quote: . Imagine the Campaign: Democrats fight for families! Fair wages! Birth choices! People over corporations! The right to choose your education! Freedom from government tyranny! The integrity of our bodies is sacrosanct! Our choices are our own! Families of all kinds have the right to be! And really, if women are able to publicly breastfeed their babies in peace, then they finally have the right to be topless. Really, how could we lose?
This article touches on a lot of issues that matter to me as a parent and I find myself frustrated that Democrats ( and other liberal parties- I mostly identify as Green) either don't touch on or hold an opposing viewpoint. Another which the article doesn't tackle, but which I think is highly important, is that most liberal activism for mothers takes the route of universally funded child care, maternity leave, etc. I think these are important, very important. every parent needs to be able to choose not work or not work and to have adequate care, leave and wages.But what if a mother does not wish to work? Some feminists will treat this almost as treachery. Why is it that my political philosophies should effect how I feel about being home with my children?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
On the same note, I believe in the right to birth choices and the right of a woman to have a birth, home or otherwise, attended by a midwife if she so wishes, but I, as a woman who has chosen two inductions with epidurals in the hospital, resent being classed as evil or stupid or mindless for this choice. I had a hard time reading that, it had some good points but couched them in very intensely provocative and often offensive terms.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I support any initiative to have more topless women.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Caesarean sections are on the rise (in Brazil the rate is up to 80 percent, here in the U.S. it’s hitting 30 percent and climbing); did you ever wonder why?
Holy carp! 80% ceasarean in Brazil?!?
As to why, well, at heart the argument seems to be that the unborn child is under the purview of the state, which is to say that the state has final say.
quote: And if you do breastfeed, just try to do it in public. People sneer, managers ask you to move along, police officers write tickets. Here’s what Democrats need to back: a curb on the ceaseless marketing of infant formula, as if profit were more important than health. And for the babies—we should repeal the nudity laws too.
I would be curious to see someone argue that the sensitivities of ___________ trumps breast-feeding.
quote: So really, it’s time for Democrats to embrace the idea of school choice and allow for a free market of ideas.
I agree. A fair and equitable voucher system is workable, though it has its own problem.
[quote]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Really, how could we lose?
Because some of those values may be wrong and dangerous - especially if taken to an extreme. In particular "our choices are our own" is a short-sighted way of looking at individual choice, and is likely to lead to all sorts of unethical behavior. In reality, our choices influence other people in all sorts of ways, and thus they aren't simply our own choices to make. That's why you aren't allowed to choose to kill someone, or steal from someone, or do all sorts of other unlawful and/or unethical things.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Really, how could we lose?
You, evidently, are too far removed by time or location to remember "Freedom Academies" in the South during the 60's and early 70's. The generation that lost their chance for a decent education will provide good argument aganst your voucher schemes.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Please clarify. The government funded private education for the poor in the 60's and 70's? I was in a private school during this period (GA), and it's the first I've heard of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The reason why cesarian births are so popular in Brazil is because of class perceptions. It is considred low and base for a woman to give birth vaginally, and more refined and upper-class to give birth by cesarian.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Interesting.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
This was the attempt to bypass the segregation of public schools by setting up private schools for everyone who could afford it. (which meant white students) The "Freedom Academies" (or "Segregation Academies") were never adequately funded, staffed or supervised and, all but a very few were sub-standard. At the same time, the support for public education fell to zero. White Voters had their children in the private schools and had no interest in supporting the public schools. So the conditions and standards of the public schools were "third world" at best.
I was playing in a Military band, based in Montgomery AL at the time. We spent most days in the schools of the Southern states. They were truly pitiful.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Pretty much everyone I talked to about it while I was pregnant was surprised or even shocked that I wanted to try natural childbirth. Several people told me that I'd never be able to go through with it.
There were two nursing students present in the hospital when I went in, and the supervisor asked if they could observe, because they never seen a vaginal delivery at all and when they came in she told them this was a very rare event because very few people do natural childbirth anymore.
In our discharge group I was the only one who hadn't had a cesarean.
And I see about the same level of community support (none) for the fact that I'm breastfeeding and we're using cloth diapers. One of my aunts even gave us a large package of pampers for when we "give up." And the "breastfeeding support bag" that the hospital gives out has formula samples in it!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm amazed, considering the well-known problems with formula.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
DKW -- I wonder if it's a regional thing. Natural childbirth and breastfeeding are very much supported out here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
When I asked other pregnant women if they were planning on breastfeeding, the most common reaction was "that's just not my style."
And with the standard disclaimer that there are good and valid reasons for some women not to breastfeed -- style is, IMO, not one of them.
edit: mph, I suspect that you're right about the regional differences.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I personally could care less if a woman wants to breast feed in public. But why would they want to with all the pervert gawkers out there?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But why would they want to with all the pervert gawkers out there?
To feed their baby?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"Perver gawkers" seems a bit strong, to me. Breast feeding in public in our culture is relatively unusual and although I would consider it rude to "gawk", I can't say that it would be in any way unnatural or perverted to take note that it was happening. I'm also relatively certain the majority of that kind of thing would lessen if the act itself was more prevalent (and therefore less unusual).
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
There's really nothing to gawk AT except a blanket if it's done carefully...
I was at a baby shower last Sunday and a woman there breastfed during the shower. I thought that was pretty neat. Appropriate, somehow.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I never use a blanket, and there's still nothing to gawk at.
And even if there was, the appropriate social response to breastfeeding where I live is glance over, see baby is eating, smile and make eye contact with mama, then turn away and give her some privacy until she's done (unless you're a friend or family member, then you may approach, sit down, and talk, looking only at mama's face.) That's what everyone here does, and it makes breastfeeding a very comfortable and natural experience.
DKW, it's gotta be regional differences, because even the women I know who hate breastfeeding do it until a year out here, unless they really can't, and then they still do it as long as possible before giving up. About 25% of my friends use cloth diapers, too. And c-sections are seen by most women I know as a "last resort" kind of thing, even if they've had a previous c-section or are pregnant with twins, unless they have a condition that makes it impossible to deliver vaginally. Doctors advertise how low their c-section rates are and hospitals advertise that they offer doulas.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I never use a blanket, and there's still nothing to gawk at.
Oh, come on. In our culture, a woman baring her breast in public for any reason, is out of the ordinary. That is a reason to gawk.
quote: the appropriate social response to breastfeeding where I live is glance over, see baby is eating, smile and make eye contact with mama, then turn away and give her some privacy until she's done
You know, if the Mom wanted privacy, she should find a private place to nurse the child. Or a blanket. You undo your whole argument by forcing society (which is conditioned to gawk) to kneel to a private indisposition to use a blanket.
It simply doesn't work that way, nor should it.
I agree about the C-sections...in our hospital in Virginia, they discourage having a c-section unless it's a medical necessity.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Scott, absent an invisible baby, there is little to see anyway. But, the blanket is more comfortable for some moms in a non-familar setting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Scott, I think she was saying that there was nothing visible to gawk at. It is perfectly possible to breastfeed a baby with virtually no exposed skin. I personally prefer to insure that with a blanket or cloth diaper, but I have no problem with women who nurse publicly without an additional cover-up.
"Society" is conditioned to view a woman's breasts as purely sexual. That, IMO, is unfortunate in the extreme.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Um... That is the way it works in my area. I didn't choose the way it is, it just is.
My kids don't like blankets over them, throw them off. Plus its uncomfortable as heck, it stays pretty warm around here most of the year. And I don't "bare my breast in public"; I doubt most people see any skin at all when I nurse my babies, if they're being rowdy maybe a square centimeter or two, and it's a lot less than most girls and women show of their breasts around here in the summer time.
And as for a "private indisposition to use a blanket", I'd say that only 1/4 or less of women I see nursing around here actually use blankets or any kind of "cover-up". Nursing tops or oversized t-shirts or layers to allow for more modesty are the norm, and I do use them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For somebody who is accustomed to it, there is nothing sexy or titilating about a mother breastfeeding her baby.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*nods* I agree.
And to clarify, the reason you don't bother a breastfeeding mother isn't for modesty; like I said, usually nothing shows. The reason is because that's bonding time for baby and mama. The same privacy is given to people bottle-feeding babies.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Oh, come on. In our culture, a woman baring her breast in public for any reason, is out of the ordinary. That is a reason to gawk.
Only for ignoramuses. For ignoramuses, anything out of the ordinary is reason to gawk.
"Look, a Muslim woman in one a them sheets! Heh, heh!"
"Look, that kid has a ****ed up face!"
"Look, a crip!"
Cultured people will, of course, not stare at a woman breastfeeding any more than they will (overtly) stare at any other person out of the ordinary because staring is rude.
As more women breastfeed, it will become more normalized and fewer people will stare.
quote: You know, if the Mom wanted privacy, she should find a private place to nurse the child. Or a blanket. You undo your whole argument by forcing society (which is conditioned to gawk) to kneel to a private indisposition to use a blanket.
No one is society in forced to stare.
I'm not sure what the next sentence is saying.
quote: It simply doesn't work that way, nor should it.
Wrong again, liberal media. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
To clarify:
1) People in our society are conditioned to gawk at mothers breastfeeding in public. Don't be suprised by gawkers. You're doing something out of the ordinary.
2) Don't scream at people who look at you twice. You are doing something out of the ordinary. If you choose to breast-feed in public, people will probably look at you a little funny. This is because you are choosing to do something that is not normally considered something that people do in public.
3) It is great that you want to bond with your child through breast-feeding. Recognize that if you choose to breast-feed in public, most people won't recognize that as a mitigating factor in their impulse to gawk.
quote:No one is society is forced to stare.
Conditioned.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But the question is, *should* they gawk, Scott? Surely people, society, can recognize that their prejudice (because that's what it is) is wrong?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:1) People in our society are conditioned to gawk at mothers breastfeeding in public. Don't be suprised by gawkers. You're doing something out of the ordinary.
Not where I live.
quote:2) Don't scream at people who look at you twice. You are doing something out of the ordinary. If you choose to breast-feed in public, people will probably look at you a little funny. This is because you are choosing to do something that is not normally considered something that people do in public.
I wouldn't-- not that it's come up-- although once at Disneyland a woman who is not from my part of the country came and yelled at me for feeding my baby. I thought that was pretty rude.
quote:3) It is great that you want to bond with your child through breast-feeding. Recognize that if you choose to breast-feed in public, most people won't recognize that as a mitigating factor in their impulse to gawk.
I've never been gawked at while breastfeeding. Ever. Like I said, glared and yelled at once, but that was once, and she wasn't from around here. Nor have I seen anyone else be gawked at for breastfeeding.
