Woman Breast-fed Baby-Told It Is Weird

First topic message reminder :

A woman who breast-fed her new baby while conducting a job interview was left shocked when her male business partner told her it was 'a bit weird'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3946096/Mumsnet-user-left-shocked-business-partner-asks-not-breastfeed-job-interview.html#ixzz4Qf92N2jY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Goodness gracious me, someone else flashing.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

I wont ask who you consider to be the primitives....in your over inflated sense of self you probably think everyone.

I'll answer regardless - amongst other things, people who think breast-feeding is inappropriate because of other's sensibilities.

Including a swimming pool....which could inconvenience a lot of others just to pander to a woman who cant be bothered to walk a few yards and feed her child in the safety and comfort of a café or seating area?

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

I'll answer regardless - amongst other things, people who think breast-feeding is inappropriate because of other's sensibilities.

Including a swimming pool....which could inconvenience a lot of others just to pander to a woman who cant be bothered to walk a few yards and feed her child in the safety and comfort of a café or seating area?

Baby's needs come first - tough if it inconveniences others.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Including a swimming pool....which could inconvenience a lot of others just to pander to a woman who cant be bothered to walk a few yards and feed her child in the safety and comfort of a café or seating area?

Baby's needs come first - tough if it inconveniences others.

Other babies were in the swimming pool, what about their needs.
What of the needs of the pool owners who would have to empty or cleanse the pool if a baby is sick in it?

The world doesn't stop for everyone else just because a selfish mother puts her own needs (not the babies) before the rest of society.

Off to eat....have a good one. x

Syl wrote:The world doesn't stop for everyone else just because a selfish mother puts her own needs (not the babies) before the rest of society.

Off to eat....have a good one. x

People who put their own "inconveniences" before baby's needs are the selfish ones.

Bye Syl

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We are talking past one another.  For me:

Anywhere it's appropriate for men = it's appropriate for women.

The only way breastfeeding plays into this is it creates justification for the female where neither male or female nudity would be appropriate otherwise.  That would be in restaurants, airport and train lobbies, hospitals, hotel lobbies...any public place where necessity trumps propriety otherwise.

I have read this twice and I don't think I grasp exactly what you are saying.
I don't see anything wrong in a mother breast feeding in the places you mention....as long as they are safe and suitable.

Where I think we are different is in the first premise. I think that anywhere it is appropriate for a man to be bare-chested, so it is for a women. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate about a woman baring her breast, except we make it up in our minds.

Otherwise, I think we agree that there are needs associated with breastfeeding that we should respect and give a higher priority then other protocols.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:The world doesn't stop for everyone else just because a selfish mother puts her own needs (not the babies) before the rest of society.

Off to eat....have a good one. x

People who put their own "inconveniences" before baby's needs are the selfish ones.

Bye Syl.

Exactly like these mothers do you mean.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

People who put their own "inconveniences" before baby's needs are the selfish ones.

Bye Syl.

Exactly like these mothers do you mean.

No - nosey onlookers.

I believe a lot of old trouts do a floppy purely to get attention.

There is a discreet way to feed baby which everyone musta seen some time..

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

People who put their own "inconveniences" before baby's needs are the selfish ones.

Bye Syl.

Exactly like these mothers do you mean.

But there is no inconvenience to doing it in anyone's presence. If it bothers you, it bothers YOU, not others. As with any idiosyncrasy, you own that problem.

Major wrote:I believe a lot of old trouts do a floppy purely to get attention.

There is a discreet way to feed baby which everyone musta seen some time..

I don't believe that.  What would be the point?

Besides, it wouldn't be a disturbance if we were all conditioned to accept it.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Exactly like these mothers do you mean.

But there is no inconvenience to doing it in anyone's presence.  If it bothers you, it bothers YOU, not others.  As with any idiosyncrasy, you own that problem.

Too true.   The most natural, beautiful thing in the world is a mother feeding her baby.   It's the people who have a problem with it, who put sexual connitations on it, that have the problem.

mmmm...I would agree with that sassy, however....there are times and places where in all honesty it just isnt appropriate

as in Syl's example IN a swimming pool...what next ...change its shitty nappy IN the pool?

and in the case mentioned in the O/P

why in an interview....not as the interviewee BUT as an interviewer....

the guy is right....THAT is a bit wierd...not offensive..or even wrong...just......well........ wierd.....

Dear me - equating breast feeding to shitting in a swimming pool.

Ziz wrote:Dear me - equating breast feeding to shitting in a swimming pool.

idiot

both are required steps in caring for ones young ones....

Lord Foul wrote:mmmm...I would agree with that sassy, however....there are times and places where in all honesty it just isnt appropriate

as in Syl's example   IN a swimming pool...what next ...change its shitty nappy IN the pool?

and in the case mentioned in the O/P

why in an interview....not as the interviewee BUT as an interviewer....

the guy is right....THAT is a bit wierd...not offensive..or even wrong...just......well........ wierd.....

