Cross-posted over at RomanCatholicByChoice.com
My wife brought to my attention a story making the rounds on the boards at Mothering.com. A lady and 8 of her kids were at Applebee’s in Lexington, KY, June 14. She had her 7-month-old with her, and he needed a snack. Being a breastfeeder, she began nursing, and her waitress told her that her manager had indicated she needed to cover up (she had requested a corner booth so she would be in a quieter and less public part of the restaurant.) Because it was June, she had nothing to cover up with, so the manager came over and continued the harassment. She presented him a copy of Kentucky breastfeeding laws, showing that legally she was under no obligation to cover up, and what she was doing was completely protected by law. He eventually intimidated her into going out to her van to nurse her child.
She got a lawyer to draw up a letter to that Applebee’s location, which was ignored. A month later, she had another sent to that company that manages that Applebee’s location. The management company responded: “we regret that Ms. Ryan left without being served and would like the opportunity to personally invite her to return” …. “we are also considering keeping blankets in the restaurants for use by breast-feeding mothers that may not have them readily available as a result of this incident.” Talk about not getting it. We’re sorry we discriminated against you, now please come back to our store so we can discriminate against you again.
Anyway, she is gaining increasing media attention and is having a nurse-out at that location (and throughout the country, additional protests are being planned at other Applebee’s locations.) The management company spokesperson apparently commented that she must have a hidden agenda since she carries a copy of breastfeeding law with her (tons of moms do this very thing to present when they are harassed.) Applebee’s corporate responded to her that the manager acted in a “lawful” manner. The company is apparently not interested in even finding out what the law on the subject is in the localities they serve. The story is gaining momentum and has the potential to give Applebee’s a black eye if they don’t respond with a solid policy (one that follows established laws) and an actual apology.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
I dunno about this. We go to Applebee's quite often, and they always treat the kids with respect. Their apology and statement about blankets seems OK and not further discrimination. Do some breastfeeding moms not like to cover up? My wife always did for our five kids. She at least kept a cloth diaper in the bag for this … and for burping the child afterwards.
I agree with Patrick. I think chasing someone out is highly rude, I wasn't there so I don't know exactly how rude, but if it was enough to get an attorney, it must have been pretty bad.On the issue of the blankets, though I think it is not a bad idea. I'm a bit old fashioned in my sense of modesty.My wife breast feeds when we are out and about. She wears clothes that make it easy to breast feed modestly. When that is impossible, we do have a blanket with us, or we arrange ourselves to provide privacy.Then again, I'm old fashioned in my sense of modesty about a lot of things.
I'm going to have to come in with Patrick and Rob on this. Breast feeding out in the open (for lack of a better term) is not only not consistent with Christian modesty, but it sounds pretty provocative to me.My wife always covered up, not merely for modesty, but also because babies are easily distracted and nurse more quickly and fully if they are sequestered with the breast.
Breastfeeding out in the open is not consistent with Christian modesty? Guys, you have bought in to the sexualization of the breast in our American society. Exposure of the breast for the purpose of doing what God designed it to do is intrinsically nonsexual. The woman was already in a corner booth, and consider that she didn't have a blanket with her due to the hot weather. for that matter, if the restaurant provided blankets, would you be willing to let your baby be covered in a blanket that was used by many other babies? how could you know for sure that the things were kept clean – applebees doesn't even use cloth napkins, so that means no laundry facility on-site. the apologies are really non-apologies – when they raise comments about how she must have had an agenda because she was carrying a copy of the law that protects her, they're trying to insinuate that they were in the right, when it certainly appears they were in violation of the law. those who have sexual hangups about the breast seem unable to understand that breastfeeding without a blanket can be done without being sexually provocative (again, hung up on the sexualization of what God designed for baby feeding). There's an obvious difference between nursing in a quiet corner of a restaurant and jumping up on a table announcing, "I'm about to nurse my baby, anyone want to watch?" I'm seriously just waiting for someone to say, "why didn't she just pump some" or "why didn't she plan her outing around her baby's nursing times." Isn't in interesting that in the country that produces more porn than any other on the planet, we are so uncomfortable with the female mammary gland being visibly used for its intended purpose? There have been surveys done and in no other country to people see breasts as sexual to the degree they do here in the USA.
I agree with Chris. My wife breast-feeds on demand. Meaning any time the baby wants it. In the summertime we don't even carry a diaper bag. We have a few diapers and baby wipes in the car, but certainly no blanket. I think it's totally within the law, and within Christian modesty to breast feed in public without excessive cover. Now, as Chris said…you don't have to announce to the place that you're doing it. And also try to expose only the amount of breast needed for the job. (I.e…don't whip the whole thing out and then get your baby into position). But to poke the breast out a couple inches and the baby's mouth right on there…I see no problem.As for the sexuality of the thing, I would suggest that if a person gets all hot and turned on by a quick little view of a woman feeding her baby, they have more to worry about. It reminds me of what Pat Robertson (the 700-Club guy) said about a girl wearing a sleeveless dress. "Perhaps she should dress more modestly, but if an armpit turns you on then you have more serious problems."Anyway, I personally wouldn't keep on bugging Applebees. Maybe a nurse-off is a little more than what I would do. But I do think a boycott is in order…and make sure they know it. Just my 2 cents worth.
My wife is currently breast feeding our third child. With all three she has always gone out in public with a bottle of what's she pumped recently (okay Chris, you've been waiting for someone to say it and I did).If all else fails she'll go out to the car and go park a discreet distance away until she's done. I don't worry about her being carjacked, the .38 beside her should discourage any idiots. Yes, our society has sexualized women's breasts. I've spent time in countries where that isn't the case but it is here. When in Rome….
Chris, I don't see it as an issue of sexuality. It is a matter of what remains private and what does not. There are many bodily functions that we do not share in public.I also find that our 9 month old sure does like to look around expose things when she hears a noise. It seems a courtesy and modesty to me – not about sex and getting excited about seeing breasts or nipples. I think the whole porn thing is a red herring.
Having nursed all 3 of my babies…still nursing the youngest I will say a few things. 1) Plan ahead. When you know you're going to be out and about at meal time take a bottle.2) It is possible to nurse a baby without anyone knowing that you are doing it, learn to be discreet and modest.3) Who the heck carries copies of their state's breastfeeding laws with them out to eat? Was she out looking to stir up trouble? And why did she immediately go to a lawyer to have a letter written to Applebee's? I'd be able to write that letter all by myself (IF I'd deemed it necessary) 4) I live in Texas. Even in 100+ degree weather I ALWAYS have a blanket in the diaper bag..if for no other reason than to have something clean to lay the baby on for changing diapers. And as stated, cloth diapers/burp rags make great covers too!Seems like folks are wanting to claim discrimination for anything! Get a grip. And a "nurse in" is just nothing more than a publicity stunt….on the same level as "Paul is Dead." Really, this sort of crap in our media when there are so much more important things that DON'T get reported just makes me sick!!BTW, I'm more inclined to go visit an Applebee's now…..I think to boycott is stupid too! I mean really, why boycott Applebees for trying to help keep thier restaraunt bare boob-less in a time when Hooters and Twin Peaks are so popular. We should be rewarding them for having standards. They didn't kick her out unceremoniously, they requested she cover, then offered her a blanket, THEN mentioned going outside to finish nursing…I really really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall and seen the whole escapade from start to finish…I just believe that there is probably more here than is reported.If someone came up to me and said "I noticed that you're nursing..would you mind covering up?" I would be EMBARRASSED and would find me a cover immediately and thank the person for telling me my boob was hanging out for all to see!!!
I can point you to lots of women who carry a copy of state breastfeeding law with them because of the ignorance of business owners who harrass and interfere with women feeding their babies. My wife's included in that. There are numerous documented situations where women have been harassed and to combat this, women carry the law with them in order to demand the protections it guarantees. Even mainstream hospital parenting classes encourage doing this in some cases.It ain't a bodily function (which implies it's similar to urinating and defecating), it's feeding a baby naturally. There are those who suggest women should be invited to breastfeed in the restroom. When's the last time you had a meal in a restroom? Why do we think we ought to be ostracizing our wives and babies for giving them the best possible nourishment?To those who say carry a bottle, let me point out that this is inconsistent with the ecological breastfeeding aspect of natural family planning. In order for the natural child spacing effects of breastfeeding to occur consistently in a woman, she must breastfeed on demand – and that's breastfeed, not feed by bottle (the sucking by the baby stimulates the release of a hormone that maintains infertility.) Of course for some women they don't have to consistently breastfeed on demand, they just have to breastfeed some – we know someone like that, who went over a year postpartum without a return of fertility; my wife, OTOH, went only 7.5 months with on-demand breastfeeding. The claim that there's an issue of modesty with feeding baby on demand seems to me to basically be inconsistent with the whole NFP philosophy. MightyMom, I appreciate your two cents, but the idea of comparing nursing women to waitresses at Hooters and Twin Peaks is absolutely disgusting. These two restaurants ultimately insult your femininity every minute, every day, by using the female breast to sell food and pollute the minds of men. Applebee's choosing to violate laws protecting a woman's right to nourish her baby without interference is also an insult to your femininity because it signals that they also buy into the idea that the breast is dirty and only useful for sexual stimulation. You think Applebee's has a rule that when a woman walks in showing cleavage that she has to cover up with a complimentary blanket??? Or are only nipples dirty? Or are only breastfeeding breasts dirty?Consider that if our kids are allowed to see the breast used for its intended purpose, we could destroy this disgusting stigma about breastfeeding. I'll again point out that the law protects it in that locality and the management was in violation of the law. So, yeah, the nurse-out is a publicity stunt, to try to raise awareness that breastfeeding isn't dirty and that the law protects it, because as is shown time and again, there's a lot of ignorance out there.Dessi, thanks for your two cents. Good to know I (and my wife) am not the only one who sees this for what it is.
