Keep A Lid On Double Latte? (Caution: thread may contain politics or peanut oils)

[shereads]

This isn't an easy thing for a feminist to post, but neither was defending Bill. A woman's gotta do what she's gotta do.

When I saw this at Washingtonpost.com a moment ago, I was amazed that someone would write something so un-PC. And appalled! The nerve of this woman, calling the Sisterhood to task for breastfeeding without a modest cover-up of some kind.

Then I realized that was a PC reaction, but it was not my own.

I hate myself when that happens.



I wonder what the AH thinks about this.

I hear some snickering out there, gentlemen. I'm not asking whether you dislike naked breasts, but whether you'd be comfortable sitting at a restaurant with the wife and kids while a mom at the next table is semi-topless.

Stop that. It's a serious question.



Try this: add the in-laws to the group at your imaginary table. And your pastor/rabbi/priest/guru/spiritual mentor. And your mother, and your boss. And your boss's mother. Are you comfortable as opposed to excited?

Still?

Okay, dammit. Your Nana is there too, the Sunday school teacher with the heart condition.

(Ladies, substitute your 12-year-old sons or nephews, whatever makes you feel the need for a bit of formality.)

I also don't like me for having reservations about this, so let me have it.

(Moms, before you label me as one of those people on airplanes who scowl at you when your baby cries, that's not me. I'm the woman across the aisle who volunteers to color with your 4-year-old so you can nurse your infant in relative peace. Airplanes and fine dining establishments don't occupy the same social space. I like to color; sue me.)


Would You Do Me a Favor, Keep a Lid on Your Double Latte

By Roxanne Roberts
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 11, 2004; Page C01


I admit it: I'm lactose intolerant.

The latest assault on the right to a peaceful cup of Joe comes courtesy of Lorig Charkoudian, a Silver Spring woman who not only wants to breast-feed her daughter at Starbucks whenever she likes but expects me to avert my eyes or leave if I don't share her enthusiasm for double breast milk latte. It's not enough that a new Maryland law supports her right to lactate in public -- no, she wants Starbucks to issue a nationwide corporate policy supporting her position.

Speaking for the school of not letting it all hang out, let me say: Don't. Please, please please. Just don't.

Charkoudian's goal is to liberate women and advance the cause of nursing as a public health issue, which is why she staged a nurse-in at her local Starbucks on Sunday. She doesn't condemn those who disagree with her view -- unlike the Breast Nazis, who are undoubtedly already composing screeds denouncing my upbringing, intellect and nurturing instincts. As a former baby snack bar, let me say upfront: I've been there, done that. But not at my neighborhood coffee bar.

The objection is not with the babies, God bless their mewling little souls. Nor is it with the medical benefits of nursing, or even the legal right to do so. It's about the fragile balance of liberty and taste, questions of appropriateness and venue. It's about the slippery and ever-changing slope of social standards.

Charkoudian, 31, began her coffeehouse crusade last month while nursing her 15-month-old daughter, Aline. A store clerk who had received complaints about other nursing mothers in the past asked her to go in the bathroom or cover her breast with a blanket -- suggestions Charkoudian rejected. Feeding her daughter in the bathroom was disgusting, she said, and covering her would be uncomfortable.

She had Maryland law on her side: An act passed last year prohibits restrictions on public nursing, and a Starbucks spokeswoman has instructed employees to inform any complaining customers of the new law and suggest they move to a different seat.

But Charkoudian, a conflict resolution trainer, is pressuring Starbucks to enact a national corporate policy stating that mothers will "never be asked to leave, cover, move, or hide" when breast-feeding, that it will train employees that nursing is different from offensive behavior such as loud music or obscene language, and that offended customers should avert their eyes or move.

"It's about public acceptance of breast-feeding," said Charkoudian yesterday, espousing the health benefits of breast-feeding to babies. She believes mothers should be encouraged to nurse as long as possible, without restrictions.

