Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on July 22, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
-
The whole weird horror some people appear to have about breast feeding is beyond me.
http://www.irishnews.com/news/healthcarenews/2016/07/22/news/breastfeeding-in-house-of-commons-is-exhibitionism-says-dup-mp-sammy-wilson-618264/
-
I don't care about breast feeding but I wouldn't allow babies in the House of Commons full stop.
-
As long as it is done discreetly in public, which is quite possible, there shouldn't be a problem. It is women who like to flaunt their boobs for all to see who can cause offence.
-
As long as it is done discreetly in public, which is quite possible, there shouldn't be a problem. It is women who like to flaunt their boobs for all to see who can cause offence.
Why do they cause you offence?
-
Why do they cause you offence?
I dislike seeing anyone's private bits in public and so do many others.
-
I don't care about breast feeding but I wouldn't allow babies in the House of Commons full stop.
Is that because they would make some MPs look very immature?
-
I dislike seeing anyone's private bits in public and so do many others.
That's just restating your initial assertion. Why do you dislike seeing other people's private bits in public?
What is it about the human mammary gland that makes you upset to see it in public.
-
I don't care about breast feeding but I wouldn't allow babies in the House of Commons full stop.
Do you mean the chamber or the building?
-
That's just restating your initial assertion. Why do you dislike seeing other people's private bits in public?
What is it about the human mammary gland that makes you upset to see it in public.
Whilst necessary, it isn't pretty, like men's dangly bits for that matter, far better covered up, imo.
-
As long as it is done discreetly in public, which is quite possible, there shouldn't be a problem. It is women who like to flaunt their boobs for all to see who can cause offence.
which women are these?
-
I dislike seeing anyone's private bits in public and so do many others.
Why are breasts "private " Floo?
They are possessed by 50% of the human race and the other 50% have a vestigial version. It is, surely, an accident of social history that people in "advanced" countries have devised a fashion appearance that simultaneously manages to hide breasts away and at the same time emphasise their existence. As a consequence breasts are perceived to be more important as a secondary sexual characteristic than as an infant life support system.
I suspect that the MP in question has his sensibilities distorted by the religiosity of Northern Ireland and the general demonization of sex and sexuality within the Abrahamic religions over the millennia.
-
Whilst necessary, it isn't pretty, like men's dangly bits for that matter, far better covered up, imo.
Is that a position that supports burqas or balaclavas for people you don't think are pretty?
-
Is that a position that supports burqas or balaclavas for people you don't think are pretty?
Not quite! :D
-
Do you mean the chamber or the building?
The chamber. The building needs to have a creche if it doesn't already.
-
Whilst necessary, it isn't pretty, like men's dangly bits for that matter, far better covered up, imo.
It's been said that my face is not a paragon of beauty, should I be forced to cover it up? I don't think aesthetic imperfection is really a good reason in this case.
-
Floo:
Quote from: Nearly Sane on Today at 02:19:30 PM
Is that a position that supports burqas or balaclavas for people you don't think are pretty?
Not quite! :D
No speedos please :D.
I have no problem with women breastfeeding in public and most do it discreetly. I wouldn't care if someone got them out in front of me but in a shopping mall is a different matter. Lots of people, men and women, young and old, would find that embarrassing (I've heard young women say they don't feel comfortable feeding in public). What's the point of causing someone embarrassment? It's just as easy to breastfeed lifting your shirt.
However there will be a time in the future when no-one will care or give a second glance! Forty years ago it wouldn't have been considered respectable to do it discreetly so we've come a long way which must surely be a good thing.
-
The chamber. The building needs to have a creche if it doesn't already.
yep, I agree with that in principle though arguably it shouldn't matter where it happens.
-
yep, I agree with that in principle though arguably it shouldn't matter where it happens.
It's not about the breast feeding, it's about having small children (or any children) in the debating chamber of parliament. I simply don't think they would be conducive to business.
-
It's not about the breast feeding, it's about having small children (or any children) in the debating chamber of parliament. I simply don't think they would be conducive to business.
again I don't disagree, though the concept of older children being in the chamber doesn't seem relevant. I doubt that this is ever going other than very rare but should it happen, then it happens.
-
which women are these?
Are you expecting Floo to name them, NS? ;)
-
It is, surely, an accident of social history that people in "advanced" countries have devised a fashion appearance that simultaneously manages to hide breasts away and at the same time emphasise their existence. As a consequence breasts are perceived to be more important as a secondary sexual characteristic than as an infant life support system.
I supose it depends on how you define 'advanced country', HH. Even the women working in the fields in India 'hide' their breasts away. Their midriffs are open for all to see, as is their cleavage, but the actual breasts are tightly controlled in their sari blouses or other top-half attire.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
It's not about the breast feeding, it's about having small children (or any children) in the debating chamber of parliament. I simply don't think they would be conducive to business.
I agree, ban all Tories from the House, Order! order! I said ORDER!! shouted the playground monitor.
Gonnagle.
-
Are you expecting Floo to name them, NS? ;)
I am expecting the idea that there is some set of people conforming to this idea in relation to breast feeding exists to be justified. And apologies if that reads a bit po faced but it's easy to wander into Finbar Saunders territory here and the inability to talk about breast feeding without that or horror is part of the issue.
I don't really know what equates to flaunting breast feeding.