Obviously our experiences in different parts of the country are very different. Remind me never to move to Virginia. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Surely people, society, can recognize that their prejudice (because that's what it is) is wrong?
Why is it wrong?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Because the end result achieves no good end in the case of breastfeeding women, and in fact might very well embarass them.
We can argue about the broader issue of staring at 'scantily' clad women, but I'm not sure it's germane to this thread.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My experience was the opposite of dkw's. Not only was I encouraged to breastfeed I was looked down upon and vilified because I did not. Note to La Leche League - you don't futher your cause by making a new mother cry in the hospital.
By the time my twins were born, my 3rd hospital birth, I was confident enough to assert myself - I told the nurses that LLL was forbidden to enter my hospital room and the nurse simply laughed and said "Oh, you've had run-ins with the breast nazis before, I can tell." That statement assured me that I was not an isolated case. My best friend tried breast feeding, it wasn't working out her baby was losing weight and up all night screaming, she called LLL for advice and they made her cry - she then called me for support and I came over and helped her and we got the baby drinking out of a bottle and both mom and baby were happy. LLL didn't care about mom or baby, they only wanted to tell mom she was failure because she wanted to try a bottle. I see people breastfeed in public quite a bit and it doesn't cause a stir. Yet, when I bottle fed my second daughter in public I was approached by a stranger who told me if I really cared about my baby I'd be breastfeeding her!
I fully support people's right to breastfeed when and where they wish, but some reciprocal respect for those of us who either cannot or who simply choose not to breastfeed would be appreciated. The article talks about choice being desirable - how about the right to choose how to feed your child? There are millions of people alive today who wouldn't be if we didn't have infant formula. What about mothers who adopt, or who've had medical problems that make it impossible to breastfeed? I didn't choose to bottle feed out of ignorance, my choice was made with the advice of my doctor - bottle feeding was the best choice for me. My husband actually appreciated it, that way he was able to bond with our children during feedings as well.
The article complains about formula advertising - I've never seen a formula ad that didn't explicitly state breast feeding is better for the baby. The hospitals push breastfeeding, the nurses push it, the pediatricians push it, and people who don't do it like me are treated badly. I'm curious, what else should be done? Do the breastfeeding advocates want formula outlawed or something? I mean Good gracious, I fail to see what other pressures could have been put on me besides out and out holding me down and forcing the baby to my breast.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But the question is, *should* they gawk, Scott?
Nope. Like you said, it's rude.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's what I meant about parts of the article being stated strongly to the point of offensive.
I think you've got it exactly right, Belle-- babies should be breastfed if it works for both mother and baby, and if it doesn't, for whatever reason, no one should care; whether the baby gets breastmilk or formula, the important thing is that they are fed and loved. I think it's awful that you were so villified, I would hate that to happen to me. I also had a bad experience with LLL in the hospital-- in my case, I refused their literature in the hospital because I have so much junk around my house and was yelled at. I know there are many wonderful LLL groups and I wish that the ones that aren't wouldn't give them a bad name.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Not only was I encouraged to breastfeed I was looked down upon and vilified because I did not. Note to La Leche League - you don't futher your cause by making a new mother cry in the hospital. [Mad]
I've heard of this happening out here as well.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
You know, if the Mom wanted privacy, she should find a private place to nurse the child. Or a blanket. You undo your whole argument by forcing society (which is conditioned to gawk) to kneel to a private indisposition to use a blanket.
Most women will look for as private a place as they can. I know I always did. But some public places just don't have lounges available. Are you suggesting that a nursing mother never go to a restaurant? Or a mall? Even some churches don't have lounges for nursing mothers, and unless you're willing to eat your lunch in the bathroom, don't even suggest she should go sit in a toilet stall.
When you have a new baby, s/he needs to eat very frequently - sometimes as often as every 2 hours. And it takes 20-30 minutes at a pop. So that leaves very little time for much else.
FWIW, I nursed all six of my children for at least a year. By the time my last one came, I was very experienced and could nurse just about anywhere. But it takes a while to get to that level of comfort - and when the baby is brand new, even an experienced breast-feeder will have issues and adjustments. Back in my mother's day, new mothers were "confined" for several weeks after they gave birth. I was scolded many times by older ladies for bringing my brand new babies out in public (even when they were 6-8 weeks old!). Most women today don't have that luxury. I know I didn't (I was a Navy wife and my husband left on an extended deployment when my 3rd child was 11 days old ... if I didn't take him out to the grocery store, we would have starved).
New moms have a hard enough time without putting unrealistic expectations on them - like insisting that if they "want privacy" they should "find a private place". Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: To clarify:
1) People in our society are conditioned to gawk at mothers breastfeeding in public. Don't be suprised by gawkers. You're doing something out of the ordinary.
2) Don't scream at people who look at you twice. You are doing something out of the ordinary. If you choose to breast-feed in public, people will probably look at you a little funny. This is because you are choosing to do something that is not normally considered something that people do in public.
3) It is great that you want to bond with your child through breast-feeding. Recognize that if you choose to breast-feed in public, most people won't recognize that as a mitigating factor in their impulse to gawk.
quote:No one is society is forced to stare.
Conditioned.
Scott, I gotta agree with ketchupqueen and others here... there can be some regional conditioning to think this is odd and therefore act as you describe. However, this is by no means universal, nor is it an excuse for rude behavior by onlookers.
Breastfeeding in public may be out of the ordinary where you live, but that doesn't mean that someone choosing to do it should be the willing subject of ridicule. Nor should they "scream at people who look at them twice" which I don't think anyone here had even mentioned. The basic argument is that no matter what the social conditioning, common politeness dictate certain actions.
1) on the part of the breastfeeder it is expected that she not flaunt her breasts (i.e. do her best to cover the majority of her breast from the public eye) nowadays this basically just means that she can't expose her nipples to public view, anything other than that seems to be fair game with "acceptable" if not appropriate attire.
2) on the part of the bystandards it is expected that they not stop and gawk (as would be expected in any situation out of the norm). A second glance or two wouldn't be too rude, but anything other than that probably would be inappropriate. Just as it would be for someone to stop and stare when they saw someone with lionitis, unusual tatoos and/or body piercings, unusual ethnic cloathing, a black eye etc...
you may be able to argue that we are conditioned to want to look at oddities like this, but I would argue that we are also conditioned to resist this temptation in favor of common decency (and if we aren't then we need to address that).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I fully support people's right to breastfeed when and where they wish, but some reciprocal respect for those of us who either cannot or who simply choose not to breastfeed would be appreciated. The article talks about choice being desirable - how about the right to choose how to feed your child?
While I think everybody should have the right to choose whether or not to breastfeed, I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to not have an opinion about that choice.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Did I say they shouldn't have an opinion? All I ask for is some respect and decency. You can disagree with me and think I should breastfeed all you want, that's your right. But have enough respect and human decency not to call me a bad mother for it. There are so many things that make someone a bad mother, I think how she chooses to feed her infant needs to be pretty far down on the list of criteria.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to not have an opinion about that choice.
And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to keep that opinion to themselves. It's not considered polite to walk up to a parent and give them your opinion about any other aspect of their parenting. Yeah, I know people do it anyway. . . and if told about it here, our reaction would probably be "How rude!" I don't see this as any different.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think choosing to breastfeed in public is like choosing to kiss in public. Sometimes when there is no other place it might be okay, but the request to give mothers privacy shows that it is a semi-private act being done in public.
Of course I don't agree with offering advice to strangers - I'd no more pass on my opinion about breastfeeding that I would pass on a negative opinion about someone's outfit to them.
Still, if in order to keep things civil people have to pretend nothing is happening, maybe it's better if it isn't done in the spotlight.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: There are so many things that make someone a bad mother, I think how she chooses to feed her infant needs to be pretty far down on the list of criteria.
I don't know. If the mother believes what people say about the health benefits of breast feeding and chose not to do it because she didn't want to be looked at funny, I'd say that's pretty bad mothering.
Of course, this is somthing that a stranger would have no way of knowing. Bottle-feeding, by itself, means nothing. Making judgments about such a situation when you don't know the facts is in extremely bad taste.
And it's in even worse taste to share those judgments. Well, if they're bad that is.
[ September 26, 2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:New moms have a hard enough time without putting unrealistic expectations on them - like insisting that if they "want privacy" they should "find a private place"
I think that finding a private place, or using a blanket *is* a realistic expectation.
I have four children, so it's not like I'm a n00b at this. We knew when we were out and about town when our kids would need to eat-- we made arrangements to accomodate that schedule. And we were also prepared for emergencies when the child wanted to eat before he or she was 'supposed' to.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Still, if in order to keep things civil people have to pretend nothing is happening, maybe it's better if it isn't done in the spotlight.
I don't think anyone has to pretend that it's not happening-- just not stare. Part of the socially accepted "normal" response here is to smile or nod at the mother (and/or give a standing breastfeeding mother your seat), which is an acknowledgement of her and that she has a baby and is feeding it. For what it's worth, bottle-fed babies and their parents are given the same consideration. I think that most people in our area have gotten to the point where breastfeeding a baby is just feeding a baby-- so whether it's with a bottle or by breast the standard of conduct is pretty much the same.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Define "private place".
Is a quiet corner in a busy mall or museum acceptable? How about a church pew against the wall? A restaurant booth?
I have known literally hundreds of women who have nursed babies in my life and I can remember only one who walked around with an open dress and her breast exposed (on a pier in San Diego when my husband's ship returned from an 8 month deployment).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In Brazil, they're very open about breastfeeding. I remember that while I was talking to one mother, she lifted up her shirt, completely exposing her breast. She then reached down, picked up her kid, and attched it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And you're still able to see? Wow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Is a quiet corner in a busy mall or museum acceptable? How about a church pew against the wall? A restaurant booth?
All of those I think would be fine if children are generally part of the crowd there.
Front row at anything? No. On the bus? I don't think so. In line for something? Wandering through an amusement park? Up and down the aisles at a grocery store? I think all of those are too public to expect other people to pretend they don't see anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm very confused here. Scott hasn't said that breastfeeding mothers should only do so in private. He's said that if one expects privacy, one should be in a private place, and that a social expectation that one provide you with privacy when in public is not appropriate.
I'm surprised that's at all controversial. It seems like a self-evident statement, no matter what the reason is for wanting privacy.
Or else I'm missing entirely what Scott's been saying.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think we have different definitions of "privacy" going on. "Privacy" in this case, to me, means "people are not staring, perhaps back is turned to others if baby is overstimulated, a foot or so of space between you and other people if possible." Privacy necessary when feeding a baby (by bottle or breast) or trying to soothe a newborn to sleep is different, to me, from the level of privacy required in, say, going to the bathroom. (And I know places where there is less of a cultural expectation of strict privacy when going to the bathroom, and privacy means "not looking", too. In fact, I would say men using urinals may be a similar situation, although I can't say for sure since I'm not and haven't.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I think that finding a private place, or using a blanket *is* a realistic expectation.