But overt public breast-feeding makes lots of people uncomfortable, so this is less about nursing than about imposing a belief system on those who do not share her views. It's about who offends whom, for what reasons, in what settings. It's not about rights, per se. It's about taste and prevailing social norms.

Consider: A large, rather hairy man walks into your corner of Starbucks. He's wearing a gold lamŽ Speedo and Prada loafers. That's it. He buys a Grande Mocha Frappuccino and settles into a cafe table by the window, where he proceeds to scream into his cell phone.

No question he's got the right to wear his bikini bottoms in public. No question that his attire is entirely inappropriate for Starbucks (don't get me started on the cell phone) and may prove offensive to those with delicate sensibilities, like me.

We are an uptight, prudish lot and in general believe large expanses of flesh, personal grooming and breast-feeding are not spectator sports. "In America, breast feeding is done only among intimates," writes Judith Martin in "Miss Manners' Guide for the Turn-of-the-Millennium."

The "it's natural, it's beautiful" lobby says nursing is nothing to be ashamed of and the rest of us just need to get over it. Let's talk natural. Scratching in inappropriate places is natural. Clipping toenails is natural. Passing gas is natural, as is picking one's nose. None poses a health threat to those around us, and we probably all have a legal right to do so in public. But we don't because we have decided, in our arbitrary, old-fashioned way, that some things are not done in polite society. My 12-year-old son can belch impressively, and correctly states that in some societies it is considered a compliment to the chef. Not in my household, buster.

Then there's the argument that mothers must accommodate nursing babies wherever they happen to be. "Sometimes [my mother] goes to Starbucks. When she does, I don't want to have to starve," reads part of a letter to Starbucks ostensibly written by an infant.

For the record, we do not believe babies should starve. We think it's possible for a mother to nurse, strap the kid in the car seat and have an unattached hour or so. There are also fathers, babysitters and breast pumps.

A little discretion goes a long way. Inventive designers hawk a variety of clever little shirts to hide nursing. There are blankets and ponchos that can be draped oh so carefully. Pretend you're not nursing in public and I'll pretend not to notice.

"If I do put a blanket on her head, she'll just take it off," Charkoudian responds. Besides, she says, people don't ask non-nursing women to cover up their cleavage, and they shouldn't. "I don't think anyone should tell women how to dress."

In most states, private businesses have the right to say "No" -- as in "No shirt, no shoes, no service." No bare chests. No bare breasts. Customers who don't like it can take their business elsewhere.

Charkoudian says she's not trying to make anyone uncomfortable.

I understand. I still want my latte fully clothed. And that goes for you too, Mr. Speedo.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Speaking as a close friend to a mother-of-a-2-months-old-baby-bitl, I don't find it disturbing to see a mother breastfeed her baby in public, be it a restaurant or a cafeteria.

Breasts are originally designed to be milk-containers, not objects of sexual desire. Sorry, sher, but if you don't feel comfortable seeing naked breasts in public, then I think - and please don't take this as a personal insult, it's meant in general - that's YOUR problem.

 

[TheEarl]

I'm sure I'll get yelled at for saying this, simply because I'm neither a woman, nor a parent. I don't think that devalues my opinion as the viewer is as important to the debate as the breastfeeder.

I'm all in favour of breast-feeding, but I think it should be done discreetly when in public. The author brings up an interesting point about other activities which are perfectly natural, but are not considered polite. I do understand that you can't control when your baby is hungry and that you will need to breast feed in public, as as you might need to belch or pass wind in public. That doesn't mean it cannot be done with politeness.

Just my opinion.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Speaking as a close friend to a mother-of-a-2-months-old-baby-bitl, I don't find it disturbing to see a mother breastfeed her baby in public, be it a restaurant or a cafeteria.

Breasts are originally designed to be milk-containers, not objects of sexual desire. Sorry, sher, but if you don't feel comfortable seeing naked breasts in public, then I think - and please don't take this as a personal insult, it's meant in general - that's YOUR problem.

