Are Breastfeeding Bans Just a Way To Keep Women In The Home?

One metro area in Atlanta, Georgia has decided that they are no longer OK with mothers feeding their children in public -- at least, not if she's giving them the breast.

Via WSTBtv.com, a new law that was just passed in Forest Park has redefined public indecency to cover women who breastfeed any child that is 2 years old or older, with the City Manager stating, "It sets up a process whereby we can try to control nudity throughout the entire city."

To be fair, only about six percent of the U.S. population breastfeeds past two years old, even though the World Health Organization recommends it to age two and beyond. But the ban represents a disturbing opening for pushing women out of public life simply by taking something she does naturally and calling it "indecent."

How exactly is the "2 years and up" rule to be enforced? If a mother wants to bring her 22 month old daughter out to the park, and the child gets hungry, does she need to be sure she has her birth certificate on hand to prove she is not breaking a law? Is there an opening for citizen's arrest or complaints? What if a person thinks breastfeeding a one year old is lewd? Or even an infant?


http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/are-breastfeeding-bans-just-a-way-to-keep-women-in-the-home/

That said we did use a poncho when feeding if out and about so don't think it was indecent. But what do I know?

No I don't think they're trying to keep women in the house, I think it's a bunch of over religious assholes trying to impose their will any way they can. If it wasn't this they'd try banning low hanging pants or something.... Oh wait they did do that:

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/05/11/florida-lawmakers-ban-low-hanging-underwear-revealing-pants/

I'm never surprised at the ridiculous Victorian sensibilities of so many people in this country. Make a movie and chop off a bunch of heads PG-13, show a bit of skin or god help you use the F' word and it's an auto R.

In any case most women that I know who breastfeed their kids don't just pop em' out they tend to be pretty discrete.

that one feeding a 23-month-old?

I don't follow the logic here.

why else would she be forcing her nakid boobie or boobies on good Gawd fearing men in the public square making them all tingly in their nether regions when they should be thinking of the good book and their own wives not so large boobies? ;-)

It is plainly an idiotic proposal but given the state of a lot of the people writing the rules I'm afraid it might just pass.

Anyone for a seltzer?

"If a mother wants to bring her 22 month old daughter out to the park, and the child gets hungry, does she need to be sure she has her birth certificate on hand to prove she is not breaking a law?"

I dunno, use some COMMON SENSE and pack snacks and juice in your tote bag for when your 2 year old gets hungry when you're out and about..

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

pussy liberal chicks to be as clean and identically attractive and acceptable as those fine republican women? Everybody knows breastfeeders are all DFHs.

must be hidden, might take away for the real reason a woman has a tit, .... to feed a baby.

back in the 60s i had women breastfeeding all around, without blankets to cover them and treated as a totally natural occurance.... *gasp*

whereas today, the tit is only for entertaining men

:hide:

all about sex.

Most people here get it.

Breast feed your 18 year old for all I care, it isn't a sex act, breasts are not sex organs they are just sexualized, Similar to pectoral muscles if to a somewhat lesser degree.

or for a very limited time. I'm not sure there is an intention of keeping women at home; there may or may not be. I think the intention is to categorize breasts as for sex/titillation only. I believe there is also an intent to prevent or cut short breastfeeding, so that women will buy a product made by international megacorporations - it affects business' bottom line. Not only must formula be purchased (either directly, or from the government providing it - I believe the figure is that 44% of all formula in this country is provided by WIC) - but bottles and other accessories are also purchased.

This impetus for this particular law, I think, is someone being uncomfortable with toddler nursing. This is a lot more likely if one sees breasts as sexual and not utilitarian in nature. Few breastfeeding toddlers are only taking human milk, it is true. But in public, they may want to nurse for comfort and/or a quick snack. No one objects to a mother giving a child that age a pacifier or a snack.

I recall one time when my youngest was a little over two. We were in a fast food place. He slipped on the booth and hit his head on the table. The older couple next to us were very concerned. I was worried about what they might do if I nursed my son, though I knew for sure it would have quieted and comforted him quickly. Fortunately the older couple soon left (tired of my son's loud cries) and I lifted my shirt. But I truly wish the world would just freaking get over their problems with breasts being used as they were intended. It would make life for mothers who choose to nurse as part of the way they deal with their toddlers so much easier. If a person thinks breastfeeding, at whatever age, is lewd, they should look away and just deal. It's difficult enough to deal with kids that age no matter what you do.

Is there, like, some rampant wave of nudity in need of control there?

Which is the source of all misogynist legislation, of course.

Sickos.

My wife is going to be attending, Monday I think it is.

while they're at it--and don't forget Lady Justice, the most profound cover up of all time.