Posted on 06/11/2019 2:26:56 PM PDT by MeganC
A Texas City woman said she was hurt and ashamed after being ordered to leave a city pool Sunday for breastfeeding her baby. Misty Daugereaux said she was nursing her 10-month-old son Maxx at the Nessler Family Aquatic Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
Oh I grasp your complex concepts. LOL. I just think they’re ridiculous. Perhaps you can’t grasp why it might be OK for a woman to feed her baby in public.
Here’s one of your ridiculous statements.
This represents a serious threat to my overall safety. I can see you must have been attacked by a naked breast when you were young. How horrible for you!
Your childish response here is asinine.
You may wish to remain in denial, but there are articles coming out now about men who refuse to mentor women in the business environment. They do so because women blow things out of proportion endangering those men’s status at their place of employment. Some women lie.
We know that some women charge the fathers of their children with all sorts of things, to better their chances at full custody in divorce proceedings. Some women lie.
We know that the women’s movement has encouraged women to boldly charge men with things because they have been denied “opportunities” unfairly. Some women lie.
Meanwhile, here you are dismissing my attempt to shine light on how vulnerable a man is, when there is a woman out there flashing. And that’s all this is. You see, some women lie, and men can’t take the chance that “this woman”, won’t do that.
There’s no need for her breast to be visible. She can cover herself. She can use an easily obtainable breast pump and load up for outings when the baby/child needs to be fed in public, thereby nullifying her need to be flashing in public.
Men are at risk. If they wish to avoid being at risk, they can leave the area of where the offending woman is, but that means they are prevented from being at public places they have as much right to be present in, as any woman.
you need some mothers milk and calm down. I was manger for two decadesI have two adult daughters and one granddaughter in the workplace . Don’t try to explain your idiocy to me.
Men In Fear of Breasts tonight at 11.
LOL
Nothing like a fool who will not admit reality.
You can’t deny the things I posted, so you just fall back on you know better.
Well, you don’t.
It’s not a fear of breasts.
It’s recognition of the ability for women to lie and make false charges against men that will cost them dearly.
I brought up three categories to buttress my case, and all you have done is practice denial and avoidance.
Person in denial, film at eleven...
I shouldn't have used "the fool" comment here, and I'd like to apologize for using it.
I'm sorry I did.
I worked in prisons for 28 years and umpired professional baseball. Can’t think of something you could say to me that I haven’t heard 10 times over.
Yes, I’m sure that’s true.
Still, I shouldn’t have said that to you.
Both of those occupations are impressive.
I appreciate the mention.
Let’s see, mine would have been Shadrack FM 2410 ...
I can see you have never breastfed. Not all women can pump breast milk successfully, not all breastfed babies will take a bottle - most especially from the mom whose boob is right there, babies are not stupid. Very little breast is exposed during nursing or you are doing it wrong..
I saw the woman’s suit, it had a center slit for breastfeeding. No breast would be exposed so whatever started the outrage police remains a mystery. I saw one employee claim that both breast were out, which seems a fabrication given the suit design.
And while I get your fear of lying women, the basic fact is your fear of potential harm does not outweigh the infant’s right to food. It’s not actually about the woman’s right to breastfeed, but the child’s right to eat.
Oh I think people can plan their lives around feeding their children without getting to some sort of doomsday scenario at a poolside.
Our children somehow survived and my wife never breast fed in public.
Both our children were breast fed. We went places. We planned for it.
Feed the child. Go to the pool. Stay a while. Come home.
It’s not about the pool or doomsday. Your fear is of a potential harm that has not occurred yet and may not occur.
The baby’s hunger is real and immediate need. Just from a legal point of view, potential but unrealized harms don’t count for squat.
Being denied food is an actual harm.
Pools notoriously sap the energy of children making them voraciously hungry, so all the planning in the world won’t always work.
Would you reference the men who refuse to mentor any longer as having a fear of something that hasn’t happened, or may not happen?
Would you reference fathers who’s wives lie about them during divorce as having unrealistic fears?
Here you seem to completely dismiss any need to cover up, or use a breast pump. Sorry, that breast bump thing works for most mothers. If you can’t use one, then perhaps going to the pool is just a lousy idea.
The onus is placed on the man to either sit there and risk some charge a woman can think up, or leave.
Nonsense.
Pools also have urine and fecal matter in the water. During summer months there is also a risk of too much exposure to the sun. Attempts to put sunscreen on a small child is also a risk.
Funny how none of that seems to have popped into your mind.
I’ll stand with what I have already stated, and you can still sit there and try to defend the defenseless.
I am perfectly willing to agree that feminism and #metoo has harmed men with lies and false accusations.
But that doesn’t change the basic philosophical and legal logic that your fear of a potential harm (one that has not yet occurred) cannot outweigh the actual and immediate harm of an infant being refused food.
It doesn’t matter that the harm is temporary or negligible because a potential as yet not occurring harm weighs exactly 0 while the actual existing harm (no matter how transitory) to the infants food need is >0.
That’s why the baby’s right to eat will always trump your small but rational fear.
A reasoned note. Lets see if I can reciprocate.
Let me mention to you something that hasn’t occurred to anyone one this thread yet, including me.
At ten months young children are not only surviving on mother’s milk any longer. They are getting other supplemental foods that enhance their nutrition.
For this outing one of those nutritious items could be brought along to satisfy the child’s need to be fed.
During the months younger than that, I question the need for a child that young to be a part of a pool scene. If someone can make the case for it, as long as the mom stays covered up, I have no problem.
In the instance that took place in the report on this thread, I find it a little difficult to believe the police were called and the mother removed simply due to her using simple poor judgement.
It makes me wonder if she was going beyond propriety to make it known she was staking her claim to the grounds, so to speak.
I’ve not stated that kids can’t be breast fed. I’ve tried to keep my objection based on overt displays.
You know, if you’re careful, you can have a large porion of your breast out, and the baby’s head will still shield the unmentionables. That’s probably not true for some well endowed women, but there are ways to cover up then too. A small clothe with a hole in it could work nicely.
The woman can’t claim the guy is scoping her out then, and that’s really all I’m concerned with.
I do think men have few advocates, and so sometimes I push a point if I think there’s one to be made.
Take care.
;)
One of my four children refused food and breast fed only for a full year. She also did not have teeth until after age one.
It’s also not our place to decide for other parents what, when and where their infant eats. It’s none of our business and it most certainly is none of the government’s business.
Older infants frequently do not like to be covered, because they want to see what is going on or wish to maintain eye contact with their mother. Breastfeeding is both food and a relationship.
The general public is just going to have to advert their eyes or leave the area. There is simply no way to write a law that wouldn’t be a gross imposition on the child’s natural right to eat.
The bathers noticed their silky soft skin after their swim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.