I see your point, but I have to say that finding it disturbing is a different matter to thinking it should be done discreetly in public. I have absolutely no problems with seeing a woman breast-feed. I just think it's a little unfair on people who do. It is social convention and although some people may dislike that convention, it is (and I use this very, very loosely) the 'norm.'

The (about to be flamed) Earl

 

[cantdog]

I got over it long ago. If the woman in the restaurant got over it, then there's one less person sweating the small stuff.

cantdog

ps with you on the coloring, sher.

c

 

[ABSTRUSE]

It never ceases to amaze me how uptight American's are about the human body.

 

[pop_54]

I've no objection to seeing some bird flop her threepenny bits out and feed her sprog in public if she needs to... as long as she can put up with the kids pointing and giggling, and blokes leering, that's her choice.

Hell go to any public beach in mid summer over here and some tart will be sunbathing with her Bristol Cities on full or partial display... I remember when our boys were a lot younger it caused great mirth and much playing with their boner's when they first witnessed this on Bournemouth beach.

With this incident in Starbucks however I rather suspect Ms Charkudian was deliberately stirring up controversy... Baby had probably been starved in order that she would need to feed the little darling at such time and place... or was being force fed... What I do object to is this kind of action in order that some minority PC view be enforced and hoisted on some organisation by law, just to make a point or get one's own way.

 

[shereads]

I don't disapprove on a reasoning level, just admitting that it makes me uncomfortable when it's done without any discretion. For the same reason we eat with utensils and don't slurp our soup or chew with our mouths open, there are ways to demonstrate respect for the people around you - and ways to prove you don't much care that this is their romantic night out, or that an elderly person might find it upsetting.

I've had friends who were new mothers, and were so proud of their newly enormous ta-tas that they'd insist on showing them to visitors, even with the baby in the other room. We're happy for you, but we don't have any more or less interest in your breasts than we did when you were not a mother.

Hint: I also don't want to watch my boss's video of his child being born. That doesn't mean I'm not happy for him, or that I think childbirth is unnatural, or that his wife's private parts are not perfectly nice, as I'm sure they are.

It means I don't want to be that intimate with anyone and everyone. It might mean I have a problem, as you suggest; but discourtesy on either side isn't much of a solution.

There are things parents do that make their children and other people's children unwelcome in public - letting them play tag in the book store, kick the back of your seat at the movie theater, and eat with their fingers when they're old enough to know better. I happily pay taxes to support your child's school, so is it too much to ask for a bit less exposure when your baby's mealtime coincides with my client lunch?

 

[Guest]

I do understand that you can't control when your baby is hungry and that you will need to breast feed in public, as as you might need to belch or pass wind in public. That doesn't mean it cannot be done with politeness.

Sweetheart, breast-feeding on demand, or on a schedule, is not at all like other bodily functions. I get your intent, but the odd analogy to belching and farting does not help the colour of your opinion.

Then there is the question of ow much politeness or discretion might be acceptable, and to whom? May one compare the discretion of a woman wearing a miracle-bra and a low-cut knit top to how much lactating mammary is shown? Is the nipple the ultimate boundary?

Me? If all she is doing is feeding her baby I think it might be done anywhere. If it became the norm I daresay even you would have little concern for politesse.

Pear

 

[Remec]

I see your point, but I have to say that finding it disturbing is a different matter to thinking it should be done discreetly in public. I have absolutely no problems with seeing a woman breast-feed. I just think it's a little unfair on people who do. It is social convention and although some people may dislike that convention, it is (and I use this very, very loosely) the 'norm.'

The (about to be flamed) Earl

<getting out the abestos suits, just in case>
I think that's the basis for the whole problem...the crux, as it were. Those who believe in breast-feeding on demand want to shift the "norm" to accept them doing so wherever, however they feel comfortable.

