ann arbor is overrated.

Breastfeeding Ordinance Passes

As usual, the A2 solution to a politicized dispute goes overboard. We’re all for public breastfeeding being accepted without a second thought, but does this mean that it now must be allowed in CAEN labs and libraries, near rare books and expensive computer equipment where food and drink is prohibited? The coffee drinkers need a La Cafe League or something to advocate for their rights.

103 Responses to “Breastfeeding Ordinance Passes”

Haha!!

God, I hate that when nursing mothers start spraying their breastmilk all over rare books and expensive computer equipment.
posted by Sarah on February 7th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
I think it is unfair that this law is restricted to babies!
posted by Alan Gutierrez on February 7th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Breastfeeding is definitely in the mouth of the beholder.
posted by Dave on February 7th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
This is the perfect culmination of the no-kids-in-the-coffeeshops/too-many-children-eat-them! debate on “Slow News Day”…kids in coffeeshops coupled with exposed breasts! When will the madness end?

I do think this issue is *so* Ann Arbor, though. When are we going to get the pro-public nudity ordinance that Berkely has/had? Now that’s cool…
posted by Transplant on February 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
What Sarah said is the funniest thing I’ve read all day, and I haven’t been doing anything all day but reading funny things.

Some kids can do pretty impressive exorcist-style spitups, but I’ll wager it’s less of a hazard than a 20-year-old flash-puking the healing Miller Lite he slammed down before heading to the Library, or Caen Center, or whatever.

But look, I’d have to be in complete support this at LEAST until somebody makes Mr. Wembley cover his hairy, pendulous pectorals while mowing his lawn in August.
posted by Nitro on February 7th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I’m in favour of great chunks of nudity and don’t really care about breastfeeding one way or the other, but when I read “breastfeeding IN the (public) pool” I was both - feelin’ just a little skeeved and thinking “that really seems most foolhardy”, a freak accident just waiting to happen. I’m told they’re slippery when wet.
posted by stella on February 7th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
she wants to feed her whelp in the pool?

ewwwwwww!!!!!

my kids pee in that pool!
posted by peter honeyman on February 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
” … many incidents that can be more distracting to a lifeguard than a breast-feeding mother. At the Y, there are teenagers walking around in thong bathing suits …”

Wait, is this about the [un]tidiness of breast milk, or is this about a lifeguard who couldn’t keep his eyes on the pool?
posted by RD on February 7th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I think both. You have to appreciate that these are (often) young people who are on lifeguard duty. A breast is a breast is a breast (or, a breast! is a breast! is a breast!) to some folks. I am a nursing mom and I have to admit even I get a little stunned when I see another woman pop one out uncovered in the library, etc. And then there is that uncomfortable thing that happens when your eyes just can’t rest anywhere in the room except on the thing that you don’t want to look at. It’s not always sexual, but it’s something unusual that piques your interest. I can totally see where it would be a distraction. It’s a distraction that I try to minimize, but it just happens sometimes…
posted by Transplant on February 7th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Babies eat, babies puke. Feed the baby, let it puke, then go swimming. Or better yet, swim first, then feed the kid. I won’t swim in your toilet if you don’t piss in my pool.

Have you ever taken your kids to an Ann Arbor City pool? “Hey you! Don’t touch the rope!” “Hey you! No piggy back rides!” “Hey you! No diving toys!” “Hey you! Hey you!”

Typical Ann Arbor City Council bullshit. Pick a fight with the organization responsible for the one thing that’s going right downtown. I guess that’s what the Y gets for building in the “Greenway.” Those fucking Young Christian Men!

Once the City wastes another several hundred thousand dollars defending this in court and loses, what next?

I suppose Council could rent more rooms at the Motel 6 and shuttle nursing mothers out there and back. That could only cost what, a million bucks a year?

Or…stay with me here…a new urban green space along the railroad tracks through town specifically dedicated to unrestricted breastfeeding. We’ll call it….The Milkyway!

I can see it now…A baby quietly nurses on a bench as the 3:00pm freight rumbles into town. “Oh shit! Watch out! There’s a car stalled on the tracks!! Stop the train!!! Stop!!! What the hell is distracting that damn engineer anyway?
posted by Delgado on February 7th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
In some of the engin buildings (GG Brown, Pierpont), they have a special room off to the side of the restroom for nursing. There’s a little nursing-mom figure next to the women’s and men’s, even. And then one wouldn’t have to nurse in a bathroom, or a CAEN lab. I don’t know why anyone would want to be in a CAEN lab if you didn’t need to be, anyway. Usually the places are ridicuously cold, uncomfortable, and crowded. I’ve only gone to one drunk a couple of times - why would you want to waste a buzz there?

I’m all for promoting breastfeeding, and I certainly understand that the mothers do need to be accomodated. But when one is just being plain difficult when there’s an easy alternative - like 80% of the building… it’s ridiculous.

But whatever makes the Ann Arbor City Council think they’re promoting “liberal” ideas still, and gets them to sleep soundly at night, I suppose.

And if the Y is a public place, they wouldn’t mind if I stop by and chill by the pool, right? I’m short of cash these days, but I’m sure it’s strictly a voluntary basis, like the UMMA.
posted by Anonymous on February 7th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
So … if babies/toddlers can have breast milk, can they have breast milk from a bottle? If they can have breast milk from a bottle, can they have formula from a bottle? If they can have formula from a bottle, can they hold their own bottle? If they can hold their own bottle, can they walk around with it? If they can walk around with it, can they have a sippy cup?

The phrase “slippery slope” is overused, but sometimes it’s still useful.

And yeah, “in the pool” skeeved me out, too, even if it was just a foot of water. How can a mother be as attentive as safety requires to her swimming toddler if she is trying to breastfeed a baby and balance on another slippery slope — the entrance to the pool — at the same time?