-
I supose it depends on how you define 'advanced country', HH. Even the women working in the fields in India 'hide' their breasts away. Their midriffs are open for all to see, as is their cleavage, but the actual breasts are tightly controlled in their sari blouses or other top-half attire.
I was just thinking of the way popular culture in the west portrays breasts. I suppose (not being a woman) I am not able to fully appreciate the problems associated with carrying a couple of lumps of semi-mobile fat around all the time, the need to keep them under control and the need to ensure that they don't get in the way when I am doing something. Hence the enclosure.
What appears to be the important constraint in the west is that the nipple and areola cannot be seen. This secrecy - to me - seems close to fetishism. Yet these also are parts of the breast of most interest to babies. Perhaps it from this paradox that people' unease about seeing breastfeeding arises.
Does any else recall an incident a few years ago, where a guard threw a woman off a Virgin train for breatfeeding? I recall that Richard Branson made a full apology. And (though I may have got this wrong) the guard suggested she feed the baby in the toilet. I wonder if he eats his food in the lavatory?
-
It would be quite easy to breastfeed whilst wearing this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3701565/Would-wear-beach-String-bondage-style-bikini-barely-covers-intimate-areas-latest-summer-sweeping-Japan.html
Hope no-one is offended, by the Mail I mean, not the article.
I have to say the outfit looks quite uncomfortable and the model very young,
-
hmm.. tbh, I can't see that it would work well for breast feeding - or swimming for that matter.
I think I need to go and have a lie down now...
-
It would be quite easy to breastfeed whilst wearing this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3701565/Would-wear-beach-String-bondage-style-bikini-barely-covers-intimate-areas-latest-summer-sweeping-Japan.html
Hope no-one is offended, by the Mail I mean, not the article.
I have to say the outfit looks quite uncomfortable and the model very young,
Thank god for topless beaches.
-
Thank god for topless beaches.
Quite. One brexit was more than enough!
-
hmm.. tbh, I can't see that it would work well for breast feeding - or swimming for that matter.
I think I need to go and have a lie down now...
;D
It would be easy to lift up the top so the milk bottles pop out in readiness Udayana. I would worry they might pop out whilst doing the breast stroke though.
-
Whilst necessary, it isn't pretty, like men's dangly bits for that matter, far better covered up, imo.
But it's cultural Floo.
Women who dress in a Burka just see women as having more " private" bits.
Alternatively some African countries think nothing of women having their boobs on display 24/7 it's normal dress, and not private.
Imo subconsciously people (in the west) often don't like seeing a woman breast feed in public because it serves as a reminder of our animal roots.
(Deep down I think even non religious people can display that attitude, because it's learnt)
So some people feel squeamish about facing up to their roots and feel they shouldn't be offended, by having to face it in public.
IMO There isn't much more natural and beautiful, than breast feeding a baby.
It causes some people offence on a subconcious level because they are forced to see something they think of as an animal thing and that, that's where we originate.
Therefore, it can be seen as offensive. Even with Athiests who believe we evolved because it's a learnt attitude.
Our society / culture teaches us we shouldn't do (and it's not acceptable to do anything in public) something that is relating to our animal nature, which is likely to remind people they are descended from animals.
Example : , have sex, breast feed babies, give birth, go to the toilet. ( none of our functions are considered acceptable in public) it's all hidden away.
Women's periods for example, some don't even like packets of sanitary towels on show in the bathroom when guests are coming, but toilet rolls in plain sight is acceptable.
Women have been victimised in religions too, because periods are treated with suspicion as they also point to our animal roots.
Childbirth also, look at all the churching/cleansing rituals that occur before a woman is considered ' clean'..
Woman's functions are also a reminder of our animal roots and mortality.
Look at all the superstitions that has grown up around that.
Breast feeding is just another reminder that makes some squeamish, although some people may not realise why they feel that.
It's taught, subconciously.
People object specifically to boobs being used for their original animal purpose(breastfeeding), but may not object to boobs on show other than that.
There isn't that fuss on the beach.
It's all about shattering someone's self perception on a subconcious level.
That's my opinion of it.
-
I agree with much of what you say here, Rose. However, I also think that religion plays a role. The Christian religion, in the Middle Ages, demonised sex. Breasts were fine in paintings of Madonna and Child but sinful when portrayed otherwise in art. Think of portrayals of Samson and Delilah - she is always shown as a half-naked hairdresser.
Human breasts are an important secondary sex characteristic which is not possessed by other animals. In other species the mammary glands only enlarge for the purpose of lactation and then shrink away after weaning - ask anyone who has had a dog or a cat which has given birth. Human females have mammary glands which behave in exactly the same manner but they are encased within large masses of fat which give them a unique permanency.
Our society has been conditioned to view breasts as sexual objects, hence they should be hidden. When seen in public with babies attached too many people cannot detach them from their erotic connotations or - more significantly - believe that other people will be aroused by the sight and it should therefore be banned.
-
Your last point : ",,,believe that other people will be aroused by the sight", is very true.
I remember my mother saying that she would have been embarrassed by topless bathers (when it first started happening here), if she was in the company of, say, my uncle. Now she would not have consciously thought that my uncle would necessarily have been aroused, too deep for her, it was an instinctive reaction on her part, and I've come across it in other, older women. Times change and so do attitudes, who thinks twice now about topless bathers.
