaking generally about this case, Farage's comments and the views expressed on here.

In reply to Falung:
She was being treated less favourably than the farting, sluping, burping, pissing snoring prude who complained which is against the Equality act.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Less favorably than what? The fact that males in the room weren't also made to wear shawls? That other women in the room were free to roam topless?

That's like arguing a Gideon's bible in a hotel room dresser discriminates against Muslims and Hindus.

In reply to Falung:


That's a false comparison.

She was being treated less favourably because she was made to cover her self doing what she was entitled to do. If the waiter had asked a black guy for being too black and handed him some talc to whiten up his face no one would deny that was racist becuase we've accepted the of treating black people less favourably as wrong. I appreciate this is a silly comparison to make but it's more akin to the situation than your example.

In reply to Falung:

You seem like a ukipper to me.

For the avoidance of doubt I don't mean that as a compliment.

Vote for whoever you please. Its your human rights innit.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

That is ludicrous. Again, no one *stopped* her from breast feeding. If anything, she was encouraged to continue. All that was done was to consider other people at the restaurant/hotel might have sensibilities that could be resolved by covering up.

That is a far cry from making a black person white. If you want to find discrimination, you will find it. But that is a world away from discrimination that forces her to leave or stop doing what she was doing.

In reply to Falung:


At that point the mother is the centre of the baby's very simple universe. Perhaps that can help you understand why there is a clear cut law on the issue.

Or would you rather have segregated shops and amenities for people who need to breastfeed? Nothing like treating people doing a natural and important thing that does no harm to others as second class citizens.

In reply to marsbar:


Wow, and I even went as far as to say I have no problem breast feeding in public. Aren't you in serious dangerous of vanishing up ones liberal ring piece if anyone who takes a contrary view "sounds like a ukipper"?

In reply to Falung:

Do you seriously think being asked to cover up is encouraging?

In reply to Falung:


So did Farage.

In reply to Falung:


Really? Both revolve around people choosing to take offence at a natural sight that has absolutely no effect or harm on them, other than that which they choose to inflict on themselves. In both cases the law makes it clear that their decision to take offense is not grounds for a third party to take action against anyone, even if that action is a seemingly reasonable request.

In reply to Falung:

Well you don't seem like you hate muslims enough to be a BNP voter.

Perhaps I should have added a smiley to my post. I thought it was obvious, my mistake. I forget that things appear different without the facial expressions.

In reply to Alyson:


I have been thinking about this, the time to read the thread down to here providing ample time, and I wonder if the difficulty some people have is is that's breasts have a dual function - feeding, normally a baby, and so in this case it doesn't seem reasonable for anyone to object - quite apart from there now being a law which makes such objection illegal, and secondly (not necessarily in order of merit) - a sexual function. I think many such naturalists as Desmond Morris (RIP) have demonstrated that various parts of the human body have become, by evolution, larger or more visible than need be for their primary function and have become a means for one or the other sexes to attract a mate. So the rub is that generally there are rules in some societies, our own in particular, which regulate when sexual attractive body parts may be put to work in public - in Claridges for example but I imagine in Harrods or Lords (cricket) this would apply equally.

In such cases it's difficult to know which way to bend, clearly a jurisprudence must be established, and I can't think of a better way of doing this than some interested party taking Claridges to court. Clearly there's a fair chance that this rather stuffy establishment would lose in which case all parties would know where they were.

In reply to TMM:

A few points put simply and in no particular order:

Breastfeeding is the best nutrition for babies but it is hard. Society should be doing everything it can to encourage women to do it.

Being socially isolated (ie at home alone all day) can be a contributing factor to postnatal depression.

Babies choose when they feed, sometimes they will go for 5 hours without needing feeding, sometimes it's 30 minutes. Feeding on demand is recommended by the NHS.

The moment you are most exposed is when you latch them on which you need to be able to see them for so you can't cover them. Covering the baby whilst feeding can make them too hot which means they will get fussy and/or cry and don't finish feeding which leads to them being grumpy. Also if Mum's breasts aren't emptied it can cause mastitis.

The equalities act 2010 specifically protects breastfeeding women from discrimination.

Claridges claims it is a family friendly establishment.

In reply to TMM:

I breast fed sat on many toilets, in changing rooms and even in the back of an old van when someone saw my face and guessed! I also fed in many more open places than I ever thought I would - the desire to feed when my baby cried was extraordinary, like bursting for a wee multiplied by standing in a buffet after a 48 hour fast!

I used to wear a vest under whatever else - pull one up and the other down and I carried her in a sling so that would often be flopped over too. You can't really hide what you're doing but nothing really showed either. It was different for me because I was an older mum, older and bolder. What made me sad is that 'what people would think' had such a profound impact on the younger mums. Seeing a young mum breast feed is frighteningly rare. I think that's the bit that gets forgotten while debating the stroppy bu**ers like myself.