Breastfeeding is a finite period in your and your child’s life, and I feel that some sacrifices are required — and that “not in the pool” is reasonable.
posted by Jen on February 8th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I don’t think the ordinance is enforceable on private property, and I don’t agree with it, but while we’re on the topic of pool safety, have you ever been to Veteran’s in the middle of the summer? I constantly see toddlers and young children playing in the zero-entry area while their parents are sequestered on deck chairs in the grassy area, a good 20-30 yards away from the pool, eating, reading, chatting, napping, or otherwise not paying attention to their children. If that’s okay from a safety sandpoint, then what’s the big deal about breastfeeding? If that’s not okay, then Councilwomen Lowenstein should get right on it.
posted by JCP2 on February 8th, 2006 at 10:47 am
I suppose the YMCA could just pass a “No Containers” rule, and then classify nursing mothers as containers.

Maybe that’d work for ‘em.

…Or they could offer a pool entirely filled with breast milk.

It’s important to think outside the bra in these matters.
posted by Nitro on February 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Has the size of the titties been taken into consideration?
posted by Real Big on February 8th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
NOW I AM SO SORRY TO HAVE BEGUN MAKING THE JOKING STATEMENT
posted by Nitro on February 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Unless you are a mom or dad, you might want to consider that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Babies feed. They feed frequently. Some feed from breasts, others from containers. Women are not containers, and breastfeeding is not indecent, not sexual, and not considered indecent exposure in Michigan.

Since the YMCA provides a public space, they will need to allow nursing mothers feed there.

Pool water is far from clean — it is basically public bathtub — so do yourself a favor and don’t drink it okay? maybe take a shower afterward?

The safety issue is equally ridiculous. What studies have shown that a breastfeeding mother is any less attentive than another? or that she is more encumbered having a baby at her breast, as opposed to holding her baby in her arms? This is a pretty weak argument to hide your prejudices behind.

Honestly, what is the big freaking deal???
posted by Mike on February 9th, 2006 at 10:43 am
AND NOW ALSO TO APOLOGISE FOR MAKING THE IRONIC AND POTENTIALLY INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REGARDING CONTAINERS. DID NOT CONSIDER POSSIBILITY OF PERSONS TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. AGREEING WITH MIKE ON ALL POINTS.
posted by Nitro on February 9th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that breastfeeding is indecent, just that it shouldn’t be treated differently from any other kind of eating.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 9th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Unfortunately, in the rush to politicize this issue, the actual public health regulations of the State and County have been ignored in all the articles and discussions I’ve seen on this topic. YMCA management should have hung their hats on this point to begin instead of the ” life guard distraction” or safety arguments. If they had, maybe this whole “right to breastfeed anywhere, anytime regardless of the consequences” diversion could have been avoided.

As the father of two breastfed babies, including one with reflux, I can tell you for a fact that babies spit up after eating. Sometimes in surpising volumes.

State regulations regarding vomit (and solid feces) in pools require immediate evacuation of the pool, additional chemical treatment bringing the pH level up to a certain point, and then sustaining this level for at least 40 minutes before reopening the pool (if anyone still wants to swim, that is).

It is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, that a private pool facility (yes, the Y is a members only, private facility–not public) be allowed to establish rules that will help prevent costly and inconvenient closures of their pool.

So what if the other kid has to get out of the pool for a few minutes and go with mom to another room while the baby feeds (and burps and urps)? As Mike says, “Honestly, what is the big freaking deal???”

http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/environmental_health/swimming_pools

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3686_3732—,00.html
posted by TW on February 9th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
There is a sign on the door of Sweetwaters which clearly reads “No outside food or drink”. Nursing mothers should now know better not to enter there, assuming breast milk is no different from any other kind of food.
posted by FAA on February 9th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
TW, respectfully, I don’t think the spitup was ever an issue, although your links are impressive.

A. All the news reports that I’ve read have said that she was BY the pool, or in the pool AREA, not actually IN the pool.

B. The YMCA never gave that as a reason for asking her to lay off on the breastfeeding, unless I missed it. I suppose they could try bringing that up retroactively as a reason.

C. Maybe your kids throw up conveniently on schedule just after nursing. Mine can hold it in and bide their time.
posted by Nitro on February 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
All this talk of breastfeeding is making me hungry.
posted by Dave on February 9th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
The “big freaking deal,” Mike, is that even if the swimming pool is a public bathtub (which it is not - why do you think there are showers in the locker room and so much chlorine in there?), and even if I don’t drink the water, I would say it is fair that if a mother is breast-feeding her infant, that she stay out of the pool. There doesn’t need to be a rule out there, it’s just common sense.

Now of course we’ve made a law (or are about to make one) where one doesn’t need to be made. This is exactly the kind of Zeitverschwendung that the Ann Arbor City Council is famous for.

I can’t help it - after Nitro started it, I just keep thinking of that scene from Woody Allen’s Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Sex, with the big oversized breast mowing people down and putting down milk to slip them up as they’re trying to run away… he he …
posted by Daniel on February 9th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Not to belabor a point, but not IN the pool but in the area AROUND the pool is the question, right? As stated?

First the mother was told that it was “a distraction to lifeguards” (?) -and then much later, perhaps in tenuous explication of that, or maybe not, I don’t know, the “how can you watch your kid in a foot of water and nurse a baby all at one time?” question, and then finally the “no food and drink in pool area” rule was brought up. Isn’t that kind of how it went?

Those kind of after-the-fact rationalizations always cause trouble, don’t they? Because it doesn’t seem as if that was the original objection, was it?
posted by Nitro on February 9th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Nitro, read the news article.

“The woman said she was standing in a foot of water in the shallow end of the Y’s swimming pool, watching her 3-year-old son, when she was told to stop breast-feeding. She sat on the pool deck and was again told to stop. The lifeguard said there was a rule prohibiting food and drink at the pool and Y officials later said breast-feeding an infant could be a distraction to the mother and compromise the safety of the other child in the pool.”
posted by Dale on February 9th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Let the babies eat. They puke any time anywhere. Maybe all the hang ups about breasts stem from poor souls having had the bottle, denied the breast as babies, awwwwww.
posted by eileenie on February 9th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
sure, let the babies eat. let them shit, too. but not in the pool, ok?
posted by peter honeyman on February 9th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
I can’t believe anyone cares about this, including the Y. If a blog like this is entertaining a thread like this, no wonder America as a whole lost its mind at the sight of Janet Jackson’s shriveled, pierced tit at the Superbowl. Christ, they’re still talking about it.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 9th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
it’s not the tit, silly, it’s the milk.
posted by peter honeyman on February 9th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
and they’re only still talking about it because Mick Jagger didn’t do it for them this year, right?