Not many object to breast feeding in public though it is usually done quite discreetly. People even breast feed in church, why not?
I suppose the downside is that there is no longer much in the way of mystique about bodies, the idea of uncovering something that is special and beautiful, must be disappearing because everyone knows what boobs look like, everything else too.
This bit of your post made me laugh: "In other species the mammary glands only enlarge for the purpose of lactation and then shrink away after weaning"
In other species male bits shrink away after mating too! They are quite hidden. Probably for protection, if they were dangling about they could be caught on branches etc. Or be bitten :o.
-
In other species male bits shrink away after mating too! They are quite hidden. Probably for protection, if they were dangling about they could be caught on branches etc. Or be bitten :o.
Ah, yes. Wicked Willie - man's best friend. There is evidence, in the form of countless online video extracts, of such implements being bitten ....
Again, the human penis is very interesting. Most mammal species ensure its penetrative capability by containing a bone - the baculum. Homo sapiens uses hydraulics to achieve this purpose. Some species, like horses, use specially developed muscles to withdraw theirs into cavities in their bodies.
It has been suggested that the human penis does not contain a bone but uses blood pressure because sex is used expressively in humans rather than functionally, which means that coitus is many times more frequent than in other animals. It is also interesting to note that the human penis is several times the size of that of the gorilla and that its obvious existence, like females breasts, may be a secondary sex characteristic.
Oh, we are back to Floo's dangly bits, aren't we?
-
Whilst necessary, it isn't pretty, like men's dangly bits for that matter, far better covered up, imo.
Quite agree. people say that breast-feeding is a natural human activity to justify it's being done in public, but so are pissing, shitting, and shagging, and I don't particularly want to see any of them done in a public place. I don't really mind breast-feeding as long as it's done discreetly, but the naturalness of it is an invalid argument.
-
Whilst breast is supposedly best for a baby, no mother should beat herself up about it if she can't do it for whatever reason. I managed it for three months with our youngest girl, but couldn't breastfeed the older two.
I have mentioned this before but will repeat it. Our middle daughter breastfed her two lads until they were 12 months old, but needed some assistance from the Breastfeeding helpline as her youngest, had teeth and was chomping her nipples! The advice she was given was gobsmacking to say the least, and downright dangerous to the child. She was told not to stop feeding him but it was acceptable to file down his teeth. Have you ever heard of anything so CRAZY?
-
You're not alone in feeling like that Steve but in truth women generally do breast feed discreetly. They feel more comfortable lifting their shirt one side at a time than pulling one breast out over the top of it. There's something neat and organised about that too.
However, what I do feel strongly is that a nursing mother should never ever be stressed about feeding her baby because stress is terribly upsetting and can mess up the breast feeding. It should be a calm and comforting experience. So if anyone does feel a bit embarrassed they must take their embarrassment outside, it's their problem.
I certainly wouldn't put feeding a baby in the same category as pissing, shitting or shagging, nor womens breasts in same cat as their vulvo-vaginal area, or men's genitals. Why else is it permissible for a woman to be topless on a beach but not 'bottomless' (unless one is a naturist) ?
-------------
HH, I laughed at your last post, it was very funny. I have an anecdote but will come back with it later.
-
Quite agree. people say that breast-feeding is a natural human activity to justify it's being done in public, but so are pissing, shitting, and shagging, and I don't particularly want to see any of them done in a public place. I don't really mind breast-feeding as long as it's done discreetly, but the naturalness of it is an invalid argument.
One difference here though is surely the need of the child to feed when it requires to be fed, whereas the other activities you mention are (for the most part) manageable in terms of timing and location.
-
You're not alone in feeling like that Steve but in truth women generally do breast feed discreetly. They feel more comfortable lifting their shirt one side at a time than pulling one breast out over the top of it. There's something neat and organised about that too.
However, what I do feel strongly is that a nursing mother should never ever be stressed about feeding her baby because stress is terribly upsetting and can mess up the breast feeding. It should be a calm and comforting experience. So if anyone does feel a bit embarrassed they must take their embarrassment outside, it's their problem.
I certainly wouldn't put feeding a baby in the same category as pissing, shitting or shagging, nor womens breasts in same cat as their vulvo-vaginal area, or men's genitals. Why else is it permissible for a woman to be topless on a beach but not 'bottomless' (unless one is a naturist) ?
-------------
HH, I laughed at your last post, it was very funny. I have an anecdote but will come back with it later.
Is it permissible for a woman to be topless on a UK beach?
-
Yes.
-
Is it permissible for a woman to be topless on a UK beach?
Of-course it is.
All of these things are down to cultural or other social conventions. Urinating and defecating have often been communal in various societies. Whether or not someone doesn't like the look of "men's dangly bits" is neither here nor there.
-
Bet she likes them in private.
-
I am of the opinion the human body is best covered up!
-
I remember going down to Brighton beach once on a hot day. We crashed out on the beach, fell asleep I think, anyway then I noticed that my son's eyes were out on stalks, and he was very restless. I looked round and realized we'd ended up in the nudist beach. I think his vote would be yes to topless sun-bathing.
-
The naturist beaches are usually off the beaten track, far away from prying eyes.
There's one called, "Norman's Beach" somewhere in Sussex, near Bexhill I think. Never been but a friend of a friend likes going there. It must be lovely to sea bathe in the nuddy. I did it once when I was 15, in Cornwall at night. There were a few of us, a bit of a beach party.
