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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
[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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?)
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.')
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