After he took off his outer shirt, I was kind of hoping he would go topless just to make a point … but then again, although he is slim, perhaps he’s not as ‘ripped’ as in “rooster” days…it might have been gross.

In this whole nursing mother story, I’m still wondering: what would the lifeguards have done is she would have just said “No, I won’t stop nursing - leave me alone.” Perhaps they would have called the cops, and then she’d be like the Rosa Parks of mothers who want to breast-feed unmolested in public.
posted by Daniel on February 10th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Dale: Thanx for the correction…it’s not like I didn’t look, but the three articles I did see made it sound like it was just by the side of the pool. I should have looked further before posting the above.

…Still seems as if they could have left her alone after she got out of the pool, at the very least. And I still suspect it is in fact significantly about the tit. But I’ll shut up about it now, because I don’t want to talk about Janet Jackson, either.
posted by Nitro on February 10th, 2006 at 8:51 am
The breast is best and babies don’t “shit” in the pool, they now where specific pee and shit proof diapers these days. Happily the Y decided they were on the wrong side of this issue.
posted by eileenie on February 10th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Peter, you’ve GOT to be kidding. I am at a loss for words that people would be afraid of being exposed to some watered-down breast milk.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 10th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Viva la tit!
posted by Dave on February 10th, 2006 at 10:19 am
i KNOW my kids pee in the pool — they tag it like a dog and a fire hydrant — and i’m pretty sure those old folks don’t have their depends pulled up all the way … and those high-fangled diapers might be pee and poop proof but i doubt that they are foolproof!

la lechers want to feed their whelps in a cesspool? siiiiiiiick!
posted by peter honeyman on February 10th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
so, your point is “protect the tiny tots?” How Ann Arbor of you.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 10th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
not really
posted by peter honeyman on February 10th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
One wonders why you would consider letting your precious children swim and play in a cesspool. I nursed all my kids, all kinds of places, wherever they were hungry. It is the chief advantage of breastfeeding, it feeds humans easily. Now I never swim at the pool at the Y. Never have, but I sure would feed a nursing infant there, if said infant was hungry and I was watching said infant’s sibs. SAFER and less hassle then dragging said sib out of pool to shiver in some room away from”prying eyes” to watch the infant nurse. It is as simple as that. Now none of you men have that particular hassle, which is why you all should have got the breasts!
posted by eileenie on February 11th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Breastfeeding should be treated differently because it IS different. It may seem unfair to bottle-feeders, but that is the reality of the situation. Breastfeeding does not involve bringing in “outside food or drink,” and it doesn’t involve containers that can be left lying around to spill or spoil.

As for breastfeeding IN the pool, a little breastmilk is no worse than the sweat, mucous, saliva and other bodily secretions that normally come off a person in the water. And, as others have mentioned, the inevitable leaking pee and poop from diapers. Makes you queasy? Don’t worry… that’s what the chorine is for.

The Y’s problem in this whole sordid affair is that they kept changing their story. First, it was a “distraction for the lifeguards.” Then, it was a violation of their “no food or drinks by the pool” rule.

Most recently, it’s been a “safety” issue, as in: “a mother nursing a baby isn’t able to respond fast enough if one of her other children gets into trouble in the pool. Bullocks. Two adults having a conversation with each other are far more distracted than a woman breastfeeding one child and watching the other.

Some ask, why is it so hard to just leave the pool area to nurse? I say anyone who asks that question clearly doesn’t have one child, much less two. Some babies feed every 45 minutes. I don’t think a mother who is a paying member of the Y should have to pack up her stuff, gather her other child(ren), and move to a “private” location just so she can do what very well could be done right next to the pool.

As Nitro says, it’s really just about the “tit.” And that’s why it was good for the council to act.
posted by Jen on February 11th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
I have two kids, both of whom nursed, and I think it’s completely reasonable to pack up and leave the pool to nurse. This flap is a perfect example of Ann Arbor “mommyism” taken to the extreme: bored mommies who don’t have to work and have nothing better to do than stir up trouble about something as insignificant as a minor inconvenience at a facility which allows nursing just about anywhere else in the building. It seems to me that, given the current presidential administration, Supreme Court appointee etc., even these self righteous idiots could find something better to whine about. Yes, the Y did a terrible job of handling the response and the media on this one, but geez, ladies - get a life.
posted by Y User on February 11th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Funny, but the moms I know are working hard for peace. Most of us work, raise our families and are activists in our community and obviously the quality of life in our own backyards is what we care about most. Quality of life… keeping an infant from having to scream for food is hardly self-righteous.
posted by eileenie on February 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Peter,
Which one pees in the pool, the one at Grinnell, the one at Indiana
or the one at Pioneer?
posted by kjc on February 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
“It’s all about the tit”? Ridiculous.

I’d like to call for a show of hands - of the people here who think that forcing the Y to allow breastfeeding in the pool is silly, as I do, who opposes the proposed ordinance declaring breastfeeding to not be indecent exposure? Who here thinks “demanding the ability to breastfeed in the Y pool as a *right*” is silly, but thinks it perfectly reasonable for a mother to breastfeed in a restaurant, or a classroom, or a cafe? (As we know from prior discussion, most of the “non-breeders” will probably think it far far better to breastfeed in a cafe and keep the baby happy…)

Is there anybody here who thinks this is silly because, “Ew, boobs are gross”? Anybody?
posted by Murph on February 11th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
I think it is more than just the exposed tit. Its a strange sort of anti-mommyism. The reaction seems much different than what you might see if women just wanted to go topless at the pool or beach.
People become so indignant when its the sight of a boob with a baby attached. They have a “who does she think she is” attitude. Boobs at the beach is an expression of freedom..Boobs to feed somehow trample on people’s rights.
posted by murder on February 11th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
kevin, all of the above … and more! vets, fuller, canham, hvsc, huron … and if my kids are to be be believed, it is your kids too! a universal ritual! a generational thing!

i am, like, ew.
posted by peter honeyman on February 11th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Saying it’s about the exposed boob can mean many things. Here’s my theory. I think it’s very possible the Y directors were uncomfortable with this woman’s breastfeeding (which, no offense to her, was probably not too discreet — I mean, how discreet can you possibly be while standing up, wearing nothing but a bathing suit??). Therefore, I think they decided to put a stop to all breastfeeding in the pool area — where women tend to wear nothing but bathing suits — lest they have a repeat incident.