Subvet said: "When in Rome…."Be careful with that. I could say "when in Rome" about a whole lot of things. Contraception is popular around these parts, so I better blend in with the crowd. Hmm…I know some spouses who have been unfaithful to each other, so I better get on the ball. I know a few people who want to ordain womyn as priests, it's pretty popular an idea around here, so I should probably fall in line. There's an awful lot of folks who are in favor of the death penalty in my state, being as we're in the conservative south, so I probably should take the same position. As Christians we are called to be counter-cultural, and as parents we're called to pass that counter-cultural attitude along to our kids. I imagine most of you would agree with me on that statement. So doesn't it seem a bit inconsistent to say, "we're going to be counter cultural in all these areas, but remember that the breast is still bad and dirty when it's seen at all, even for the purpose God intended?"
I don't know Chris. I think you are reading way too much into this. Besides, we are only called to counter that which is against our faith.I understand your position and your passion, but this is not a Christian/non-Christian thing. And it isn't about sexualizing "the breast." In our society, many consider it rude and crass. I think it is about respecting the opinions and sensibilities of others. We choose to do so by seeking privacy and being discrete. This doesn't make us bad Catholics or perverse. I think it makes us polite and respectful.
I understand where you're coming from, but it just seems to me that when it comes to nourishing a baby it really doesn't matter what "society" thinks, especially when, in spite of a vocal minority in society, state legislatures are regularly passing laws protecting the act. It also comes to a point of being subjective- there are a number of folks who would complain if a woman was nursing and they were aware of it, even if she was wearing a trench coat. Seems that the right of the baby and the mother should be protected over the right of someone to not be offended.Also, I never said anyone was a bad Catholic, I just shared the concern that there was a consistency issue with natural family planning.Perhaps you could tell me what it is that makes breastfeeding rude and crass in our society, if it is indeed not some sort of sexual hangup? I draw a logical conclusion that this indeed has something to do with it since there are other countries that don't have as much a problem with it as some do here in the USA, and that those countries also happen to not see breasts as so sexual as we do here.
I think many of the comments here are missing the biological aspect… in order to breastfeed successfully, for an extended period that will delay fertility as God has designed in his plan of natural family planning, a mother must breastfeed on demand. This means that the baby is to be offered the breast any time he is hungry or otherwise cranky and wishing to nurse for comfort. This frequent suckling is what provides the mother with extended infertility and what keeps the mother's supply at the appropriate level for her child. God's design is so intelligent! Pumping and taking along a bottle clearly limits the baby's time at the breast. A mother needing to go find a secluded spot takes time, and therefore the baby is not fed truly "on demand." Covering a baby with a blanket is not necessarily more discreet – some babies won't nurse under a cover and will cry instead – not discreet at all! Some will pull the blanket off repeatedly. Many mothers who are new to nursing will have a lot of trouble latching a baby on while also trying to keep a blanket over themselves and the baby's face, resulting again in a loud and frustrated baby. Most women are perfectly discreet without a blanket – more so, in fact, because they just look like they are holding a sleeping baby. Nothing says "I'm nursing under here!" like a blanket thrown over the shoulder with a wiggly little body poking out from underneath! I know some mothers who say that their baby will refuse to nurse when covered with a blanket, resulting in a very cranky baby. All these things can contribute to a baby not being fed truly "on demand," for a mother's supply to go down, and could lead ultimately to premature weaning, which is not in the baby's or the mother's best interest health-wise (if anyone is interested in the vast list of ways that both a woman's and her child's health are at risk due to not breastfeeding, I can elaborate, but I assume most of you have a general idea).One more thing about the pumping – breastmilk changes in composition *constantly.* It is continually changing to meet the baby's growing needs and to adjust in the types of antibodies present. Did you know that when the baby (or mother) is exposed to an illness, antibodies are made in her milk? The baby's mouth coming to the breast is what triggers the mother to make antibodies specific to his particular germs. All this to say, if baby picks up some germs while out (as he is quite likely to do so in a shopping cart, restaurant booth, etc.), and is then given a bottle rather than the breast, then the mother will not begin making these immunities in her milk. Thus, the pumped breastmilk is less beneficial to the baby. Again, God's design here is truly amazing! Now, if a mother truly feels better about taking a bottle of pumped milk with her, then I have no problem with that (nor w/ a mother who really feels better about nursing under a blanket)… whatever it takes so the baby gets breastmilk rather than being weaned to formula unnecessarily. But i want it to be clear that breastmilk "straight from the tap" is the absolute healthiest way to go.I'd like to point out that the KY state breastfeeding law says that nobody may interfere with a breastfeeding mother. Applebee's clearly did just that. Can we all agree on that? There is no provision in KY (and many other states) that says a mother may nurse in public "so long as she is discreet." The reasons for not including that specification are blatant based on the comments here… what equals discreet to one person may not to another. One person may think a mother must have a blanket over her to be discreet, another may think it means she needs to go to another room. Somebody may think that a mother who is showing a couple millimeters of skin above the baby's head is not being discreet enough. Somebody else may feel that the exposed skin on a mother's stomach when her shirt is pulled up is not discreet enough. Still others may feel that even with nothing showing, just knowing the baby is nursing under that cover is not discreet enough. And, the biggest problem I could see is if a baby is having trouble latching for whatever reason (I am thinking most likely in the early days of mom getting used to how to nurse), then the mother may struggle for a moment with getting everything situated, and the fussy baby may pull away and expose her nipple briefly… and some would decide she was not being discreet, despite the fact that she was clearly not trying to expose her nipple. So thank goodness we don't have provisions in many states saying a mother must be discreet, because that is very subjective. And we have laws for disturbing the peace and public indecency if a woman decides to jump up on her chair and pull off her shirt, yelling, "Hey, look! I am going to nurse my baby in a moment, as soon as I finish being obnoxious!" Never heard of that happening, but we can be assured that if there were a real problem with a woman choosing to be truly indecent in this way, then laws are in place on that front as well.I think this is a very Catholic issue, as it goes right along with God's design for women's breasts and with natural child spacing, which would limit the temptation for artificial birth control. I would wager that many of you here, as devoted Catholics, have learned a method of NFP if you've felt a need to space your children's births. I would also wager that, if you learned from a Catholic group, then that group was the Couple to Couple League. A part of their teaching has been that this kind of breastfeeding (not "cultural breastfeeding," but on-demand, no bottles used, ecological breastfeeding) is part of God's plan for naturally spacing children. So yes, some breastfeeding mothers do not like to cover up – but that doesn't mean they are immodest. A shirt covering the top of the breast, the baby covering the rest… essentially, that mother is "covered," just not with a blanket. The mother in this story also seems to have "arranged herself for privacy," as she was seated in a back booth facing into the corner of the restaurant.If a patron of a restaurant is "grossed out" or whatever over seeing a blind man's guide dog lying under the table next to them, then the employees don't offer to cover the dog with a blanket… they say, "The law is that a guide dog may go wherever his owner may go (even if the dog does disgust you with his drooling and his doggie smell wafting into your nostrils)." If a man at the table across from you is chewing with his mouth wide open, then I am sure that would bother you, as it would not appeal to me either… but can the restaurant employees cover him with a blanket or say, "Sir, your table manners are disgusting our other patrons; could you please chew differently? Otherwise, we will have to cover you up or ask you to leave." And a man chewing with his mouth open isn't even protected by law, nor does he have a real need to do so unless he has some sort of medical condition… yet we would never require him to change what he was doing. In this case, we just refrain from looking at him if we are uncomfortable. On the other hand, a baby *needs* to be fed, for the obvious reason of nutrition, as well as for the mother's comfort and health (ie, not becoming engorged), and for the natural God-given result of natural infertility. A baby cannot wait (and biology shows that he wasn't intended to be made to wait or to be fed from a bottle) the way an adult can change a particular habit (like the open-mouth chewing or wearing revealing clothing) – and we don't even ask them to make modifications. Yet we ask a mother to modify the best way to feed her baby? Why?To equate breastfeeding with other "bodily functions" is, as Chris already said, pretty gross and it's also a stretch. Urinating/defactaing in public is a sanitation issue – breastfeeding is not. People can wait to get to the restroom (usually!), whereas the baby cannot wait. And would it be okay for an adult to urinate in public so long as he did it under a blanket?? I think not! It is okay for babies to do this in public, because they cannot wait… just as they cannot wait to eat.And Chris was right on in his response about certain restaurants demeaning our femininity – extremely well-written and 100% accurate!Women are just trying to feed their babies – for them to feel the need to go out to their cars in 100 degree or below zero conditions, to cover their baby's head in 100 degree weather or while the child is clearly not liking the blanket over his face… it is sad. Whatever happened to just looking away when something offended you? I do it all the time when I see girls with their rear ends practically hanging out of shorts with the word "hottie" emblazoned across the rump. But I maintain the belief that breastfeeding is not something that should offend people, and maybe one day we'll get back to the point where it does not. Until that time, people who feel it is indecent are capable of looking away as they do in numerous other instances throughout the day.I highly doubt that Mary took a bottle with her to feed Jesus when going out, or that she carried a blanket with her to drape over him, or that she retreated outside to sit under a secluded tree. If it makes a mother feel better to do these things, then that is her choice and I am not going to bother her about it… but it should not be expected or seen as "common courtesy" to do so. I am sure when Mary nursed Jesus, she wore loose-fitting clothes and they kept her "decent" enough that she didn't do any of the above. I am sure that it was the same way for all Biblical women. I have a small replica of the shrine in St. Augustine of Our Lady of La Leche ("plentiful milk"). Mary is nursing the infant Jesus, no blanket covering her. I do not drape a blanket over my little replica nor do they do so in the actual shrine in FL. To have had "plentiful milk," Mary must have engaged in biological, on-demand nursing, not our version of cultural nursing where all sorts of modifications are made.