There are priorities. No, you don't want shit in the pool; so that's a priority. The baby needs to be fed; that's a priority. Your sensitivities should not be offended; that's not a priority. That's not even a necessity. Perhaps you should change your sensitivities.

Some things we give priorities to, are actually non-existent. Looking at a bare breast should be no different than looking at an ungloved hand.

Lord Foul wrote:

Ziz wrote:Dear me - equating breast feeding to shitting in a swimming pool.

idiot

both are required steps in caring for ones young ones....

Yes you are.

Knock it off...both.

adle pated old fossil

even more so since AFAIK babies dont wear nappies whilst swimming

Original Quill wrote:Knock it off...both.

Quite right - I accept admonishment for stooping low enough to respond in kind.

quill...............

This attention seeker was conducting a job interview. how off putting to the interviewee.

Major wrote:This attention seeker was conducting a job interview. how off putting to the interviewee.

Why - hadn't they seen a breast before?

Lord Foul wrote:adle pated old fossil

even more so since AFAIK   babies dont wear nappies whilst swimming

They do.

http://www.mothercare.com/bathing-and-changing/nappy-changing/swim-nappies/

Blimey spindly...thats a new one on me....

whatever next

Ziz wrote:

Major wrote:This attention seeker was conducting a job interview. how off putting to the interviewee.

Why - hadn't they seen a breast before?

Have you?????

Why was this baby even at the interview?

eddie wrote:Why was this baby even at the interview?

it's explained in the article.

Ziz wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:Dear oh dear, the Mail is still pandering to primitives by doing stories about women breastfeeding.

,
And women are still running to the papers whinging that they should be able to breast feed anytime, anyplace, anywhere, no matter how unprofessional or unsuitable that place may be.

The only difference in this story is the tree hugging mother is not gurning to the camera with her breasts out...though there is time.

And so they should - only a true primitive or pervert would object to someone feeding a baby naturally .

that argument doesn't hold water during a job interview.

It is very rude and very unprofessional the interviewee would have every right to believe that their application is not being taken seriously and they are not beign interviewed by someone giving them their full attention.

You would not eat a sandwich while interviewing 
No one is objecting to feeding a baby naturally, what they are objecting to is the totally unprofessional behaviour.
Again If your are interviewing someone formally then You don't eat your lunch while they are presenting themselves to You.

Think of it from the interviewees persepctive, It is hard enough and that is defintily off putting, if she doesn't do it for every interviewee then it is unfair to the people she behaved so disrepectfully to.

Ziz wrote:

Major wrote:This attention seeker was conducting a job interview. how off putting to the interviewee.

Why - hadn't they seen a breast before?

maybe they hadn't?

are you going to discriminate agaisnt them because they haven't

As the Employer the mother's rights Come second SHE has the duty to the interviewee to ensure a fair and non discriminatory process

The baby's needs are paramount - and determined foremost by the mother. If you cant handle seeing a breast in the interview then perhaps you can't handle a job there.

veya_victaous wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Why - hadn't they seen a breast before?

maybe they hadn't?

are you going to discriminate agaisnt them because they haven't

As the Employer the mother's rights Come second SHE has the duty to the interviewee to ensure a fair and non discriminatory process

It is not discrimination.

yes it is
it is discriminatory to the person that hasn't seen tits


 
it is unfair and this individual is definitely a moron that damages the right of women everywhere to breastfeed in public when appropriate (which would be anytime anywhere it is appropriate to eat) by trying to use it as an excuse for Being Rude and disrespectful to others, clearly a case of self-absorption, her having a baby doesn't mean no one else in the world matters.
And being an employer means being organised, it is undoubtable rude and unprofessional to Book a time for Someone to present themselves to you, where they have a right to expect your full attention and then Not give them your full attention.

veya_victaous wrote:yes it is
it is discriminatory to the person that hasn't seen tits


 
it is unfair and this individual is definitely a moron that damages the right of women everywhere to breastfeed in public when appropriate (which would be anytime anywhere it is appropriate to eat) by trying to use it as an excuse for Being Rude and disrespectful to others, clearly a case of self-absorption, her having a baby doesn't mean no one else in the world matters.
And being an employer means being organised, it is undoubtable rude and unprofessional to Book a time for Someone to present themselves to you, where they have a right to expect your full attention and then Not give them your full attention.

That is plain daft - like arguing if you're asked a question about Mozart it is discriminatory if you haven't heard, or heard of, Mozart.

And if an interviewer wants to catch you out - using breasts, babies, or any other non-criminal device or question then it's their prerogative.