If this is the case, then it really is about the exposed boob.

Personally, I would have been willing to accept a “no-breastfeeding” rule if it were a prior written policy that had been well thought-out, and at least had some decent reasons behind it.

Unfortunately, none of the excuses the Y has given stand up to scrutiny. Their flavor-of-the-day rationales, made up after the incident, just make it seem like they have a prejudice against nursing (or, at least, nursing in bathing suits).

And Y user — sure, I understand there are many “more important” things to be concerned with. But people have different interests at different times in their lives, you know? So yes, some women take a keen interest in breastfeeding issues — particularly when they’re lactating! But don’t worry … we crazy nursing mothers will get our heads on straight again and go back to Bush-bashing when the milk dries up.
posted by Jen on February 11th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Peter,
Nope, I checked. My kids say no. Just yours.
posted by kjc on February 11th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
my bad.

nevertheless, i advise your kids to drink their milk … but not in the pool!
posted by peter honeyman on February 11th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I really don’t think it’s about the tit. I think it’s about body fluids in the 21st century, I think it’s about vomit, diapers, spit and other body fluids being in a pool. If you saw someone deliberately spit or piss in the pool you would have a gut reaction. Even though you know intellectually that “that’s what chlorine is for”.
You can nurse all day on my porch couch, the park, my favourite restaurant, the white house lawn, whatever, I’m totally fine with that, (I realize some people are not, and that likely IS about tits).
Someone sitting on a pool deck nursing, with spit up rags at hand, should not be an issue as it does have the singular advantage that there ARE no containers involved.

I don’t go to public pools, the amount of chlorine needed to compensate for people who don’t keep their fluids to themselves or kids who can’t be schooled in it yet is really unpleasant, so kindly do what you can to minimize the need. And that goes for “diaper swim” too, blecch. Chlorine can only do so much.
posted by stella on February 11th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
I agree with Stella on this one. I’ll add a couple comments of my own.

- I do agree that moms should be able to breastfeed in public. I would vote to legalize shirtless women in public.

- Bottle feeding moms can get out of the pool for a few months.

- I don’t have to set my beer down on the edge of the hot tub.

- Please, don’t breastfeed when you’re at the salad bar either.

- Public breastfeeding is to public breasts as public cell phone use is to public conversation.
posted by A DIfferent Jon on February 11th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
As far as I can tell, there are two sides to this discussion.

One is, “You either support the right to breastfeed in all situations, unconditionally, or you’re a puritan prude who’s afraid of the tit and who hates mothers!”

The other is, “Hey, breastfeeding is awesome in 95% of times and places. Right on. But…there is that 5% where it’s not.”

I think City Council has heard plenty from the former side and really could use some feedback from people who think this is 5% over the line into silly. I assure you they’re listening. Remember, this is the same City Council that seriously debates banning couches and the meaning of human companionship for goldfish. (And decided, after feedback, that both of these things were ridiculous, and did not pass the ordinances in question.)
posted by Murph on February 12th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Murph-
I’d agree that there are places where breastfeeding might not be appropriate. In a business meeting; in a church service (depending on the type of church); during a wedding service (again, depending on the bride and groom); during a funeral service.

Those are all places where I might feel uncomfortable nursing, out of respect for the general norms of our society.

But at the Y pool, which is literally built for and caters to young families? I just fail to see a problem there.

I understand people being squeamish about mothers nursing IN the pool, even though as I said, chlorine would kill anything in the few drops of breastmilk that might get in there. But it’s also an issue of discreetness — as I said before, it’s hard to nurse discreetly in the pool. Indiscreet nursing makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and I think that’s understandable.

But it’s also for that reason that I think the issue of breastfeeding IN the pool is pretty much moot. Most mothers simply won’t attempt it, because they are far too self-conscious. Even with this new ordinance, you’re just not going to see many women, if any at all, trying to nurse in the pool.
posted by Jen on February 12th, 2006 at 10:55 am
You guys are already riffing on my line:

“Public breastfeeding is to public breasts as public cell phone use is to public conversation.”

See:

“…there are places where breastfeeding might not be appropriate. In a business meeting; in a church service (depending on the type of church); during a wedding service (again, depending on the bride and groom); during a funeral service.”
posted by A Different Jon on February 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Gosh, at the risk of spreading hearsay (but, hey, this is the Internet!), I’ve got a hunch about something.

Non-breeders who use the Y: Ever notice that fancy new ‘family’ locker room? Seems like a nice family friendly idea. Must have cost a pretty penny. And fairly unusual too; with all the pools and rec centers (and other Y’s!) I’ve taken my kids to, I’ve never seen one of them. Everywhere else, the ritual is standard - you bring your kids into the main locker room with you.

Once upon a time, when the new Y first opened last year, I brought my 2 year old into the new “adult’s only” locker room before going for a swim. See, that’s where my permanent locker is. And my swim suit. And my prescription goggles. And my shampoo. Etc.

Immediately, I felt the eyes upon me. Specifically, several older Y patrons giving me dirty looks, that seemed to say, “What is that toddler doing here?” and “Why isn’t *he* using the family locker room?” or perhaps “Hey you kid, get off my lawn!”. That sort of thing. Maybe it was my imagination. But…

Before I had a chance to finish collecting my things (and before my toddler could do anything remotely offensive, like squirting Prell all over the sauna doors), a blueshirted Y staff member appeared, quietly pulled me aside and explained that under no circumstances were children allowed in the adult locker room.

The Y staffer’s voice was almost a whisper. He had a pained look on his face. He seemed almost apologetic.

As my child and I were frogmarched out into the hallway (I kid, I kid), I explained that I was merely getting my swim things from my locker. How else was I to do it? Leave my 2 year old alone by the pool? (With all those skimpy bikinis on full view?)

