NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,111
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 7, 2017 11:58:54 GMT -5
I got out of jury duty because there is no place to pump in the booth and you can't be excused to do it. If my grandmother being dead doesn't get her out of jury duty I am pretty sure they would have made me nurse if it was allowed.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Sept 7, 2017 12:00:49 GMT -5
I don't think Virgil is referring to the priests/ministers as the "high dignitary" one is presenting themselves to at church. I think he is referring to God. if God is everywhere, that means he's already seen a mother nurse (and poop and shower and have sex and give birth), so I don't think he'd mind her feeding her child while listening to The Word.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Sept 7, 2017 12:01:31 GMT -5
I wouldn't feel uncomfortable bringing my infant and if necessary, nursing the infant during a meeting with the Queen, foreign leaders or the CEO of a company. My presence was obviously important enough that I was invited, just as I was invited to various board meetings when I had an infant. As a person with unique skills, there are times when my skills are important and there is not a good substitute. Other times, my presence is important because it's a personal meeting. Bringing an infant to and potentially having to feed an infant during those times falls into the same category as dealing with a medical issue. Men with ostomies aren't barred from meetings, for example even though the physical process of elimination is often considered indiscreet and the output is detectable to those around them. Hosts are gracious to individuals with medical conditions they can't work around, but this is a separate category from clearly elective activities like breastfeeding. If circumstances arise where a mother must reasonably bring her infant to church, the infant must be fed during services, and the feeding must be conducted in public, then accommodations should be made. As for your views on the appropriateness of breastfeeding, the relevant question is: if the protocol for meeting with the Queen, etc., which was set by the controllers of her household, forbade public breast feeding, would you honour the protocol? Would you resent the controllers for establishing the protocol? 1. Eating is elective? There are some kids who absolutely will not take a bottle. 2. If the queen told me i couldnt' breastfeed in her presence, i would honor it. I honor the requests of people who are hosting me. It doesn't mean taht i won't resent her or think she's wrong.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Sept 7, 2017 12:02:21 GMT -5
I don't think Virgil is referring to the priests/ministers as the "high dignitary" one is presenting themselves to at church. I think he is referring to God. so following that logic, you can't breastfeed anywhere because God is everywhere.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 7, 2017 12:02:49 GMT -5
Priests are not kings and should not be treated as such. A Christian attends church to appear before God Almighty, not the minister or the priest. If you dispute this, perhaps reply in the Joel 2:16 thread I just created in RD.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Sept 7, 2017 12:03:40 GMT -5
I wouldn't feel uncomfortable bringing my infant and if necessary, nursing the infant during a meeting with the Queen, foreign leaders or the CEO of a company. My presence was obviously important enough that I was invited, just as I was invited to various board meetings when I had an infant. As a person with unique skills, there are times when my skills are important and there is not a good substitute. Other times, my presence is important because it's a personal meeting. Bringing an infant to and potentially having to feed an infant during those times falls into the same category as dealing with a medical issue. Men with ostomies aren't barred from meetings, for example even though the physical process of elimination is often considered indiscreet and the output is detectable to those around them. Hosts are gracious to individuals with medical conditions they can't work around, but this is a separate category from clearly elective activities like breastfeeding. If circumstances arise where a mother must reasonably bring her infant to church, the infant must be fed during services, and the feeding must be conducted in public, then accommodations should be made. As for your views on the appropriateness of breastfeeding, the relevant question is: if the protocol for meeting with the Queen, etc., which was set by the controllers of her household, forbade public breast feeding, would you honour the protocol? Would you resent the controllers for establishing the protocol? Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. There were very important meetings and other business obligations including church council I had to attend when both my boys were less than a week old. Infants are fragile, it's not optional to feed them, there may not be any alternatives and besides a nursing baby is much quieter than a hungry, crying baby. If there were people that attempted to tell me that I could not feed my infant then I would politely explain why I could not attend the function since I was the only one who could perform this task at this time. In most of the cases where I was invited to meetings, I suspect the people involved would rather deal with me feeding an infant than try to muddle through the business and legal issues without me.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 7, 2017 12:05:09 GMT -5
