My letter to the editor, below:

Subject: Philadelphia Daily News article

http://www.macon.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/12683568.htm

In giving thought to the opinion article "LACTOSE-INTOLERANT" by Christine
M. Flowers, I had to read several times to try to grasp exactly what Ms.
Flowers' precise issue was.  The vehement approach she used in taking
exception to the act of public breastfeeding was muddled by so many bizarre
metaphors that she loses her lawyerly sense of logic and persuasiveness.  

Ms. Flowers seems to have confused feeding with toileting, drawing a
parallel between a man urinating in public with a woman nursing her infant.
Further, she asserts that nursing belongs in the restroom.  One wonders when
Ms. Flowers last ate her lunch while sitting on the can in the women's
bathroom.  Certainly, if she regards the toilet as an appropriate place for
a baby to eat, she must dine there as well.

She states that she "expects and demands that people not force their own
militant preferences" on her in public places.  Interesting.  I'm still
scratching my head on this one, since the entire purpose of the article is
to force her own militant preferences on unsuspecting infants through her
public voice in a newspaper. How many times has Ms. Flowers been restrained
and cruelly forced to witness a nursing infant?  I imagine it likely that
Ms. Flowers is in complete control of her ability to avert her eyes. 

Ms. Flowers concludes with, "That seems to be the problem with many nursing
mothers - it's more about the image than about the child.

Her "evidence" for the above statement is that a woman chose to meet the
needs of her infant rather than concern herself with Ms. Flowers phobia of
bare breasts. That mothers fail to give into her "demand" that she control
the feeding of their babies. That mothers refuse to give their babies food
in a room designed for disposing of bodily waste.  That mothers seem worried
that they might be perceived as giving their children inferior nutrition by
formula-feeding. That mother's milk is better for babies.  That feeding is
necessary.  That breastfeeding (and breasts) are beautiful.  

One wonders, if this is evidence of women more concerned with their image
than the needs of their infant, how precisely does Ms. Flowers define a good
and selfless mother?  

Bottom line:  Her arguments are motivated by fear, substantiated with
misunderstandings, and fail to meet any standard for logic.  Worse yet, her
stance has the ability to cause direct harm to the health of infants by
discouraging their mothers from breastfeeding for all the wrong reasons.
Shame on her.  

Deb McCallister
Louisville, Kentucky




Posted on Mon, Sep. 19, 2005
Christine M. Flowers | LACTOSE-INTOLERANT

THE OTHER DAY, I was counseling a client on her legal options when, without 
pausing to ask if I minded, she lifted her blouse and began to breast-feed 
her infant daughter.

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer. E-mail [log in to unmask]

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html