“I know. It doesn’t make much sense.” he said. “Frankly,” he offered in a weary tone, “It’s some of the older members. They complain.”

Ah, so that’s it.

Don’t get me wrong; the idea behind a “family” locker room is kinda, sorta, good. Sure, the execution leaves something to be desired (there wasn’t even a bench in there until parents complained). And I’m a little unclear on exactly what “problem” it solves. I prefer taking my kid into an “actual” locker room. One that, you know, has actual showers. But hey, it’s not that big of a deal.

No, what bothers me is: it kinda, sorta, feels like that “family” locker room (and even the fancy new kiddie pool) exist to keep the kids *away* from annoyed adults who complain. Maybe it’s just me?

So. Getting back to breastfeeding. My theory: Certain vocal members complained about the boobies. So, the Y came up with a rule.

Oh, the Y will say differently. They waffle about health concerns, distractions, all sorts of things. But I’ll bet it’s mostly members complaining about boobies.

It’s probably a very politically sensitive thing - some of these older members have been around the Y for a long time. They’re loyal paying customers. Heck, some of them probably helped fund the new place, and feel ownership. Maybe they have their names up in 24 carot goldplate in the lobby too.

Or maybe I’m just paranoid. Still, if some geezer in a speedo ever tells me I can’t swim with my kid in the big “adults-only” pool, I’m staging my own nurse-in. And, as a 37 year-old male, I don’t even wear a bra.

Cooldexter (who really cares far more about the current political situation and the war in Iraq, but hey, it’s a slow Sunday)
posted by Cool Dexter on February 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Cool Dexter, here’s an amusing post I ran across over at salon.com. I’ve posted the link below (hope it works), but I also posted the text. Just another perspective on the family locker room issue:

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/01/13/breastfeeding/permalink/87474011f99cc81fee2cd85c8bff590e.html

I was once a member of this YMCA…

And it was absolutely overrun by “hip mamas” who didn’t seem to think that *any* rules should apply to them or their children. The very nice, clean locker room is right next to the pool area. Is it so absolutely impossible to feed a baby there first, rather than topless beside the pool? If I can’t swim, or lounge about, or do anything in a topless state, no one else should be able to either, it’s as simple as that.

Despite the presence of youth locker rooms at this same YMCA, some mothers often (on an almost daily basis) brought their male children aged seven, eight, 10, or yes, even *12* years (I mean, very cleary in the throws of puberty here), into the women’s locker room and the sauna, where women were engaged in comfortably lounging about mostly naked (see, there *are* places where toplessness is okay at the YMCA, it just doesn’t happen to be beside the pool). These barely pre-teen boys honestly oggled us in the “safety” of the *women’s* dressing room and sauna.

When we pointed out our discomfort to the boys’ mothers, however, they usually said, “Well, we have a very open and progressive household, we have a family bed, this is how we are at home…” At one point I actually found myself saying, “And I give my boyfriend blowjobs at home, but it doesn’t mean we should do the same in the YMCA locker room” and “But would you allow your husbands to take your 12-year-old daughters into the men’s dressing room and get naked?”

My friends and I repeatedly complained, and the staff posted fliers and reminders about the youth locker room to no avail. It wasn’t until these women were threatened with losing their memberships that things started to change. It was absolute insanity that anyone even had to take these measures.

This same YMCA also featured unaccompanied children (approximately seven to ten years of age) in the weight room, goofing off with heavy and dangerous objects, unaccompanied children periodically barging through the doors of yoga classes in progress, etc. I loved Ann Arbor but didn’t mind moving away; the non-parenting style of parenting in that area is just over the top.

I will never understand why soome parents think rules that are “best for everyone” just shouldn’t apply to them or to their children.
posted by Y User on February 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I am deathly afraid of the tit… And perhaps this ordinance as well.

Is “baby” defined anywhere in the ordinance? Because it isn’t defined in the Michigan law which excludes breastfeeding from being considered indecent exposure. So feel free to expose your breast to feed your 7 year old son right in of me… I guess it’s legal.

Okay, I may be exaggerating with 7 year old. I did once see a 4 year old boy in Ann Arbor asking to be picked up by his mother (age was approximated - the child was walking and speaking in well-formed sentences and could have been an incredibly advanced young one or possibly older and in kindergarten). She obliged, and once he was comfortable in her arms he lifted her sweater and began to feed. I’ve witnessed public coitus and public urination before, and neither of those illegal acts offended me as much as this perfectly legal incident.

In Michigan custody cases the breastfeeding of a child is a determining factor up to one year of age. It sounds sensible to me to apply this age in the breastfeeding/indecent exposure statutes.

Call me a “puritan prude” or “anti-mommyist” if you must - I don’t want to see any tit… But I wouldn’t do anything to prevent a mother from feeding her baby no matter how much I’d prefer it didn’t happen in my presence. I would, however, advocate that the (disturbing practice of the) breastfeeding of a school aged child in public be considered when wording an ordinance which gives free reign to the tit.
posted by FAA on February 12th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Funny and bizarre reactions to humans feeding their infant humans. I have to note that the few 4 year olds and above that still breastfeed from their mothers publicly are the exception and rare.
posted by eileenie on February 12th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Aren’t there other scary things to be “afraid” of FAA…shoebombs, getting hit by the garbage truck, being infected by tse-tse flies?

“deathly afraid of the tit…” Jeebus.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
…and I’d rather people didn’t have the “disturbing practice” of chewing with their mouths open in my presence, but I’m not going to whine about it.

