In Defense of Breastfeeding and Wearing Socks
-by DL Stewart, humor columnist for the Dayton
Daily News
I've never nursed anything but an occasional
grudge, so maybe I have no right to an opinion.
But this whole breastfeeding flap has me puzzled
(about the 2 Ohio women who were asked to not
breastfeed at Wal-Mart and who have filed a court
case).
As you may have read, two area women are suing
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. because they say there were
not allowed to breastfeed their babies in the
stores. They're asking for apologies and a change
in the stores' policies.
This is hardly a new issue. It's been an
ongoing skirmish ever since breastfeeding was
invented by baby boomers in 1971.
But I still don't understand it.
Not only don't I understand why this is a controversy,
I can't even figure out who made it one.
What percentage of the public actually objects
to women nursing their babies in public?
Who are the people who strongly against breastfeeding
that Wal-Mart is willing to risk being known as
anti-motherhood in order to pacify them.
Is it men?
As with anything else that negatively affects
women- including unequal pay, splits ends and
varicose veins- the whole thing could be our fault,
I supposed. And I'm sure there are men who
are offended by the sight of a woman's bare breast,
although I don't personally know any. But
I don't think most men care if a woman nurses
her baby in Wal-Mart. Most men don't want to be
in Wal-Mart in the first place.
If it's not men who are upset, my next guess
is that it must be women.
That doesn't make sense to me either, though.
Any woman offended by the sight of breasts probably
would have a tough time getting dressed in the
morning.
Whoever they are, I'm sure the people who object
to breastfeeding in public have good reasons for
the way they feel. Such as, they have been
personally appointed by God to make sure the entire
world eventually is afflicted with as many sexual
hangups as possible.
But the biggest question I have about all this
is: Who decided which body parts are supposed
to be covered and which aren't?
Who made the rule that it's offensive for women
to bare their breasts but it's a lovely sight
when they appear in a pair of shorts that exposes
several acres of gelatinous flesh?
How did it become illegal for women to reveal
a nipple in public, but okay for men to show both
of theirs? Not to mention enormous Budweiser-filled
gust, hairy backs and really appetizing armpits?
Anyway, if we're going to cover up body parts,
I vote for anything that jiggles.
And feet.
Feet don't start out looking too bad. But by
the time a person reaches adulthood a lot of them
are covered with corns and calluses and hair and
chipped toenail polish and all sorts of nasty
things you hardly ever see on breasts. And
yet people think nothing of walking around in
public barefoot. Or wearing shower clogs or those
big clunky sandals that make them look like Roman
centurions.
So, for what it's worth, my opinion is that people
who have a problem with her breastfeeding in public
need to grow up. I think a woman should
have the right to nurse her baby anywhere she
pleases.
As long as she's wearing socks when she's doing
it.
|