I am also interested to know what would make people see breastfeeding in public as "rude and crass" if it is not related to the sexualization of the breast. What, then, is rude about it?
Dear Catholic Mother,I gather that you're Catholic. I gather that you either are or were a breast-feeding mother. I also gather that you are neither a medical doctor, nor a registered nurse. I am a Pediatric Nurse with 7 years experience. (working in a Pediatrician's Office) I gather this about you because many of the "medical facts" that you state regarding breastmilk, nursing, and birth control via nursing are incorrect.It saddens me that despite the many wonderful aspects of breastfeeding for both mother and child, there are those who put out such misinformation to mothers in order to make breastfeeding seem like the "very, absolute, most wonderful choice." It IS all of that…but the lily does not need to be gilded with medically inaccurate assurances.To Chris Lewis I ask: How many times did your wife have to actually show anyone the copy of the law that she kept (or keeps) with her? I STILL say that there is more to this story than is reported. Ponder this. Who first called in the media?I DON'T believe it was Applebee's, I also don't believe this was an "innocent victim of discrimination."Fortunately, I'm allowed to believe whatever I wish, and so are you.God bless us all.
Catholic Mother, please get your own blog rather than adding long posts in the com box here.Here are my reactions to your diatribe.1. Perhaps there are a range of valid views you might wish to respect. Some of us have a simple perspective – seek privacy as many find it mildly inappropriate to be blatant in a variety of situations. I mean, really this is that big of a deal? I've been there. Heck, I am there. Not a big deal.2. just because it is your issue, doesn't mean this is an issue for the whole Church. In fact, I find the adversarial nature adopted by many militants a bit on the unchristian side. It certainly does not point to Christian virtues such as humility, perseverance, sacrifice, and seeking understanding. It seems more about pushing agendas, and trampling the perspective of others.3. The breast has been seen in our culture as a sensual part of a woman's body for centuries – and indeed it is. Do you argue that a breast is not sensual? But that is such a red herring (i.e., completely irrelevant to the point). 4. No body is trying to oppress you or your baby here at Catholic Dads – try to be courteous.
Chris Lewis, you said,"As Christians we are called to be counter-cultural….,"I know St. Paul exhorted us to be "in the world and not of it.." Confronting the ills of society by an "in your face" tactic might be called for on a topic such as abortion. But that attitude isn't necessary when a quick walk out to the car in the parking lot to privately feed the baby could avoid all this hoop-dee-lah. As far as the death penalty, I've no problem with it and the last I heard that position is (grudgingly) accepted by the USCCB despite their own personal condemnation of it. At least I'm not required to confess my support of it to a priest, am I? If so then would it be a venial or mortal sin to approve of executing a Tookie Williams type murderer?
I respect each person's opinion. But I wholly agree and support Chris's and Catholic Mom's comments. Yes, her comment was long, but I don't think an entire blog is required for her to post her comments. And I think we've been asked not to post "teasers" to posts in other blogs. (I might be wrong on this, but it's 3am and I am too tired to look through the older posts for this.
I think the purpose of the comments is to talk about the original post…whether that comment is 10 words or 10,000. All in all, I agree in thinking that we should stand up to our beliefs. Did Jesus look the other way and be "timid" when they were trading in the temple? No. He seemed pretty ticked off, overturing tables and preaching to the crowds. This is a legal issue, it's a moral issue, and it's a Catholic issue. I think it deserves the attention that it's getting.
"The breast has been seen in our culture as a sensual part of a woman's body for centuries – and indeed it is. Do you argue that a breast is not sensual? But that is such a red herring (i.e., completely irrelevant to the point)."Rob, respectfully, you denied that the sexualization of the breast had anything to do with it…I contend it's not a red herring because were it not for this misplaced fixation on sex, the story wouldn't even have happened.
I also think that it is rude to talk on a cell phone in a restaurant. And it is rude to let children run around in a restaurant. I also think that wearing pants that drop below the waist line – gang style is rude.This has nothing to do with sex, and a lot to do with respect.Further, there are good people, good Catholics who do not share this obsession. This is NOT a faith issue. One does not need to be a radical on this front to be a good Christian, AND, I contend that it can in fact hinder Christian behavior. I find it offensive to tell all people who are not in agreement here that they are somehow not following Christ. Take a look at the post on Christian disagreement at:http://catholic-dads.blogspot.com/2007/04/10-rule…Rule 5 – not all my causes are God's causes.This bit of modern bra burning looks to me like people trying to be oppressed so they can protest. This is not about finding followers of Mammon in God's temple. You can be a perfect Catholic and not even breast feed your children, much less adopt a militant position on this issue. And that is my whole point, and what I take issue with Good for you that breastfeeding your kids on demand is part of your spirituality. It isn't mine – nor does it need to be.
Mightymom,I am currently being trained as a breastfeeding counselor. It includes much reading and study of the medical and physical aspects of breastfeeding. I would respectfully ask that you point out specific points I made that are medically incorrect, because I did not intend to type any nor do I think that I did. What I typed was based on factual scientific information. I find it "unfortunate" that you can decide that due to your RN status that your "facts" are more valid than mine, especially when you will not refute any of them specifically. I would kindly ask you to do so. Thank you.I am one of those mothers who carries a copy of the state breastfeeding law with me. I do this after reading the recommendation in a breastfeeding book. It was explained to me that it is wise for the purpose of situations in which a mother is asked to leave the premises. If I am sitting in an indoor mall play area watching my older children play, the law protects me from having to herd them all out to the car if my baby needs to nurse, and I am grateful for that. I want to be prepared, since there are stories of this happening to mothers all the time – not surprisingly, based on how many people here feel.RobK,It seems that you feel I am being offensive or something – may I ask how that is? Your use of the word "militant" could be taken as offensive when I assume it is applied to me. Are you not "militant" in your faith? Are you not a "militant" protector of your family? You used the word in a derogatory way and it appears it was directed at me. What have I said to deserve that? I already said that I do not mind any way a woman feeds her child in public – if it makes her comfortable, then that is fine. How is that a militant attitude? It seems more accepting than the attitude that women who won't go out to the car or cover with a blanket are trying not to be discreet/modest.I appreciate the comment stating I should be able to post relevant comments here. To tell me I cannot seems to be wanting to get rid of me rather than address the validity of the points I have made. If the owner of the blog wants to block me, that's his choice… I have tried not to give a reason for that, however. If I can get assumed to be "militant" and even told basically that I am a liar by mightymom, then I do not see what I have done to be removed from posting comments here. I have tried to be courteous, RobK… I really do not see that I have done otherwise. I also admit I am extremely long-winded – I always have been, and I apologize if that is problematic. I have never been able to get my points across concisely when writing, and it is a skill I admire in others! But the owner may remove me if he wishes. I would sincerely hope he does not.This is a Catholic issue, and a Christian one, for the reasons I have previously stated. This does NOT mean that if you did not breastfeed (or your wife), then you are un-Catholic. It is not an absolute requirement of the Church, but I think it is quite relevant with regard to natural child spacing and the natural order of things.I do not argue that the breast is not sensual… it is. But its primary purpose is to nourish babies. You said that the whole thing was not an issue of sensuality/sexuality… again, then why do some see breastfeeding in public as "rude or crass" as you put it?Subvet, this is not about having an in-your-face attitude. This is not about showing off or trying to be confrontational… this is about feeding a baby, for goodness sake! I already stated that a woman jumping up on a chair and yelling, "Hey, I am going to nurse now!" is quite inappropriate. Being able to stay where one is when the baby needs to nurse is just about doing what our bodies are naturally designed to do. It has absolutely nothing to do with the people around us – it is meeting the need of the baby when it needs to be met. If I am in a shopping mall, my baby will not be fed on demand if I have to walk ten minutes across the place to get to my car, nor do I think it is appropriate for me to sit in my car w/ my baby in 100 degree weather (which we have been having lately in the South!). I have already explained all the points about on-demand feeding, and they have nothing at all to do with having an attitude problem.I am still dismayed at the comment stating that I am basically making up lies about breastfeeding information. I feel that my research has been accurate and extensive. I wish to share facts, but at the same time I respect the opinion of those who wish to nurse in their cars or bring pumped milk in a bottle. I just want the same respect for those of us who choose to nurse on-demand and completely at the breast, because there are biological reasons for it – it's not at all about being "in your face."
