I work at McDonald's, if he's offended by a breast, he should probably have looked around at all the other inbreds. as for them being "shoved in their face", I struggle to see how a mother breast feeding her baby 20ft away is shoving her breasts in his face. Your suggestion of a screened off area is an interesting one, you'd happily make a mother feel relegated to a small area, closed off from everyone else just so she can do something natural?
In 1960's segregated US, white people took a real offense to having to share their restaurants, cinemas, dance halls, public transport, schools and even public conveniences and water fountains with black people. Good thing that they had "screened-off" areas where these members of society could go, so that nobody would be offended. People have objected to eating in the presence of learning disabled people. So distasteful, no? I know, cheap shot; people can choose to breast feed, they cannot choose to be black or learning disabled. But they can choose their religion, right? What was the term in 1930's Germany? "Juden Verboten"? Tolerance. Not just a term for engineering.
I ought to clarify that I'm in no way offended by the process, put simply I was playing devil's advocate. Personally I think taking offence to most things is offensive in itself But sadly in reality alarmingly hard to come by.
You said it, Nex, a very cheap shot and frankly irrelevant to a lifestyle choice. Tolerance is determined by a whole range of things including upbringing, instilled morals, religious beliefs etc. and by one's own definition of the term. Inbreds? You seem to be implying he was such a one. That doesn't sound very tolerant of someone to me. Whilst by my definition I would agree that 20ft away is not "in your face" per se, you seem to miss the point that not everyone is brought up with the same point of view on life as you and that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or evil or bad. What if the person had been a Muslim? Could you tell just by looking at him or taking his order that he wasn't? To a devout Muslim I suspect such a public "display" would be deemed inappropriate. Or, what if he'd been interferred with as a child by a woman and can't abide the sight of breasts? You don't know why he felt the way he did, do you?
You are missing the point. I make no value judgement about people's beliefs; only about their perceived entitlement to impose them on others in a public setting. I think that if a Muslim told you to cover your hair or wear a veil in public, Carrie, that you would tell him, with due respect for his beliefs of course, to eff off. Because his lifestyle choices do not trump yours.
Erm has someone deleted my post? Something along the lines of 'holy thread revival' ? Rather uncalled for as this thread was made effing yonks ago tbh.
I thought it was a faux pas to revive old threads heh. Evidently it only applies when certain people do it.
It is if the thread has run its course and nothing new (or good) can come of it, such as rehashing, bickering/flaming or thread derailment into spam because there is not really anything new to say. Sometimes however the conversation revives into an interesting debate again, such as happened here, so we're letting it run.
Actually I think you're missing the other side of this. You, presumably, find nothing wrong with a woman breast feeding in public. If that's the case, fair enough you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But knowing there are people out there who do not agree with that stance, for a whole variety of reasons they have justified to themselves, where is the consideration on the part of the woman with a child attached to her nipple for those in the "audience" who consider it inappropriate? Nowhere. You are asking for tolerance and consideration on one side only. You know me so well don't you or do you? If I was attending a public event that necessitated wearing a headscarf, having arms covered or whatever, I'd apply the required sense of decorum to the situation. I would respect their wishes, at the very least take them into consideration, and if I felt I couldn't comply I would not attend. If however he insisted on a veil, I'd merely laugh at him in a derisory manner. I tend to save "ef awff" for friends, colleagues and forum members because friends know I don't mean it, colleagues know I do and as for forumites, well, I'll leave that up to you to figure out :
Allow me to clarify. This is about personal freedoms. The woman is free to breast feed; the other diner is free to take offence. He cannot limit the woman in her feeding her baby like the woman cannot tell him not to take offence. Think of it in the context of freedom of expression, if you like; it's the same thing. Both are equally entitled to do their own thing, but it is frankly insane for them to expect the rest of the world to behave according to their respective wishes. Regardless of how you express it, if a Muslim wanted you to wear a veil in public because of his personal sensitivities you would refuse because it would encroach on your personal freedoms, whereas you not wearing a veil would not encroach on his. He is free to take offence, avert his eyes or go home and draw the curtains or deal with it in whatever way he wants as long as it does not limit you. That is my point.
I have to ask, why is this even a thing? People bitching about the medically proven best thing to do for your child? For almost all of human history, this was the only option and nobody cared. Breasts were for feeding babies. Now, we want to oversexualize everything and people should not feed their kids because I want boobies to be for play? I swear, I don't want to live on this planet any more. For thousands of years, this has been a complete non-issue. Why now do we pitch a fit about a normal, healthy bodily function? My wife couldn't breastfeed because of major medical complications, but I fully supported her and every other woman who has pursued it as a matter of course. Nor do I place any "well only if" modifiers on it-first off, this is a medical issue, and I am not a doctor (though I have plenty of medical training.) Second, I'm apparently evolved enough to understand they are not attempting to offend in the first place-if they're eating, why should the child not eat? They're getting the child ready for eating when they're off the breast. It's a huge deal here for someone to just breastfeed, let alone in public. It's honestly upsetting on a deep personal level that someone pitches a fit over it. Then again, we're going against many thousands of years of how our societies see our bodies all the time, and calling it "cultured."
^^^ my thoughts exactly. It is only an issue because a sexually immature society basically cannot get away from going: "Hur dur dur... Boobies!" when they see a woman breast feed. They impose their sexualisation on the natural, wholesome act of a mother feeding her baby. It's a bit perverse, if you ask me.
As you say Nexxo, it is perverse, and also rather dysfunctional. Breastfeeding does not only serve to feed the baby, but also to bond the mother with the child, to improve the childs immune system and so much more.
Godwin's law. Anyway Nexxo, there are limitations to what you say about personal freedom. After all, one is not allowed to simply ramble down the street naked whenever one chose to do so.
But equally one is not allowed to donder down a nudist beach fully clothed. I recall one teacher (history I think) from a decade or so ago, who was quite the chauvinist, it was his opinion that a man seeing a naked woman in her garden would be considered a peeping-tom, whereas the inverse situation would amount to indecent exposure on his part. To his mind a female body was something to lust over which should be protected, and a male body was something repulsive which should be shielded. Both can be seen to lead to repression.