I believe this is the heart of our cultural difference. I can accept that this is the norm where you live. But please accept that this is not the norm where I live.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Don't often see women breastfeeding around here, but it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary if it did happen.
C-sections are considered a last resort here as well. Considering how dangerous they are, I'm surprised they are considered the preferred option ANYWHERE.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:I think that finding a private place, or using a blanket *is* a realistic expectation.
I believe this is the heart of our cultural difference. I can accept that this is the norm where you live. But please accept that this is not the norm where I live.
What you quoted is out of context. If you review the entire post, it's ver clear that, to accurately reflect the meaning without the quote Scott responded to, it needs to have an implict clause added:
"I think that finding a private place, or using a blanket *is* a realistic expectation if one wants privacy.
I still don't see how that's unrealistic, and none of the explanations given so far seem to have dealt with the realisticness of the expectation in the context of a mother who wants privacy.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Speaking of cultural differences, how pathetic is the individual that gawks at or objects to public breast feeding because of its "sexual nature." How desparate/repressed do you have to be in order for that responce to kick in?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think there is a level of difference between pretending someone isn't there and refraining from staring, gawking, making comments/judgements etc. I don't think that the latter should be unreasonable to expect in polite society. "Out of the ordinary" may be a reason people stare; it is not an excuse to do so.
I think that people have a right to decide what is best for their child within certain limits regarding abusive situations and that, unless those decisions directly impact them, they should stay out of it. We don't get to approve or disapprove whether one breast or bottle feeds.
I do think that the militant behavior of some breast feeding advocates is at least partly a result of a deliberate movement to get people to stop breastfeeding. This is especially troublesome in developing countries and among poor people who have been encouraged to become dependent and spend money on formula rather than breastfeed.
This in no way excuses the bahavior of anyone accosting a mother and baby.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Speaking of cultural differences, how pathetic is the individual that gawks at or objects to public breast feeding because of its "sexual nature." How desparate/repressed do you have to be in order for that responce to kick in?
I think is has nothing to do with being desperate or repressed. I think it has much to do with having been conditioned to view the breast as a sexual object and with being unaccustomed to breast feeding.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Men's breasts are sexual, too. We get to see those.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um, we're obviously using the word differently, 'cuz in my lexicon, men don't have breasts.
Even so, they are not viewed as a sexual object nearly as much as a woman's.
I'm not saying it's good or bad -- I'm just saying that's how it tends to be in American society.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think there is a level of difference between pretending someone isn't there and refraining from staring, gawking, making comments/judgements etc. I don't think that the latter should be unreasonable to expect in polite society. "Out of the ordinary" may be a reason people stare; it is not an excuse to do so.
I'm not sure what this is in reply to or if it's just a general comment.
I think it's clear that Scott would agree with this statement. He said something very similar a page ago.
What I don't get is the hostility I'm sensing to Scott's comments (not from your particular post, though). It's seems far greater than that which would have occurred if this were only about different definitions of "privacy."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you call that area around and including the nipple on a man when not refering to the whole chest or to just the muscle?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I've never seen a formula ad that didn't explicitly state breast feeding is better for the baby. The hospitals push breastfeeding, the nurses push it, the pediatricians push it, and people who don't do it like me are treated badly. I'm curious, what else should be done? Do the breastfeeding advocates want formula outlawed or something? I mean Good gracious, I fail to see what other pressures could have been put on me besides out and out holding me down and forcing the baby to my breast.
I do think how you were treated was despicable, Belle. No,I don't think formula should be banned, but I do think all sampling and advertising of formula should be banned.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, I'm glad you didn't mean my particular post - I was just trying to narrow down where the misunderstanding might be.
edit to add:
I also think that saying "one should expect" that people will" do something is different from saying "you should find it acceptable" that people do something. And that may be where we are getting hung up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do think all sampling and advertising of formula should be banned.
I have too much respect for the principle of free speech to support something like this.
Advertising for formula should be honest, but it seems awfully paternalistic to ban truthful speech on the subject.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
It's interesting how this thread went a totally different direction than the one I was thinking.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think is has nothing to do with being desperate or repressed. I think it has much to do with having been conditioned to view the breast as a sexual object and with being unaccustomed to breast feeding.
I think it absolutely has something to do with being desperate and repressed, if not puerile, to *gawk* because there is conditioning out there in society that *staring* at women's boobies, at anyone different from whatever someone is used to in BFE, is low and uncultured.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I know this is waay late in the conversation (somehow I missed it the first time around) but Belle: Hopefully you don't take this as the universal view of LLL. I'm sad that you had such a negative experience with the organization, but I think it varies a lot from person to person and place to place.
I like to think that my family members who are involved do their best to be supportive of a mother's right to choose either route. They're obviously going to try to push breastfeeding because they believe it to be the superior answer, but if their techniques of persuasion were enough to make you cry, then obviously something isn't right.
Just realize that not everyone in the organization is a "breastfeeding nazi."
secondly, I just want to put in one more story to point out regional differences, because my sister's experiences seem to have been almost the opposite of yours in terms of hospital responses: All of them have been strongly encouraged by hospital staff to a) formula feed, b) avoid midwifes at all costs, and c) steer away from completely natural childbirth (no drugs)
So it definately varies from individual to individual and from place to place (largely why the "cultural norms" are hard to define for the whole country).
Lastly, while this doesn't excuse any poor treatment you and/or your friends have recieved from LLL members, do remember that they are volunteers, and usually busy mothers themselves. so if you get curt replys on the phone with one of them they might just be in a bad mood, very busy etc... (again, not an excuse for making you feel like a bad mother, but an explanation for those that might not know otherwise)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: On the bus? I don't think so.
That's nice. So exactly how was my daughter supposed to eat before my first class? And if you suggest getting even less sleep than I was getting at that point, I will laugh derisively.
Belle, I think the way you were treated is horrific and despicable. Breastfeeding should be encouraged by hospitals, NOT pushed down anyone's throat. And strangers (or even most people who know you, unless they know you very well!) should be keeping their opinions to themselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wake up earlier? I don't eat or get dressed on the bus either. People don't do their hair on buses - it's a small place. There's no where to go. Our buses don't allow people to eat, play music, and they ask that perfume not extend beyond the person. It's being trapped in a car with someone - leaving the premises is not an option.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I would much rather be aware that a woman is breastfeeding on the bus than have the child crying because it wants to be fed. And even if the mother did feed it before they left home, that doesn't mean it isn't going to want to be fed again 20 minutes later. I also consider breastfeeding in public less disruptive, in general, than talking on a cell phone in public.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I was thinking the same thing, a breastfeeding baby on a bus is a lot less noticeable than a crying/hungry/fussy baby. But I've never actually been on a bus, so I don't know how crowded they are.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can't believe I'm defending behavior that occurred 12 years ago, but sure.
I was a half-time student (had been full-time, cut back the quarters I was bringing a baby in with me), and mother of a newborn. I had to take two (sometimes three) buses to school every morning to get to my 9 am class. I was getting practically no sleep.
It took about an hour to get to school, and I generally had about 5-10 minutes before class to get me and the baby settled, if the bus didn't get us there late that day.
I took a seat in the back, and I covered up with a receiving blanket.
And seriously, Katie, I am this close to telling you that maybe you just won't understand until you have one of your own. And I hate that sort of comment!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I took a seat in the back, and I covered up with a receiving blanket.
This, I think, makes it okay. If no one is sitting next to you. If it is a crowded bus, then I think the fellow passengers need to have their space and comfort zones respected more than the mother needs to breastfeed in public.
It's like a cell phone, or kissing in public. Sometimes its necessary, but there are ways to do it that will minimize the intrusion on other people. A cell phones is an auditory intrusion, breastfeeding is a visual and comfort zone intrusion, and kissing can be all three. That doesn't mean those things need to be completely verboten, but all efforts must be made to minimize the intrustion on other people.
If it isn't possible to avoid that intrusion on other people, then it shouldn't be done.
"Is breastfeeding in public okay?" Sometimes, if it is done discreetly and with a buffer zone of at least a few feet from other people.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
In Katie's defense, no matter what her opinions are/were, I have never seen her be less than polite to a breastfeeding mother. Including me. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If it is a crowded bus, then I think the fellow passengers need to have their space and comfort zones respected more than the mother needs to breastfeed in public.
That is the wrong equation. The other side of the equation is not the mother, it's the hungry baby. And if a hungry baby doesn't win over someone being a little bit uncomfortable, then something is seriously wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People removing clothing is uncomfortable - it isn't fair to insist that someone be forced to sit next to someone who's not completely dressed on their way to work when there's no escape.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Who is removing clothing? Receiving blanket over, blouse pulled up slightly (under cover, mind), bra unhooked (under cover of shirt and blanket).
You never adjust your bra strap on the bus?
And I repeat, this is about feeding a hungry baby.
Oh, and at no point of this was I not about twice as clothed as the average female on the bus.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But it's not comfortable to sit next to a baby screaming her head off, either. And I happen to think that the baby's need to be fed does need to trump someone's discomfort with breastfeeding. I'm always completely dressed when I breastfeed, so I'm not quite sure I get that.
I also agree that, at least in the summer, I ALWAYS have more clothes on than half the young women in L.A. More than half. Probably most.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then that's done discreetly.
It is not JUST about feeding a hungry baby. I think the advocation of that idea is what I'm resisting - the baby's existence does not take away the need to consider the other riders.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, but showing consideration by doing it as discreetly as possible and trying to take an empty seat if available is just about all you can do without depriving a child of food. So you are as considerate as possible while doing what you have to do, then what? Is that acceptable? Or do you think one should let the baby cry?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I speak as someone who's never had a baby, so I'm asking this in all honesty, without attempting to argue: is there no other way to stop a baby from crying than feeding?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
You could explain the need for more socially acceptable behavior. But, that takes aproximatly 30 years to have noticable results.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I would guess that would depend on why it was crying. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: I speak as someone who's never had a baby, so I'm asking this in all honesty, without attempting to argue: is there no other way to stop a baby from crying than feeding?
Many times, no.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
When they're hungry, no. Especially if they're the kind who won't take pacifiers. Even if they like pacifiers, they often won't take one if they're really hungry (and they can be really hungry ten minutes after they eat, it all depends.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: You could explain the need for more socially acceptable behavior. But, that takes aproximatly 30 years to have noticable results.