In all of this I failed to see a description of how she breastfed. Did she pull her garment up from the waist so that the upper part of the breast remained covered, or did she pull her garment down so that most of the breast was exposed? My wife NEVER nursed in public in the latter way, but she nursed in public the former way all through the mid-sixties into the early eighties. That was well before breastfeeding in public restaurants was a "legal" right. –John F. Kippley
It is not an obsession – it is not militant – it is not radical. Those are all fighting words that you have chosen to use. And who has stated that it must be done as part of Catholic spirituality? No one has said that. Nobody said if you are not in agreement on this subject then you are not a follower of Christ! If I was radical, obsessive, and militant, then I would say that everyone has to nurse their babies this way, no exceptions, or they are not Christian – and that is absurd and has certainly not been my claim. I am just requesting the same respect on both sides – I will respect the mothers who choose to feed their babies differently and not expect them to change, and perhaps you can accept the mothers who do it in the complete on-demand, at the breast style… chances are, you won't even notice they are nursing, and what is not noticed probably won't be offensive or rude. Can we agree on that?If not, then I guess that's why the laws have to exist.
John K,It is my understanding that she was, for lack of a better word, a bit of a larger woman. I am not sure if she pulled the shirt up or down, but if she was larger, then it could have been a little more obvious as to what she was doing. She had seated herself facing into the corner in a back booth, however. I could understand that a woman who is a bit larger may be seen as a bit less discreet – also that people may be more offended when a woman who is not of average weight may show a little more of her tummy skin… and that is unfortunate, since obviously breastfeeding a baby should not be limited to those with the stereotypical "nice body." From the descriptions I have read, it seems she was being quite discreet – but again, discretion is so subjective, so it is not really the issue here.
RobK, simple question. In this country do we govern by the rule of law or by the rule of the offended? You say over and over people are trying to be oppressed, but you have yet to agree that the law in Kentucky protected her right to do what she did. Even if you disagree with how she went about it, surely you must agree in equal protection under the law. That's the whole point of this thing – to raise awareness of someone having their rights infringed on and pointing out that if it can happen to someone else, it can happen to you too.
My original comment said that what he did was rude. I live my life by a standard that is well above what is legal. I do not do a variety of things that are legal. Sometimes I forgo my "rights" for the sake of others.My wife has breastfed our kids when we were out and about. But we also take into account the sensibilities of others. Am I legally required – no. Would I call a lawyer if someone took offense and said something – no. Would I carry a copy the law around with me – no. Would I organize protests – no. Doing so suggests expecting confrontation. That is suspicious to me. Nor would I have done what the manager did. Nor would I have complained as the other customer.I do think that being conscious of other people's sensibilities – even when not legally required is polite and courteous.So I guess the answer to your questions is that I have a personal standard that is different than what is legal, though I do not impose my opinion on others (though I do like to express it now and then).
I also believe it is rude to wear pants that hang down so that we see things that are underneath… this serves no biological purpose. I agree that talking on a cell phone in a restaurant loud enough for others to hear is rude – again, it is not an urgent need unless there is some emergency that the person is attending to. The reason that breastfeeding is different is that it is meeting a biological need – and one that, if the mother so chooses to do so, will work best (with optimal health for baby and mother) if she is not expected to put it off and does it truly on-demand. If a mother wishes to do this, then she may do so.if you would not carry around a copy of the law, I am curious as to what you might do if a security guard told your wife to leave a store – that she had no other option. Either she stop nursing the baby, or she go do it in the bathroom/leave. This happens more than we hear, and it is because people do not understand that they can't force a nursing mother to leave. They understand that they must allow people of all races into their stores, that they must allow a blind man with a guide dog to bring that dog in with him… they know that these are laws. And nobody would dare say to the blind man, "Well, why don't you just use a cane instead?" If one of these people is discriminated against, you hear about all kinds of public outcry and immediate apology from the offending business. In this case, there has been no apology – this Applebee's manager thinks he was within the law (even though he clearly interfered w/ a breastfeeding mother). This is why people are protesting and getting the media and lawyers involved… because it hasn't been made right. They want the restaurant to set an example that this is not the way breastfeeding mothers should be treated. Think of how many young, new moms may give up on breastfeeding or not try at all because they are afraid of this very thing happening to them. If women are made to feel ashamed of feeding their babies in the best way possible, then no wonder our breastfeeding rates in this country are so low.
Dear Catholic Mother,I did not go line by line through your excessively long diatribe to refute each errant "fact" out of respect for the owner of this blog and understanding that, as I'm NOT a Catholic Dad, I am a guest on his blog. As such I will act as a good guest and not take over his comment thread.I have my own blog where I will write to my heart's content.I suggest you get one for yourself, too.
mightymom,I do not understand why you are so defensive (using words like "diatribe" when I already explained that I get long-winded an apologized if that was a problem). You basically said that I was lying, and now you will not point out the misinformation I gave. Don't you think I would like to know, as one studying to be a breastfeeding counselor, if I am mistaken in some of my information.You said I was wrong. I respectfully asked you to point out what I said that was false. You have not even pointed out a single thing I said that was incorrect.Honestly, can we not discuss this respectfully? Must comments like, "Get your own blog" be thrown around? If you don't want to put your money where your mouth is, then don't take the time to tell me that I am lying.If you don't wish to discuss it on this comment form, then I have no problem giving you my email address. I would honestly like to know what misinformation regarding breastfeeding that I have given.
MightyMom, I think you owe it to the rest of us to tell us which of Catholic Mom's statements are false. I've studied a good deal myself and am not aware of any of the statements she's made being false. If you're going to throw out an accusation like that, I think it'd be great if you'd back it up.
Chris Lewis and A Catholic Mother, In the interests of full disclosure I'll state that Mightymom is my wife.The reason Mightymom isn't interested in refuting ACM's arguments point by point is she's fully aware that at a site labeled "Catholic Dads" her presence is that of a guest. She doesn't wish to be rightfully accused of posting a diatribe that warrants her going to her own blog.Mightymom is considering continuing the discussion with you over on her own blog if you're truly interested. She'll be back with a BRIEF post to inform all of her intent and invitation.It seems on one hand we have a licensed medical professional and on the other we have a student of a semi-recognized discipline. Just my opinion, (not shared by Mightymom) but I put "breastfeeding consultant" on the same level as "aromatherapist". I know who I side with in the debate. But I've also made full disclosure of other factors, haven't I?As I said, it's strictly my opinion so direct any ire at myself.
Okay, obviously you'd side with your wife. But there is no need to post claims that a breastfeeding counselor's knowledge is invalid. "Semi-recognized discipline" is quite an insulting way to refer to it, and your writing that appears to be an intent to sway people to your side. Attacking the validity of the position in no way proves anything that your wife may say. In my experience, doctors (who have more training than an RN, obviously) barely touch on breastfeeding in medical school and therefore are not able to fully educate on all the facts unless they have done additional studying on their own. Therefore, why would it be safe to assume that a nurse has more factual knowledge on breastfeeding than one who has studied it more in-depth in order to become knowledgeable in helping others (which a breastfeeding counselor does)?I have plenty of sources to back up my facts which your wife says are "misinformation." The fact that she is not coming forward to refute them leads me to believe that she cannot accurately refute them.This is supposed to be a Catholic forum – I am disappointed at how I have been referred to as militant and excessive, and how I have been told "Go get your own blog" by your wife and others. We can have an intelligent discussion, or we can name-call and insult rather than discuss the issue at hand. I have tried to present facts and reasons for why a mother may want to nurse in a biological style – I have not insulted anyone by name-calling or insulting their own choices, and if somehow I have offended (like by writing too much), then I apologize. I honestly feel I have been fair and have not attacked anyone here on this board, so it is disheartening the way I am being responded to, especially in a Catholic forum.
Oh, and I would rather not discuss it on mightymom's blog – clearly that is not neutral ground, as she could censor things if she chose to do so (I don't know that she would, but I would rather be in a neutral place, such as here, or through emails, where we both are on equal footing with regard to control of posts). If she will only do it on her blog, then I can just post links here that back up all the facts I stated about breastfeeding, although it would be helpful to know which things she is specifically referring to.
Out of respect for the owner of this blog, I refuse to take up any more space in this comment thread.HOWEVER, I have addressed each and every incorrect assertion in A Catholic Mother's original comment on MY blog.All are welcome to come and see what I have to say http://www.texassiren.blogspot.comThe post relevant to this conversation is titled "What on earth did I step in?"SEE YOU THERE!