I don't think Virgil is referring to the priests/ministers as the "high dignitary" one is presenting themselves to at church. I think he is referring to God. so following that logic, you can't breastfeed anywhere because God is everywhere. I don't know what his logic is. I simply stated some were commenting on Virgil's post about how priests, etc., should not be treated as dignitaries and that wasn't what he was saying at all.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Sept 7, 2017 12:05:56 GMT -5
I nursed at several board meetings. Nobody seemed to care.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Sept 7, 2017 12:07:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't feel uncomfortable bringing my infant and if necessary, nursing the infant during a meeting with the Queen, foreign leaders or the CEO of a company. My presence was obviously important enough that I was invited, just as I was invited to various board meetings when I had an infant. As a person with unique skills, there are times when my skills are important and there is not a good substitute. Other times, my presence is important because it's a personal meeting. Bringing an infant to and potentially having to feed an infant during those times falls into the same category as dealing with a medical issue. Men with ostomies aren't barred from meetings, for example even though the physical process of elimination is often considered indiscreet and the output is detectable to those around them. Hosts are gracious to individuals with medical conditions they can't work around, but this is a separate category from clearly elective activities like breastfeeding. If circumstances arise where a mother must reasonably bring her infant to church, the infant must be fed during services, and the feeding must be conducted in public, then accommodations should be made. As for your views on the appropriateness of breastfeeding, the relevant question is: if the protocol for meeting with the Queen, etc., which was set by the controllers of her household, forbade public breast feeding, would you honour the protocol? Would you resent the controllers for establishing the protocol? To me, if the rules are no breastfeeding in church, then those going to church should respect that. The obvious (again, to me) answer is to stop going to that church if you disagree with those rules. In the case of the OP, I don't think the author of the editorial was speaking in an official capacity of the church, but instead was just pontificating as a nasty old biddy. I, therefore, know not what the rules of that church are, but I can only surmise that there are no official rules against breastfeeding during the service.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 7, 2017 12:12:38 GMT -5
Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. There were very important meetings and other business obligations including church council I had to attend when both my boys were less than a week old. Infants are fragile, it's not optional to feed them, there may not be any alternatives and besides a nursing baby is much quieter than a hungry, crying baby. If there were people that attempted to tell me that I could not feed my infant then I would politely explain why I could not attend the function since I was the only one who could perform this task at this time. In most of the cases where I was invited to meetings, I suspect the people involved would rather deal with me feeding an infant than try to muddle through the business and legal issues without me. Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. Breastfeeding a hungry infant is. Pro-breastfeeders seem to want to often equate the two things, they're not the same thing. That doesn't mean it's not a valid elective choice, but people should recognize that it's still a choice being made.
To Virgil's point on the protocol for meeting with the Queen...there's a big difference between there being some official protocol that says "Don't breastfeed in church, or this church specifically, or something similar" and "I'm a random person who just doesn't want you to breastfeed in this church because I say so". Similar to meeting the Queen who says "it's fine, go ahead" and another random person also meeting the Queen saying "You don't do that here, because I say you can't, even though I have no real authority to control your actions in this situation".
ETA: We can bring it back to the clothing/dress issue just as easily right? If the Church says "You should come dressed in a suit for men and a knee-length dress for women"...then you should decide whether that's the right church for you. If it is, then you should conform to that organization's rules. If the Church says "Everyone is welcome, come in jeans, come in sweats, we don't care, we're just glad you're here"...then the random person who says "You need to wear a suit because I'm tired of seeing your jenky sweatpants" needs to shut up.
