Jump to content
RememberSchiff

Add Breastfeeding to G2SS?

Recommended Posts

Some religions have more strict modesty rules than others.  Mothers have rights, but churches have rights too.  

 

My church has a very nice area for nursing mothers,  very nicely furnished and decorated.  Much more comfortable than a pew in the church or a folding chair in the hall.

 

Organizations do not have rights.  :)  They have members who have rights, and whereas some rights drive those members away others are more welcoming.

 

I do believe that @@David CO's church is the exception because I have never seen any church anywhere that is set up  for nursing mothers.  Cry Rooms, yes, but moms and dads both use those rooms for fussy children.

 

And yes, there are churches which I avoid due to a number of policies they engage in.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't there, so I won't pretend to have all the answers. I will say I'm not sure the council handled it poorly. The letter is kind, professional and diplomatic. It just doesn't tar and feather the leader like the mom wanted it to. The only thing I believe the council may have initially done poorly is that they clearly underestimated how this "issue" explodes.

 

I absolutely abhor this "issue." Like many people, I am 100% pro breastfeeding. My kids were and everyone knows it's the healthier (and cheaper) option. Sometimes there are moms who could exercise a bit more modesty. Sometimes they are covered up appropriately and it's a case of somebody overstepping. It's case by case and not something that we can armchair quarterback from she said, she accounts. Nor is it an issue that needs to decided on the national stage. I personally just don't get the "it's my right, so I don't have to consider anyone else."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Organizations have rights.  They sue and are sued as persons.  The extent of those rights under state, law varies from state to state, and those rights under federal law are  not identical with those of a

natural person, but the rights are many and significant, including the typical right to sue and be sued, to own property, and to engage in commercial and political speech.  Even associations, although not legal entities in most states, have some rights.

 

Rights sometimes conflict.  We try to teach youth to come to the better decision in such cases.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SM is a BSA backed personal zero-tolerant no legal basis bigot towards nursing infants and their mothers. 

 

Ooohhh, I see Godwin's Law on the horizon.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The SM is a BSA backed personal zero-tolerant no legal basis bigot towards nursing infants and their mothers. 

Ooohhh, I see Godwin's Law on the horizon.

I got a kick out of that string of words too. These days I can't tell the difference between sincere statements and satire

Edited by MattHiggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6/8/16

http://wwmt.com/news/nation-world/tennessee-woman-says-boy-scout-leader-shamed-her-for-breast-feeding-at-meeting

 

Now, many in the organization are admitting it was wrong.

 

"I'm meeting with the leaders tonight about the situation and to make sure they know it's her right to breastfeed--it's a state law," said Larry Brown (SE of local Council).

 

Miller says she doesn't want this to happen to anyone else.

 

She hopes the Boy Scouts will implement this policy across the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally would feel hesitant to support single individual who motivated to "get the word" out on any particular cause.  But in this situation the woman was publicly humiliated and shamed for doing what is legally her right.  This woman deserves an apology directly and publicly from the SM. 

 

In our state when two lanes of traffic merge down to one, both lanes are to go to the point of merger and then alternate cars to maintain flow.  Somewhere along the line people start to get into the one lane way back and leave the one lane open.  When someone legally moves forward to fill that lane people get the idea that they are jumping ahead in line.  I saw a trucker move over to block the lane and then forced someone off the road who tried to get around him.  I got the license number of the truck and stopped to see if the elderly couple that were forced off the road were okay.  They were.  I called in the situation and about 3 miles down the road the state police had the trucker pulled over.  They had not seen the situation and were going to write him a ticket.  I stopped and gave my name address and phone number, said the couple that had been forced off the road were okay, and I was witness to the whole incident and was willing to testify.  At that point the ticket went from a warning to a citation for leaving the scene of an accident.

 

Like the SM in our thread, maybe next time she'll understand the rules before she berates another human being.  I bet that from that point onward, she's going to have to stop and think twice before not approving a scout for living the Scout Spirit.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally would feel hesitant to support single individual who motivated to "get the word" out on any particular cause.  But in this situation the woman was publicly humiliated and shamed for doing what is legally her right.  This woman deserves an apology directly and publicly from the SM. 