One over-aged child getting some mama-milk and you’re scarred for life? I don’t know about you, but I probably see less than one child being breastfed in a public place per year, if that. What’s the big deal?
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 12th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
And I have to note that the few mothers who insist on nursing their babies without discretion (e.g. while standing in the pool) are also the exception and rare, hence my negative reaction to these self-described “lactivists’” attempt to turn this into a civil rights issue. My wife nursed our two kids throughout the old Y - in the lobby, where she covered her exposed breast with a jacket or burping towel, and even on the pool deck, where she discreetly sat on the bench by the wall and draped a towel over her shoulder. In my experience and observation, both at the Y and all around town, most mothers are similarly discreet. There’s nothing sexual about nursing, but it is natural to avoid looking at a nursing mother’s breast. It is every lifeguard’s duty to scan the pool continuously, and a mother with her suit pulled down to nurse is, let’s face it, something that many lifeguards are going to be uncomfortable looking at. I know, I know, the lactivists say that these lifeguards need to “grow up,” but I don’t think this is an issue of maturity on the lifeguards’ part, rather on the part of any mother who can’t be bothered to do what most other mothers do – nurse discreetly. Nursing is a natural and healthy thing, and it’s certainly nothing to be ashamed of, but that doesn’t mean that it should be flaunted and forced on the majority of people who may be a little uncomfortable watching it done, y’know?
posted by Y User on February 12th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm… I typed a few things in there to be taken literally (especially the part about legally defining “baby”), OFWi, but that wasn’t one of them. That was in reference to a previous comment… Jeebus H. Kariest.
posted by FAA on February 12th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Hey, I don’t even have kids, but I find this thread funny and weirdly illuminating and—for the most part—much ado about nothing.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 12th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
OFWi, did I type WAAA (the international noise for “whine”)!? Did I type “scarred for life”? “No” and “no”.

Did I type a viewpoint obviously opposite yours on an issue, which judging by the recent press, actions of city council, and the number of comments here is a deal on the scale of bigger than small, only to have you snap back with scoff? That would be a “yes”.

I attempt to relay actual concerns not yet touched upon here with full disclosure and you can only provide an indignant reply. So I don’t agree with you. So I’m not progressive in matter of the tit. If it bothers you to the point that you take the time to respond, why not enlighten me with your point of view? Or at least why not take a constructive moment to convince us all that this really isn’t such a big deal after all?
posted by FAA on February 12th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
My point of view? I’m not offended by breastfeeding mothers. I hardly ever see them. When I have seen them in the past, I have never seen a mom whip out her boob and spray the crowd or say “check out my giant milky breasts everyone!” They usually simply sit and descretely nurse their child as Y User described.

I did see someone drop their pants in front of me on a busy sidewalk in broad daylight in San Francisco last week and take a crap in front of a fancy bank, but I didn’t write the paper about how something needs to be done about it. I figure it’s kind of rare, and I pretty much just walked on by and ignored it anyway.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 12th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
you missed the sf city council meeting last friday where the right to shit on a busy sidewalk in broad daylight in front of a fancy bank was vigorously debated and ultimately cast into law.
posted by peter honeyman on February 12th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
It seems to me the Y is exactly the place where you could expect 100% ability to breastfeed and the pool area is the place where you would expect it to happen most often for a lot of reasons. 1) It is the only place at the Y that actually has activities for infants–there isn’t a lot going on in the free weight area for six month olds! 2) The pools and pool area are wet and sticky. Humans are gooey creatures. A little more body fluid isn’t going to hurt anyone. And yeah, nursing moms can leak whether they are actively nursing or not so are you going to have someone stationed at the door checking to see if a woman is lactating? While you are at it–you might want to see if she is having her period too. At least breast milk has natural antibiotic properties. 3) Everyone in the pool is mostly naked anyway. There are men and women in itsy-bitsy bikinis and half of the regulars have suits that are see-through from too much time in the chlorine. A glimpse of a half a breast, or god-forbid a nipple, shouldn’t get anyone all bent out of shape. 4) The Y has allowed breastfeeding for at least forty years in the pool area (my mom nursed my sister, brother, and me there when we were taking infant swim lessons and never got booted out) and I know many people who have breastfed there throughout the years. The infant swim classes encourage moms to feed their babies whenever they need to and they aren’t sending them off to the cold locker rooms! Why the sudden Puritan attitude?

The no drink defense is silly because there is a drinking fountain in the pool area. Most of the distance swimmers bring bottles of water (or gatorade) and when I take classes in the pool, the instructor recommended that we bring water. As for distractions, again, the sight of someone breastfeeding is far less distracting than a lot that goes on in the pool area. My personal favorite is the male former gymnast who likes to walk on his hands up and down the pool area to warm up, in a Speedo. Or the guy in the tan bathing suit who likes to stand right in front of the strongest jet in the pool and flap his swimsuit up and down for reasons I don’t want to contemplate (but I try to swim far away from him!).