I think they should be more circumspect, but that's just an opinion. I wouldn't want to force it on anyone any more than I'd like to tell those damn teenagers to go put on a belt and wear their pants so I don't have to see their underwear.

 

[Edward Teach]

This isn't an easy thing for a feminist to post, but neither was defending Bill. A woman's gotta do what she's gotta do.

When I saw this at Washingtonpost.com a moment ago, I was amazed that someone would write something so un-PC. And appalled! The nerve of this woman, calling the Sisterhood to task for breastfeeding without a modest cover-up of some kind.

Then I realized that was a PC reaction, but it was not my own.

I hate myself when that happens.



I wonder what the AH thinks about this.

I have no problem with it so long as the child is under sixteen and she keeps her legs crossed.

Ed

 

[shereads]

Teach, you're a philospher at heart, aren't you. That was beautiful.

I need a moment....



The mention of age makes me wonder if any of those in favor of unrestricted breastage would find it offensive if the child were of a particular age. The one who's mom staged the Nurse-In at Starbucks was nursing her 15-month-old.

Okay.

What if the child is four or five? Does that make anyone uncomfortable?

Six? Seven?

I'm not just trying to provoke for the hell of it, but to make a point that everyone's level of discomfort with what's natural and unnnatural is likely to be different, which is why we have such silliness as knives and forks and napkins.

 

[shereads]

I've no objection to seeing some bird flop her threepenny bits out and feed her sprog in public if she needs to... as long as she can put up with the kids pointing and giggling, and blokes leering, that's her choice.

Hell go to any public beach in mid summer over here and some tart will be sunbathing with her Bristol Cities on full or partial display... I remember when our boys were a lot younger it caused great mirth and much playing with their boner's when they first witnessed this on Bournemouth beach.

Next time someone's nursing her eight-year-old at Behihana, I'll remember, "flip her threepenny bits out and feed her sprog" and I'll burst out laughing and choke on a bite of teriaki, and I'll be revived in the ambulance but not before I've suffered irreversible brain damage, and I'll exist that way for years in some dismal ward, and it'll be your fault!



It might be worth it, though. I like your way with words, Pop.

 

[TheEarl]

Then there is the question of ow much politeness or discretion might be acceptable, and to whom? May one compare the discretion of a woman wearing a miracle-bra and a low-cut knit top to how much lactating mammary is shown? Is the nipple the ultimate boundary?

Interesting point and I do think you have correctly picked the nipple as our society's watermark of 'acceptable.' The fact is that all of our conventions are artificial. Victorians would have been scandalised at women wearing trousers and showing their ankles, let alone their nipples.

Where the line is drawn is arbitrary, but the arbitrary line, generally speaking, should be drawn where most people are comfortable with it.

I personally have no problem with seeing a woman breastfeed - I'm not making my opinion through my own personal feelings. It is just my belief that most people believe propriety dictates that revealing clothes should stop at the nipple and that anything else is, for want of a better word, 'indecent' (and I do use that word for severe lack of a better one, as I know it has other connotations).

Off to bed now.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Sweetheart, breast-feeding on demand, or on a schedule, is not at all like other bodily functions. I get your intent, but the odd analogy to belching and farting does not help the colour of your opinion.

Okay, so I lied. A couple of things piqued my interest before I left.

Firstly: Why is the my comparison odd? Both belching and passing wind are both highly natural acts and are in fact essential to the human body (I have a friend who is physically incapable of burping and it causes her no end of pain after eating). They are just as natural and important as breast feeding. I feel that I may be missing a fairly obvious point here (wood for the trees?), but why are they on a different level? Is this another arbitrary line, where burping is considered rude and breastfeeding not?

Secondly: I'm going to think about phrasing of this one, because this could be read so wrongly in text. Who here supports open breast feeding in public because they've had kids/have close friends who have had kids? I'm not trying to stir or be confrontational, I'm genuinely interested to see if people consider this differently depending on which side of the parent line they are on.