To answer the question, it depends. If the baby is just generally unhappy, maybe. If the baby is actually hungry (and babies generally need to be fed approximately every 2-3 hours, and sometimes more often), then it is unlikely that anything else will work for more than a few minutes. And with some kids, not even that long. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I think this does come back to the topic's title. As I mentioned before, in an earlier day, women were not expected to be in public with new babies. To take a new baby out was proof you were an unfit mother. So this wasn't even an issue for our parents and/or grandparents.
Today, more people live away from extended family and the extra support that entails. By necessity, women have to take their babies out in public, to shop, to go to school, even to work, in some instances. Certainly not something our grandfathers had to deal with...
My problem with the objections that are being brought up here - and we may be talking past each other, I don't know - is the idea that a nursing mother has more of an obligation not to offend a passerby (or co-worker, or in my case, my father-in-law ) than she has to provide and care for her baby. That she should be excluded from socialization/public transportation/school/workplace/church attendance/or whatever for the 25% of her life (30 minutes out of every 2 hours is not an unrealistic expectation for feeding a newborn) for the months that her child is breastfeeding.
New mothers are already dealing with a lot - sleep deprivation, recovering from childbirth, sometimes dietary restrictions, possible sibling jealousy, learning and teaching the baby to nurse, post-partum depression - or at least adjusting to MAJOR lifestyle changes... The last thing she needs is to be relegated to a closet or her bedroom for the first 6 months of her baby's life.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:That she should be excluded from socialization/public transportation/school/workplace/church attendance/or whatever for the 25% of her life (30 minutes out of every 2 hours is not an unrealistic expectation for feeding a newborn) for the months that her child is breastfeeding.
I've been trying to figure out what was bothering me! Thank you! That's it!
Although to be fair, as they get older they breastfeed less. And sometimes are content with a different snack once they get old enough for that (but sometimes not.)
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I don't think anyone was implying that at all, maui babe.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Well, when they're young, they need to eat a lot, and generally crying is an indication that they're not happy (they can't talk yet, so they cry). Usually they're hungry. Sometimes they want to be changed. Sometimes they're in pain. But that's most of what the really little ones cry about. And eating, and breastfeeding or bottle feeding is a comfort thing too. The baby gets held, and usually the milk is warm, and they calm down, skin-to-skin contact, that sort of thing.
Also, I would call it a "man boob" if he's out of shape and "pecs" if he is in shape. And I must say, I find attractive men with their shirts off quite sexual. Much more sexual than breasts. And women make up over 50% of the population, so if you're young and in shape, put those shirts back on! Prurient thoughts! Gosh! WaterWorld life guards . . . beach volleyball . . . swim meets . . . k, I have to go take a cold shower.
And I also have to say that while I am not often around nursing mothers and therefore find myself somewhat startled sometimes when I realize a baby is getting lunch somewhere close by, I would much, much rather that the child is fed and not crying than to have any discomfort on my part take precedence over a child's wellbeing.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: I don't think anyone was implying that at all, maui babe.
Maybe not directly, but that's really what it comes down to... if a woman can't nurse her baby where-ever she happens to be, she really CAN'T go anywhere. Of course, there are places that a new mother really shouldn't take her baby, but we shouldn't make even more obstacles than already exist, just so that mature adults don't get uncomfortable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: ... I would much, much rather that the child is fed and not crying than to have any discomfort on my part take precedence over a child's wellbeing.
Well put.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I don't think you can even boil it down to that, really. To me, it seems to be a private thing; kq even mentioned "giving the mother and baby their privacy." I don't object to anyone feeding their baby anywhere, but I also reserve the right to be uncomfortable when witnessing a private interaction. I also think that it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be comfortable witnessing that. Dismiss it as cultural conditioning if you like, but some people do feel uncomfortable witnessing it. So, as a result, my feeling is, mothers should go ahead and breastfeed as they need to, but don't be offended if others are uncomfortable.
(Edit: I'm a little unnerved to find myself on the same "side" and Kat, Scott R., and Dagonee. Very odd. )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
See, that I have no problem with.
You know me, I'm happy to educate. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: I don't think you can even boil it down to that, really. To me, it seems to be a private thing; kq even mentioned "giving the mother and baby their privacy." I don't object to anyone feeding their baby anywhere, but I also reserve the right to be uncomfortable when witnessing a private interaction. I also think that it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be comfortable witnessing that. Dismiss it as cultural conditioning if you like, but some people do feel uncomfortable witnessing it. So, as a result, my feeling is, mothers should go ahead and breastfeed as they need to, but don't be offended if others are uncomfortable.
(Edit: I'm a little unnerved to find myself on the same "side" and Kat, Scott R., and Dagonee. Very odd. )
I don't imaging that it is the discomfort that is offensive, but sometimes the way people act on that discomfort. Glaring, trying to make rules against it, being generally rude about it (thus bringing even more attention). No one can completely control how they feel, but they can control how they act.
Not that I can imagine most of the posters here doing those types of things...
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I have to say that I was never offended by people being uncomfortable with breastfeeding. Amused perhaps, and certainly puzzled, but never offended.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't imaging that it is the discomfort that is offensive, but sometimes the way people act on that discomfort. Glaring, trying to make rules against it, being generally rude about it (thus bringing even more attention). No one can completely control how they feel, but they can control how they act.
Bingo!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Heh. See, to me, if someone is breast-feeding publically in order to make a point or in order to "help me get over being uncomfortable," that makes me even more uncomfortable. Leave my comfort level alone.
Seriously, as long as I'm not hindering anyone from doing anything, why should my comfort level even be an issue? No need to "improve" me.
Edit: Ah. See, all I do in my discomfort is find another place to be.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't imaging that it is the discomfort that is offensive, but sometimes the way people act on that discomfort. Glaring, trying to make rules against it, being generally rude about it (thus bringing even more attention). No one can completely control how they feel, but they can control how they act.
Thanks boots.. this is exactly how I feel. I'm offended by many things in my life ... overt PDAs, skimpy clothing, foul and profane language in public places... I don't remember ever reacting in a negative way. I think what's important is that if you're offended by something, it's really only your problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is because you are nicer than most people. The comfort level of people becomes an issue because people who are not as nice as you (most of us, that is) do think that their comfort trumps a baby's. And will try to hinder people. So folks do have an interest in addressing the comfort thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Was that to me, Megan? Because that's NOT what I meant by educate. Not at all! I just meant that I'd be happy to have a conversation with someone who was nonplussed (have done so, in fact), and explain why I consider feeding my baby (in public notwithstanding) an important thing to do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Caesarean sections are on the rise (in Brazil the rate is up to 80 percent, here in the U.S. it’s hitting 30 percent and climbing); did you ever wonder why?
I did a search for this and found a couple of recent papers that list the Caesarean rate in Brazil at 36%.
Misinformation like that tends to bias my view of the entire article.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Heh. See, to me, if someone is breast-feeding publically in order to make a point or in order to "help me get over being uncomfortable," that makes me even more uncomfortable. Leave my comfort level alone.
Why in the world would you think this? If someone is breastfeeding in public, she's most likely just trying to take care of her baby. Why would it even be about you? Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think I've been around Hatrack and its environs long enough to have picked up on the importance of breastfeeding, even having never had a baby or been pregnant or done any research, etc. Let me say (if I haven't already) that I'm not offended by a woman publically breastfeeding. I just feel uncomfortable. I'm not even sure I could completely define what makes me uncomfortable (the sight of another woman's breast(s) in public? the viewing of what I see to be private? imagining what I'd feel if I were in the mother's position?).
kmb, you're very sweet to give me credit for being nice. Mainly, I feel like it's less "nice" and more "fear of being rude." I've said in the past (here and elsewhere, I think) that in my own personal hierarchy of sins, being rude is about the worst.
Edit: Maui, I was giving an exaggerated, attempt-at-being-humorous response to rivka's offer to educate. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Sorry, I missed the smiley... That's what I get for getting distracted with work stuff while I'm trying to Hatrack. Gotta keep my priorities straight. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Edited to add quotation]
quote: Caesarean sections are on the rise (in Brazil the rate is up to 80 percent, here in the U.S. it’s hitting 30 percent and climbing); did you ever wonder why?
One of the reasons C-section numbers are on the rise again in the US (nationally at 29% in 2005, I believe) is concern over V-BACs, or "vaginal births after ceasarian section." There is a risk of uterine rupture if the uterus has been cut open in certain ways before and then goes through the stress of a vaginal delivery after.
Unfortunately, there are many variables that make this more or less of a risk, and I think there is still debate about how small a risk it actually is, anyway. Regardless, some malpractice insurance will no longer cover V-BACs, even if the OB-Gyns themselves are willing to do it. Thus we probably (I think, don't know for sure) still have a declined/declining rate of initial C-sections, but the number of repeat C-sections is probably still rising in the US, for at least as long as it takes the coterie of women who've had C-sections (when it was indeed more common as an initial delivery, though that has changed) to finish their reproductive years.
In summary, the "rise" in C-section rate in the US is probably in some large part due to a change in willingness to insure physicians who assist at vaginal deliveries in women who have already had C-sections, rather than in a push for all women to have C-sections.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Mainly, I feel like it's less "nice" and more "fear of being rude." I've said in the past (here and elsewhere, I think) that in my own personal hierarchy of sins, being rude is about the worst.
Not quite sure of the effective difference between "hates being rude" and "nice". Take the credit.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Yes'm. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I did a search for this and found a couple of recent papers that list the Caesarean rate in Brazil at 36%.
Misinformation like that tends to bias my view of the entire article.
Yeah, that struck me as false as well. Most people in Brazil just can't afford that kind of thing.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if it's 80% in some cities or in some social classes.
I am pretty sure that Brazil has the highest percentage of cesarians in the world.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
In the US, the decrease in V-BACs is traceable to a change in the policy statement on V-BAcs by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
quote:More recent data are not yet available, but all signs indicate that the VBAC rate has slid into the single digits. In other words, more than 90% of pregnant women who have had a C-section will have another. "I think VBAC is dead," says Gary Hankins, chairman of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' committee on obstetrics practice. ...In 1999, a one-word change in the obstetricians group's guidelines spurred community hospitals to begin prohibiting VBACs. ... Previously, the group had recommended that only hospitals with a "readily available" surgical team — interpreted as no more than a half-hour drive away — allow VBACs. The revised guidelines call for an "immediately available" surgical team in case a uterine rupture necessitates an emergency C-section.
Many hospitals have interpreted that to mean they must have an anesthesiologist and operating room standing by whenever a patient attempts a VBAC, a luxury they say they can't afford. If they can't meet the guidelines, they argue, they're opening themselves up to lawsuits should mother or baby be injured during a VBAC attempt.