In reply to flopsicle:

I guess that is the point. So many women especially young ones, are put off by the attitudes of those who have no place sticking their nose in.

In reply to marsbar:

In what way is it sexist? (Clearly men can't breastfeed but that's biology). In places where children are accepted, I don't have a problem with it BTW

In reply to MG:

Men can't breastfeed and so only women could be harassed whilst breastfeeding. So as it is something where only women can be harassed or discriminated against, it comes under what used to be called sex discrimination laws now incorporated in the equalities act. Much the same as sacking a pregnant woman would be a sexism issue. Its not something that could happen to a man.

Maybe if a man was refused time off for a hospital appointment for testicular cancer this might be considered sexist? Although it isn't quite as simple I suppose as there are female specific cancers too. Or another example might be if companies tried to make it difficult to take paternity leave.

In reply to MG:

The fact that only women are subjected to this unfavourable behaviour by some establishments and certain people makes it inherently sexist to discriminate against breastfeeding mothers.

Edited for a typo

In reply to marsbar:


I think the point is that women don't want to breastfeed.

We breastfed for the first 2 years and amongst the peer group of women with young children most of them thought it was pretty weird, yucky. I don't think anyone else had lasted for 2 years.

Most had tried it for a while but didn't like it and gave it up early on. It wasn't the reaction of the general public that influenced them. If public breastfeeding was the issue you'd just express a bottle to take with you but women don't tend to do that either (although some women who do express cite that as a reason for doing so).

Exclusive breastfeeding is a bit overstated, there is some research suggesting after 4 months there are issues for allergies, anaemia, B12 deficiencies plus the sleep difficulties and then the weaning difficulties. WHO and the NHS overstate the target in the hope that women will do it for longer (ie if women hit 50% of target on average then raising the target gets them closer to 4 months).

In reply to winhill:

Not everyone can express milk. I would have loved too but me boobs only obeyed one mistress - and it wasn't me. My statement about younger mums was based on time at our local surestart centre. There were 2 mums under 20 feeding but neither would do so anywhere they could be seen so were careful about going out. There were also loads of mums using bottles just because they wanted to, however, as young mums feeding isn't seen, it's hard to know what that lack of normality leads to in terms of choice.

I fed till my kid was 18mths but only the first 6 mths was on demand, after that, alternatives were mostly offered when out and about.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The problem is the law isn't actually as clear as people would have it.

The Equality Act only enshrines breastfeeding as part of maternity rights, which are limited to 26 weeks. But it doesn't specify the age of the child or the familial relationship of the child, it only relates to the status of the woman. So does a person wet-nursing have any rights? Apparently only if she has also given birth (to a different child) within 6 months. Except maternity rights should only apply to a distinct familial relationship which would leave them unprotected.

The government's position is that all those out of reach cases should be covered by the Sexual Discrimination part of the Act, not the maternity element, so that's been the same since 1975.

Any establishment could get round that part of the Act by simply having a separate child seating area and directing all parents and children to that area.

It was criticised at the time for it's fudgey inadequacy.

In reply to marsbar:

I can see it is undesirable for all sorts of reasons but unless it is done simply because someone is a woman (rather than simply due to old fashioned prudishness), I don't see it is sexist.

In reply to winhill:


I thought it had been extended to 52 weeks at a late stage, though I might be wrong? I didn't pay a huge amount of attention as whilst I was still breastfeeding then, the child was too old to come under either limit. I agree that all in all it's a bit of a mess and a fudge...

In reply to Indy:


...or just as people who share something in common but may as individuals hold a very wide variety of opinions.

jk

In reply to jkarran:


Agreed. Might as well look at the actions of a few individuals and declare the straight community a bigoted bunch.

In reply to Alyson:


Blame the baby!!! as I originally said its a case "F*ck you I'm all right!" According to todays BBC news website its seems a very popular attitude amongst mothers and babies as it now seems that despite there only being 1 space for a disabled person in a wheel chair on a bus then mothers can say "Fu*k you I'm alright I'm not moving YOU wait for the next bus!"

Utterly shameful.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

Sore nipples?

Wanting to be able to share the responsibility?

Worry about how much the baby is getting?

Getting them to sleep better because of the higher calories in formula?

Getting fed up of leaking on their clothes and smelling of old milk?

Wanting to sleep through the night?

In reply to Indy:

Slightly bizarre rant there! I agree parents can be selfish, particularly when it comes to the noise their children make but I would say being allowed to feed them (which will reduce noise, generally) and move them around are both entirely reasonable expectations. Why should being in a wheelchair give more rights to a bus ride than being in a pushchair?