I will be responding to the opinions mightymom has posted on her blog. I am preparing a reply of factual, biological information with resources to back me up, free from snippy comments such as, "Ummmmm – no!" I will post the response on her blog, but I will also be posting it elsewhere so as to be sure the integrity of my comments is preserved.RobK, as the owner of this blog, I ask you if I may do that here, since it is relevant to the post by Chris that you must have approved in order for it to have appeared here in the first place. If you decline, then I can cross-post my comments on my own personal blog (which is pitiful, I must say, as I never really got into it! The last entry is probably a photo of my child from over a year ago!). I would then post a link to it here.Thank you.
I don't really own the blog. I started it, and serve as administrator – but it is for the dads who signed up.I think Chris's opinion here is most important. I don't like long com box responses, but if other's disagree….If I were you, I would post on Mighty Mom's site as well – even if you post here.
Seeing as Mighty Mom essentially called Catholic Mother a liar (not in such terse words, mind you) I think it's reasonable that Catholic Mother be allowed to defend her integrity.
I will put up my response tomorrow, as I cannot figure out how to put text in bold and am not going to wake my husband to figure it out… but my response is all prepared. I hope it will be helpful in debunking some myths surrounding breastfeeding.
Subvet, of course you don't want me debating with your wife. Although I am not comfortable with the anti-Catholic sentiment I encountered from a commenter there, I will post there anyway since I said that I would. RobK and Chris said it was okay for me to post here… it's long, so maybe some people won't even read it. Do you want me silenced on this comment form because you know I can refute your wife's arguments with scientific medical evidence?
It doesn't sit too well with me either that I was drawn to her blog to receive insults to my faith from her commenters. That's why I am more comfortable here, btw. It was your wife who decided not to just leave it all here in the first place, which I would have rather done, seeing as it is completely relevant to the topic of Chris's post.
Thanks, Chris – I will post both here and on Mightymom’s blog. I have been debating whether to post there or not, as I read her entry and the following comments from her visitors and was presented with some anti-Catholic sentiments (somebody commented about “gung-ho Catholics” and proceeded to insult the Catholic teaching against artificial birth control, as if Catholics who followed this teaching must be extreme or crazy). That has led me to feel uncomfortable with commenting there, but I will still do so and just avoid any arguments that attempt to attack what our Catholic faith teaches.
I will be working on my response tonight and hope to have it posted (at least in part
before going to bed tonight.
This whole thing has gone on too long. The fact is that despite her original statement of “I would rather not discuss it on mightymom’s blog….” ACM couldn’t resist the idea of being able to pontificate on this topic. She went over there and had her lunch handed to her. That doesn’t sit too well with her so now she wants to continue posting here on a site for Catholic DADS and their issues.
It’s a tempest in a teapot, don’t we as men have better things to do?
Let her and Mightymom continue the catfight elsewhere. If ACM doesn’t want to go to Mightymom’s blog she should set one up of her own. It’ll take all of ten minutes.
Just my opinion.
My opinion is that Catholic Dads is not the site for a couple of Moms to argue about breastfeeding.I am not sure this is the right forum for arguing about breastfeeding for any of us.Clearly there are differences of opinion. All the passion in the world is not going to change them.I recommend a bit of Christian charity here.If I recall from subvet's other posts about his wife being Methodist, I think we should show what it means to be Catholic (and I don't mean being Fighting Irish).
Here we go. Mightymom’s comments are bolded, and mine follow in normal type. I think this info is relevant to fathers as well as mothers, since fathers are very much a part of their children's lives.breastfeeding does not create infertility. Many women have learned the fallacy of this myth. Myself included.Breastfeeding in and of itself does not create infertility. Breastfeeding in a cultural style (ie, pumping, delaying or scheduling feedings) will not provide an extended period of breastfeeding infertility. However, there is a style called ecological breastfeeding that falls in line with a more natural mothering approach (biological, that is). It is a scientifically-based method done by Sheila Kippley. It requires the following of seven standards, which are: 1. breastfeed exclusively for the first six months; don’t use any other liquids or solids 2. pacify your baby at your breasts 3. Don’t use bottles of pacifiers (that includes bottles of mother’s pumped milk) 4. Sleep with your baby for night feedings 5.Sleep with your baby for a daily nap-feeding 6. Nurse frequently day and night and avoid schedules 7. Avoid any practice that restricts nursing or separates you from your baby. Using this type of nursing, women report their cycles to return at an average of 14 months postpartum, and 93% had natural infertility through the first six months. Each standard is said to be equally important. In my experience, once I stopped taking a daily nap with my baby at around 7 months (while continuing to follow all the other standards), my menstruation soon followed. Therefore, a mother who is not feeding on-demand (scheduling) or uses the occasional supplemental bottle is more at risk of having an earlier return of fertility. A mother nursing her baby in public on-demand can help her to better achieve her goal of extended natural infertility (which is healthier for her overall).Some women may continue to experience delayed return of fertility without following all of these seven standards… I know somebody whose child used a pacifier constantly and slept for 8 hours starting sometime after 6 months, and she still had not resumed cycles after he turned one year old. These people are the exception and not the rule. This also goes to show that for some, maintaining natural infertility through breastfeeding is a very delicate balance that can be interrupted quite easily (as was my case).Resources: Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing by Sheila KippleyCCLIBreastfeeding Infertility at LLLII’d like to note that it doesn’t make one “un-Catholic” if she chooses not to do this type of breastfeeding. Although it goes along nicely with Catholicism, it is not a requirement of the Church. But just because people who don’t follow ecological breastfeeding don’t have extended natural infertility does not mean that it doesn’t exist.you do not have to put a baby to the breast every time he cries in order to breastfeed successfully. This is actually harmful as it creates "grazers" who just snack a little all day long and never get totally full or totally hungry. This causes problems with supply, let down, and baby learning to comfort himself. It also teaches all about "comfort food" from the get go.That depends on your definition of “success.” Yes, some mothers can breastfeed successfully by not nursing the baby each time he cries, that is, they can maintain an adequate supply. Success is defined by the mother, and if success includes mothering through breastfeeding, then her ideas will be different on this, or if she already has a low supply or a tendency towards one, she may need to nurse more frequently.Breastfed babies do not overeat. The breast does not work like the rubber nipple on a bottle, which only has one flow speed and one unchanging liquid inside the bottle. A baby sucks differently depending on his needs. When he gets full on the richer hindmilk, he may switch to a fluttery “comfort nursing” type behavior. He is no longer getting much milk and therefore is not overeating nor is he learning that food is for comfort. He is learning that his mother is there for comfort. A baby can also nurse just a little bit to get the foremilk, which is watery and could satisfy his thirst. It is precisely this self-regulation in breastfed babies that helps them learn not to overeat or use food as comfort. Babies have a need for pacification at times, and this is comfort sucking at the breast, not comfort-eating.Resources: Breastfed babies and comfort nursing (read all the points under #1)This does not cause problems with supply, because the baby himself is regulating it. It will, on the other hand, ensure a plentiful supply. This is a serious issue, as I hear about many mothers who do end up with low supplies due to feeding on a schedule. I don’t understand about a problem with letdown – how would this cause a problem? Also, there is no need for a baby to learn to comfort himself at a specific age. Babies grow quickly and will one day learn methods of self-soothing… it is not a requirement for infancy. Although some parents may have success in conditioning their baby to “self-soothe,” please do not assume that this is a shared goal for all parents for their baby’s first year of life. If a baby is not taught to self-soothe as an infant, that is the parents’ choice.A newborn should be fed no more often than every 2 hours from start to start, by 4 months this should be spaced out to every 3-4 hours and none at night.I am curious as to where this statement comes from. It sounds like a schedule to me, which is not consistent with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP – basically the governing body for pediatricians and those who work for them) recommendations (which can be found here: (AAP, under Recommended Breastfeeding Practices) It says specifically, “Newborns should be nursed whenever they show signs of hunger, such as increased alertness or activity, mouthing, or rooting.85 Crying is a late indicator of hunger.86 Newborns should be nursed approximately 8 to 12 times every 24 hours until satiety…” Note the word approximate – this does not mean that the feedings must be spaced every 2 hours precisely. Many babies are known to “cluster nurse,” that is, to space many feedings closer together than they normally do. The AAP is clear that you should go on the baby’s hunger cues, and not on any type of schedule, which is why at times my baby would nurse again after 1-1.5 hours. They say nothing of stretching feedings out to 3-4 hours at any age, nor do they say at what age a baby is no longer in need of night nursings. The reasons for this are that each baby is different – you cannot make a blanket statement like, “Babies do not need to nurse at night anymore once they reach four months of age.” Yes, some babies may be ready to sleep for a 6 hour stretch or more without nursing at this age, but many are still not ready for that. Thus, the AAP makes no defining statements on scheduling.Furthermore, the AAP only recommends against one parenting book, which is On Becoming Babywise by Gary Ezzo. The reason they disapprove of this method is because it suggests imposing schedules. Some infants who were put on these schedules (not too far off from what Mightymom suggests – they suggest feedings no more than 2.5 hours apart in newborns) were diagnosed with “failure to thrive.” This simply means they were not getting enough milk. The mothers were not producing enough milk as they were not feeding according to the “demand” (breastfeeding works based on supply and demand).Resource: AAP on Scheduling ProgramsOn the part about babies not needing to be nursed at all overnight once they hit four months old… First, what is the definition here? Is this the clinical definition of “sleeping through the night,” which means five hours? Or does it mean “all night,” as in 8-10 hours? I will assume it means the latter, since most people are unaware of the five-hour definition. It would seem that biologically, babies wake at night for their survival. Babies were not designed to go into a deep sleep for an extended period of time due to their immature systems’ inability to regulate their breathing patterns the way we do as adults (one reason for the SIDS problem, especially in babies six months and under). Some babies may sleep all night at four months, but to try to force one to is to fight biology. Breastmilk is digested very quickly – in three hours or less, typically – and so if a baby is not eating anything else at the age of four months (as per the AAP’s recommendations), then it would be safe to say that a baby at that age may get hungry again after three hours.Dr. James McKenna, PhD, runs a very interesting “sleep laboratory” at Notre Dame. Here is a quote from his website: “One bit of information might help