(from the USA Today article linked above)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
While I would agree that the unwillingness of hospitals/insurance companies to do VBAC is a huge part of the rise, I've also noticed a change, just during my life (actually, just during the time I've been aware enough about childbirth to notice-- say, the past 10 years) in many people's attitudes about c-sections. It's gone from an option that's reserved for situations where vaginal birth is considered unsafe for mother and/or child to something that a growing number of people see as a choice every woman can make-- witness celebrities opting for c-sections without even trying labor. I have noticed in the last two years a dramatic shift on the baby boards I frequent in many women's attitudes about this-- many women are now trying to schedule voluntary c-sections if they can get their doctor to go along with it and can afford it. A growing number of doctors also seem to be allowing this. While I don't condemn their choice, I see it as a bit worrisome, although I'm not sure why I care what everyone else is doing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Aside: From their "About Us" page, Childbirth Connection is
quote:"a national not-for-profit organization that uses research, education and advocacy to improve maternity care for all women and their families. Founded in 1918 as Maternity Center Association, Childbirth Connection has grown from a small group of concerned individuals and community leaders that succeeded in reducing maternal and infant deaths in New York City, to a nationally recognized leader in maternity care quality improvement. Childbirth Connection is a voice for the needs and interests of childbearing families. Our mission is to promote safe, effective and satisfying maternity care."
Their commentary recognizes that "As risks increase with every cesarean birth, most women desire and have more than one child, and many women lack access to vaginal birth after cesarean, primary cesareans should be avoided whenever possible." However, they do not see support in the literature for the belief that "maternal request C-sections" make up a significant number of these procedures. Even though they do cite anecdotal evidence that is out there, they argue that anecdotes are not enough to drive funding for addressing this specific problem.
CC cites a national survey indicating that the vast majority of C-sections are self-reported to be not merely at maternal request. On the other hand, I really wonder what sort of selection biases might be skewing that result. I don't know, as I have only skimmed this article and haven't read the study itself.
It will be interesting to see where this goes over the next few years.
---
Edited to add: More from the Childbirth Connection link:
quote:What factors contribute to the steadily rising cesarean rate in the U.S.?
Listening to Mothers survey results suggest that maternal request plays a negligible role in driving up cesarean rates. Factors that undoubtedly play a substantial role include:
-casual attitudes about moving to a cesarean before there is truly a need and when other things might be done to avoid it
-pressures on caregivers to practice "defensive medicine"
-failure to offer vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) to women with a previous cesarean
-loss of skills or unwillingness to offer vaginal birth to women in some situations, such as with baby in a breech rather than head-first position and with twins
-underuse of care that can enhance the natural progress of labor, such as continuous labor support and encouraging upright positions and mobility
-side effects of medical interventions such as electronic fetal monitoring and labor induction in many circumstances, which increase risk for cesarean
-the growing perception that a cesarean birth, and especially a planned cesarean, is "safe," without recognizing the many surgical risks.
Please download our fact sheet, which provides more detail about these factors.
Doibtlessly these factors are all in a rich interplay with a culture of "maternal request" C-sections, even if that total number is small. That is, I expect we'll see that trend continue to grow, at least for awhile.
[ September 26, 2006, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Heh. I bet my doctor's malpractice insurance would have freaked to know he attempted a vaginal delivery of twins with one of the twins a footling breech.
We had spectators lined up in the hallway wanting to get in to see my birth because they'd never seen a doctor attempt a breech delivery of twins before, it's usually an automatic c-section.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, part of it is that if you're only calling "I want to have a c-section for absolutely no reason" maternal request c-sections, you're probably only getting part of the story. I personally have chatted with three women whose doctors said, "You have this very small risk factor. I'm offering you an option for c-section, but it's totally your choice. Most women with this have no problems, but some do." Two said they wanted a vaginal birth, one said she took the c-section. The one who said she took the c-section said that she didn't really choose it because of the risk factor-- she chose it because she was told by a friend that her c-section recovery was easier than her vaginal birth recovery. So I think the numbers may be somewhat higher than reported of people who ostensibly are having it because they're at risk for something, but really have additional motivations.
Of course, all three moms and babies did perfectly fine. So I guess they were all right to do what they did. But the one who had a c-section would probably also have been okay having a vaginal birth-- but now she'll never know because the hospitals in her area "don't allow" VBAC. (If a hospital tried to pull that on me, I'd kick their butt. But then, I don't intend to have a c-section, and if I did there are three hospitals nearby that currently are okay with VBAC, and my doctor is in favor of it, so hopefully I won't have to.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think we are on the same page, ketchupqueen. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It seems when we come to childbirth issues, we often are. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, that's because you are so often right.
*laughing
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I fully support people's right to breastfeed when and where they wish, but some reciprocal respect for those of us who either cannot or who simply choose not to breastfeed would be appreciated. The article talks about choice being desirable - how about the right to choose how to feed your child? There are millions of people alive today who wouldn't be if we didn't have infant formula. What about mothers who adopt, or who've had medical problems that make it impossible to breastfeed?
Add me to the list of people LLL has alienated. I will never, ever have anything to do with that organization again (I'm sure there are many wonderful people and chapters, but I was treated too badly to ever risk it). Breastfeeding a micropreemie is extremely difficult - Aerin's sats would plummet most times we tried. In our case, feeding was literally a matter of life and death. The LLL folks didn't care that I pumped every 3 hours for 4 months, took medication to boost my milk, and put off taking other medication for complications from my pregnancy because I would have to stop pumping. Aerin would have died if we hadn't bottle-fed her (as would many of her NICU and PCN neighbors). Thank goodness that our hospital had a wonderful lactation nurse who was not affiliated with LLL, who helped us through our attempts and failures.
quote:did you ever wonder why? Is it because collectively women have forgotten how to give birth, lost the ability, the bravery? Or might it have something to do with the cooperatively drugged mama, the convenience of a birth that is planned, and the amount of money everyone stands to make from surgery? Wonder to yourself why midwives are sitting in jail right now and ask, “Why isn’t the freedom to birth a progressive principle?”
I am so offended by this that I could spit. So I'm a coward because I had a C-Section and will have one again? And OBs are more concerned with money and convenience than the well-being of their paitents? Nice. I don't know why I'm surprised - I have found so much anger, derision, and vitriol from many people who favor homebirths with midwives. As someone who has been through a very high-risk pregnancy, I advocate hospital births with MDs. Aerin and I would both be dead if we hadn't been in the hospital. My OB explained well in advance that a C-Section would be better for Aerin and worse for me and it wasn't something I even needed to think about. However, I would never presume to tell someone else how to give birth to their baby.
Also, are there really midwives in prison? I've never heard anything about it and I was curious.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: People removing clothing is uncomfortable - it isn't fair to insist that someone be forced to sit next to someone who's not completely dressed on their way to work when there's no escape.
I was thinking about this on the drive home, and I believe this is just an excuse. Very few people (and Katie is probably one of them, given that her modesty strictures are similar to mine) these days care if the woman sitting next to them is wearing a micro-halter top. So claiming that a nursing mother lifting her top a bit to allow the baby access is a problem is, IMO, a red herring.
What is going on goes back to what I said before: Our culture has so sexualized the female breast that its PRIMARY FUNCTION (and let us make no mistake, feeding babies is the primary function of the mammary glands of all female mammals) is no longer the association most people make. It's not even AN association many people make!
A nursing mother giving her baby access is NOT doing some kind of strip tease -- but that is what most Americans perceive. And as I said before, I think that's a problem. But it isn't the mother's, or baby's, problem.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Also, are there really midwives in prison? I've never heard anything about it and I was curious.
Yes, in some states, although usually only after they've been warned to stop delivering babies and kept doing it (although that doesn't make criminalizing midwifery right, IMO.)
Several states do not allow any form of lay midwifery or have any certification process for non-CNM midwives.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know Mrs. M's comments made me think. I hear this so often. I could count on one hand the times I've met women who did nothing but sing praises of LLL, and the number who were offended or upset by them is too high to count. And no, I'm not just talking about women who bottle fed, I'm talking friends and relatives of mine who breastfed but had no use for LLL.
How can our experiences be called isolated cases, they seem far too prevalent for that to be the case. Maybe the leadership of LLL needs to make fundamental changes in their training of volunteers, seems like they have a bad reputation (witness the fact that my nurse, a medical professional, referred to them as "nazis" ) and if they want to be considered as helpful and supportive of new mothers, they might need to re-think how they do things.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
The only time I ever called a LLL volunteer was when my second child was about 5 weeks old and I had cracked and bleeding nipples. I was mostly worried that the blood would be harmful to my child, and being a military wife, I didn't have my own doctor to consult with. The volunteer I spoke with was very helpful and supportive, but I'd already had a very positive experience nursing my first child and had no intention of stopping breastfeeding, despite the pain I was experiencing.
To be honest, if I'd had as bad a time nursing my first child as I did with my second, I'm not sure I'd have tried again. I was lucky that way, I suppose. But since I had been successful in the past, and knew how great nursing was once you get past the first couple of months, I was willing to stick it out.
I attended one meeting a few months later with some neighbors of mine who were both expecting and had not successfully nursed their first babies. I was not impressed with the meeting and felt no reason to attend any more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let’s consider the rise of homeschooling for a second. Homeschoolers are talked about as if they’re isolationist, nut job right-wingers with a penchant for racism and fundamentalism. Sure, some of them are, but have you heard about the many, many progressive families that are homeschooling too?
This section doesn't come out and say that all the homeschoolers who aren't progressive are "nut job right-wingers with a penchant for racism and fundamentalism," but it sure does work awfully hard to imply that that's the case.
I found the whole tone of the article more hateful than affirming.
And, just for the hell of it:
quote:there are family issues that are about freedom and privacy and constitutional rights that would—no, strike that—should be an essential part of the Democratic platform.
Most of the pro-life people I know are active precisely because they view it as an issue about freedom and constitutional rights.
The other thing I find ironic is that medical and pharmaceutical regulation is considered one of the great early progressive success stories. Now it seems that exempting favored forms of alternative medicine from the science-based regulation we attempt to impose on the rest of the medical field is a progressive cause.
There, if that doesn't get the pot stirring, nothing will.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: People removing clothing is uncomfortable - it isn't fair to insist that someone be forced to sit next to someone who's not completely dressed on their way to work when there's no escape.
I was thinking about this on the drive home, and I believe this is just an excuse. Very few people (and Katie is probably one of them, given that her modesty strictures are similar to mine) these days care if the woman sitting next to them is wearing a micro-halter top. So claiming that a nursing mother lifting her top a bit to allow the baby access is a problem is, IMO, a red herring.