So I am told, part of the beautiful long Holkham Beach in Norfolk is naturist. I've been there lots of times and never seen anyone without bathers but can imagine there is such a section because it is so far off the road, and a long walk from the car park. Lots of sand dunes too and never crowded.
I suppose people breast feed on the beach, they take their babies on there so must do. One place where no-one would object to feeding.
-
Wiggs,
I looked round and realized...
Of course you did Wiggo, of course you did...
Up there with, "The dog ate my homework Miss" and "I was just cleaning it and it went off in my hand Officer" ;)
-
I was just cleaning it and it went off - quite a good one. I thought the normal teenage boy said, 'I was just checking it for warts, and it went off, sorry for the mess'.
Every time we see that gambling ad now, with Ray Winstone, we embroider it. It starts 'in my 'and I have ...'
-
But it's cultural Floo.
Women who dress in a Burka just see women as having more " private" bits.
Alternatively some African countries think nothing of women having their boobs on display 24/7 it's normal dress, and not private.
Imo subconsciously people (in the west) often don't like seeing a woman breast feed in public because it serves as a reminder of our animal roots.
(Deep down I think even non religious people can display that attitude, because it's learnt)
So some people feel squeamish about facing up to their roots and feel they shouldn't be offended, by having to face it in public.
IMO There isn't much more natural and beautiful, than breast feeding a baby.
It causes some people offence on a subconcious level because they are forced to see something they think of as an animal thing and that, that's where we originate.
Therefore, it can be seen as offensive. Even with Athiests who believe we evolved because it's a learnt attitude.
Our society / culture teaches us we shouldn't do (and it's not acceptable to do anything in public) something that is relating to our animal nature, which is likely to remind people they are descended from animals.
Example : , have sex, breast feed babies, give birth, go to the toilet. ( none of our functions are considered acceptable in public) it's all hidden away.
Women's periods for example, some don't even like packets of sanitary towels on show in the bathroom when guests are coming, but toilet rolls in plain sight is acceptable.
Women have been victimised in religions too, because periods are treated with suspicion as they also point to our animal roots.
Childbirth also, look at all the churching/cleansing rituals that occur before a woman is considered ' clean'..
Woman's functions are also a reminder of our animal roots and mortality.
Look at all the superstitions that has grown up around that.
Breast feeding is just another reminder that makes some squeamish, although some people may not realise why they feel that.
It's taught, subconciously.
People object specifically to boobs being used for their original animal purpose(breastfeeding), but may not object to boobs on show other than that.
There isn't that fuss on the beach.
It's all about shattering someone's self perception on a subconcious level.
That's my opinion of it.
Hi Rose,
I have written about this before.
IMO...evolution has a direction and we humans are branching off from the animal kingdom and developing traits that are increasingly divergent from other animals. It is therefore natural that we spontaneously try to shed those traits and characteristics that bind us to the animal kingdom. This is not only as regards our bodies but also in terms of our behavior and intellectual traits.
Spiritual practices and religions have always tried to wean us away from our animal tendencies and encourage our human qualities of cooperation, altruism, empathy, sacrifice, love, intellect and other such. Human culture and civilization have been moving in tandem with evolution and pushing us in the right direction.
In Hinduism we believe that all of us have lived as animals at some time in the past and through spiritual development, we have now acquired human form. All humans do not belong in one single category. We form a spectrum starting with people who have more animal like traits at one end, gradually progressing to people who have very little of the animal traits, at the other end. People who shed all animal traits are said to become free (mukth) and liberated....never to be reborn on earth.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Much ado about nothing...
They provide changing rooms why not a nursing room where mothers can go and feed their babies in peace.
That way no one is offended and the world is put to rights once more.
-
Much ado about nothing...
They provide changing rooms why not a nursing room where mothers can go and feed their babies in peace.
That way no one is offended and the world is put to rights once more.
It is not a bad idea, Sass, an obligation that a comfortable, clean and peaceful room should be an obligation in all public buildings , restaurants, department stores etc. But what this will do is isolate nursing mothers from their friends and families and reinforce the idea that breast feeding is a secretive and solitary practice.
Segregation itself could well be considered to be offensive.
-
It might but on the other hand a nursing room would be comfortable, completely stress free. It's not about breasts but about changing nappies and cleaning babies.
I was looking at the programme or whatever you call it for this year's Royal Norfolk show (reason: my old man's firm had a stand there), and noted that there was a place for women to breast feed babies in private and comfort. Seemed like a good idea.
-
When feeding a baby a clean, reasonably quiet, stress free environment is best
-
It might but on the other hand a nursing room would be comfortable, completely stress free. It's not about breasts but about changing nappies and cleaning babies.
I was looking at the programme or whatever you call it for this year's Royal Norfolk show (reason: my old man's firm had a stand there), and noted that there was a place for women to breast feed babies in private and comfort. Seemed like a good idea.
Changing rooms - or at least facilities - for babies are quite common. But why should a baby be obliged to feed in a place where its urine and faeces are dealt with? Do you eat in your lavatory?
I don't disagree with places where babies can be fed but I do consider that feeding mothers should not be banished to them.
-
I agree with you HH and, no, I don't eat in the toilet but I wouldn't be averse to eating in a cloakroom or an area which has a toilet with door on.