Parental inattentiveness, for any reason, should not be tolerated, but breastfeeding in the pool area just isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a problem.
posted by Juliew on February 13th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I can see I am really missing out by not going to the Y. I amy have to join just for all the fun!
posted by Anonymous on February 13th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
After reading through the dissertation-length comments, I’ve concluded that Ann Arbor is a dry tit.
posted by Holy Toledoan on February 13th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
welcome to our little town.
posted by OFWinsurgent on February 13th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
I propose we change our nickname from “Tree Town” to “Teat Town.”
posted by Dave on February 14th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Repeat: The fact is, if baby vomit (or other things like urine and poop–uningested breastmilk is not specifically noted), is witnessed being excreted into the pool by the Y staff, State law requires them to shut the pool down, “shock it” with extra chlorine, and let the filters run for at least 40 minutes before letting anyone back in. The Y should have made this point right off the bat and it probably would have ended the discussion that same day. Why shouldn’t they have the right to try and mimimize the risk of a pool closure? For whatever reason (new building, new staff, etc.), they did not have their policy well thought out in advance–or at least not well communicated to the front lines.
The fact is, babies aren’t real good at keeping down everything they eat. The urp is not always fresh-squeezed milk that would dilute and dissapate quickly, either. Often it is mixed with the previous meal and is somewhat curdled (still makes me squeamish and I cleaned it up, between two kids, for over two and a half years) and the volume can be shocking. Maybe it would be just fine to breastfeed on a bench poolside (a good compromise if you ask me, as long as there is a burp towel present to soak up the urp), but why insist on doing it right there in the water?
Why? Because a more significant Y rule is that parents stay at arms length of their young children. The individual in question was unwilling to deal with the inconvenience of removing both her children from the pool for a short period of time. Sure, it’s not always an easy thing to do–especially if the toddler is not interested in cooperating, but parenting is all about challenges, sacrifices and planning. You take them swimming or to a bowling alley or the zoo, you’re going to have to negotiate a variety of risks and rules.
This situation could have been handled better by all parties, but reasonable discussions between the Y staff and their membership could have yielded any number of workable solutions, I’m sure. Once City Council got hold of it, though, all bets for common sense were off.
Now what we will have is effectively a new type of zero tolerance ordinance. Any time you impose zero tolerance, mandatory sentences, etc., you remove any measure of human thought and reason (qualities possessed by what conservatives call “activist judges”).
Believe it or not, there might actully be 5% (borrowing a previous figure mentioned) of situations where breastfeeding is not in society’s best interest, but God forbid anyone or any organization in Ann Arbor be allowed to try and use their own brains to work out their own alternatives.
Not when we have City Council to do the thinking for us.
posted by TW on February 14th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Another repeat:
“1) It is the only place at the Y that actually has activities for infants–there isn’t a lot going on in the free weight area for six month olds! 4) The Y has allowed breastfeeding for at least forty years in the pool area (my mom nursed my sister, brother, and me there when we were taking infant swim lessons and never got booted out) and I know many people who have breastfed there throughout the years. The infant swim classes encourage moms to feed their babies whenever they need to and they aren’t sending them off to the cold locker rooms! Why the sudden Puritan attitude?”
I for one am proud of your fine city’s City Council for having the wisdom to wise up the Y!
posted by eileenie on February 14th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
PS. it is SO VERY square to be SO VERY puritanical about baby humans feeding habits. You all sound like you belong in Indiana
posted by eileenie on February 14th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Indeed. Who wouldn’t want to swim in baby puke? Freaking fascists.
posted by Dave on February 14th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Elleenie–Don’t drag Indiana into this. Columbus, IN, is, afterall, more architecturally important than A2, and at 39,000 people.

As for breastfeeding. *Must* it be done in the pool? I mean MUST it, really?

I don’t give a whoopee about the naked breast. I wish they hadn’t made it about the naked breast.
posted by Young OWSider on February 14th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Elleenie, it is quite audacious to castigate Indiana in such a fashion. Trust me, as a progressive Hoosier stranded in Ann Arbor, I would be the first to admit that there are many of my erstwhile fellow-citizens who would find breastfeeding in public inappropriate, and whose understanding of the underlying prejudices contained therein might appropriately be labeled as problematic. Nevertheless, this is a discussion on breastfeeding at the Ann Arbor YMCA; your comment adds nothing to the conversation save needless antagonism. Such hateful regionalism is essentializing, is patently offensive, and is clearly out-of-place in any discussion, but particularly in this one. More importantly, this is a prime example of a common and quite upsetting misstep: instead of subverting a dominant paradigm, you have chosen to invert it.
posted by Hoosier on February 14th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
you folks calling it puritanism aren’t listening.

any veteran at infant care knows that feeding time is sometimes an experience that turns your shoetops brown.

this is not about nudity. it’s about the septic realities of pups and pools.

TW, i totally agree with you.
posted by peter honeyman on February 14th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Just an FYI for those with lingering infant fluid phobias… the Y requires all non-potty trained kids to wear swim diapers. Parents take this rule seriously. Trust me - it’s in our self-interest too.

And in case you’re unfamiliar with more recent advances in diaper technology, swim diapers are to rubber pants what $300 Gortex hiking boots are to dime-store galloshes. They work extremely well. I think you could dynamite a water buffalo inside one and still have a dry onesie.

Not sure if a similar policy exists for old people with incontinence.

See, that’s where your real enviro-hazard lies. Old People. See my previous post. It’ll all make sense.
posted by Cool Dexter on February 15th, 2006 at 12:18 am
the old. the young. and those in between. that’s what you have to worry about at the y. (that and parking.)

regarding infant fluid phobia, that goes bye bye in about the first day of parenting as harsh reality sets in. but those walls can break down too far … why, i’ve heard people proclaim with complete sincerity that they _like_ the smell of a breast-fed baby’s shit. too far! too far! and swimming in it?! further yet!! everybody out of the pool!!!
posted by peter honeyman on February 15th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Young OWSider and Hoosier,

I grew up in Columbus, Indiana … checked books out of the public Library designed by I. M. Pei … played under Henry Moore’s Large Arch in front of the same library, which is across the street from a church designed by one of the Saarinen’s … walked past the North Christian Church designed by the other Saarinen on my way to Schmitt Elementary School designed by Harry Weese … delivered the morning newspaper to J Irwin Miller, whose Cummins Engine Company money, in large part made all that possible. So I have a certain fondness for the place, and for Indiana in general.

However, I’m equally fond of a description of Indiana I heard a few years ago: The Middle Finger of the South. For one thing, when Michiganders hold forth their palms to show me exactly where they grew up, I can respond, more or less, in kind.

I wondered if the I. M. Pei-designed public library in Columbus, Indiana would allow breast-feeding, say in the periodicals section.

So I called them up this morning to ask exactly that. The response was one I’d like to describe as Hoosier Pragmatism. “Well, I guess one way to look at it is there’s no law against it, so why wouldn’t she be able to.” When pressed to describe what her response would be if someone complained, however, the staff person I spoke to conceded that it might boil down to which staff person handled the complaint.

So now you know … not that anybody else was wondering.

