"Breastfeeding Moms Protest H&M"

comebackwoman

Collin wrote:

I can read the site. Not all states allow breastfeeding on someone else's property without the owner's consent.

good! That's why I supplied the link. Discretion is not required by the law either

_

facepollution wrote:

You're trying to rationalise it from an adult's perspective - it shouldnt be embarrassing, but to a hormonal teenager who may not have been presented with the situation before it is awkward, and I think (in the particular situation I was talking about) unnecessay.

Just out of curiosity, do you mean it could be awkward in the sense that the teenage boy could get an erection? Seriously. (Edit: I mean, that's a serious question.)

_

Collin wrote:

In these situations, yes. There are more than 39 states, however.

Just because only 39 states (the vast majority of them) specifically say store owners don't have a right to tell women to stop breastfeeding doesn't mean that the other 11 states say they do. I very seriously doubt that it would fly in any state. The only thing that flies is your argument about store owner's rights - right out the window.

_

comebackgirl wrote:

Those are just the states that expressly provide protections for breastfeeding. However, it is allowed in every state.

What she said.

_

facepollution wrote:

Because at the age of 14 you probably don't have enough life experience to understand such a situation. It's not one which you would likely have experienced before, and the element of "uh what do I do? what is appropriate here? am I supposed to leave the room" or something along those lines kind of comes to mind.

Wait - isn't this like a chicken and egg situation? You shouldn't see a woman breastfeeding until you have already seen a woman breastfeeding? Seems like a wonderful educational opportunity to me.

catefrances

facepollution wrote:

Because at the age of 14 you probably don't have enough life experience to understand such a situation. It's not one which you would likely have experienced before, and the element of "uh what do I do? what is appropriate here? am I supposed to leave the room" or something along those lines kind of comes to mind.

want to know what i had experience of at age 14? i can tell you it was nothing as benign as breastfeeding thats for sure.

comebackwoman

facepollution wrote:

Because at the age of 14 you probably don't have enough life experience to understand such a situation. It's not one which you would likely have experienced before, and the element of "uh what do I do? what is appropriate here? am I supposed to leave the room" or something along those lines kind of comes to mind.

Many boys have seen a breast in a sexual situation by the age of 14 and I'm sure many many of them have figured out what to do. What's wrong with them learning about the function of a breast to feed a child? Seems like a good learning opportunity.

facepollution

scb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, do you mean it could be awkward in the sense that the teenage boy could get an erection? Seriously. (Edit: I mean, that's a serious question.)

Oh hell no, it's just plain awkward. Like I said, it's hard to explain, and if you haven't been a teenage boy you don't know exactly what I'm talking about, because breastfeeding is a very unique thing, it's not really comparable to anything else. And no I don't think it's a 'good' learning experience at all. Of course as you mature it's something you get used to, but I think the adult in that particular scenario ought to show at least some respect. I think Jeanie hit the nail on the head when she said that having breastfed she's pretty blase about the issue now.

Jeanie wrote:

Ok, what I'm saying is that many people in this thread seem to be saying that breast feeding in public is ok "as long as" and then there are whatever expectations people feel are necessary in order for them to feel that a women is behaving appropriately. So I see people saying we don't object to the exposure of the breast so much as long as certain requirements are met in order to appease our sensibilities. What I wonder is, if you open your newspaper and there's a girl on page three with her breasts fully exposed purely for entertainment purposes what kind of requirements do people feel they need of the paper or the women topless in the paper in order for their sensibilities to be appeased and if they don't, why not? It just seems that many people would just open the paper, take a look and then move on to the sports section or the horoscope and not give it any more thought, why then is it different when we're talking about breastfeeding?

Society is a funny thing, full of hypocrisy. I also think you are kind of only showing part of the picture to illustrate your point. Both men's and women's bodies are objectified and used to sell products etc. You know if you go to Abercrombie & Fitch in London you are greeted on the door by two topless muscle-bound men! Now personally I think that is ridiculous, I don't need to be seeing that when I want to buy a pair of jeans or something.

