Karleen Gribble wrote:
> In Australia the relelvent authorities have considered discrimination
> on the basis of breastfeeding sex discrimination for quite a long
> time...it is spelled out specifically in some states. Makes sense.
Only if you are protecting the mother. This continues to position the
'right' as a lifestyle choice on behalf of the mother.
What we want in England & Wales, is the right of the child to be upheld
in tandem. Sex Discrimination is not the place to position the right of
the child, to the mother's freely given breast. :-)
This also makes sure that it is the rights of a hungry child -
regardless of caregiver or type of milk. Whilst it's very very very
very rare that anyone is harassed for bottle feeding, the myth is that
this happens all the time. Stating that the child is the rights holder,
and it's in respect of the child's need for milk, is valuable as it
constructs a bridge across the infant feeding divide. No one can be
asked to stop feeding a child milk, whether it be mother at the breast,
grannie with bottled breast, or father with formula. It's a great
leveller, making the argument about the rights of a hungry child,
regardless of feeding category.
It would be interesting to see how cross, and even wet, nursing would
pan out with this. The point made here, when an erroneous Government
point was challenged about a time limit on maternity protection for
breastfeeding, is that there is no time limit to maternity protection.
Therefore, is the presence of milk, a sign you are still under maternity
protection, even if you are actually feeding your own grand-child, or an
employer's child? Will maternity protection cover you for a child not
your own at all? Does a lactating breast equal maternity rights!
Another interesting quirk, would be a foster mother who had never
birthed, lactating for the child (an adoptee mother is entitled to full
maternity provision, which is why I said foster - sometimes a child is
in the foster stage for years before adoption takes place.) I have that
sort of convoluted mind!
Not quibbling about where things are positioned - just saying that the
right of the child, should be recognised, and paramount. It's the child
that's being discriminated against primarily.
Morgan Gallagher
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1950 - Release Date: 02/12/09 18:46:00
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