here: from a biological perspective, it is appropriate for babies to awaken during the night during the first year of life. In fact, although infants can be conditioned to sleep long and hard alone, and without intervention and, hence, fulfill the cultural expectation that the should sleep through the night, the fact remains that they were not designed to do so, and it may not be either in their best biological or psychological interest.” I am also including an article written by him below.Resources: Rethinking Infant SleepFAQ on Sleep at LLLIWhy 4 mo old may need night feed McKenna (some articles by Dr. McKenna on the biological aspects of infant-mother sleep)so far as keeping the mother's supply up…..when you give a bottle of pumped milk, you then go somewhere private AND PUMP. This not only gives you milk to replace what you fed, but also keeps your supply right where it was the day before your outing to Applebees. The pump does for the mother all that the baby suckling would do, just not quite as efficiently (ie takes a little longer to empty the boob)So, you are suggesting that mothers take a bottle of previously-pumped milk with them when they go out in public… and also take their breastpump along and pump immediately following the giving of the bottle? I have honestly never heard this suggested before, nor have I heard of anyone doing it. I cannot imagine how this would even be feasible… first, you have to have a place to pump. In Applebee’s, that would be where – the car? The bathroom? If you have an electric pump, there is the problem of finding an outlet, which not all bathrooms will have, and not all pumps have a car adapter. If a mother took public transportation or was very far from her car at the time, it would not be feasible for her to go to her car. I would question the pumping of breastmilk in a public restaurant bathroom – that is not a sanitary pumping place! Most likely, there is no place to sit. Many mothers must relax in order to achieve a let-down and get an adequate amount of milk with the pump… I doubt most public restrooms provide that type of atmosphere. Then there is the question of how a mother would accomplish this if she has her children with her… even if she only has the baby with her, she must find a place to put him while she pumps… in his carseat on the bathroom floor, I suppose? Are the older children to accompany her into the public restroom while she pumps there? Or are they all to go to the car (if her car is accessible at the time in the first place), no matter the weather? It’s been over 100 where I am for a couple weeks recently, and I’d wager that in Minnesota, it can be downright freezing at times. So, if a mother wants to go about with this, fine – if she can make it work. It seems like a lot of trouble and downright impossible in some situations. And some mothers are busy enough that this may occur several times a day.I have no resources here, since I cannot find any information on feeding a bottle of expressed milk while out and then pumping while out (although KY state law says that a mother may express her milk in public – so I suppose in that state, she could do it right there at the booth in Applebee’s, but I wouldn’t think that is an optimal location either!).So does standing in line at the checkout, parking the car if you're driving down the freeway when he cries, getting off the toilet, turning off the shower, setting aside the meal you're cooking, and anything else you happen to be doing at mealtime. Babies wait all the time.Babies do wait more in our culture than in many others. At one time, people lived in close-knit, “tribal” kinds of communities – living with extended family and the like – which would have enabled a mother to car for her baby more promptly. Another relative could take over the meal preparations while the mother nursed the baby. Actually, I have nursed a baby in a sling while preparing a meal before. As long as you’re not over the hot stove, it is doable. I’ve also nursed in a sling at the check-out counter. I would think that getting off the toilet or out of the shower is a short delay. While out in public, a mother may need to spend 10 minutes or more finding a private space to nurse – if she is parked on the other side of a shopping mall, it could take her longer than this to get to her car to nurse. She can more effectively nurse on-demand by finding the nearest bench. It is one less way a mother can avoid having to delay a feeding. Mothers who are out often would need to delay many feedings by having to find a secluded spot. If she wants to do this for her comfort, okay, but if a mother wants to nurse as close to on-demand as she can in our society, then this is how she would need to go about doing it.This baby was 7 months old. And her seventh. She doesn't qualify as "new to nursing." With blanket or without I wager she wasn't discreet, or we wouldn't be talking about her.A mother being new to nursing and having difficulty getting baby latched on while his face is under a blanket is only one reason a mother may not want to use one as a cover. This issue is important to all mothers who nurse in public, not just this one. It is a very valid concern for a mother who is new to nursing. As for this baby and mother, there could be many other reasons she would not use a blanket which I believe I already addressed and you failed to mention. Briefly: Some babies refuse to nurse when covered with a blanket. Some babies, particularly older than a few months of age, will just pull the blanket off repeatedly. Either of these can make a spectacle of it, with the baby crying loudly in protest if he is unhappy with the blanket. Sometimes it is far too hot to use a blanket, for both mother and child. If a baby refuses to nurse under a blanket and a mother insists on using one, then her supply could go down if she did this frequently… her baby would not be nursing as often as he otherwise would, and it’d probably be a pretty unpleasant outing with an unhappy, angry baby. For info on how nursing is a supply and demand process, see Supply and DemandYou assume this woman wasn’t discreet because we are talking about her. “Discreet” is a subjective term – what one person defines as discreet, another may see as not. If a mother positions herself in the corner booth, facing into the corner, not many people are likely to see her nursing. Most women can nurse discreetly without a blanket. She was within her state’s laws (State Nursing Laws), and breastfeeding is not defined as indecent exposure (Indecent Exposure).No mothers or babies have ever been harmed by giving formula. There is no risk to either's health if the mother chooses not to or is unable to breastfeed. All that is simply propaganda put out by Lactation Consultants who use the all powerful MOTHER'S GUILT to further their agenda.This is the point at which I see I will not change Mightymom’s stance, but at least I can persuade onlookers that this statement she made – I refer specifically to her second line – is absolutely false. There are inherent risks in formula feeding. It has a place – it was designed to save lives of babies who could otherwise not receive breastmilk. But the risks of not breastfeeding are numerous and well-documented. If it is “propaganda,” then it surely is widespread! “Guilt” has nothing to do with it. We don’t tell smokers and drug users of the risks to make them feel guilty, we tell them because evidence suggests that they have a higher risk of health issues because it is just a medical fact. It doesn’t mean that all babies who receive formula will have these problems, but the risks are much higher. The risks to the mother are higher too – higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer, for instance. It’s not scare tactics – it’s scientific fact. Doctors tell people all the time that they need to change their eating habits or else they are at risk of cardiac problems… this is not to make them feel bad!! It is to warn them of known risks, to empower them with information so they can make decisions that may impact their health. The numerous, proven benefits of breastmilk can be found here:AAP (scroll down to the references – the AAP apparently beleives these studies are valid, and there sure are a lot of them! Just look at the titles for some of the benefits and risk factors related to infant feeding)Fresh Look at the Risks of Artificial Infant Feeding Many Benefits of BreastfeedingI just have a hard time believing that you, as a person with medical training, seem to think there is no health benefit in feeding breastmilk over formula. I hope you are not basing this on the anecdotal, “Oh, I was fed formula, and I turned out fine!” or “I know a lady whose breastfed kid was sick all the time.” Anecdotal evidence is nothing when compared to these vast and extensive studies.If lactation consultants have an “agenda” – then what is that??? It surely isn’t financial, as there is no money to be made in breastfeeding (not so in the formula industry, however).There is no MAGIC in breastmilk.And I never said there was. It’s just the standard, biologically-designed way of feeding babies. And thank God for the ability to use formula in life-saving instances such as a baby whose mother died at birth or could not produce milk due to a breast surgery, etc… but it surely was not intended that infants were fed in this manner. Nope, no magic – just the way it was supposed to be.ummm no. The antibodies are not made in the milk. They are made by the mother's immune system then passed into the milk. The baby's mouth touching her breast has nothing to do with the amount and type of antibodies that are in her milk. Baby breathing/slobbering in her face is what does it. See, baby catches bug. Passes bug to mom. Mom creates antibodies to fight bug. Antibodies (along with most stuff in the bloodstream) pass into breastmilk.I admit that I misspoke here in saying that the baby must breastfeed in order to cause the mother’s body to produce antibodies. It is a semantics thing you’re arguing when I said they were made in the milk – yes, I know they are made in the body and then pass into the milk. I apologize if my wording was confusing. Yes, the mother can begin producing antibodies simply by exposure to her baby in other ways besides nursing. But the bottom line – the point I was making – is this: if the mother has brought pumped milk with her, then that milk will not contain the antibodies to the most recent germs they were exposed to. Therefore, the receiving of the antibodies by the baby is delayed, and if the mother is out for many hours and is using pumped milk, the baby will not receive the antibodies in her milk in as timely a manner. If a mother wishes to impart these immunities to her baby in the biological way, ASAP, then this method will not work for her. If a mother feels she must pump and take the bottle with her, okay – no problem if she is more comfortable that way. But to assume that all mothers should have to do this is imposing your standards on them, potentially to the detriment of their baby (ie, worse virus or longer-lasting due to not getting immunities as promptly as he would have otherwise).And there's nothing healthier about nursing than giving a bottle of breastmilk.This does not make sense (it appears you are saying that it is actually healthier to give pumped milk than to feed directly at the breast) – I assume you mean that giving a bottle of pumped milk is equal to nursing directly at the breast? We have already gone over that in terms of immunities. If a baby is getting milk that has been stored longer, as in refrigerated or even frozen, then the milk will not be tailored to the baby’s needs the day he drinks the pumped milk. If one pumps immediately before giving each bottle, then it would be pretty darn close to equal, but most mothers are not able to pump right before going out every time. The World Health Organization states that breastmilk directly from the breast is the first preferred option, expressed milk from the mother is the second best choice, expressed milk donated from another mother is the third healthiest option, and formula is fourth. I apologize that I have not yet found the link – if anyone thinks it is imperative, I will dig further for it.A baby uses specific muscles in the jaw while nursing – this is a physical benefit that cannot be duplicated with a bottle. Some babies can also develop “nipple confusion” which is a difficulty switching from breast to bottle. For a mother who wants to nurse at the breast (or who has trouble pumping enough, as pumps are not as effective as the baby and some women do not respond to them well), this can obviously be problematic. (See Dr. Sears)NOPE.Again, telling me that my boob is hanging out and asking me to cover it is not "interfering with a breastfeeding mother". It is alerting me to the need to be more discreet while nursing. and Should some mom be nursing