HD

PS: A couple of years ago, on a pilgrimage back to my hometown, I found that something called a People Trail had been constructed, which is a pathway linking some of the parks and leading out west of town. It made the start to my bicycle ride to Bloomington pretty nice. The engineering solution to crossing the interstate on- and off-ramps was to build TUNNELS just for the People Trail. There’s plenty of differences between little Columbus, IN and Ann Arbor that would make translating the experience of building the People Trail to the planned Ann Arbor Greenway a little dubious, but it might be that what’s learned is that the key factors making the People Trail a success are missing here in Ann Arbor.
posted by HD on February 15th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Sincere apologies to Indiana and all you Hoosiers. I confess and agree, it was a touch of ugly regionalism that took hold of me. It is a very fine state. For anyone I offended, please accept my humble plogies. I did live there for 5 months once. I conceived my first daughter there. (perhaps a source of my angst?)
I guess my point, (admittedly ill made), was how conservative it all was sounding to me.
Peter- babies are permitted to swim at the Y under the restrictions of “special diapers”. Breastfeeding an infant in another room, and then returning to the pool after won’t prevent any of the concerns that you have listed above. It only inconveniences a new mom, who I believe needs our community’s support. After all healthy humans is good for us all in inumerable ways.
posted by eileenie on February 15th, 2006 at 11:37 am
I think the benign nostalgia of parenting a young child has worn off on Peter. Maybe he’ll change if he ever becomes a grandparent.
posted by JCP2 on February 15th, 2006 at 11:44 am
“More importantly, this is a prime example of a common and quite upsetting misstep: instead of subverting a dominant paradigm, you have chosen to invert it.”

Holy fuck, we are talking about breastfeeding in a pool and we get sentences like this. This is all very Ann Arbor, I.M. Pei-designed or not.
posted by Dave on February 15th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
HD–I grew up in New Castle, IN. We have the world’s largest and finest high school gymnasium, but a dying downtown and a Super Wal Mart that’s killing the rest of it. Fun.
posted by Young OWSider on February 15th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
The only part of IN, I have been to has been Fort Wayne. Columbus, Indiana sounds quite lovely and worth a visit. Young OWsider, your gym sounds very fine, especially important for b-ball events.
As far as subverting paradigms….?
posted by eileenie on February 15th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Young OWSider,

Okay, I was skeptical, because our old gym seated 7200 (I think), but I was able to verify your claim. That’s one big-ass gymnasium you’ve got there in New Castle.

To keep this thread focused like a laser beam on the original topic, and empirically grounded, …

… how about making some phone calls and checking to see whether there’s breastfeeding allowed in the stands at the world’s largest high school gymnasium? I mean, I called the library. To keep pace, I think you need to call the gym. ==

HD
posted by HD on February 15th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Ah, yes. The Puritans. Weren’t they the ones who legislated every public (and private) behavior because they thought they knew what was best for society?
Oh, and my son was born (and breastfed) in South Bend, Indiana, by the way.
Sometimes it’s not so easy to tell who is the Puritan and who is the witch.
posted by TW on February 16th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
HD–

So I didn’t call the fieldhouse, but I *did* start a thread on a Henry County message board that’s run by a friend of mine from high school. The thread is imaginitively called “Breastfeeding”, and the website is members.boardhost.com/ezlook. My name on that board is NCDCAA–after the places I’ve lived in my 30 years of life.

The responses might (or might not) surprise you. Take a look all!
posted by Young OWSider on February 16th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Okay. So which Ann Arborite is “The Breast Intentions” at the ezlook website for Henry County? I can tell by the smug, holier-than-thou attitude that it’s probably not a regular from the ezlook website.

Come on. ‘Fess up.
posted by Young OWSider on February 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
For those concerned about vomit, banning breastfeeding in the pool area won’t help. Babies can spit up anytime — and it doesn’t happen *while* feeding, it happens afterward. An unpredictable amount of time afterward. So unless you’re gonna completely ban babies from the pool, that’s a pointless argument.

I’d also argue that the extra jostling of the babe taking him to another room and back to feed would contribute to indigestion, and therefore lead to more spitup in the pool area. Just a theory, but based on my own child’s urping problems.
posted by Anonymous on February 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
you convinced me — let’s ban babies from the pool!
posted by peter honeyman on February 20th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Speaking of questionable A2 political activism… over at ArborParents (Yahoo Groups), there’s talk of organizing a protest over the removal of the courtyard fountains at Briarwood Mall.

Really.

Belongs on the front page here, if you ask me!

CoolDexter
posted by CoolDexter on February 20th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Holy cow! Now my decision to not shop at the mall can have a political meaning other than the cultural message that I don’t want to wear the same tasteless and soulless manufactured crap most people own. If we don’t save the fountains where will the children breastfeed? I understand they might replace the fountains with giant communal udders so mall patrons are not exposed to lactating boobs.
posted by Post-it on February 21st, 2006 at 10:45 am
Someone alerted me to this a while ago, but the fact that these people shop at the mall and admit it sets them apart from the usual A2 political activists.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 21st, 2006 at 10:53 am
No way — these are the exact same people who organized/participated in the nurse-in at the Y. Scroll back through the Yahoo group and see.
posted by Chris on February 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Chris is right. Same group. My favorite quote (from ArborParents):

“I think the fountains are a big part of what makes Briarwood special.”

Special? The mind boggles.
posted by CoolDexter on February 21st, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Breastfeeding is distracting? Someone call cps because I’m nursing as I type this and I’m almost positive that my other 2 kids are in the kitchen playing with knives. I don’t care, I’n nursing and surfing the net AT THE SAME TIME, I’m distracted!
posted by Christy on February 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Apparently Ann Arbor is so very “correct” that parents must only shop downtown, cannot enjoy water fountains, and must breastfeed publicly, making sure their babes spit up in pools.
And must not “nurse-in”???
Just what is wrong with fed babies, enjoying water fountains and occasional trips to the mall?
posted by Anonymous on March 12th, 2006 at 9:31 am
The quotation marks actually go around “downtown”.

I am scratching myself and eating a jelly doughnut as I surf.
posted by A Different Jon on March 12th, 2006 at 10:29 am
It seems Parks and Rec has found a way to clean up all the lingering breast milk in the Bhur Pool. As my dad used to say when food fell off the dinner table: just leave it. the dog will get it before it hits the floor.

http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1157265816203360.xml&coll=2

Note: this article does not address the legal or health implications of breastfeeding in a pool full of dogs, but it doesn’t explicitly rule it out. Contact Parks and Rec for more info.
posted by Scott on September 4th, 2006 at 5:21 am
dr grinnell
posted by Anonymous on December 30th, 2006 at 9:43 am
“dr grinnell”
posted by Anonymous on December 30th, 2006 at 9:44 am

Breastfeeding Ordinance Passes

103 Responses to “Breastfeeding Ordinance Passes”

Leave a Reply