Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I do not know what Louisa means when she says 'breastfeeding women making a point of it'.


I'd say it's a rarity a woman doing that. More often, they are self conscious and paranoid fearing the kinds of attitudes that prevail against what they are doing.


But I also agree that it is one's right not to want to see a woman breastfeeding. Even though I never showed ANY of my breast while doing it, I never did it in front of my father-in-law. In fact, whenever I breastfed in public, you couldn't really tell I was doing it. I respect that it can make some people feel uncomfortable.


But I wonder how many (men) feel quite so 'uncomfortable' ogling women's breasts in magazines, newspapers and websites.

Hm.


**Microbite I have never encountered any women like the ones of which you speak...(Phew).

So are we all agreed that, in a cafe or restaurant, the toilet is the best place for changing a baby's nappy......and for feeding that same baby?


Or is it another thread started by the man who honestly doesn't hate children? (welcome back, domitianus)

Mikecg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Bignumber5

>

> Your missing the point.



Am I? So sorry.


For the record, here is my point:


Shit around food is unhygienic. Boobs around food are not. Boobs do not dispense waste products that spread disease, they dispense nourishment for very little people. And personally, I don't find breasts offensive in appearance. I don't find children eating to be an offensive concept. So I'm not offended by public breast-feeding.


I can understand that some might, particularly cultures and religions in which the exposure of the human body is not the done thing, and I would expect any woman currently breast-feeding who is visiting Tehran to consider very carefully how proudly they wish to stand up for their right to feed their child in public.


But we live in Dulwich.

The point I think everyone is trying to make basically is, that breastfeeding is ok, but cleaning shitty nappys in food establishments in full view of everyone while they are trying to eat is not. Louisa you have obviously not had kids yet, and while I understand people saying they feel embarressed watching women feeding their babies, then guess what, don't look! rather that than having some little one reaching fever pitch howling because he/she is starving!

microbite Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point I think everyone is trying to make

> basically is, that breastfeeding is ok and

> cleaning shitty nappys in food establishments in

> view of everyone while they are trying to eat is

> not. Louisa you have obviously not had kids yet,

> and while I understand people saying they feel

> embarressed watching women feeding their babies,

> then guess what, don't look! rather that than

> having some little one reaching fever pitch

> because he/she is starving!



Agreed...


We are verging close to a Dulwich Taliban with some of the points on this thread.


common sense dictates that nappy changing is something for the restroom, hence the prevalence of 'nappy changing facilities' therin, and not on the end of restaurant tables.

No DaveR, I do not think that women should breastfeed their babies in the toilet.


However, they should change their baby's nappy in the changing area (if there is one). Originally I felt the OP was kicking up a bit of a stink about nothing, but in hindsight (and after reading the post more throughly), I am of the opinion that said nappy changing woman should have used the changing area instead of a table.

I dunno, but it strikes me if you're in an inner london middleclass family suburb like East Dulwich, and the trauma of the sight of a woman breastfeeding tends to ruin your day, you should probably be somwhere else.....


Oh dearie me. Here we go again. "We cannot accomodate views that are not strictly in accordance with our own. if you don't like it, please leave the vicinity".


For the record, non-middle class, non-family individuals have as much right as you to live in East Dulwich, and to live their lives with a world view which may vastly differ from your own.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dunno, but it strikes me if you're in an inner

> london middleclass family suburb like East

> Dulwich


I think the point Louisa would make here, (and forgive me if I am wrong Louisa), is that when she came to live in ED it was not a middle class family suburb. Incidentally that is the same for me - certainly not middle class and full of families in 1985.

That's laughable blue one - really......a baby being hungry is not 'a view', it needs feeding and it's legal to do that wherether mum's want to ........being uncomfortable with that is a 'view' and you have no ability to do anything about that other than find a non-familily orientated area, get some more liberal and empathetic views or seeth in anger and the very disgust of it......no-one is being forced out of anywhere

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I dunno, but it strikes me if you're in an

> inner

> > london middleclass family suburb like East

> > Dulwich

>

> I think the point Louisa would make here, (and

> forgive me if I am wrong Louisa), is that when she

> came to live in ED it was not a middle class

> family suburb. Incidentally that is the same for

> me - certainly not middle class and full of

> families in 1985.



And it still isn't, the middle classes tend to be the most vocal and indignant as a rule is all, so you tend to hear their tireless bleating over everything else.

That's laughable blue one - really......a baby being hungry is not 'a view', it needs feeding and it's legal to do that wherether mum's want to ........being uncomfortable with that is a 'view' and you have no ability to do anything about that other than find a non-familily orientated area, get some more liberal and empathetic views or seeth in anger and the very disgust of it......no-one is being forced out of anywhere


Goodness. I think you have totally misunderstood pretty much everything I have posted. Let me spell it out. I am suggesting that perhaps an elderly man, or someone from a culture where breastfeeding is not considered the norm and every woman's right (my view), may not be comfortable with public breastfeeding.This is what I mean by someone who may have a different 'world view', or set of social norms. I still believe they have the right to remain living in the area!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.”
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...