There's a difference between "I don't like this and wish people wouldn't do it" and "You need to stop doing that because I don't like it". The article in the OP sounded a lot more like the latter.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,703
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
Member is Online
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Sept 7, 2017 12:13:15 GMT -5
do you know who wrote it? or what church she attends? someone should organize a new mom breast feeding group to sit in on their services and feed the wholetime. And then burp all the babies in unison. That would really get her girdle in a twist.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 7, 2017 12:16:23 GMT -5
I don't think Virgil is referring to the priests/ministers as the "high dignitary" one is presenting themselves to at church. I think he is referring to God. if God is everywhere, that means he's already seen a mother nurse (and poop and shower and have sex and give birth), so I don't think he'd mind her feeding her child while listening to The Word. It's a matter of our conduct toward God, and specifically which protocols have been established concerning behaviours that show reverence and those that show irreverence. A Christian's responsibility is to respect the rules established by the ministry. swamp: I don't consider breastfeeding pornographic any more than I consider eating a plate of nachos pornographic. I do consider both inappropriate when kneeling before a king.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 7, 2017 12:18:05 GMT -5
In the case of the OP, I don't think the author of the editorial was speaking in an official capacity of the church, but instead was just pontificating as a nasty old biddy. I feel so... supported.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 7, 2017 12:21:53 GMT -5
Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. There were very important meetings and other business obligations including church council I had to attend when both my boys were less than a week old. Infants are fragile, it's not optional to feed them, there may not be any alternatives and besides a nursing baby is much quieter than a hungry, crying baby. If there were people that attempted to tell me that I could not feed my infant then I would politely explain why I could not attend the function since I was the only one who could perform this task at this time. In most of the cases where I was invited to meetings, I suspect the people involved would rather deal with me feeding an infant than try to muddle through the business and legal issues without me. Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. Breastfeeding a hungry infant is. Pro-breastfeeders seem to want to often equate the two things, they're not the same thing. That doesn't mean it's not a valid elective choice, but people should recognize that it's still a choice being made.
To Virgil's point on the protocol for meeting with the Queen...there's a big difference between there being some official protocol that says "Don't breastfeed in church, or this church specifically, or something similar" and "I'm a random person who just doesn't want you to breastfeed in this church because I say so". Similar to meeting the Queen who says "it's fine, go ahead" and another random person also meeting the Queen saying "You don't do that here, because I say you can't, even though I have no real authority to control your actions in this situation".
ETA: We can bring it back to the clothing/dress issue just as easily right? If the Church says "You should come dressed in a suit for men and a knee-length dress for women"...then you should decide whether that's the right church for you. If it is, then you should conform to that organization's rules. If the Church says "Everyone is welcome, come in jeans, come in sweats, we don't care, we're just glad you're here"...then the random person who says "You need to wear a suit because I'm tired of seeing your jenky sweatpants" needs to shut up.
There's a difference between "I don't like this and wish people wouldn't do it" and "You need to stop doing that because I don't like it". The article in the OP sounded a lot more like the latter.
She may not have the authority to set the rule, but does expressing a conservative opinion in an op ed make her a nasty old biddy? She's a conservative woman with an opinion.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Sept 7, 2017 12:23:38 GMT -5
Why would you want to lug around bottles, prepping by pumping, when you've got your boobs right there and ready to go? That's exactly what they were designed to do! That said, I would at least cover up if I were nursing. I did it bc I couldn't nurse in public. I am beyond clumsy and not graceful. I couldn't do it walking around or standing. I had to sit down in a certain position or I would end up half naked with baby hanging upside down and milk EVERYWHERE. That being said - I never intended to pump. I had to do it bc of the medical issue when my first kid was born and was only a few weeks old. I was VERY VERY VERY anti formula, so pumped and pumped and pumped.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Sept 7, 2017 12:23:57 GMT -5
In the case of the OP, I don't think the author of the editorial was speaking in an official capacity of the church, but instead was just pontificating as a nasty old biddy. I feel so... supported. You can call me your personal jockstrap.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,111
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 7, 2017 12:26:15 GMT -5
I had to sit down in a certain position or I would end up half naked with baby hanging upside down and milk EVERYWHERE.I never did master being able to do multiple things and nurse at the same time. I tried to answer the phone once while nursing and yeah. . . That's where my loving manservant *ahem* DH came in. He's seen me walk and try to chew gum at the same time, he gets it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 7, 2017 12:27:14 GMT -5
I feel so... supported. You can call me your personal jockstrap. You're the plucky comic relief.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 7, 2017 12:36:02 GMT -5
Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. Breastfeeding a hungry infant is. Pro-breastfeeders seem to want to often equate the two things, they're not the same thing. That doesn't mean it's not a valid elective choice, but people should recognize that it's still a choice being made.
