They still don't get it

I understand about the moral high ground issue, but that didn't apply to me either. I breast fed because, for me, it was the easiest option. That simple. It was nobody else's business nor did what other people might think about feeding babies of any relevance to me. I honestly don't give a damn what other people choose to do regarding feeding infants. Never did.

I'm SICK of accusatory implications from people who have a THING (a negative thing) about breast feeding

but who will go "aww, cute!" when they see suckling lambs'tail wiggling or lion cubs getting milk from their mothers. We are mammals. Get over it folks.

petallus In the unlikely event that I ever went to Claridge's (or some other expensive place like it) it would be a cherished, special event. If, when I walked in, I saw a baby at the next table I would probably be apprehensive. Babies are not just quietly fed. They have to be burped, sometimes they vomit back the feed and often they fill their nappies after feeding. It would spoil the atmosphere a bit for me.

I am inclined to agree with that. I read an article a couple of years ago, written by a mother who was complaining that some other mothers of babies were changing their nappies on the floor of the cafe next to her after feeding and burping them, rather as an act of defiance than it being a convenient place to do it. The thought of a milky vomit followed by a lovely rip-roaring nappy filling is fine in some circumstances but probably not when you have gone out for a lovely afternoon tea with friends!

DD, when feeding DGS in Australia, usually discreetly covered her and DGS up with a gauzy muslin nappy as she was conscious of 'stares' if she did not, and it was more for her own sake than for the sensibilities of other people around.
I remember the very same DD dragging the local shopkeeper in when he delivered the groceries 'to see Mummy feeding the baby' when DS was tiny. He was extremely embarrassed - obviously expecting a bottle to be in the baby's mouth! He went scarlet and backed out of the room rapidly.

Unfortunately, breasts have been 'sexualised' and are not just for feeding babies these days. That is why some people may find it perturbing.

However the women themselves feel, breast feeders at the moment seem to be celebrated and feted in the press, especially if they make a stand in a public place against a ban on their activities. And let's face it, some women are hugely smug about breast feeding.

There was reference in an article in the Guardian over the weekend to the breast feeding mafia and I do think they exist. It is a woman's right to breast feed but it is also a woman's right to bottle feed without being looked upon as somehow inferior.

Bottle feeders don't flaunt it!

Anyway, there are at least two different issues here.

Some people are against breast feeders on 'prudish' grounds because the breast might be exposed. This obviously would not apply to bottle feeders.

Then there is the question of whether or not it is considerate to feed a baby (by breast or bottle) with all that entails, in a posh restaurant or somewhere else like a concert or at the theatre where it would be distracting to others.

And I don't want to knock formula milk. It has been a life saver (literally) for my little GGS. His mother started by breast feeding but after four weeks her milk dried up. I wonder what happened to babies in this position before good old Cow and Gate.

Petallus I'm sorry that a baby being fed would 'spoil the atmosphere' for you.
One of the nice things about having babies and small children in Hongkong was that they were welcomed everywhere.
When DS was a month old, we went with some friends to one of our favourite restaurants. I can't remember whether I fed him there or not, but the waiters were so concerned that he was wearing only a vest and a nappy(in the stifling heat and humidity of Hongkong in August) that one of them whisked him out of his carrycot, took him away and brought him back a couple of minutes later, swaddled in a tablecloth.
My friends and I would take our children for lunch at the Repulse Bay Hotel, not quite up there with Claridges but pretty upmarket nonetheless.
The children were always welcomed, whether they were breast or bottle fed, by the staff and fellow guests alike.

It seems that it's only in the West where this Victorian attitude that children should be seen and not heard, and preferably not even seen, sadly persists.

Claridges, and the Ritz, I would suggest, might be seen as more ostentatious than, say, Browns, but then, that is now part of the Forte chain. Libertys, then, is probably for the more discerning.

I'd actually prefer cocktails anywhere than afternoon tea, though one could segue gracefully into the other. And as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing lovelier than a mother breast feeding her baby, anywhere, despite what the prudes of the world may think.

Breast feeding is so much cheaper - milk for nothing! Having been breast fed myself and watched my younger sisters also being breast fed, it never occurred to me to do anything else. I defend the right of any woman to feed her baby any where, by any method. You can't tell a hungry baby to wait. I used to go to a quiet place to feed mine because I felt it enhanced the relationship to be alone with my child - a book of short stories was a useful accompaniment to a feed. But that was my choice and when I see a baby being breast fed, it gives me a warm feeling. Incidentally, petallus, I was with my DS's partner when she fed her son in the John Lewis café and no-one was in the least bothered.

I don't understand why it's ostentatious to have afternoon tea at Claridge's. In my experience, if you have been on a shopping spree with a couple of your shopaholic sisters and you all feel worn out and footsore and the nearest shop is Claridge's, then that is where you stop.