What is going on goes back to what I said before: Our culture has so sexualized the female breast that its PRIMARY FUNCTION (and let us make no mistake, feeding babies is the primary function of the mammary glands of all female mammals) is no longer the association most people make. It's not even AN association many people make!
A nursing mother giving her baby access is NOT doing some kind of strip tease -- but that is what most Americans perceive. And as I said before, I think that's a problem. But it isn't the mother's, or baby's, problem.
At the same time, I think you'll find most of the people uncomfortable with the tube top & booty shorts image for women are often the same ones uncomfortable with the ones nursing in public, since their problem with the latter is the same as their problem with the former, only taken to a larger extreme.*
I can't actually think of anyone I know who has a problem with being next to a nursing woman in a confined area, or a problem with a woman nursing in public, period. Sure, when we were pre-teen boys the sight of a forbidden tit was cause for excitement (and the sight of one on an unattractive/overweight woman was cause for private ridicule), but since then? Nah.
Seriously, though. If you whip out a breast and have a human being sucking on it in public, don't be surprised at the gawking. I can understand and sympathize with the desire to change this standard, but getting upset/defensive about it is just about the least productive way to go. The same is true for the anti-public-nudity goons: confronting or verbally abusing people in public for breast feeding their child isn't going to advance your cause.
*This is assuming that the person who objects to the scantily clad women does so because of the exposed skin and not for the army of other plausible, complex reasons, e.g. the objectification of women, disparity in sexual standards, etc. etc.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
'twasn't stirring already?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm anti-public nudity. I'm also bothered by booty shorts and tube tops (and especially midriff shirts and booty shorts on very small girls! Don't get me started!) And I also have no problem with public breastfeeding.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
kq, I have a vague understanding of how nursing bras work and all that, but I wondered about the LDS undergarments. Are there special ones for nursing moms? I thought those garments went over and around the bra.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: kq, I have a vague understanding of how nursing bras work and all that, but I wondered about the LDS undergarments. Are there special ones for nursing moms? I thought those garments went over and around the bra.
Yes there are nursing and maternity garments. The ones they have today are soooooo much better than the ones 20 years ago. No details, I'm just saying.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
At the same time, I think you'll find most of the people uncomfortable with the tube top & booty shorts image for women are often the same ones uncomfortable with the ones nursing in public, since their problem with the latter is the same as their problem with the former, only taken to a larger extreme.*
I agree with kq... I really would be surprised if there's a lot of overlap between these two groups.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:kq, I have a vague understanding of how nursing bras work and all that, but I wondered about the LDS undergarments. Are there special ones for nursing moms? I thought those garments went over and around the bra.
Actually, many women wear their bra over the garments. When Bridget was first born I switched the bra into the inside because I had to use doubled nursing pads and still sometimes leaked through my shirt, but as soon as my supply regulated enough that I stopped leaking (mostly), I switched the bra back to outside the garments because it's more comfortable to me.
There are nursing garment tops. I have three that I wear with certain nursing tops and bras. (They don't snap like nursing bras, just have an elasticized slit with a flap that hangs over a bit so you can pull it down without pulling down the whole side of the top.) But with most of my shirts and bras (the big t-shirts and loungy bras I usually wear around the house), I just use the scoop-neck tops (as opposed to sweetheart neck or camisole tops), which have a kind of elasticized, rather stretchy neckline, and just pull it down. My loungy bras also just pull down, so I just pull them both down. I have snappy bras that are a bit more trouble (next time I'm getting hooks again, that's what I had last time and I liked it better) and often if I'm wearing those I wear the nursing garments. It mostly depends on what top I'm wearing, though; certain of my nursing tops work better with nursing garments.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'm sure there's at least some. I'm in that overlap, for example. I mean, it all depends on the motivation for the discomfort. (see above:)
quote:(the sight of another woman's breast(s) in public? the viewing of what I see to be private? imagining what I'd feel if I were in the mother's position?)
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Of course, all three moms and babies did perfectly fine. So I guess they were all right to do what they did. But the one who had a c-section would probably also have been okay having a vaginal birth-- but now she'll never know because the hospitals in her area "don't allow" VBAC. (If a hospital tried to pull that on me, I'd kick their butt. But then, I don't intend to have a c-section, and if I did there are three hospitals nearby that currently are okay with VBAC, and my doctor is in favor of it, so hopefully I won't have to.)
I don't yet know if my local hospital allows VBAC or not, but it really bothers me that the next time I'm pregnant I will most likely have to be in an adversarial relationship with my doctor/hospital. I hate that the choice has become to either cave in to the repeat C-section (whether I want it or not) or delay going to the hospital until labor is so far along that they don't have time to force a C-section. It shouldn't have to be that way.
--Mel
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That may not be your only choice. Find a lawyer who is willing to fight for you and you could take the hospital to court BEFORE you have to go into labor. And if you do go in while you're actively in labor, no matter how far along you are, by law they HAVE to respect your treatment choices. They can't overrule you once you're in labor, nor can they turn you away. They must respect your treatment choices and if you explicitly refuse a procedure (including a c-section), if they then perform it they are committing assault and battery. You are at that point within your rights to call the police and have them step in to stop the doctors from performing a c-section.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: They can't overrule you once you're in labor, nor can they turn you away. They must respect your treatment choices and if you explicitly refuse a procedure (including a c-section), if they then perform it they are committing assault and battery.
(If she were to have her uterus apparently rupture -- which apparently only happens ~1 time out of 100 for a V-BAC, according to my very cursory skim of the literature -- then I bet she would be rushed to the OR regardless of what she or her husband said. And I do think that would stand up in court, but perhaps Dagonee could weigh in.
But of course that it not going to happen, and dire straits are the exception, not the rule. Just a note that things are less straightforward in emergency cases, where ability to consent and inform is sharply curtailed. Hopefully people do their best, but when it is a matter of literal minutes to life-or-death, things happen fast.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: A nursing mother giving her baby access is NOT doing some kind of strip tease -- but that is what most Americans perceive.
I don't know if that's what most Americans perceive. I don't think it's a safe assumption to make.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Which has already been addressed. Never mind. :/
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dagonee's given my stance correctly.
Where I begin to draw the line is the idea that mothers have some inherent right to embarass everyone around them in order to nurse.
There IS a social wariness about brests and breastfeeding. When our children were breastfeeding, we were sensitive to other people's feelings and the child's needs. When we went out with the child, we made arrangements-- a bottle of breastmilk, or formula, or an extra large baby blanket.
In cases like rivka's, where it appears she was forced to breast-feed on a regular schedule in a public setting-- I don't fault her at all. It can't have been comfortable for her. The issue of society's wide discomfort with breast-feeding isn't weighty enough for me to legislate against the practice.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I disagree that the embarassment comes from the mothers, or the implication that there must be embarassment from breastfeeding, or that there should be embarassment from breastfeeding. Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
It's ironic that hospitals are so leery of doing VBACs because of the lawuits. Now they could get sued for taking away the VBAC choice. Sometimes nobody wins in medicine. I hate lawsuits. Lawyers are shaping medicine these days more than anything else is in my opinion.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
I know that I have legal options, and will probably be able to try a VBAC. What I hate is the fact that I will have to be working against the doctors and hospitals rather than with them.
And, if my uterus ruptures, I absolutely want to go to the OR!! I just don't want to undergo major surgery if I don't have to. The people who claim it has a shorter recovery time than vaginal birth are nuts, in my opinion, and all my doctors told me that I recovered from the operation faster than normal. Not something I want to go through again, if I can help it.
--Mel
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Where I begin to draw the line is the idea that mothers have some inherent right to embarass everyone around them in order to nurse.
I agree with this. I don't actually have a problem with breastfeeding in public if it is done discreetly. What I don't like is the idea that the baby's need to feed means that no matter how the mother goes about doing fulfilling that need it is okay and the people who are also sharing that space deserve no consideration at all. It's like the baby's hunger is the ultimate trump card that can excuse any lack of consideration on the part of the mother. I don't believe that.
My idea of an acceptable outfit probably is a little more covered up than California. Not only my own modesty standards, but DC is a town that dresses very conservatively. The most skin that gets exposed is a sleeveless shell top, and I haven't seen a bare midriff outside of the beach since I got here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Where I begin to draw the line is the idea that mothers have some inherent right to embarass everyone around them in order to nurse.
Everyone has the right to embarrass anyone else. The issue is one of "decency," and I can't come up with any argument for public breastfeeding as indecency.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Where I begin to draw the line is the idea that mothers have some inherent right to embarass everyone around them in order to nurse.
I agree with this, actually. I think discretion is important.
quote:When we went out with the child, we made arrangements-- a bottle of breastmilk, or formula, or an extra large baby blanket.
I would personally have issues with both of the first two options, but I recognize that not everyone does. And I never left the house without at least one receiving blanket in the baby bag (and at some point my mom sewed a length of bias tape along one side, so I could anchor it around my neck, which was great).
quote:In cases like rivka's, where it appears she was forced to breast-feed on a regular schedule in a public setting-- I don't fault her at all. It can't have been comfortable for her.
It wasn't. Nor was it a decision I made lightly or without attempting alternative solutions. However, given similar circumstances, I would do it again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree with your assessment of the essential issue.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Everyone has the right to embarrass anyone else.
Um, what?
That explains so much.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nor do I think that the way that the mothers here have described the way they went about breastfeeding is indecent.
Tom appears to be a big believer in controlling one's emotions; thus, he can say that 'Everyone has the right to embarrass anyone else,' because he believes that everyone has the right to control their level of embarassment. That's a laudable viewpoint, IMO, if not implementable in any immdediate or generally applicable way.
quote:I disagree that the embarassment comes from the mothers, or the implication that there must be embarassment from breastfeeding, or that there should be embarassment from breastfeeding.
Okay.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: That's a laudable viewpoint, IMO, if not implementable in any immdediate or generally applicable way.
I'm glad you replied, Scott. Was curious why no one hadn't since it seemed to be a core disagreement.
So,you don't believe people can control their emotions? You don't believe people can change the way they feel about something like, say, Mormons, or black people, or people with mullets?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So,you don't believe people can control their emotions? You don't believe people can change the way they feel about something like, say, Mormons, or black people, or people with mullets?
I never said this-- but I think I see why you thought it was implied in my statements.
I think a person can change. I think a culture is more difficult to change. (That's what I meant by 'not implmentable in any immediate or generally applicable way.')
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You never said society, either, and since we were talking about 'one's emotions', individuals, I'm glad you see the confusion.
Number one, as I mentioned before, I don't know that it's safe to assume a culture is a certain way. I think certain people in a culture might be a certain way and, further, there might cultures within a subculture that are a certain way.