Jeanie

facepollution wrote:

Society is a funny thing, full of hypocrisy. I also think you are kind of only showing part of the picture to illustrate your point. Both men's and women's bodies are objectified and used to sell products etc. You know if you go to Abercrombie & Fitch in London you are greeted on the door by two topless muscle-bound men! Now personally I think that is ridiculous, I don't need to be seeing that when I want to buy a pair of jeans or something.

Agreed. But the same distinction can't be made for topless men on account they don't breast feed or believe me I'd have made it. There's not really an equivalent as far as I can see, women being the only ones that breast feed. The penis stuff doesn't really cover it accurately either.
I agree that both men and women are objectified and yeah, much as I don't have a problem with nudity I do have to wonder at some of the ridiculous ways in which the human body is presented in order to sell a product.

Collin

Jeanie wrote:

Well I suppose you could see it that way. I don't. I see it as someone doesn't agree with his action and therefore they are publicly calling him out on it and hoping to effect a change in attitude. Don't forget this person that the proprietor is imposing his will on is also a customer. I grew up in a time when the customer was always right and that a good customer was a repeat customer. If he's not going to value all his customers there will be consequences for that. A good business man would know that.

If you disagree with someone, do you always gather up people who agree with you and do you go and protest in front of their homes? I hope not. If so, I'm very glad we don't live close to each other

The proprietor is indeed imposing his will. Any good business man would do that. The customer never was always right, I'm sure a business owner would have kicked you out of his business if you walked in butt naked or started singing Celine Dion songs.

A business owner has to try and make every customer as comfortable as possible. He may think a breastfeeding mom is more comfortable in a private place, for example. He might have received ten complaints about the breast.

I think he has to take every one into consideration. It's a lot easier to ask a woman to go to the bathroom or a private room to feed her child than it is to put ten tables in the bathroom.

If you don't like the service a simple complaint will do.

What if Rosa Parkes had never got on the bus? What if MLK had never done what he did, said what he said? What if all the little people that were subjected to discrimination based on the flawed premise that they were less because of the colour of their skin had simply used discretion, taken on board that other people were embarrassed or uncomfortable seeing dark skinned people and they'd never stood up and fought for their basic human right? To be acknowledged as equal?

Like I said I don't think you can compare the two. Sure, I can draw parallels as well... I just don't think it's the same at all.

One reason I disagree with the comparison is the link comebackgirl provided. It say 39 states have laws with language specifically allowing women to breastfeed in any public or private location.

That means someone else's rights have been trampled on in favour for breast feeding moms.

I hardly think it's necessary to organise a march, a nurse-in or a protest whenever a business owner isn't aware of the law. A simple complaint, or even mentioning the law will do. If he wants you to leave simply say no. He'll call the police and they will tell him he's wrong.

No need to go protesting in front of his business.

Of course this isn't the only reason why I think the two things are not the same.

It's a flawed premise that the human female breast should not be seen in public because it is also viewed as a sexual organ.

Who says that's the reason people are uncomfortable with it?

The breast is designed in mammals for the function of feeding and the offspring of mammals require the sustenance of their mother's milk. It's their basic human right to be fed and it's the basic human right of their mothers to feed them. Hopefully if people keeping standing up there will never be qualification placed upon that act in the future. When a child needs to be fed it will be fed wherever that may be.

It's my basic right to eat as well. That doesn't mean I get to eat wherever I want, however. There are always restrictions. Always. I don't see why it would be any different for babies and breastfeeding moms.

Breastfeeding is not nudity.

I think it is and I think my opinion is as valid as yours.

I think at least 25 states (should read that site again) have already made sure breastfeeding doesn't constitute as nudity. But march on, Martin!

Collin

comebackgirl wrote:

good! That's why I supplied the link. Discretion is not required by the law either

Nope, it's not, it's the human thing to do.

Collin

scb wrote:

Just because only 39 states (the vast majority of them) specifically say store owners don't have a right to tell women to stop breastfeeding doesn't mean that the other 11 states say they do. I very seriously doubt that it would fly in any state. The only thing that flies is your argument about store owner's rights - right out the window.

Who said anything about telling women to stop breastfeeding?

I wonder where our arguments are flying to, scb?