I didn't interpret petallus's use of the word 'élite' in the same way as you, thatbags. Nothing to do with class or money, but more of a moral high-ground issue.

nonu, I don't think women breast feed their babies for anyone else's benefit. If old women shouldn't look at page 3 boobs, the part of the population at whom breast feeding is not "aimed" can just look away and mind their own business.

I understand the point you're making, petallus, but I don't agree with it, mainly because I think it too great a generalisation. Was I part of an elite group when I breast fed my first child? When we got a rate rebate because we were badly off and later, when DD2 arrived, free milk for DD1? I don't think so.

The question that should be asked is this: if you (anyone) saw a baby being bottle fed anywhere—bus, in the street, in a café or even in a posh restaurant—would you (anyone) mind? I think the answer is no. As far as I'm concerned there's no essential difference. In both cases the simple fact is that a baby is being fed and that is all.

Any distaste or discomfort people feel is a product of misguided prudery.

As for all those people "ostentatiously" partaking of afternoon tea in Claridge's Hotel...

Did any customer actually complain, I wonder?

I don't recognise myself or anyone else I know in your description of mothers that have breast fed,*petallus*.

I was unsuccessful in breastfeeding my first child but breast fed my second child for a year.

I didn't consider myself as "elite" in any way - indeed, on the first occasion there were very few of us on the ward and we got very little support or encouragement. I really don't see how you can characterise two groups of women in such a rigid way. Some mothers may well be humble and self-effacing while others may be smug and self-righteous but I don't think either description can be determined by whether they breast feed or not.

Formula milk has been encouraged for commercial reasons and it has been and continues to be marketed in countries where poor hygiene conditions and lack of education mean that instructions for preparing milk and sterilising equipment cannot be followed. Women in these countries saw what was happening in richer countries and, with the help of marketing strategies, assumed that this practice was superior. I'm glad that more women are breast feeding, if only to dispel that myth.

I agree with both your posts Petallus & Tegan, very much!!

I don"t think they publish Page three for old women, I their market is aimed at young chaps .

I agree with you, petallus. I asked the S.O. how he would feel about someone feeding a baby in our lounge, and he said he would feel embarrassed and not know where to look. When mine were babies I would stay in the same room as any visitors but sit slightly away from them. My daughter did the same with hers. Thinking about it, I think it's because there's aomething very personal and intimate about breast feeding a baby; at least I found that. And, when mine were that age I don't think I ever found the time to get dressed up and go to a posh restaurant; every time I got dressed I was usually vomited on [and always had a nappy pin stuck somewhere]. Must point out that both the S.O. and I are both totally in favour of breast feeding by the way.

Breast feeders are such an elite group compared with bottle feeders.

I wonder how many of the latter would sit at a table in Claridge's waiting to order and bring out a bottle to feed their infant.

I am guessing not that many. Bottle feeders are far more humble and have less sense of entitlement. And yet if they choose to take their baby with them on jaunts out they in exactly the same position when it comes to coping with a hungry baby.

I am going to confess something terribly non PC. In the unlikely event that I ever went to Claridge's (or some other expensive place like it) it would be a cherished, special event. If, when I walked in, I saw a baby at the next table I would probably be apprehensive. Babies are not just quietly fed. They have to be burped, sometimes they vomit back the feed and often they fill their nappies after feeding. It would spoil the atmosphere a bit for me.

I wouldn't mind this in the John Lewis café so much.

Sorry, I'm a disgrace to GN

Breasts do not have to be exposed during breast feeding, and usually they are not.

Hattie it's a difference between the biological function of breasts and the cultural significance of breasts in a sexual context.
A woman being comfortable breast-feeding in a public place is not at all the same thing as deliberately exposing herself.

When these stories emerge I always wonder if the ladies, if they were not breastfeeding, would still happily expose themselves. Can't see the difference myself and tend to think it is a "look at me and I dare you to complain" scenario.

We always used to watch Question Time- but now, as we are 1 hour ahead here- and especially in Winter- we often miss it- just too late. But will defo be watching next week!!!

Yes, merlotgran, they are. I thought it was this week and a group of friends I was with on Thursday broke up early to go home and watch! When I got home I discovered it is next week, not this week. Whoops. I think Nigel Farage makes some valid points, to be honest, but I don't envy David Dimbleby chairing QT with him AND Russell Brand on the panel. Will definitely make good telly, though.

Nigel Farage and Russell Brand are both on Question Time next week. Can't stand either of them but should be lively!

Personally I've never considered page 3 erotic in any way, I have to say.

Breasts are indeed very erotic- but then surely not in public places?

I think it's time for Nigel Farage to come on to Gransnet for a little chat.

I auppose the difference is page 3 has overtones of eroticism and breastfeeding (hopefully) does not.

no- of course not- but certainly not for Page 3 ...

Breasts are obviously for breastfeeding but is that all?