To Virgil's point on the protocol for meeting with the Queen...there's a big difference between there being some official protocol that says "Don't breastfeed in church, or this church specifically, or something similar" and "I'm a random person who just doesn't want you to breastfeed in this church because I say so". Similar to meeting the Queen who says "it's fine, go ahead" and another random person also meeting the Queen saying "You don't do that here, because I say you can't, even though I have no real authority to control your actions in this situation".
ETA: We can bring it back to the clothing/dress issue just as easily right? If the Church says "You should come dressed in a suit for men and a knee-length dress for women"...then you should decide whether that's the right church for you. If it is, then you should conform to that organization's rules. If the Church says "Everyone is welcome, come in jeans, come in sweats, we don't care, we're just glad you're here"...then the random person who says "You need to wear a suit because I'm tired of seeing your jenky sweatpants" needs to shut up.
There's a difference between "I don't like this and wish people wouldn't do it" and "You need to stop doing that because I don't like it". The article in the OP sounded a lot more like the latter.
She may not have the authority to set the rule, but does expressing a conservative opinion in an op ed make her a nasty old biddy? She's a conservative woman with an opinion. I do think she sounds nasty, and I think it's a lot more than a conservative woman with an opinion. She sounds like a judgmental...let's go with "biddy" even though a different b-word seems more accurate.
To my point on authority...I read her piece as much more "you need to do this" than "I happen to not like this". I can have an opinion on something without telling other people what to do.
I don't think this would be getting attention if she had written "I happen to think it's inappropriate for women to breastfeed in church". It's getting attention because of the rather nasty, judgmental tone.
Expressing a conservative opinion in an op ed doesn't make her a nasty old biddy. The WAY she expressed her conservative opinion does (IMO).
Knowing that you're conservative, I would expect you to be one of the first to want to separate the idea that conservative=judgmental. It's already a fairly commonly-held belief that those who are conservative tend to sound similar to this...judgmental, nasty to those who disagree, etc. You can be conservative. You can be nasty. Those things are not related. This woman happens to sound as if she's both.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Sept 7, 2017 12:36:58 GMT -5
Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. There were very important meetings and other business obligations including church council I had to attend when both my boys were less than a week old. Infants are fragile, it's not optional to feed them, there may not be any alternatives and besides a nursing baby is much quieter than a hungry, crying baby. If there were people that attempted to tell me that I could not feed my infant then I would politely explain why I could not attend the function since I was the only one who could perform this task at this time. In most of the cases where I was invited to meetings, I suspect the people involved would rather deal with me feeding an infant than try to muddle through the business and legal issues without me. Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. Breastfeeding a hungry infant is. You're assuming some things about a person and about the infant that might or might not be true. In any case, it's a personal medical matter and the person shouldn't be expected to justify personal medical matters to anyone. If I have a certain skillset that is valuable to an organization and I am willing to provide my help even when I am recovering from a medical event and am still dealing with medical issues for myself and my infant, then instead of wondering whether I could or should have pumped or whether my baby could or should drink from a bottle and whether I could or should have had someone else who could care for my infant, perhaps the proper and gracious response is, "thank you for coming." Edited to add: when I had to attend business functions and board meetings a few days after having knee surgery, nobody felt that was inappropriate even though my knee was the size of a basketball and was draining. Feeding an infant 4 days after giving birth should fall into the same category. You thank the expert for being willing to still give their help rather than judge their methods of doing so.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,166
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 7, 2017 12:37:49 GMT -5