Number two, I'm pretty sure that the cultural pressure to feel embarassed about exposure to 'breasts' isn't stronger than an individual's ability to realize that sometimes this is entirely silly and inappropriate. For instance, medical people working with women had better learn to not be embrassed around boobies pretty quickly.
I can assure you that most, if not all, people who work in medicine and see naked people daily get over the whole embarassment thing pretty quickly. So, cultures can change, which means that the culture can change.
I think, too, that the more women that breastfeed in public, the less 'different' it will be, and the fewer people will be bothered by it.
Finally, I think that saying that certain segments of a culture feel a certain way is axiomatic to any discussion about attitudes towards things. I'm not clear on what it adds to the discussion to say that there are dorks that are a product of dorky cultures. Ultimately, it's a matter of inidividual choice, the whole 'I'm a victim of society' thing not holding much water. Sure, we can recognize that there are cultural influences, but it's not enough to say that they're there, and leave it at that, which is what you seem to be doing, and which begs the question on many levels.
Thank you again for replying. I enjoy talking about sexual-cultural stuff. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I can assure you that most, if not all, people who work in medicine and see naked people daily get over the whole embarassment thing pretty quickly.
Context is important. Very few people have the opportunity to view the human body within the context of the field of medicine.
Social stigmas and impulses instruct us all how to react not just to the object but to the situation that object is placed in. A naked body is not always just a naked body, in other words.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, let more women breastfeed, and people will learn to accept breastfeeding/bare breasts in the context of the RL. Ultimately, people can adapt to, if not choose, the context they're in.
Here is a question that occurs to me based on some observations made in this thread that the breast is sexualized. Isn't it a good thing to expose more 'real' breasts to the popular sight so that the breast is demystified?
If that which is erotic and liscentious is wrong because it titillates, then moral health can come not only from removing the salacious from public sight, but from making that which is salacious into that which is wholesome. What is seen depends as much on what is presented as much as it does on interpretation. In this respect, showing breasts in their more functional mode, non-sexually, helps change the salacious into the wholesome.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Bear in mind that not all the discomfort/embarassment stems from the eroticism/liscentiousness of bare breasts. I've said several times already that that certainly isn't the source of my discomfort.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Isn't it a good thing to expose more 'real' breasts to the popular sight so that the breast is demystified?
If you actually mean "expose" literally, then I would say no. As I said before, I think it is perfectly possible (and IMO preferable) to nurse publicly without exposing much, if anything.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think most women would agree to be operated on if their uterus ruptured. I don't think you'd have a problem there.
IIRC, verbal consent can overrule a previous refusal of a procedure-- and verbal refusal can overrule a previous written consent, no?
Crowswife, you might find that some hospitals are allowing VBAC, and you may also find that it helps to have a doctor who is strongly for VBAC (if you are a good candidate, of course) on your side. Sometimes that can avoid the situation entirely, if you have a doctor who is willing to be on your side when you go to the hospital administrators.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Why?
Modesty. A sorely lacking commodity in our day and age.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
First of all, no one has stated that public breast feeding is erotic or salacious. Let's remove that idea immediately, before someone starts to think people actually believe it.
I think it has more to do with modesty and propriety, myself. On Italian public beaches, small children are allowed to bathe nude. On American beaches, that's a no-no. It's not because toddlers are being sexualized, but because Americans have different standards of modesty and propriety. Perhaps at the beginning of the 20th century, strictures of dress were assigned because of sexual mores, but I think that has faded. Now, it's just part of the culture. It has become what we're comfortable with.
I don't think the Italian ideas of modesty are necessarily healthy, either. (Children running around naked on the beach-- meh. Advertisments selling naked women/Panasonic radios...not good, IMO)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:First of all, no one has stated that public breast feeding is erotic or salacious.
quote:I personally could care less if a woman wants to breast feed in public. But why would they want to with all the pervert gawkers out there?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rivka,
modesty for the sake of modesty.... I can't argue against that.
quote: I think it has more to do with modesty and propriety, myself.
I am confused what your argument is to support not breast feeding/exposing breasts in public if it's not based on salaciousness. As I mentioned to Rivka above, I can't argue against modesty for the sake of modesty.
quote: I don't think the Italian ideas of modesty are necessarily healthy, either.
Why?
Look, if all this comes down to 'because God says so', fine. I understand that there are certain things in a religion that come from God that aren't understood and that must be followed regardless. If this is one of those times, then no problem. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Edited to add, in the throes of orgiastic precision:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: They can't overrule you once you're in labor, nor can they turn you away. They must respect your treatment choices and if you explicitly refuse a procedure (including a c-section), if they then perform it they are committing assault and battery.
--------------------------
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: IIRC, verbal consent can overrule a previous refusal of a procedure-- and verbal refusal can overrule a previous written consent, no?
For sure! I was just going all JonBoy on my Dagonee about precision in the language. In extreme cases, even when verbal consent is not obtained (or obtainable), there is a presumption of consent to care despite prior refusal (I think).
That is to say, if husband goes to to cafeteria for a lemonade and wife goes into sudden shock, there are exceptions made room for in the law.
[/nitpicky ]
---
Edited to add: I know the nitpicking is annoying, and I will strive to work on it more. Trust me, it is at least as difficult to be me (in all my stolid, perseverating, windbaggish ways) as it is to interact with me. And Heavens! Think of my husband's life.
*grin He has perfected this owlish look that usually precedes a cut-throat dressing down of my many imprecisions in the language. It is utterly silencing, more deadly than a dog's cheese fart. I crumple.
[ September 27, 2006, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am confused what your argument is to support not breast feeding/exposing breasts in public if it's not based on salaciousness.
I'm not sure what you mean by salaciousness-- and I don't NOT support breast feeding in public. (The reason I say that is because several times in this conversation, people have misunderstood my stance)
I'm telling you some reasons people who have objections to breast feeding in public have those reasons. It's not that breasts are evil, or that they think the human body is a work of the devil; it has (IMO) more to do with general ideas of modesty and propriety, which are not easily hammered down as being connected to sexual mores.
Why don't we get rid of modesty laws and just let people dress or don't dress how they like? If this is where the conversation is heading-- well, my religion maintains that modesty in dress is important in this life.
As for why I don't think Italian attitudes toward modesty are healthy, it's based on how I viewed the level of respect of Italian men toward Italian women, specifically in regard to the way those women dressed. I think that respect for the opposite sex coupled with modesty in both sexes engenders a continuation of that respect that isn't found when modesty is left out.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Italian women are really hot and know how to dress.
quote: I'm not sure what you mean by salaciousness-- and I don't NOT support breast feeding in public. (The reason I say that is because several times in this conversation, people have misunderstood my stance)
A titillating fashion.
quote: I'm telling you some reasons people who have objections to breast feeding in public have those reasons. It's not that breasts are evil, or that they think the human body is a work of the devil; it has (IMO) more to do with general ideas of modesty and propriety, which are not easily hammered down as being connected to sexual mores.
I get that modesty is being given as a reason.
quote: Why don't we get rid of modesty laws and just let people dress or don't dress how they like? If this is where the conversation is heading-- well, my religion maintains that modesty in dress is important in this life.
O.K.
quote: As for why I don't think Italian attitudes toward modesty are healthy, it's based on how I viewed the level of respect of Italian men toward Italian women, specifically in regard to the way those women dressed. I think that respect for the opposite sex coupled with modesty in both sexes engenders a continuation of that respect that isn't found when modesty is left out.
Well, Italian women are hot and know how to dress. I know it's cliche to say, but I've seen Italian women and it's for true!
As to the whole respect thing, I haven't observed this, but I respect that you have.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Where I begin to draw the line is the idea that mothers have some inherent right to embarass everyone around them in order to nurse.
I think there are points at which people's embarassment is not worthy of respect. If somebody is embarassed by the sight of an interracial couple holding hands, I think we can all agree that is not as important as the couple's right to hold hands. Being embarassed about breastfeeding strikes as bordering on the absurd. I think that breastfeeding is one of the points at which people's embarassment is not as important as the ability to do the act. The problem lies with those that are embarassed not the breastfeeding mothers. The best way to remedy that is more exposure to breastfeeding.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Well, part of it is that if you're only calling "I want to have a c-section for absolutely no reason" maternal request c-sections, you're probably only getting part of the story. I personally have chatted with three women whose doctors said, "You have this very small risk factor. I'm offering you an option for c-section, but it's totally your choice. Most women with this have no problems, but some do." Two said they wanted a vaginal birth, one said she took the c-section. The one who said she took the c-section said that she didn't really choose it because of the risk factor-- she chose it because she was told by a friend that her c-section recovery was easier than her vaginal birth recovery. So I think the numbers may be somewhat higher than reported of people who ostensibly are having it because they're at risk for something, but really have additional motivations.
Of course, all three moms and babies did perfectly fine. So I guess they were all right to do what they did. But the one who had a c-section would probably also have been okay having a vaginal birth-- but now she'll never know because the hospitals in her area "don't allow" VBAC. (If a hospital tried to pull that on me, I'd kick their butt. But then, I don't intend to have a c-section, and if I did there are three hospitals nearby that currently are okay with VBAC, and my doctor is in favor of it, so hopefully I won't have to.)
We just went through a similar ordeal recently. Our newest child, born Sept 16, was a scheduled C-section. My wife really wanted to do a VBAC. Our first was vaginal, the second was an emergency C-section, the 3rd was classified as "high risk pregnancy" so was a scheduled C-section. The medical system were are now in has extremely resistant to doing a VBAC this time around.
Statistically, the probability of problems are less with VBAC's, but if there is a problem they tend to be worse. I'm convinced that the rationale behind repeat C-sections is lawyer driven. The potential liability with VBAC, looks like too big a risk to the legal guys. Medicine is a business, and like all businesses, decisions are driven by money.
Next time around though, my wife is going to stick to her guns. Legally, you cannot be forced into surgury you don't want, so if we have a 5th, it will probably be a VBAC.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:If somebody is embarassed by the sight of an interracial couple holding hands, I think we can all agree that is not as important as the couple's right to hold hands. Being embarassed about breastfeeding strikes as bordering on the absurd.
Well, that certainly is dismissive. You're comparing people who are embarassed by public breastfeeding (for whatever reason) to racists. Am I correct in assuming that, no matter the reason, embarassment at observing someone publically breastfeeding is never forgivable? This to me seems to be not, "Let breatfeeding mothers nurse where they like" (which I agree with), but "You should be ashamed of yourself for being embarassed. All mothers should breastfeed ostentatiously so that your shameful mind can be made right."
