“The StarPhoenix used ‘Mother-In’ in the headline’!”
About 70 mothers and children attended the event, prompted by a blog post in which NewsTalk 650 producer Tammy Robert commented on a politician’s choice to breastfeed during a press conference. Her entry, entitled Children and the Places They Don’t Belong, created lots of debate after it was posted last week. In it, she criticized Saskatchewan Green party Leader Amber Jones’s decision to include her six-month-old daughter in a media event.
The tolerant left strikes again. In response to Tammy Roberts’ criticism that a baby has no place as a political prop, 35 women arrived with 35 props to protest on her employers’ doorstep.
“I am mammal, hear me roar”.
What else can you say about a woman who would show up for a breast feeding solidarity march, other than that life must be pretty damned dismal if you have to resort to digging about inside your bra to find a sense of importance.
justaskin….you missed one that applies directly to you,no friggin clue.
Posted by: bob c at May 2, 2008 12:20 PM
I think you missed the point bob. When venturing onto the road of sensationalism one must realize it is a two way street. There is a double standard here. I didn’t post what you seem to be taking exception with. Someone else did. Sound familiar? So why aren’t you addressing any of that?
You mention cheap shots etc. and I agree. There is a lot of that in blogging and the venue is not improved by it. Lot’s of cherry picking too. If you took issue with that, it might reduce the cheap shots and friction that results from it. I expect it would fall on deaf ears though. Another thing bob, is that I don’t start the invective. Its purpose is to intimidate someone so they won’t offer differing and challenging material. I don’t see those posts being removed bob.
Maybe you are just trying a different tack to achieve the same thing? And you are overreaching, I didn’t say bloggers should apologize for making money. I can’t believe that you don’t see the contradictions. I think you see them clearly. Picking and choosing what qualifies as free speech was the point I was making, but you knew that.
Should that comment have been made? I don’t think it added anything to the topic being discussed. In fact I was going to say so once the person confirmed. But it was removed before I had a chance.
As a parent of many Children, I think about the future. Their future. Hope that clears things up for you.
Hugger
‘Sorry, no time to read this whole thread: I’m still working outside the home for a living–because I stayed home with my kids and breastfed them for quite a while.
I wouldn’t let department stores “make” me breastfeed my babies in the washroom, which is where they always directed me when I’d tell the ladies in the dress department that I was going to use one of their cubicles in which to feed my crying 3-month-old, usually at 10:00 o’clock in the morning (like, there’s a rush on the change rooms).
It’s always bothered me that boobs are used in North America to sell everything from beer to gum to cars but when a woman tries to feed her baby in public–using her breasts for one of their main functions–otherwise reasonable people get priggish and offended.
On the other hand, I’d never take a breastfeeding baby to work, AND I always covered my nursing baby and exposed breast with a blanket, which seemed like the civilized and reasonable thing to do.
Hugger;
You said in your 5:04pm post, “Should that comment have been made? I don’t think it added anything to the topic being discussed”, thereby implying that it shouldn’t have been.
Yet in reality, it was you who solicited the details in your 1:54pm post. “Can you tell us why Kate wouldn’t know about that? I hope the answer doesn’t get blocked.”
So, far from thinking the original comment irrelevant, you were soliciting further detail while crossing your fingers and hoping it would see the light of day, then using the answer to provide further comment of your own. I refer to your 2:37pm post.
Are you always that slippery with the things you say? I understand the temptation, but is winning an argument worth your credibility?
Posted by: bob c at May 2, 2008 9:53 PM
Your intent is now crystal clear bob c. Considering you ignore questions, answers and you don’t address the 13 point post above or the original post that you claim bothered you. You are trying to grind a little axe bob c.
You exposed your purpose so you can dispense with the act now. I think you should answer your own question on credibility. Maybe you will be more inclined to answer your own question.
Why don’t you attack the real issues that are grinding your grits? You are another denier who is cheesed because he can’t manage to get any licks in to overcome the weight of evidence. Fess up bob c, and come out of the closet.
Hugger
I’m a “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” kinda guy. I don’t like eating in the can and I can’t imagine why I should have the right to demand that some other Human Being eat in there. I don’t rush over to tell Mommy dearest not to feed her toddler soda pop & fries either.