The Earl

 

[Clare Quilty]

Anyone who would try to abridge a new mother's right to feed her infant, anywhere she sees fit, is a sick bastard and is in desperate need of my size 16 (U.S. men's--size 50 for you europeans, at least in inline skate sizes) loafer in their overly tight (in all likelihood republican) arses. These puritanical ass-wipes need to get over their twisted sexual hang-ups. The very idea of demeaning the most wholesome act of love between a mother and her baby just burns my breeches.

My ex breast fed my daughter in public, and she's got some whoppers. No one ever voiced any objection to it--at least not where I could hear them.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Breast-feeding normally doesn’t bother me, but it does bother me that we’re losing all sense of public courtesy and respect for the feelings of others. We seem to be set on eliminating the idea of a difference between public and private space.

There’s something else about a woman breast-feeding in public though. It often strikes me as an intentionally ostentatious—even aggressive--display of motherhood, like we’re all supposed to be impressed. In that sense it has something of Lady Godiva’s ride about it: damned if you pay attention and damned if you don’t. I think some women use it as an attention getting device.

---dr.M.

 

[cantdog]

I disagree, gentle Zoot, on the question of ostentation.

I remind you that 1950's, Ozzie-and-Harriet mothers did not breast feed at all because it would have been a social difficulty, and because it wasn't modern.

Formula is inferior. It was especially so in the 1950's. It was exported to third-world countries when the revolution in social mores of the late 1960's created a sudden drop in demand for the crap. Third world water was frequently the cause of infant mortalities and morbidities, but it was still modern and progressive to use formula, and the babies suffered.

But the corporations continued to create this situation at the expense of the children, for money.

Meanwhile, people got over their aberration. Since the war women do not have the luxury to stay at home, and they must still provide for their children.

Ostentation and impoliteness had much to do with the way in which we, the generation coming of age in the late 60's, began the reinstatement of breast feeding in America, but I hardly think it applies now. If a person wishes to feed their child on good and decent food instead of enriching a corporation in the name of modernity or politeness, the business party in this country has indeed undone a lot of progress.

 

[rgraham666]

(Scratching head)

So, like what's the big deal. The kid's hungry, she fed it.

Happens all over the world all the time.

 

[tolyk]

I did not read all of the responces to this, so I haven't a clue if anyone else brought it up yet.

I personally don't have a problem with breast-feeding, but then again, the only woman I was around that didn't cover herself was my wife, and thats because I was married to her.

BUT, what of the possibility of Rapists and their ilk? You don't think there will be some perverts who will get turned on watching public breast feeding? Hell, they might get it in their heads to then stalk the woman. I know thats an extreme, but it IS possible.. Think about that one for a moment.

 

[alyxen]

So does this mean that in the future we will have breast-feeding and non-breast-feeding sections of a restaurant?

 

[cantdog]

You still need a lot of gear to deal with an infant. My wife used to deflect the stares of the curious by draping a cloth over the whole thing once she'd gotten it set up.

My cousin never did, but she was quite small breasted. The fact that breastfeeding was occurring was easy to understand, intellectually, but hardly anything was visible beyond a dropped shoulder's worth of clothing. Young males and elderly prudes alike could benefit, I think, by acclimatizing to it. Pervs might need a drape, or a swift kick.

 

[shereads]

If this were about sexual hangups, we'd likely be divided along the same lines as we were during the Janet Jackson Superbowl Breast-Fest Scandal, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I personally think anybody who's watching a pop star's performance ought not to expect the same dress code as at The Ritz Carlton. Take a cue from the costumes and the dancing that this is meant to be sexually exiting, and don't act all shocked if there's suddenly more skin than there was a moment ago.

If she's topless at Starbucks, that's another matter. For that, the price of a frozen mochachino would double, and I'd be upset for that reason.

This is not about sexual hangups. It's about whether or not etiquette has a meaning.