Plenty of babies are changed and fed in bedrooms with adjacent bathrooms w toilet.
However in principle I agree with what you say and don't have any objections to breast feeding in public but if a decent place is provided, it would be pleasant and relaxing to do it there. A veritable haven I would imagine.
-
From BBC programme 'Dead Ringers':
"MP's are set to be able to breast feed in the House of Commons. Boris Johnson was said to be furious when told it was just for babies."
-
It might but on the other hand a nursing room would be comfortable, completely stress free. It's not about breasts but about changing nappies and cleaning babies.
Many public places already have facilities for changing nappies and cleaning babies. I'm not sure that is the correct place to be feeding them too. Upthread somebody made the point "would you want to eat your lunch in the toilet?"
-
and I responded:
"agree with you HH and, no, I don't eat in the toilet but I wouldn't be averse to eating in a cloakroom or an area which has a toilet with door on.
Plenty of babies are changed and fed in bedrooms with adjacent bathrooms w toilet.
However in principle I agree with what you say and don't have any objections to breast feeding in public but if a decent place is provided, it would be pleasant and relaxing to do it there. A veritable haven I would imagine."
-
Would it not be reasonable to say something like:
Breastfeeding is a normal, natural maternal behaviour and should be accepted as such by everyone.
Breastfeeding in a public place is a normal and natural activity and should be a matter of no consequence to anyone other than the mother and child involved.
Should a safe, clean and comfortable place be available for breastfeeding then a nursing mother should be free to decide whether to use it or not. No other person, unconnected with the mother and child, should have any right to interfere with nursing or be able to make any demand.
about where breastfeeding should take place.
-
Here here! 100%. Spiffing.
WIsh you'd been around when i was attempting to breast feed, I encountered so much opposition even in my own home in front of relatives. It made me feel so self conscious and my husband was no help at all. It was OK when I was on my own but I ived in fear of relatives who might want to come round,My mum was, surprisingly, encouraging of me bu the old man thought I should do it upstairs and never in anyone else's house. I was very stressed and never quie forgiven him, there seemed to be no-one to speak up for me. I cried and didn't want to leave my house. Evidentually he went on the bottle and he and I were calmer and he thrived. It could have been so different,
-
Here here! 100%. Spiffing.
WIsh you'd been around when i was attempting to breast feed, I encountered so much opposition even in my own home in front of relatives. It made me feel so self conscious and my husband was no help at all. It was OK when I was on my own but I ived in fear of relatives who might want to come round,My mum was, surprisingly, encouraging of me bu the old man thought I should do it upstairs and never in anyone else's house. I was very stressed and never quie forgiven him, there seemed to be no-one to speak up for me. I cried and didn't want to leave my house. Evidentually he went on the bottle and he and I were calmer and he thrived. It could have been so different,
It's a pity you didn't get support from those around you, after all babies need to come first even if you are visiting someone else.
I couldn't breastfeed because I didn't have much milk and hated it, so mine went straight onto a bottle after I tried the first hassle of trying.
I think you need people to be understanding or put up with a screaming baby.
I would have been annoyed if I felt I couldn't have even visited someone because it was disapproved of.
It must have been very difficult for you.
A lot of people offer a bedroom to a breast feeding mum if she wants some privacy and although that also could be seen as expecting you to go away to do it, at least it shows some consideration.
:-\
-
Hi everyone,
50 years ago when many Indian women would breast feed their babies anywhere, in buses, trains, theaters etc. it was considered uncivilized and tribal. The West taught us how to be civilized and not to expose the female body in public. Sheesh!! Bottle feeding was the 'civilized' 'modern' way!
Today most Indian women breastfeed only in private, preferring the bottle in public places.....and now we have the West telling us how traumatic it is for the mom and baby to seek out a private spot every time....and so do it in public please!! ::)
These views are likely to vacillate from generation to generation.
I think a balanced norm of breastfeeding all babies, preferably in a private spot whenever available, should be cultivated by all. :)
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram
You say "the West taught us how to be civilized". Is that strictly true?
Might it not have been certain agencies in the west - such as the Nestle company, rather than "the West" generally - which had seen a new source of profitable trading?
I think that people in the West were equally vulnerable to commercial propaganda and were similarly duped. I have no argument with formula milk - but it should be a supplement not a food of first choice. It should be there to support mothers not to supplant them. For mothers for whom breastfeeding is difficult or not possible formula milk is invaluable - but it should not be perceived as the feed of first choice to others who can produce milk.
-
As I have said before, whilst breast might be best, no mother should beat themselves up if they can't breastfeed, as I couldn't with my first two children. Formula did them no harm at all.
-
It is not a bad idea, Sass, an obligation that a comfortable, clean and peaceful room should be an obligation in all public buildings , restaurants, department stores etc. But what this will do is isolate nursing mothers from their friends and families and reinforce the idea that breast feeding is a secretive and solitary practice.
Segregation itself could well be considered to be offensive.
You could say the same thing about a mother nursing her baby at home in the nursery.
Nothing offensive, nothing isolating. Gives new mothers time to chat amongst themselves with other mothers in the same boat.
Collectively it would be good for mothers to chin wag and feel less pressure of feeding in public.
-
It's a pity you didn't get support from those around you, after all babies need to come first even if you are visiting someone else.
