On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 10:42:58 EDT, Melissa Kirsch wrote:
>That you are male, came to mind, before I even read your comment on the
>bottom.  How obnoxious.

My first read was that it was pure sexism, and I was pissed!  Then I thought:
"Can he really be stupid enough to think that men will be a significant part
of the market for these?"  I think there might be a couple dozen of us among
thousands of potential clients.  It just doesn't make sense.

My nest thought was: "How can he expect anyone interested in advancing
BFing to be insensitive enough to want to deal with his company after this?"

There is, however, the possibility that he was changing tack because I had
told him that another company was interested in producing the checks, and
really had no idea how negative he had previously sounded.  Therefore, in
accordance with the principle:  "Never attribute to malice that which is
adequately explained by stupidity", I'm not saying it's sexism.  Fortunately,
the other company's proposal seems a much better approach, so there's
no need to decide if Custom is worth working with.  If we do, however, have
any dealings with them, I think it should be handled by one of the women.
Just in case it is sexism, we may as well make sure he knows whom he's
dealing with.

I don't think it's a good idea to restrict the checks to one organization, be it
LLLI or ILCA.  We should try to maximize the customer base by offering
them through both organizations, Lactnet, Lactivist, parent-L,
misc.kids.breastfeeding, and any other way we have to reach BF advocates.
The more people who use BF checks, the more society will notice the
return to BF.  Nothing impresses business like money, and seeing BF
checks will bring the point home the most effective way possible.

Just my .02.

Jonathan

  Only G-d knows the formula for mother's milk

          L. Jonathan Kramer, P.E.
            [log in to unmask]
       Graduate Breastfeeding Counselor
         Student Lactation Consultant
      Certified Medela Nursing Bra Fitter