indiscreetly at a restaurant that I was at I would complain (well, I'd actually go up to the mom myself).Interfering, in this case, means requiring one to do differently. Here are some specifics from the KY state law in question: “2006 Ky. Acts, Chap. 80 Permits a mother to breastfeed her baby or express breastmilk in any public or private location; requires that breastfeeding may not be considered an act of public indecency, indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching or obscenity; prohibits a municipality from enacting an ordinance that prohibits or restricts breastfeeding in a public or private place.” So, requiring a mother to cover with a blanket (which is what Applebee’s suggested to this mother) was an attempt to restrict breastfeeding in a public place. In KY, no restrictions may be put on nursing mothers… period. Your going up to a mother and requesting that she cover herself more or go elsewhere would be a violation of this law. Apparently women in KY have the legal right to pull their shirts halfway off, although I would not suggest that under normal circumstances! Most mothers will make every attempt to not expose anything, but it does happen from time to time if a baby pops off or has a tough time latching on. You have to look behind at the intent of the woman: was she attempting to flash people, or was she attempting to feed her baby? Her intents to feed her baby are legally protected. This is not to say that all laws are perfect and just – but her intent is not malicious in the least if she’s just trying to feed her infant.If you'd approach a mother about nursing her baby in order to complain, then I'd suggest you do the same for every person in public who offends you or who is dressed in a manner you do not wish to see. This will make you no friends, and may even get angry husbands on your case!ummm what does No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service mean?Nothing, with regard to breastfeeding.Have you actually seen a mother remove her entire shirt in public in order to nurse her baby??? You are not using a logical argument here.oh and biology also shows that adult humans were intended to tear their meat with their teeth….are you giving up using knives?Is there a real biological need to tear our meat with our teeth – as in, we receive health benefits by eating in this manner? If not, then I fail to see the connection. But if you don’t think breastmilk has any health benefits anyway, then I guess you won’t be able to respond to this anyway.Ever peed behind a bush because there were no rest rooms on that stretch of road and you needed to go? As a matter of fact it IS ok to urinate in public so long as you're discreet.Actually, no, I have the ability to control my bladder long enough to wait for a gas station. If I really needed to, I suppose I would. Let me clarify what this was in reference to in the first place: people had been comparing “bodily functions” to breastfeeding, and that it was not okay to do these things in public. I posited that it was because of the sanitation issue of urinating/defecating in public, and that even if one were to discreetly do it under a blanket, it would not be permitted because of the sanitation issues. This argument of yours does not make sense – I do not see how one could compare a bush on an isolated stretch of highway to a public restaurant, where there are numerous people inside? Does the bush really count as “public” here?There are other options. Most women's bathrooms have chairs or benches you can use.And most people don’t want to sit in a smelly bathroom for an extended period of time, nor do they wish to collect their child’s food in an unsanitary location. You do not eat in a public bathroom, and so why should an infant? In the early months when an infant nurses for longer periods, you may end up sitting in a smelly bathroom for a half hour – while you miss your dinner, your conversation with those at your table, and your other kids do who knows what… come with you? Stay alone outside the bathroom? It is not only a matter of convenience here – some people cannot do this due to having other kids with them. And I am not sure where these bathrooms with chairs of which you speak are located… most that I have been inside do not have any seating other than the toilets. And if need be, that's why cars have heat&a/c..done that too!I have already addressed the issue of a woman not being located near her car… or not having a car, and she rode the bus to whatever public place she is visiting. I also drove a car for several years that had no AC – in the summer in the “Deep South.” I am sure there are other moms whose cars have no AC. Should the government subsidize them so they can afford a working AC? Would that be a better solution, to use excess tax money, rather than allow the mother to remain inside a public building to nurse? You are taking these things as being so black and white – there are many considerations to take into account. Not everyone can follow these standards you are setting due to different circumstances (bathrooms with no chairs, cars with poor heating/cooling, other children to care for) – if they want to and are able, fine, but they should not be looked upon as “rude” or “immodest” because they won’t. You seem to not want mothers to feel guilty for using formula – and neither do I – but you do want mothers to feel badly for not nursing according to your standards of modesty?Not because of MY inability to look away, rather because my young boys don't need to see another lady's boobs…not even with a baby attached.Because… breasts are sexual? Even when they are being used for a non-sexual purpose, their main purpose? This is fine if you have a different opinion – it's your choice as to how to raise your male children. I have a different opinion and would like for my sons to see breasts being used in a non-sexual way… goodness knows they will be exposed to breasts as a means of selling stuff and promoting promiscuity and sex over the course of their lives. I will be glad they will have a strong foundation that a woman’s breasts are not sexual objects.No facts there… just our different opinions. Not a problem if they are different, as it’s not misinformation being given.Actually, menstruating and lactating women were considered "unclean" and "untouchable." Not in common society.I also stated earlier that women used to have more support – living with extended family, having close-knit communities… I would think they’d be less isolated that way. In today’s society, we are extremely isolated and therefore, to maintain sanity (as humans need other human contact to thrive typically (again, I can find links on this if somebody feels it’s necessary), we must go out in public. Thank goodness we are not considered “unclean” these days! Today, for a lactating woman to stay home for the extent of her nursing time would be really, really rough!At one time, it was considered rude to talk about pregnancy – or to even use the word, as people used to say, “She’s in the family way.” Times do change – pregnant women can be seen in public and talk about their pregnancies. Yes, pregnancy is “sex-related” – much more so than breastfeeding – and nobody wants to banish pregnant women from public.You can have plentiful milk and still pump occasionally, even regularly. Actually, when a mother is having trouble getting her milk to come in Pediatricians will often recommend she pump between feedings. If you don't have a strong sucker, or have a preemie (like I did) who tires easily it is preferable to pump all milk, then feed by bottle.In the early weeks, you must breastfeed regularly to ensure an adequate supply down the road. A hospital-grade pump can definitely do this as well if the baby cannot nurse due to being a preemie or some other problem. If the mother desires to actually breastfeed at the breast at some point, it is best to use other methods such as syringe feeding, spoon feeding, etc. so as the baby will not have a chance at developing nipple confusion (see Alternative Feeding Methods). Not all babies will have this problem, but some do, even as older infants. (See Dr. Sears and Nipple Confusion in Older Baby). One may have problems with supply when she frequently pumps to take a bottle with her, and then does not breastfeed or pump while out for a long time (and as I said, I have never heard of a mother pumping while out with her baby – pumping while at work away from her baby, yes, but not when out with her baby, although I suppose she could do it if she wanted). For very busy/active mothers, this can definitely cause a supply problem. Some will be fine doing it, but others may not as each woman is different as to how often her breasts must be stimulated in order to keep up an appropriate supply. This is more of a problem in the earlier months but can still cause problems for some women with older babies. It is important that women are aware of this so they can watch for supply problems if they feed their babies in this way. Supply issues are easiest to correct when caught early, like most things.In addition to not having a breast pump, Mary also didn't have a blender. Are you going to chew your baby's food for him too?No – I am going to mash it up if need be (like a ripe banana), or give him soft chunks and such. A baby starting solids after six months has little need for pureed foods. Also, I have heard of modern-day parents chewing their food for their babies. I wouldn't do it, but it can be done.Resource: Solids(And this is really not on the topic so I will say no more)As a matter of fact Orthodox Jews to this day believe you should WALK to Temple. How are you going to get to church this week?I am not an Orthodox Jew, so I’ll drive. I don’t see the connection. Just because I want to nurse my child as biologically as I can does not mean that I must do everything else as naturally as possible (although I do try in many areas that are more within my control – like the fact that I didn’t have a say in my church not being built less than a mile from my home – and I try to do things that are more biologically important to basic health, like eating natural foods rather than processed ones). I could see you might say that walking is healthier, just as breastfeeding is (but wait, you don’t think that second part… but if you did…), and therefore it is biologically superior. But I can exercise in other ways, whereas a baby cannot get the same immunities or jaw development, etc., in ways other than feeding at the breast. The statue is nice, but is not necessarily true to lifeMy points about it are true-to-life: Mary breastfed Jesus, and she didn’t cover herself up. That’s all I was saying. If she is pictured as breastfeeding, then why is that not something you’d want to be covered? Is it different if an artist depicts nursing than if a mother is seen doing it in real life?On the religion note, I’d like to mention that it is really not relevant to proving facts about breastfeeding, such as that breastfeeding provides health benefits to both mother and child. The reason religion came into it at all is because this discussion began on a religious forum.It saddens me that despite the many wonderful aspects of breastfeeding for both mother and child, there are those who put out such misinformation to mothers in order to make breastfeeding seem like the "very, absolute, most wonderful choice." It IS all of that…but the lily does not need to be gilded with medically inaccurate assurances.The facts are accurate. If giving facts is now somehow misinformation, then I missed that fundamental change in our vocabularies. Why is it the “most wonderful choice” if it has no benefits??? That doesn’t make sense. You must have chosen to breastfeed for some reason, right? It seems that you are saying that in order to be politically correct, we shouldn’t share factual information about breastfeeding because those who cannot/won’t do it will feel bad. Since when do we withhold important information out of fear of offending people? As Catholics, are we going to deny our fundamental faith beliefs (and I am not including breastfeeding as one of them) if they might make somebody else feel bad?I make no personal judgments here – formula has its place, pumped milk has its place, for sure. But the science is behind the facts – breastmilk is the preferred method of feeding, and in order to ensure that all mothers can nurse successfully (that is, according to their definitions of success and for their own bodies), then nursing in public should not be frowned upon. Sadly, I have heard from young women who decide to not breastfeed at all (or do it very little/briefly overall) because they are concerned about having to nurse in public.I apologize for the length – the facts are important and I feel they deserved this attention and the backing of multiple resources. I hope this information can help somebody out there.