I couldn't breastfeed because I didn't have much milk and hated it, so mine went straight onto a bottle after I tried the first hassle of trying.
I think you need people to be understanding or put up with a screaming baby.
I would have been annoyed if I felt I couldn't have even visited someone because it was disapproved of.
It must have been very difficult for you.
A lot of people offer a bedroom to a breast feeding mum if she wants some privacy and although that also could be seen as expecting you to go away to do it, at least it shows some consideration.
:-\
It wasn't just 'going somewhere' Rose, it was in my own home if there was a visitor or visitors.
Still rankles.
-
Hi everyone,
50 years ago when many Indian women would breast feed their babies anywhere, in buses, trains, theaters etc. it was considered uncivilized and tribal. The West taught us how to be civilized and not to expose the female body in public. Sheesh!! Bottle feeding was the 'civilized' 'modern' way!
Today most Indian women breastfeed only in private, preferring the bottle in public places.....and now we have the West telling us how traumatic it is for the mom and baby to seek out a private spot every time....and so do it in public please!! ::)
Why are you whining about what the West does? Nobody made you follow our example.
-
Think of India when it was part of the British Empire, jeremy. There's no doubt there was great British influence. I remember many years ago a lady I knew, who had lived in India, speaking disparagingly of a girl she saw breastfeeding. Her words were: "I haven't seen anything like it outside the slums of Calcutta".
Indeed it was English women living in India who who had a very snobbish influence on Indians and no doubt the attitudes are ingrained in Indian society and that's probably what Sririam meant. A great pity.
-
Think of India when it was part of the British Empire, jeremy. There's no doubt there was great British influence. I remember many years ago a lady I knew, who had lived in India, speaking disparagingly of a girl she saw breastfeeding. Her words were: "I haven't seen anything like it outside the slums of Calcutta".
Indeed it was English women living in India who who had a very snobbish influence on Indians and no doubt the attitudes are ingrained in Indian society and that's probably what Sririam meant. A great pity.
Sriram put the time scale on it. Fifty years ago, India had been out of the British Empire for almost twenty years.
-
Why are you whining about what the West does? Nobody made you follow our example.
It's called an observation Jeremy. If you don't like it, take your own advice and don't whine about it - nobody made you read it.
-
Sriram put the time scale on it. Fifty years ago, India had been out of the British Empire for almost twenty years.
That's not very long jeremy! May seem long to you but it takes more time than that to get rid of ingrained attitudes. There are still people around who are old enough to remember pre-1948.
In any case, as Gabriella has said, Sririam was merely making an observation. A not unreasonable one, imo.
-
That's not very long jeremy! May seem long to you but it takes more time than that to get rid of ingrained attitudes. There are still people around who are old enough to remember pre-1948.
In any case, as Gabriella has said, Sririam was merely making an observation. A not unreasonable one, imo.
Maybe, but the way Sriram has written it, while India was in the BritishbEmpire, Indian women routinely breast fed in public but at some point after they left the Empire, it and the West somehow told Indian women to stop and they did. That isn't just observation, it's an opinion of cause and effect and one that doesn't easily match with the facts.
Is the 'West' as Sriram portrays it really telling Indian women that they have to breast feed in public?
-
I don't disagree with places where babies can be fed but I do consider that feeding mothers should not be banished to them.
I don't agree with banishing people either. But I am glad that most mothers still feel less stressed by the idea of breastfeeding in private than in public, and therefore either choose to banish themselves or breastfeed discreetly when in public. Probably for the same reason that I find it strange that people post every detail of their life on social media - I just went on holiday and had a great time without feeling the need to share the details or pictures with all my friends.
I think breastfeeding is a more intimate act than feeding your child with a bottle or a spoon so find it strange that women want to do it openly in front of the general public rather than discreetly or privately. Obviously other people may feel that breastfeeding is no different to bottle-feeding and find it strange that some people think both can't be done openly. I can understand breastfeeding in front close friends or family. No doubt the culture may change at some point in the future to a more open one, but until that time, personally I am more comfortable with the breast-feeding restrictions mothers currently put on themselves.
Looking after a baby is stressful for a whole host of reasons - sleepless nights, extra laundry, increased costs, juggling demands of other children, housework, hormones, job etc - so regardless of whether you add planning feeds and missing out on activities and chatting with friends because of baby-feeding responsibilities to that list, a mother can expect to be stressed. When my children were babies they seemed perfectly happy to feed in private and it seemed easier for them to feed comfortably. I just managed my expectations that my life was going to be a bit different for a while and I would have to make certain adjustments for a short time.
-
Maybe, but the way Sriram has written it, while India was in the BritishbEmpire, Indian women routinely breast fed in public but at some point after they left the Empire, it and the West somehow told Indian women to stop and they did. That isn't just observation, it's an opinion of cause and effect and one that doesn't easily match with the facts.
Is the 'West' as Sriram portrays it really telling Indian women that they have to breast feed in public?
Anecdotal evidence is that breastfeeding in public - though usually covered by a shawl - is more common in rural areas than urban areas, probably due to differences in cultures that develop in cities compared to rural areas.