Priests are not kings and should not be treated as such. And, frankly, most of our mass is run by lay people. Our priest only does the third reading, the homily, and does blessing over the wafers/wine. In an hour mass, maybe he's got a 15-20 minute role? Personally, I find it surprising that you think that normal, regular people should be treated like high dignitaries. I certainly think, for example, that DH shouldn't be treated as such because he's an usher. Nor should I, when I play in church. Nor the person who welcomes everyone and reads off the announcements at the end of mass. ETA: However, shit. Perhaps I should tell DH that he and the kids need to start treating me like a queen. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. The comparison was not priests to kings, but coming before GOD in the same way as you would a king or high dignitary. Well, my god says "Come as you are." I mean, we welcome everyone in our church, or at least we're supposed to. Sick, well, hungry, fed, clean, dirty, convict, ..you get the idea. Protocol might dicate that one takes a bath before they shake hands with the queen. My church doesn't require that for entrance.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,703
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
Member is Online
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Sept 7, 2017 12:39:12 GMT -5
I feel so... supported. You can call me your personal jockstrap. And that is the worst picture ever imagined on this board - ever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 9:31:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 12:39:50 GMT -5
My first never would take a bottle. He would scream his head off through the entire mass with bottles all around him, it wouldn't matter. He would have nothing to do with them. Five to 10 minutes on the breast and he'd be out cold.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 7, 2017 12:45:11 GMT -5
Feeding a hungry infant isn't elective. Breastfeeding a hungry infant is. You're assuming some things about a person and about the infant that might or might not be true. In any case, it's a personal medical matter and the person shouldn't be expected to justify personal medical matters to anyone. If I have a certain skillset that is valuable to an organization and I am willing to provide my help even when I am recovering from a medical event and am still dealing with medical issues for myself and my infant, then instead of wondering whether I could or should have pumped or whether my baby could or should drink from a bottle and whether I could or should have had someone else who could care for my infant, perhaps the proper and gracious response is, "thank you for coming." The fact that you don't need to JUSTIFY decisions doesn't change the fact that they are decisions though. I don't even care which decision someone makes, I just want in general for people to stop pretending that decisions they make are not actually decisions (not just in this area, but in many areas like spending, care of children, etc). People use the "it isn't elective" argument as a de facto way of trying to win for their side by presenting their side as the ONLY option...when it clearly isn't.
I think in general, it's a dangerous policy to pretend that one's own decision is the only possible way that things can be. If you're not looking for my help/opinion, you not only don't have to justify your medical decisions...you don't have to justify ANY of your decisions. Let's just be up front that you're making a decision though rather than pretending there is no option at all.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 7, 2017 12:46:00 GMT -5
She may not have the authority to set the rule, but does expressing a conservative opinion in an op ed make her a nasty old biddy? She's a conservative woman with an opinion. I do think she sounds nasty, and I think it's a lot more than a conservative woman with an opinion. She sounds like a judgmental...let's go with "biddy" even though a different b-word seems more accurate.
To my point on authority...I read her piece as much more "you need to do this" than "I happen to not like this". I can have an opinion on something without telling other people what to do.
I don't think this would be getting attention if she had written "I happen to think it's inappropriate for women to breastfeed in church". It's getting attention because of the rather nasty, judgmental tone.
Expressing a conservative opinion in an op ed doesn't make her a nasty old biddy. The WAY she expressed her conservative opinion does (IMO).
Knowing that you're conservative, I would expect you to be one of the first to want to separate the idea that conservative=judgmental. It's already a fairly commonly-held belief that those who are conservative tend to sound similar to this...judgmental, nasty to those who disagree, etc. You can be conservative. You can be nasty. Those things are not related. This woman happens to sound as if she's both.