It makes no sense at all to impose upon ourselves the use of utensils when hands would be easier. We do it because we've all grown accustomed to certain symbols and disciplines. We don't give it a second thought if picnicers at the park are eating hot dogs and corn-on-the-cob, and if their children are running around acting like children; and most of us don't much care what they're wearing, either, as long as there's nothing that would shock the kids. If you happen to be topless at the park, good for you. If you happen to become topless on one side or both when it's time to feed the baby, that's fine too.

But backyard cook-out behavior isn't appropriate everywhere, for no good reason but one: we go to certain places for certain types of experiences and ambiance. Even at Starbucks, you're paying $3 for coffee not because it's that much better than coffee at the gas station next door, but because of the environment they've created. That's their product: coffee and a type of experience. The no-shirt-no-shoes sign ought not to need "no nipples" added to it for women to take the hint that the dress code is slightly different here than it is at the beach.

To pretend that anybody who doesn't approve of toplessness in any and all situations must have "sexual hangups" is absurd. It won't be, if at some point in the future toplessness is acceptable in the office as it is at the beach, but that's not how things are.

Everybody dining at a certain kind of restaurant knows why everybody else is there. At Chuck E Cheese, you're there so the kids can go wild, and anybody who'd ask a mother to make her children sit down and be quiet in such a place would be considered an ass.

At the other end of the the spectrum from picnics and Chuck E Cheese, there are candlelit restaurants with tableclothes and an absense of paper napkins, where people gather for an experience that is exactly not like McDonalds. If you dine at Faux Maison, you hope to elevate life for an evening, by participating in a bit of theater in which everyone has a role. You observe certain proprieties that would look silly at the House of Pancakes. You ought not to have to be asked to arrive nicely dressed, but management reserves the right to ask you to wear a tie, or a shirt, if it comes to that. The atmosphere is Faux Maison's product. There are likely to be elegantly draped breasts galore, and teasing glimpses of a nipple here and there depending on your city. The dresses might be entirely transparent in a city where that's fashionable, but outright nakedness wouldn't be appropriate. Why? For the same reason there's a salad fork and that corn-on-the-cob isn't on the menu: Because.

You bring children to a an elegant restaurant with the unspoken understanding that other diners won't have to fend off a food-fight. By the same token, if you expect to be nursing a baby that evening, is it really unreasonable to expect some discretion? What's so special about you and your infant that your convenience trumps other people's enjoyment of the experience they came here expecting? If you see no reason for social etiquette, why go to places that have a dress code? If you see no reason why standards of etiquette should apply to breast-feeding, maybe you are just trying to call attention to yourself. It's not as if there's no other way. It's a matter or placing yourself above those around you.

Someone asked whether opinions on this might vary beteen parents and others. I don't have children. I like children, I admire the work that goes into being a good mother, but I also believe that motherhood is a choice you made, and that some mothers act as if they've accomplished something for which society ought to be grateful.

I've argued in favor of a tax whose only purpose is to benefit a school I don't use; support of public schools is one the criteria by which I judge political candidates. It doesn't benefit me in the least; I do it because I have the obigation and the privilege, as part of living in a civilized society, to participate in assuring that its children are educated, fed, sheltered, and have health care.

I think that's the extent of my obligation; beyond that, I'm just being nice. I don't mind you breast-feeding at Starbucks, provided you do it discreetly. At the beach, you can feed the baby with one and George Clooney with the other, and I'll applaud. Just wear sunscreen, okay?

On my part, I'll respect your sexual hangups - if you insist on calling it that - by resisting the impulse to fondle my date's cute ass at the restaurant where you take your mom for Sunday brunch.



If I can't resist his ass, I'll be discreet.

 

[Guest]

I have to say this 'discussion' has become ridiculous. Topless moms? Starbucks has an ambience? Etiquette norms? It's just my opinion but it's an awful lot to do about not much. Poor mums today.

out of here, Perdita

 

[shereads]

I have to say this 'discussion' has become ridiculous.

I know you do.