Whether it is observation or opinion, it still doesn't appear to be whining. Sriram seems to be suggesting that as many British people in India did express opinions about "civilising" the natives by introducing / teaching/ trying to "indoctrinate" them with foreign values, this foreign influence whether directly through the Empire or indirectly through foreign investment and international policies must be the reason why there was a decline in public breast feeding in urban areas, but he has presented no evidence to support his opinion.
-
Maybe, but the way Sriram has written it, while India was in the BritishbEmpire, Indian women routinely breast fed in public but at some point after they left the Empire, it and the West somehow told Indian women to stop and they did. That isn't just observation, it's an opinion of cause and effect and one that doesn't easily match with the facts.
Is the 'West' as Sriram portrays it really telling Indian women that they have to breast feed in public?
No, I think he is saying that the 'West' tut tutted about public breast feeding.
Maybe we all have it wrong, hey ho. Perhaps Sririam will return and explain it.
-
That's not very long jeremy!
It's a generation. It's long enough for many women having babies not to have been able to remember British rule.
In any case, as Gabriella has said, Sririam was merely making an observation. A not unreasonable one, imo.
No. He was complaining about Indian fads with respect to breast feeding and he was putting the blame squarely on Western fashions.
-
Alright Jeremy.
Tomorrow is another day, let's hope we all get out of bed on the right (correct) side.
-
Ah....there has been lots of discussion on my earlier post! Nice!
I did not mean to accuse western people but was merely pointing out a fact. For centuries, the West has had a missionary zeal in changing the world. "We must civilize these people somehow'...was a common intent among the British in particular and western Christians in general during those days. A superiority complex born out of the need to spread the Christian good word plus wealth, military, scientific and engineering skills....was largely responsible for this 'cultural invasion'.
This involved making significant changes in local cultures and lifestyles, sometimes for the better and often for the worse too. Nothing was ever right about local cultures. The West was always Best!
Ok....it served a good purpose in most instances no doubt. Things have worked out fine in the final analysis and I am not really complaining. :D But the attitude of 'West knows beat' did impinge itself on others and change local lifestyles. It still does.
The truth is that the 'West does not always know best'. This creates a situation where those people who were leading healthy and sensible lifestyles to begin with were made to change it to their detriment.
As regards breast feeding in particular, I was only pointing out that ideas and values change every now and then. One day breast feeding in public is unthinkable. Few years later it is the new fad. The point is that neither of them is right or wrong in itself. We just need to balance it out based on our values, local culture and specific needs at any time. The whole world doesn't have to think alike in everything, every time!
I have not said anything to get agitated about. Chill guys! :)
-
Thanks Sririam, good post.
-
It's a generation. It's long enough for many women having babies not to have been able to remember British rule.
No. He was complaining about Indian fads with respect to breast feeding and he was putting the blame squarely on Western fashions.
No, many people alive today remember Churchill who seems to had plenty of things to say to show his attitude towards India and it's people.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-Indians-feel-an-animosity-towards-the-British-and-not-the-other-rulers-of-Ancient-India
Some Indians are going to remember that attitude, too many to say it's all in the past.
-
Winston Churchill is pretty much a hero in the uk but he could be really tactless at times.
Winston Churchill was like Boris Johnson in some ways.
Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed
-Churchill, on the independence movement in India, 1930
"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor."
-Comment on Gandhi's meeting with the British Viceroy of India, addressing the Council of the West Essex Unionist Association (23 February 1931); as quoted in "Mr Churchill on India" in The Times (24 February 1931)
I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
-Entry dated to September 1942 on a conversation held with Churchill in Leo Amery : Diaries.
I hope it would be bitter and bloody!
-Churchill, upon hearing news of conflict between the Muslim League and Indian Congress, July 1940 (makes you wonder why Britain decided on that partitioning of Pakistan...)
If food is scarce, why isn't Gandhi dead yet?
-Churchill's witty retort to British Secretary of State for India Leo Amery's telegram for food stock to relieve the Bengal famine of 1943
Relief would do no good, Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply
-Leo Amery records Churchill's stance on why famine relief was refused to India, 1944
Winston Churchill is remembered today as a great hero, a model leader, and a very witty, very quotable man. That's a very important part of it, the damage he did to India is largely ignored... purposefully. When 4 million people were starving and Churchill was joking about it, that kind of news was censored by Britain.
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it
-Churchill, filled with wit as always
One generation isn't enough because really there is no such thing, people are born at different times.
Many people remember different things, there is no such thing as a different generation because we all blend in together, because we are not all born in set batches.
We have different generations as in individual families, but it's not universal.
I think it's an idea that has sprung out of the west that you have a young generation that is different, but it doesn't really exist.
its a myth, we are all born at slightly different times.
You could draw the line at generations for society at large, anywhere.
It's a construct.
-
You can read more about Winston Churcill here.
Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed: you can find them on the front pages any day of the week. He is the man who invented Iraq, locking together three conflicting peoples behind arbitrary borders that have been bleeding ever since. He is the Colonial Secretary who offered the Over-Promised Land to both the Jews and the Arabs – although he seems to have privately felt racist contempt for both. He jeered at the Palestinians as "barbaric hoards who ate little but camel dung," while he was appalled that the Israelis "take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience".
True, occasionally Churchill did become queasy about some of the most extreme acts of the Empire. He fretted at the slaughter of women and children, and cavilled at the Amritsar massacre of 1919. Toye tries to present these doubts as evidence of moderation – yet they almost never seem to have led Churchill to change his actions. If you are determined to rule people by force against their will, you can hardly be surprised when atrocities occur. Rule Britannia would inexorably produce a Cruel Britannia.