RobK,I would like to say that I do not wish to argue. Mightymom commented first, before me, and when I later commented, she called my comments "misinformation." I feel that I should defend what I said, because I stand by the facts as being scientifically true. I do not like to be told I am lying when I am providing factual information.Nobody has to read my long post if they do not want to.I would like to show Christian charity here. I do not believe I have attacked, belittled, or otherwise been offensive to anyone here. If I have, would somebody kindly point out what I have said that gave this impression?I believe it is quite Christian to present factual information when somebody accuses you of being false. It is not about a "catfight" or anything of the sort – I do not see it that way, at least. I see it as being able to stand up to the accusation made against me. I do not revel in fighting – I just would like to be able to show that I was wrongly accused, and to spread accurate information on a topic in which misinformation is the norm.I have tried to be respectful of others here (other than being long-winded, I suppose, which is not meant to offend anyone) and would request that the same be shown toward me.
Catholic Mother, my reaction was to more than to just you. As I re-read your original post, I see how you were trying to be reasonable – though some of what you right may be offensive from someone with a different perspective – even if you did not intend for it to be. I apologize if I have offended you. In passion, people become less sensitive to how they are perceived by people who disagree. However, you asked how what you wrote could be seen as offensive. Well, here is what I saw:I take offense with a presumption that I do not understand the issues (e.g., biological). In the context of what Chris said, there is an implication that those who disagree with the position you advocate somehow disregard care for their children.You mentioned restrooms as inappropriate places to nurse – I saw no one say that restrooms are good places to nurse. That would be gross and inappropriate. So why comment on it? Chris said this was about sex – not someone you were disagreeing with. But you commented on how this shouldn't get people excited The only people suggesting this is about sex are those choosing to diagnose those who disagree with your position.Both of the above impute offensive stands to someone who disagrees with your position. I find that offensive.There is a failure to recognize that other positions are reasonable. While I appreciate your position, my entire point is that others do not share it – and that's OK.Most importantly, I find it offensive to presume that this is a Catholic issue. One does not need to agree to be a good Catholic or Christian. While my family actually practices something close to what you preach, I would never presume that this makes me a better Catholic than those who disagree.I really do not want to argue, but I also want people to recognize that the position put forward in the original post are not those that all good Catholics hold or need to hold.
I completely agree that one needn't practice this type of breastfeeding in order to be a "good Catholic." I thought I had actually written that somewhere. I absolutely think that a mother can feed her babies only formula and still be a good Catholic!I also don't think you must follow this type of nursing (biological, ecological, whatever) to be a good parent – not at all! I have said that I think it is just fine for a mother to take along pumped milk or go to the car to nurse if this is what she wants to do and it works for her – that is, the baby is getting fed adequately in this manner. I do not care how other people choose to feed their babies while in public as long as the method is working for them – they are comfortable and the baby is gaining weight/thriving well. But this goes both ways. Others needn't have a problem with those mothers who do wish to nurse their babies on-demand in public. We should have respect for this both ways, as some mothers feel this is the appropriate way for them to do it, and some mothers know that if they don't do this, they may have supply issues or baby not gaining weight, etc. (I have said not all will have this issue, but for those who do, it is serious). I truly do not want to come across as if I am saying this is the "only way" to nurse in public… I do not go up to mothers giving bottles in public and complain, and so I was merely wanting the same respect in return for mothers who, for whatever reasons, nurse in the biological/on-demand way (Mightymom said on her blog that she would approach a nursing mother who she didn't think was "discreet enough" and complain – yet she is not taking into consideration that this mother has her own reasons for what she is doing, and that this mother is a stranger to her who obviously has no idea what Mightymom's definition of "discreet" is anyway). I would never approach a stranger and ask them why they were using a bottle, because it is none of my business – if it is working for them (both mother and baby), then that is fine.Mightymom did suggest the bathroom as an appropriate place to nurse and possible to pump. It is in her blog where she attempts to point out errors I made in my first post here. She suggested that nearly all restrooms have chairs or benches in them as well, which has not been my experience in local public restrooms. I brought up the restroom issue because she suggested it as "another option."The whole point here is that, while "other options" do exist, it doesn't mean that other people get to decide which options one uses when nursing in public. I apologize if it seemed that I was advocating only using the biological options – that was honestly not my intent. I was merely defending the mothers who wished to nurse in this fashion, as they have as much of a right to do so as mothers have a right to bottlefeed or go to their car or cover with a blanket.I would guess the reason Chris was relating it to sex is because nobody has said what it is that would bother them about a mother nursing in public. Not that they don't have a right to be bothered by whatever they wish, but nobody has explained why other than "it's not appropriate." So I guess it leaves us wondering what it is that is not appropriate if not that the breast is seen as sexual?I want to reiterate the thing about Catholicism – that this is absolutely not something I feel is mandated for Catholics. As I said above (waaaay above, ha ha) under the links for CCL and Breastfeeding Infertility, "I’d like to note that it doesn’t make one “un-Catholic” if she chooses not to do this type of breastfeeding. Although it goes along nicely with Catholicism, it is not a requirement of the Church."I hope this helps to clarify. I know that words are harder to interpret meaning when they are written rather than spoken (they are very impersonal when read from a computer screen), and I apologize if anything has come across as offensive. I also appreciate your apology to me.Thanks.
Just a couple more comments. One, I don't see why there's ANY problem with posting 10 million comments with 10 billion words. I'm not the owner of this blog, but all of these 47 (now 48) comments do not distract from the rest of the blog. If you don't want to read all the comments, then you don't have to click on them. And, as a Catholic dad, I think breastfeeding is a HUGE deal. No, I don't personally breastfeed (although I'd probably look kinda funny), I have to be 110 behind my wife for her to be successful and enjoy it. I think it's relevant, but if somebody doesn't…then click the "back" arrow.Secondly, as a objective observer (I don't know either one of them), I would have to say agree with about 99% of a catholic mom's comments and responses.
No offense to the others (mightymom and sublet)…we're all entitled to our opinions. I just happen to disagree with many of yours. Maybe I'll venture to your site tomorrow and read more.It's a very sensitive subject. Perhaps it's better to "agree to disagree"? Anyway, it's interested reading all these comments. Best to all of you!Jody
Fifty comments! (I'm truly sorry…I couldn't resist.)Jody
We all know that an exposed breast can be an occasion of sin for many in our culture.In Romans 14:13-16, St. Paul tells us not to expose our brother with something that is bad for him (even if is fine for us).-Modesty Man