Lactivists at Applebees

Applebee's targeted by angry nursing moms

It all started when a manager at an Applebees asked a nursing mother to cover up.

Organizers of today's event say moms should be free to nurse in public without being interrupted. They also don't want to be forced to cover up their children with blankets or Hooter Hiders, one of a number of fashionable wraps on the market to cover nursing moms in public.

But businesses say breast-feeding in a restaurant or store makes other patrons uncomfortable, and that they have to consider the needs of all customers.
. . .
Spaulding . . . plans to participate in today's nurse-in to remove the stigma of breast-feeding in public.
. . .
The response from Thomas & King, the owner of the franchise she had been eating at, said management was considering keeping blankets in the restaurants for use by breast-feeding mothers.

"The response is not acceptable," said Lisa Carey, one of the organizers of the Chatsworth protest. "We want (Applebee's) to be breast-feeding-friendly and have a policy in place to accomplish that."

The protests happened at several locations, and a news search turns up some local coverage of these events. As one would expect, this amplified the problem of having several mouthpieces discussing what is already a more complex topic than people realize.

The problem is, that this is not one single issue, but people treat it as such. There are several issues wrapped in this.

1. The ability to breastfeed in public.

This is not at issue here; the Applebees manager simply set conditions (covering up) on that ability. Therefore, all the arguments that relate to the healthiness of breastfeeding, the necessity of a mother being able to do it while eating out, the naturalness of the act are not directly relevant. They only come into play if somehow covering up is a true obstacle to feeding.

2. The ability to do so uncovered.

We don't hear much about why using a blanket or other cover is so difficult, whether some mothers in particular have trouble getting their infants to nurse while covered, etc. Without this information, we cannot really parse out the issues. But since many mothers do cover, we know that at least for some, it is a feasible option.

That then turns the discussion into one of a). what we should do with the exceptions who have a particular difficulty, and b). whether there is a right to do so uncovered just because you want to or are more comfortable doing so.

The former is a much smaller issue, and could theoretically be handled on a case by case basis. I will set that aside for now. As to the second question, we can finally look at what we have on both sides honestly, instead of raising red herrings such as child welfare. The importance of what the woman is doing is only a small part of the calculus that weighs her discomfort on one side, and the unease of people who are bothered seeing an exposed breast on the other. To be honest, I cannot sympathize with either, which is perhaps why I am trying to frame this into piecemeal balancing tests instead of the emotional rhetoric that seems the usual dialog of the debate. So I can't say which side is being inconvenienced more. Assuming they are fairly equal, one takes into account the Star trek "Needs of the Many" consideration, and the fact that the whole situation is the result of the woman's choice to procreate, and comes to the conclusion that the woman should have to cover up.

Yet that is not where it ends.

3. The right to public exposed breastfeeding as political statement.

The huge rows over LiveJournal and Facebook's bans on breastfeeding photographs were replete with cries of "breast milk is a healthy way to feed my child!" Except that no child has ever gone hungry because his mother was unable to upload a picture of nursing to the internet. Likewise, Carey's demand that Applebee's be "breast feeding friendly" implies the same demand in her rejection of blankets. Where the mention of any downsides to covering are absent, what we have is demands for rights unattached to utility, but springing from the idea that breastfeeding is a right unto itself.

There seems to be an undertone or implication in La Leche's statements that because breastfeeding is natural and healthy, the right to do it wherever one wants without any conditions follows. This stems not just for the increased convenience, but from the idea that we need to accustom society to breastfeeding, make people get over their hangups, and encourage other women to breastfeed.

So what we end up with in that instance is the right to bear one's breast for a political statement. Although I know some readers will disagree with this, I'm not so sure this is a bad idea generally. If applied equally to all lobbying groups, this idea may actually fall in the gender rights vein that led Manhattan to allow non-commercial toplessness.

Where I find this idea troubling is where we assume that this speech right always and automatically trumps the property rights inherent in restaurant owners. Unless you own an outdoor shopping mall in California, or a shanty town for your company's employees, the rights of owners usually prevail here. You have the right to free expression, just not in my cafe.

This collides with the more pragmatic considerations when you begin to discuss breastfeeding, since places of public accommodation are restricted in their property rights (just not in matters of free speech). Many states have passed laws mandating that such places allow nursing. But need they allow uncovered nursing?

And so we return to where we began, asking the question of when the issue stops being about the necessity of breastfeeding, and when it starts being about discomfort or political speech. Until we realize this, we will be barraged with useless rhetoric, and will not be responding in kind.

Speaking of which, I shall leave this last quote uncommented, since I cannot do it justice. And now, your moment of zen.

An Applebee's spokeswoman said the fallout from Ryan's experience has provided an opportunity for the company to make nursing mothers feel welcome. Moms say if that means having to cover up with a blanket, then it isn't within the law.

"They just don't get it," Ryan said in an e-mail post about her experience. "It's like saying Rosa Parks has to be in the back of the bus and we will give her a pillow so she will be comfortable back there."

Technorati Tag: childfree