No it's not, it's Unprofessional
Which is EXACTLY what the Article says and MOST people agree
SO it is YOU that needs to get a reality check about what is the Minimum standard expected

And YES an employer asking about mozart TO Just one applicant, if classical music is not part of the Job is DISCRIMINATION, Why would a non european know about some old irrelevant european composer.

And the Bitch got called out for being unprofesisonal By her colleauges !!!
I dont give a shit if you have a Kid that is Literally YOUR PROBLEM. (more than enough  people already no need for any more)

If you cant be professional Dont whinge when your called out for being unprofessional, which is what this dumb ass did so she should be made an exampel of so Other morons stop thinking that everything else goes out the window because they had a kid.

Ziz wrote:The baby's needs are paramount - and determined foremost by the mother. If you cant handle seeing a breast in the interview then perhaps you can't handle a job there.

ZIZ your statement is an Example of COMPLETE IDIOCY, plain and simple
that is the sort of LW nonsense LF rightful accuses the LW brits of being deluded with.
Fully agree people that can make a statement like with a stright face, that have no more business voting than Tommy and Major, too dumb.


the interviewee didn't even complain
her own Colleauge pointed out how UNPROFESSIONAL she is being
then she went online to whinge
and got told by the MAJORITY that Yes she is being Unprofessional

Because CLEARLY she is being unprofessional.

There is nothing legally discriminatory about asking just one candidate a specific question - produce the statute.

(BTW, the ad homs are wasted on me, son - but enjoy your vent).

veya_victaous wrote:

Ziz wrote:The baby's needs are paramount - and determined foremost by the mother. If you cant handle seeing a breast in the interview then perhaps you can't handle a job there.

ZIZ your statement is an Example of COMPLETE IDIOCY, plain and simple
that is the sort of LW nonsense LF rightful accuses the LW brits of being deluded with.
Fully agree people that can make a statement like with a stright face, that have no more business voting than Tommy and Major, too dumb.


the interviewee didn't even complain
her own Colleauge pointed out how UNPROFESSIONAL she is being
then she went online to whinge
and got told by the MAJORITY that Yes she is being Unprofessional

Because CLEARLY she is being unprofessional.

Aren't you being a bit judgmental?  Maybe the mom couldn't find someone to hold the baby, let alone feed him.  Maybe the kid's on a feeding schedule.  Maybe the interview was a 'take it or leave it' proposition.  You make all these assumptions about how it's the victim's fault, but you never ask the one question of the one person who was powerless to control the situation.  That's the problem with the rich...they say things like, Let them eat cake.

This seems to be another gap between the haves, and the have nots.

who said legally?

Your saying that a woman Should not go back to work, Cause the BABY is all that matters, and She cant be professional and Look after a baby. (rather than just accepting that the OP is unprofessional Moron)

BUT BUT BUT the baby is paramount.... IF the baby is paramount it is WRONG to even Let her go back to work.. is that what you say?

is that your unthought through argument? that equates to "It's got a vagina it is always right and can do what ever it wants"?
OR Is it as i said, you want Nonsense that Makes Left wingers Look like morons?

I have a go at the right whingers for not calling out their idiots, I cant be hypocrite and not call out Left wing Idiocy now can I?

If it's not legally discriminatory it means diddly-squat - call me a twat, and only me a twat, what can I do? Twat all.  

And yes, the welfare of babies is paramount.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Ziz wrote:The baby's needs are paramount - and determined foremost by the mother. If you cant handle seeing a breast in the interview then perhaps you can't handle a job there.

ZIZ your statement is an Example of COMPLETE IDIOCY, plain and simple
that is the sort of LW nonsense LF rightful accuses the LW brits of being deluded with.
Fully agree people that can make a statement like with a stright face, that have no more business voting than Tommy and Major, too dumb.


the interviewee didn't even complain
her own Colleauge pointed out how UNPROFESSIONAL she is being
then she went online to whinge
and got told by the MAJORITY that Yes she is being Unprofessional

Because CLEARLY she is being unprofessional.

Aren't you being a bit judgmental?  Maybe the mom couldn't find someone to hold the baby, let alone feed him.  Maybe the kid's on a schedule.  Maybe the interview was a 'take it or leave it' proposition.  You make all these assumptions about how it's the victim's fault, but you never ask.  That's the problem with the rich...they say things like, Let them eat cake.

This seems to be another gap between the haves, and the have nots.

SHE is the Employer in Control of the interview
and Co owner
NOT A VICITM
She had control of the circumstance enough. to be the perpertator not the victim.

she could have I dunno 'managed' her time something she undoubtable expects from her employees..

veya_victaous wrote:who said legally?

Your saying that a woman Should not go back to work, Cause the BABY is all that matters, and She cant be professional and Look after a baby. (rather than just accepting that the OP is unprofessional Moron)

BUT BUT BUT the baby is paramount.... IF the baby is paramount it is WRONG to even Let her go back to work.. is that what you say?

is that your unthought through argument? that equates to "It's got a vagina it is always right and can do what ever it wants"?
OR Is it as i said, you want Nonsense that Makes Left wingers Look like morons?