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I think that the general public has to take some responsibility for the way obstetric medicine is practiced. Obstetrics is the most sued specialty in most (if not all) states and medical malpractice insurance premiums are unbelievable. People are so overly litigious nowadays and that is what shapes the legal influence on medicine. Sometime during the 80s or early 90's (no idea which), there was a rash of lawsuits against OBs for not doing C-Sections quickly enough. They were so costly that they changed the way obstetrics is taught in medical schools. It's not that doctors want to pad their bills or make tee time, it's that they were taught when in doubt, Section.
Also, I think that the rise in maternal age has to be taken into account, as well as advances in reproductive technology. There are more high-risk pregnancies than ever before and since those are more likely to require a C-Section, there are more C-Section performed.
I am very blessed to have a wonderful, talented OB who was courageous enough to let me risk my life to give Aerin more time in utereo. She knows that Andrew and I would never sue her (unless she operated on me drunk, etc.), so she was able to conduct my treatment with freedom and honesty. This, in turn, let me have total faith and trust in her. This is how the patient/doctor relationship should be, but I don't think it usually is.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:They were so costly that they changed the way obstetrics is taught in medical schools. It's not that doctors want to pad their bills or make tee time, it's that they were taught when in doubt, Section.
Yes, I've heard this before. (Of course, I've also heard from new OBs that that is not what they were taught.) I do think that a lot of it is hospitals and insurance companies not allowing doctors to practice the way they would like to-- which is a problem which extends far beyond obstetrics.
I don't think it's fair that the litigious ones get to ruin it for the rest of society.
Of course, as my mother said over and over, "Life's not fair. And then you die."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Am I correct in assuming that, no matter the reason, embarassment at observing someone publically breastfeeding is never forgivable?
I don't think forgiveness is really an issue so much as what is a reasonable thing to ask of people. I wasn't trying to say that being embarassed by breastfeeding is the same as racism. I was trying to say that there are some points at which we draw the lines on how much we accomodate other people's comfort levels. I used the extreme example of racism because I thought that everybody would agree to it.
quote: You should be ashamed of yourself for being embarassed. All mothers should breastfeed ostentatiously so that your shameful mind can be made right.
I also didn't say this. I think that as others have said, the embarassment people feel is conditioned and is not based on something truly rational. I do think that being embarassed by breastfeeding is a limitation that it would behoove people to overcome, but that's a long way from saying people should feel ashamed. And with something like this I think it's a given that more exposure to it would make it normal and thus not embarassing. That's a lot different than your interpretation of my words.
I feel like you took my words in a much harsher light than they were intended. I apologize for using the racist example because I think it colored your interpretation of what I was saying. I should have said a mother caressing her child or somebody drinking out of a water bottle. Both would equally demonstrate my point.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
The racism comment bothered me because I've gotten those stares. Knowing where I live and knowing the kind of people I'll encounter, I'm still not going to miss out on holding my boyfriend's hand.
If you want to use that example, fine, but to me its a matter of degree. I doesn't bother me if I'm doing something so harmless as holding someone's hand...as long as long as someone's embarassment doesn't lead them to confront me. I can't control peoples' reactions. Sometimes they can't control themselves. If it is something unusual or something they've decided they disagree with, then they're in their right to feel uncomfortable. They can look away and I'd prefer if they didn't stare, but as long as they don't verbally or physically assault me, there's no damage done.
Were I to start making out with my boyfriend in public in someone's personal space, I'd agree that a line had been crossed and they are within their right to, politely, request me to stop. Especially if they don't have the option to move. Certain behavior goes past individual tolerance and into social unacceptance.
Would I say that a woman never has the right to brestfeed her child? Of course not. However, in my environment it is not something I see often. Being modest myself in term of how much skin I show in public, I can't help but feel uncomfortable knowing a woman has partly disrobed and has a child to her a breast.
As rare as it is for me to witness, when I have seen women breastfeeding in public it appears to me to cross a social boundary in regards to modesty. I have seen shirts casually half off with the breast exposed to the world. The fact that misguided teenage girls are often more covered, really sets off my alarms for public decency. The other women I've seen were covered with blankets and the only give away was the baby's feet sticking out. This, to me, is perfectly acceptable.
As I'm nonconfrontational and can usually escape the area pretty quickly, I've never had to ask a woman to cover herself near me.
I don't like the idea of women NEVER having the right to breastfeed when they need to. I also really dislike the idea that a person doesn't have the right to be uncomfortable, especially as long as they remain respectful of others despite their personal opinions.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: I feel like you took my words in a much harsher light than they were intended. I apologize for using the racist example because I think it colored your interpretation of what I was saying.
This is definitely a possibility. Your original language was fairly harsh, I think ("bordering on the absurd" was the phrase that got my hackles up, in conjunction with the racist example; like most other people, I don't like to have my responses dismissed like that). However, if you didn't intend to be that harsh, then apology accepted.
The substance of what I was objecting to (rather than the language, which certainly colored my response) was the idea that there should be some sort of breastfeeding "campaign" designed to normalize and remove any embarassment than any passersby might feel. Now, if you just mean people should go about their business as usual (breastfeeding when they need to), then I don't think we're actually in any disagreement. Not minding that someone else is uncomfortable or embarassed is one thing; deliberately making them uncomfortable embarassed is quite another (at least in my book).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:modesty for the sake of modesty.... I can't argue against that.
I can. Leaving aside the issue of whether modesty is inherently a virtue, I'm reluctant to allow someone to define "modesty" for me.
Consider the far-right Muslim argument that the sight of a woman's hair drives men to uncontrollable lust, an assumption so widespread that people have attempted to use it to legally justify rape. Is a woman without a headscarf "immodest?" Is someone in a bikini inherently "immodest?"
I honestly don't think it's at all useful to let people get away with usages of the word "modesty" that imply that possession of other fashion mores is a sign of vanity or personal failing. And once we acknowledge that this use of "modesty" is cultural -- and completely dependent on context -- we realize that the context is ENTIRELY up to us.
I can choose to be offended by someone who doesn't share my worldview. I can choose not to be. Why, of all the opportunities I have to pick and choose what offends me, would I worry about being offended by personal fashion?
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about fashion trends: what the trends suggest about society, situations where they legitimate create danger (although this latter is the excuse many Arab men use when justifying oppression, too), etc. But I don't hear anyone here suggesting that they're concerned about breastfeeding; they're just saying they consider it impolite. Perhaps the argument that new mothers shouldn't be out and about as often could lead to a danger-based argument against public breastfeeding, but otherwise we're just talking about perceived rudeness.
And at the end of the day, there are LOTS of behaviors which were once impolite, from talking on a cell phone in public to visiting someone without leaving a calling card, that are now commonplace. I don't think this is some historical erosion of civility from some hypothetical past full of better etiquette; I think it's a perfectly natural progression. Our grandparents still send us emails in ALL CAPS and don't understand why it's rude.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I can't argue against a statement of faith because I know it's fruitless. Good luck to you, though. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Precision in language, remember? You can argue against it; you just probably can't argue against it successfully. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one is saying that breastfeeding is inevitably impolite. I'm saying that forcing the generally public to be squished up against someone flashing their breasts shows a lack of consideration.
That's what I don't like - that the baby is the ultimate trump card. What about movie theatres? Should babies be brought into movie theatres because unless they can be, new mothers will hardly ever see a movie? What about nice restaurants? How nice does a restaurant have to get before diners can be annoyed at the three-year-old tossing mashed potatoes four feet away?
Like most private behaviors done in public, it can be done gracefully and it can be done disgracefully. Is it really a radical notion to say that there are inconsiderate ways to breastfeed in public?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I do mean that people should go about their business as usual and not flamboyantly breastfeed for the sake of normalizing it, so I don't think we're in disagreement.
I do apologize for my harsh language. I frequently come off as harsher than I intend. This is clearly something that I need to pay closer attention to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is it really a radical notion to say that there are inconsiderate ways to breastfeed in public?
Had anyone been arguing that people should feel free to breastfeed "extravagantly," I might understand why someone would feel the need to make this observation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think 'can' has been used to mean 'fruitless' in English, as in 'You can't fight city hall', but I agree that the word choice could have been better.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm finding it somewhat amusing that I just realized that almost every time I've been reading or posting on this thread, I've been breastfeeding.
You may all ignore me and continue.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Do you just type one handed, KQ, or do you have some kind of sling that holds the baby in place?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Noemon! Look away!
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Like most private behaviors done in public, it can be done gracefully and it can be done disgracefully.
Breastfeeding is not always a private act. At the risk of sounding like I was not attached enough, there were plenty of times the breastfeeding was how I put calories into one kid or another while I read a book, had some coffee, etc.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Her baby is a trematode, and can remain attached through mouth suction alone.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Romany,
I frequently multi-tasked while nursing too... when you're spending that much time doing anything, it only makes sense - especially when you have older children to care for.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Her baby is a trematode, and can remain attached through mouth suction alone.
I gotta tell ya, that would come in handy.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Noemon-I found that a nursing pillow combined with a rolled up diaper under the boob-in-use left both hands free for typing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wouldn't it, Sharpie? But I have to say, I'd be worried about the effects of suction that strong.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Is it really a radical notion to say that there are inconsiderate ways to breastfeed in public?
If the breastfeeder is old enough to sire his own children, then that would be inconsiderate.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Pffft. My kid's an air-swallower, she never gets good suction and has to burp every five minutes.
In any case, I figured out while Ems was very young how to hold the keyboard on the edge of my lap, prop the baby with the crook of my arm, and have both hands free for typing most of the time. It works pretty well until they're old enough to try to hit the keys while they're nursing, and/or kick the keyboard out of your lap. That's when you have to start the one-handed typing (which I also mastered while Ems was breastfeeding.) That works until the kid is so big you can't fit in the computer chair any more. (Although, our sofa bed is now in a place that I could pull it out and sit on that and use the computer if I wanted...)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Her baby is a trematode, and can remain attached through mouth suction alone.
I gotta tell ya, that would come in handy.
Or alternatively, you could grow a thick and luxuriant coat of fur--give the baby something to hang on to while they're nursing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Clothes and hair don't count?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Probably not, and ow!
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Her baby is a trematode, and can remain attached through mouth suction alone.
I gotta tell ya, that would come in handy.
Or alternatively, you could grow a thick and luxuriant coat of fur--give the baby something to hang on to while they're nursing.
Oh, I see, you're in the cover-up-the-gal's-skin camp after all!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think it's awful that you were so villified, I would hate that to happen to me. I also had a bad experience with LLL in the hospital-- in my case, I refused their literature in the hospital because I have so much junk around my house and was yelled at. I know there are many wonderful LLL groups and I wish that the ones that aren't wouldn't give them a bad name.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)