 

In our state when two lanes of traffic merge down to one, both lanes are to go to the point of merger and then alternate cars to maintain flow.  Somewhere along the line people start to get into the one lane way back and leave the one lane open.  When someone legally moves forward to fill that lane people get the idea that they are jumping ahead in line.  I saw a trucker move over to block the lane and then forced someone off the road who tried to get around him.  I got the license number of the truck and stopped to see if the elderly couple that were forced off the road were okay.  They were.  I called in the situation and about 3 miles down the road the state police had the trucker pulled over.  They had not seen the situation and were going to write him a ticket.  I stopped and gave my name address and phone number, said the couple that had been forced off the road were okay, and I was witness to the whole incident and was willing to testify.  At that point the ticket went from a warning to a citation for leaving the scene of an accident.

 

Like the SM in our thread, maybe next time she'll understand the rules before she berates another human being.  I bet that from that point onward, she's going to have to stop and think twice before not approving a scout for living the Scout Spirit.

I guess we can just completely make up our own version of stories to help make our points. I read this story in Forbes before seeing the video linked here, but based on the own woman's accounts she wasn't, as you say, "publicly humiliated and shamed." Nor did the Scoutmaster "berate" her. In her own account she was talked to in private. Should the Scoutmaster have just let it go? Yup. Is it the woman's right to breastfeed wherever and whenever she likes? Yup. Is modesty (not saying she wasn't being modest as I wasn't there) required? Nope. All of that's true, but you just can't make up your own more dramatic and completely embellished version to suit your stance on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we can just completely make up our own version of stories to help make our points. I read this story in Forbes before seeing the video linked here, but based on the own woman's accounts she wasn't, as you say, "publicly humiliated and shamed." Nor did the Scoutmaster "berate" her. In her own account she was talked to in private. Should the Scoutmaster have just let it go? Yup. Is it the woman's right to breastfeed wherever and whenever she likes? Yup. Is modesty (not saying she wasn't being modest as I wasn't there) required? Nope. All of that's true, but you just can't make up your own more dramatic and completely embellished version to suit your stance on the issue.

 

Other accounts say she was shamed and embarrassed by the SM.  In video interviews she says the same thing.  One just has to find the media outlet that they like before they make comments on the forum, I guess.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2016/06/06/breastfeeding-mom-shamed-at-sons-boy-scout-meeting-bsa-response-inadequate/#735b6ae01d05

 

Even after re-reading the article in Forbes, I still think the actions of the SM publicly humiliated and embarrassed the woman without cause.  I will go so far as to say the SM displayed gross disregard and insensitivity to this woman and needs to apologize for her totally lapse in Scout Spirit of being helpful, friendly, courteous and kind.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other accounts say she was shamed and embarrassed by the SM.  In video interviews she says the same thing.  One just has to find the media outlet that they like before they make comments on the forum, I guess.

I've watched all the same media you have on it. She didn't publically shame her. She did not berate her. That wasn't her account. Saying she did completely blows what was said to have happened out of proportion. This is completely typical these days.

Edited by MattHiggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still trying to figure out where the mention of an autistic child and traumatic past incident comes in.  

 

The reality is that now that the media has less opportunity to bash BSA, some of its members simply are looking for new ways.  The BSA responses are often very poorly considered, and then add to the issue.  But, it really is a lot of noise, as I noted before.  Something to distract people from the "traumedy" of our ongoing political tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@skeptic  The Forbes article goes into detail on those issues.  Look at the post I added when I responded to Matt.

 

While not knowing about a person's past is unfortunate, it does not absolve one from being civil.  Instead of taking the woman aside and talking about it, maybe it should have been handled by the CC and committee.  The SM should be focused on providing the program for the boys, not monitoring the activities of the parents.  A heads up to the CC should have been the full extent of the SM's participation in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stosh;

 

Did go back and finally found the mention of the autism and such.  But, I still cannot figure out how this really has anything to do with it, other than an excuse to find fault.

 

Everybody at this point needs to take a deep breath.  Overreactions are seldom the best response.  Surely simply living the intent of the law should be sufficient, especially related to kind, friendly, courteous, and maybe cheerful too.  

 

It certainly is not something that needs to be on a National level of discussion.  So, I will not post any more regarding it, as I hope my thoughts are clear enough.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×