In reply to Indy:

You seem to spend a lot of time searching the internet for reasons to hate groups of people. It's probably not very good for you to be honest.

In reply to Indy:


You've given some good comparisons, but all of those actually cause harm to other people. Seeing someone else's skin doesn't actually cause any harm? And it's easy enough to avert your gaze if you don't like it?

I don't actually know anyone who doesn't like it - in fact, most people go "awwwww" when they see a baby being fed.

In reply to marsbar:


I have a vision of this now! Competitive breast feeding!

In reply to tlm:







It's surprising that anyone does it then. Presumably these are all reasons why people give up on it, in addition to people in restaurants not liking it.

In reply to MG:

Its a matter of definition and of law. It is not a matter of opinion. How you see it isn't actually of any relevance to anyone but you.

In reply to MG:


Because parents can surely carry a baby (millions of mothers manage to do so) for the duration of a bus ride. The guy in a wheel chair has no choice.

I agree with Indy, the holier than thou attitude of many mothers is getting a bit much.

In reply to marsbar:


Its possibly not that clear cut. To be told to leave or to stop breast feeding might be a violation of the law. When we start getting in to feelings of "intrusion" and "dignity" and suchlike, for simply being given a shawl the legal issues might not be entirely clean cut.

In reply to MG:


If it's done simply because someone was a woman, that would be direct discrimination, if it's done but can only affect women (like breastfeeding) then it could be indirect discrimination.

A restaurant with a sign saying 'Please don't insert tampons at the dinner table' would be guilty of indirect discrimination but the good kind or not guilty of discrimination at all or if you were a radical tampon activist, guilty of the bad type of discrimination and hideously sexist.

In reply to The New NickB:

T

The selfies or whatever tell a different story. Pure hyperbole. I'd be more shocked, appalled and humiliated to be seen in the papers eating in such a grotesque establishment.

D

In reply to Dauphin:




It doesn't sound like you understand Twitter.

We have to be the weirdest species, all our development, 'progress' and wealth yet there's time given to debate the simplest of things - feeding a totally dependent child the most tailor made food available.

I breast fed because I'd spent years on a stud farm where the absence of mares milk for a foal was seen as disastrous - but then a future competition horse has a financial worth that in turn forces the most extreme efforts to avoid formula. It's not shocking in the animal world, the absence of politics and debate allows for much clearer and undiluted instruction.

I'm not judging Mum's that didn't - it's the culture I'm judging.

In reply to marsbar:

There's a legal definition of sexist?

In reply to winhill:

How about a sign saying "Baby feeding only in the corner"? Applicable to all equally.

In reply to marsbar:

Marsy,

You are doing a marvellous job of writing very sensible things on this thread.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

If you don't pee in the open air, it doesn't result in a baby screaming...

In reply to The New NickB:

Nope I'd said what I wanted to on the subject and was going to leave it there but on the way home reading the BBC news website the No.1 story at the time was that of a disabled man being denied boarding onto a bus because the 1 single space available to a wheelchair was being squatted by a selfish cow who thought "F*ck you I'm all right!"

Yes no . or ,

In reply to MG:


Are you for real?

In reply to tlm:

Aww thanks

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


From my experience - ie people I know - the main reasons for giving up are either a failure to properly establish feeding after a few days trying, or a lack of good information to help manage the demands of it into the first month. There is a perception that because it's natural it should come naturally, whereas the reality is there are some useful pieces of information which can make a huge difference to how well you get on with it.

In the past our ancestors tended to live in closer groups of extended family, and women would have female relatives around to help. New parents taking a baby home and learning to look after it in isolation is relatively recent and unnatural. Sheffield has a higher rate of breastfeeding than the national average and I'm sure this is because the city employs a couple of dedicated breastfeeding support workers who are simply brilliant.

Getting through all that difficulty only to face disapproval from some intolerant members of the public must be pretty demoralising.

In reply to tlm:


No but it results in you wetting your self

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Ahh! I see! *thinks about Lord and his bladder control problems* don't they sell products for that?

In reply to TMM:
I think making people feel embarassed to breast feed is not only cruel to children but cruel to the mother. It is really exhausting raising a child, more so if you were are an older mother like I am, and breast feeding a child immediately she/he cries settles everything down quickly and reduces the terrible stress on a mother, cause it relieves the crying. I still see women battling the crying of their babies in town, and wonder if they cannot resist the social pressure to FIND A CORNER, prolonging their and their baby's stress, instead of finding the nearest seat and dealing with it immediately. You should see children being breast- fed fairly regularly in town {Inverness} if you follow natural need but you don't! So we still have this awful culture. I hope I did my bit to kill it off......