So how can the two be reconciled? Was Churchill's moral opposition to Nazism a charade, masking the fact he was merely trying to defend the British Empire from a rival?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
If our ' generation ' alive today can remember Churchill as a hero, others in the world can just as easily remember his darker side.
Their memories are no less valid than ours.
It's just a matter of acknowledging a different viewpoint to the one we are accustomed to.
Looking at a more detached version of history, perhaps admitting to not having such a perfect past or maybe into being misled in some of our history lessons.
:(
-
Anyway.
I can see the attitude of the British towards the "natives" was appalling. Even the term " natives" is a way of putting people down >:(
I have no doubt that attitude became reflected in modifying the behaviour of local customs and traditions in India and other places.
Breast feeding could well have been looked down on, like bare breasts or no shoes, or even not using a knife and fork to eat.
The attitude can even be unconscious in the people holding the veiw.
I've seen the attitude expressed today by fellow Brits, much to my anger.
Example regarding someone as a peasant because they pick up food with their hands, but it's ingrained deep and the person holding it doesn't even see it for what it is.
-
The old colonial attitude is still live and well ( at least in 2014) in some elements of society.
You just need to see it for what it is.
Sandwiches have been banned from an officers’ mess after a commander noticed many soldiers were eating them with their hands as he insisted “a gentleman or a lady uses a knife and fork.”
Major General James Cowan issued the note after he noticed officers were eating sandwiches with their hands and failing to stand when commanders entered the room.
His three-page letter criticised standards at Bulford Camp in Wiltshire where he said he had seen many “frankly barbaric” techniques and habits displayed by soldiers and officers.
The note, addressed to ‘Chaps’, said: “Quite a few officers in the divisional mess seem to be under the impression that they can eat their food with their hands. The practice of serving rolls and sandwiches must stop,” the Sun reported.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10677230/Army-commander-bans-sandwiches-in-attack-on-barbaric-habits.html
It's this sort of attitude that keeps the scars of colonialism alive.
That sense of, there is only one way of doing something to be civilised, otherwise you are letting the side down by becoming a barbaric peasant.
Meanwhile millions of people's all over the world eat without knives and forks as is their custom.
Should this army commander then go abroad with his attitude, the good old colonialism is live and well. ( even if it was slightly tongue in cheek)
It's a form of racism that I'm not even sure the perpetrators are aware of, but have no doubt if you come from a background of different customs, you will have no trouble seeing it for what it is.
I've encountered it now and again and really the people doing it, don't even seem to be aware they are doing it.
( one of my friends once told their children off for eating with their hands, like peasants she said >:(. )
::)
http://www.foodrepublic.com/2012/11/19/the-rules-for-eating-with-your-hands-in-india-africa-and-the-middle-east/
-
Oprah managed to get it wrong in India according to this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178765/Oprah-Winfrey-draws-India-remark-people-eat-hands.html
The army officer would definately come across as "old colonial" attitude.
There is a disparity here between what a person thinks they are saying, and how it's received.
I have no doubt that in colonial times how you ate your dinner was used to judge you as well as being a " native" , and Oprahs use of the word " still" didn't help the perception.
Like they were all backwards, or something.
I can see why that didn't go down well.
It's so easy to unconsciously judge others with different customs without meaning to.
I guess all societies have standards and stratas of society.
I guess it's just trying to be aware of our own attitudes and how our adherence to our own "standards and values" could be construed as a criticism of others.
Especially somewhere that has been colonised and in many cases judged and mistreated in the past.
???
-
Very, very interesting posts Rose, you've expressed sentiments that many of us share better than we could and with examples to boot.
(As an aside, the army officer who objected to the eating of sandwiches with hands was expressing a very middle-middle class attitude, a bit like insisting on pastry forks or fish knives. Honestly, for what were sandwiches invented? To eat something without eating irons! (I know that's not strictly true, the Earl of Sandwich invented them because he fancied a bit of meat with bread but it certainly caught on.) )
-
Thanks for that Brownie and Rose. Rose ...you've elaborated more than I would have attempted. Thanks.
About eating sandwiches...I think Americans are setting new standards on that. Just watch some street food programs on TV. :D
-
If our ' generation ' alive today can remember Churchill as a hero, others in the world can just as easily remember his darker side.
On another thread you keep insisting that people should be putting a vote that happened last month behind them. Here you are saying it's OK go be bitter about somebody who died 50 years ago.
Make your mind up.
-
On another thread you keep insisting that people should be putting a vote that happened last month behind them. Here you are saying it's OK go be bitter about somebody who died 50 years ago.
Make your mind up.
Someone dying is a lot more memorable than a mere vote you don't agree with!
Not that you can tell the diffence!
::)
-
You are on form Rose! Points to you.
-
Someone dying is a lot more memorable than a mere vote you don't agree with!
How many ways are there in which that is an utterly stupid statement?
Let's start with two.
Firstly, it is not the death of Churchill that you claim it is OK to be bitter about, but what he did in his life.
Secondly to claim that Churchill's death is more memorable than the most important vote that the people of this country have ever undertaken is fatuous and stupid in the extreme. I, for example, don't remember Churchill's death at all.