I have a go at the right whingers for not calling out their idiots, I cant be hypocrite and not call out Left wing Idiocy now can I?

The Mum needs work. That is clear or she would be there. If she had to be there, and the baby had to be fed, what is your solution? We're all lefties...we don't leave the answers to the abyss of nothingness, like rightys.

So let's hear your answer.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Aren't you being a bit judgmental?  Maybe the mom couldn't find someone to hold the baby, let alone feed him.  Maybe the kid's on a schedule.  Maybe the interview was a 'take it or leave it' proposition.  You make all these assumptions about how it's the victim's fault, but you never ask.  That's the problem with the rich...they say things like, Let them eat cake.

This seems to be another gap between the haves, and the have nots.

SHE is the Employer in Control of the interview
and Co owner
NOT A VICITM
She had control of the circumstance enough. to be the perpertator not the victim.

she could have I dunno 'managed' her time something she undoubtable expects from her employees..

Well then, FUCK! She can do what she wants. End of...

And just to be clear - for the purposes of this forum's pathetic obsession with lefties and righties, I am not a lefty.

Ziz wrote:If it's not legally discriminatory it means diddly-squat - call me a twat, and only me a twat, what can I do? Twat all.  

And yes, the welfare of babies are paramount.

So you think she was abusing her child by working
Good of you to point out how littel you have considered your position beyond
it has a vagina

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:who said legally?

Your saying that a woman Should not go back to work, Cause the BABY is all that matters, and She cant be professional and Look after a baby. (rather than just accepting that the OP is unprofessional Moron)

BUT BUT BUT the baby is paramount.... IF the baby is paramount it is WRONG to even Let her go back to work.. is that what you say?

is that your unthought through argument? that equates to "It's got a vagina it is always right and can do what ever it wants"?
OR Is it as i said, you want Nonsense that Makes Left wingers Look like morons?

I have a go at the right whingers for not calling out their idiots, I cant be hypocrite and not call out Left wing Idiocy now can I?

The Mum needs work.  That is clear or she would be there.  If she had to be there, and the baby had to be fed, what is your solution?  We're all lefties...we don't leave the answers to the abyss of nothingness, like rightys.  

So let's hear your answer.

managed her time

not made it harder on someone else getting a job
she was in a postions where she could have let the someone else sit in since she wasn't going to be giving the interviewee her attention

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Aren't you being a bit judgmental?  Maybe the mom couldn't find someone to hold the baby, let alone feed him.  Maybe the kid's on a schedule.  Maybe the interview was a 'take it or leave it' proposition.  You make all these assumptions about how it's the victim's fault, but you never ask.  That's the problem with the rich...they say things like, Let them eat cake.

This seems to be another gap between the haves, and the have nots.

SHE is the Employer in Control of the interview
and Co owner
NOT A VICITM
She had control of the circumstance enough. to be the perpertator not the victim.

she could have I dunno 'managed' her time something she undoubtable expects from her employees..

Well then, FUCK!  She can do what she wants.  End of...

she can and the other co owner can call her unprofessional for it, there is no law agaisnt being unprofessional.
BUT
she has then gone and posted her dumb ass online, zero Sympathy for anyone that is a dumb ass and then goes and tries to PRETEND they are the victim online.

Story is woman behaves unprofessionally and has that pointed out by her colleauge..
She then goes to whinge only obviously expecting support, cause she has a vagina so everything she does must be wonderful and it is everyone elses problem that she has a baby, they shodul bend over backward for her without complaint.
Instead is meet with the general consensus that she Did in fact behave unprofessionally..

She is the Perpertrator PRETENDING to be a victim, the victims where who ever was unfortunate enough to be interviewed and the Colleague that she has tried to publically shame for just pointing her unprofessional behaviour.

Major wrote:A woman who breast-fed her new baby while conducting a job interview was left shocked when her male business partner told her it was 'a bit weird'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3946096/Mumsnet-user-left-shocked-business-partner-asks-not-breastfeed-job-interview.html#ixzz4Qf92N2jY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Goodness gracious me, someone else flashing.

He should have torn that baby off her boob and pitched it out the window! That would teach HER to be "normal" hahahahahahahahaha

Why did she not feed the child before she came out? If it starts crying [with hunger]? stick a Dummy in it's gob to keep it quiet.

She could've said "Excuse me a moment gentlemen, I'm just off to find a quiet spot to feed my baby. Shall we take a half hour break or do you wish to continue without me?"

It really is that simple.

Would a blind man let his seeing-eye dog, shit on the carpet?
After all it's only a natural thing for his dog to do?

Sorry I am not against breastfeding in public but she was just being a tad ignorant if you ask me.