She could be more diplomatic with her wording, and the rhetoric at the end is mean-spirited. Having said this, I suspect this thread would be here regardless of how diplomatically she'd expressed this particular opinion.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Sept 7, 2017 12:48:18 GMT -5
You're assuming some things about a person and about the infant that might or might not be true. In any case, it's a personal medical matter and the person shouldn't be expected to justify personal medical matters to anyone. If I have a certain skillset that is valuable to an organization and I am willing to provide my help even when I am recovering from a medical event and am still dealing with medical issues for myself and my infant, then instead of wondering whether I could or should have pumped or whether my baby could or should drink from a bottle and whether I could or should have had someone else who could care for my infant, perhaps the proper and gracious response is, "thank you for coming." The fact that you don't need to JUSTIFY decisions doesn't change the fact that they are decisions though. I don't even care which decision someone makes, I just want in general for people to stop pretending that decisions they make are not actually decisions (not just in this area, but in many areas like spending, care of children, etc). People use the "it isn't elective" argument as a de facto way of trying to win for their side by presenting their side as the ONLY option...when it clearly isn't.
I think in general, it's a dangerous policy to pretend that one's own decision is the only possible way that things can be. If you're not looking for my help/opinion, you not only don't have to justify your medical decisions...you don't have to justify ANY of your decisions. Let's just be up front that you're making a decision though rather than pretending there is no option at all.
Sure. Breastfeeding a hungry infant when the infant won't take a bottle and the mother is fighting an infection/engorgement is "optional" the same way it's optional for the man in my example to wear his ostomy bag.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Sept 7, 2017 12:48:59 GMT -5
I do think she sounds nasty, and I think it's a lot more than a conservative woman with an opinion. She sounds like a judgmental...let's go with "biddy" even though a different b-word seems more accurate.
To my point on authority...I read her piece as much more "you need to do this" than "I happen to not like this". I can have an opinion on something without telling other people what to do.
I don't think this would be getting attention if she had written "I happen to think it's inappropriate for women to breastfeed in church". It's getting attention because of the rather nasty, judgmental tone.
Expressing a conservative opinion in an op ed doesn't make her a nasty old biddy. The WAY she expressed her conservative opinion does (IMO).
Knowing that you're conservative, I would expect you to be one of the first to want to separate the idea that conservative=judgmental. It's already a fairly commonly-held belief that those who are conservative tend to sound similar to this...judgmental, nasty to those who disagree, etc. You can be conservative. You can be nasty. Those things are not related. This woman happens to sound as if she's both.
She could be more diplomatic with her wording, and the rhetoric at the end is mean-spirited. Having said this, I suspect this thread would be here regardless of how diplomatically she'd expressed this particular opinion. No, i only posted it because of the nastiness of the tone. My DH didn't like me breastfeeding in public. I told him he could suck it.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,166
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 7, 2017 12:50:35 GMT -5
Meh, I think kids probably get a lot more out of being somewhere else with something geared towards them than they do sitting in a church service waiting for it to be over...or playing with toys quietly like most seem to during the adult services. Depends on the kid. My oldest kid is an old soul. At 5, one day, he talked about Jesus, and if Joseph adopted him. Which morphed into a discussion about adoption in general, which finally evolved into a discussion on what makes a good marital partner. I've been around a fair amount of kids, being that they are my clients. Rarely at that age do other kids talk about what makes a good marriage partner. Contrast that with my 3rd at 5, who at any given moment will greet you with a rousing chorus of "Boobies Boobies Boobies!" because 1) she's seen your boobs, 2) she's seen someone else's boobs, or 3) because she can make my DS blush or 4) she just feels like being a little shit.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 7, 2017 13:00:57 GMT -5
Since it is a money board, I'm surprised that nobody's brought up the issue of how expensive decent breast pumps are. My youngest is 13 now, so maybe it's changed but when he was a baby the least expensive breast pump that actually worked worth a darn started at $300. For a family with a SAHS, that's a lot of money to spend so they may not even have a pump. You can rent them.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,893
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 7, 2017 13:03:30 GMT -5
I support breastfeeding, but how you do it, IMHO, is important. A number of years back, I was visiting the church I grew up at, and a very well endowed woman just whipped out her very large breast in the middle of church, & started nursing her child. Now, if she'd attempted to cover her breast I would have no problem, but she just "let it all hang out", and judging by the number of men staring, I doubt they were focused on the sermon, if you get my drift. women are always trying to corrupt us. Started with Eve in all her naked glory. As American as apple pie
|
|