(first) idiocy of the day

[deird1]

I just read an article on breastfeeding, which contained the following:

What I don’t get and strongly un-concur with is why a woman would choose to graphically breastfeed her baby in a crowded city café at lunchtime.

Graphically. She is graphically breastfeeding. Much as I graphically got myself a cup of tea, graphically bought a train ticket, and graphically edited documents this morning. Horrors! *swoons*


Presumably the writer isn't trying for the ordinary, everyday use of "graphically" (of, or relating to, pictorial representation), but is instead going for the more colloquial usage ("This movie contains GRAPHIC violence, GRAPHIC pornography, and GRAPHIC puppy slaughter!!!!").

Really, either definition renders his point kind of nonsensical.

Under the first, he's complaining about her "graphically" breastfeeding because she should, like all new mothers, have the decency to acquire powers of invisibility so that her breastfeeding cannot be drawn or photographed.
Under the second, he's comparing a woman feeding her child to... mass puppy slaughter, orgies, and mayhem. Which is ridiculous.


Actually, come to think of it, he probably is going for the first meaning. After all, wouldn't it be nice if all women acquired mystical powers of invisibility, so that they didn't have to sit there and remind him that breasts exist?

---

Postscript

The writer also said:

I understand the evolutionary purpose of breasts, that they shouldn’t be sexualized, I get the whole feeding is natural, women shouldn’t be ashamed, blah blah, I get and concur with all of that.

In that case, what the heck is the problem? He's basically saying "Yes, breastfeeding is natural and shouldn't be shameful - but how dare you do it in public?!"

His whole disclaimer comes across as a "no offence, but..." which is really nothing more than a get-out-of-jail-free card when he then starts offending people.

Comments

[diebirchen]

Oh, I've got a million of 'em. I saw "recooperate" for "recuperate" the other day, not to mention "dangle" for "dandle." Now mind you, "dandle" is a word not much used anymore, but most grandmothers don't "dangle" children from their knees. The dangling reminds one of the infamous picture of Michael Jackson holding his blanket-covered baby over a balcony railing. The idiocy will never stop till there are no idiots. What are the chances of that?

[next_to_normal]

I have to admit, I got hung up on "un-concur" before I ever got to "graphically"...

[deird1]

Heh. Good point.

[unjapanologist]

Me too. "Un-concur"? Is that like concurring and then withdrawing your... concurrence? Or refusing to concur in a purposeful and activist manner, to make a clear and bold statement?

[bruttimabuoni]

Yes. This.

No sense can come from the keyboard of a person who write un-concur with...

[beer_good_foamy]

So... he's surprised that when he goes to a "crowded city café at lunchtime", people of all ages are seen having lunch? What did he expect to see? Infants chowing down on a steak? (Sorry, graphically chowing down on a steak.)

(There's a dingo joke in here somewhere. Sorry.)

[deird1]

*nods*

He might as well get upset about someone graphically drinking a milkshake...

[stormwreath]

Perhaps he means that she was sitting there with a sketchpad, doodling a picture of a woman breastfeeding?

[a2zmom]

With Aaron I used to nurse him behind closed doors or in a ladies room or whatever. That kind of thinking goes out the window when you have two kids.

I usually wore a loose top and a nursing bra that I could open one handed and that was that. Zachary got feed in the open air, in bookstores (by the age of 3, Aaron was already reading, so he would check out a book while Zachary ate), in department stores, basically anywhere and everywhere. Whe you have two kids, your priority is them not some idiot's delicate sensibilities.

[bobthemole]

they didn't have to sit there and remind him that breasts exist

He doesn't mind that they exist - he just doesn't like the reminder that they don't exist for his benefit.

[velvetwhip]

I came, I saw, I concurred.

Sorry, the "un-concur" thing has rather taken my thoughts away from the subject of the post. I will get back to it now:

I have a radical and truly revolutionary idea for the gentleman who is so horrified by the sight of a woman feeding her child in the way she's designed to do:

DON'T LOOK!


Gabrielle

[trouble]

*sigh*

[immer_am_lesen]

Obviously his problem with it was that she didn't erect a tent around herself while performing this graphically disturbing yet natural act.

Also, I just noticed- your icon has a nice spelling of 'fascinating'....

[deird1]

Also, I just noticed- your icon has a nice spelling of 'fascinating'....

Heh. Yes - I noticed that about a year after I got it. Slightly annoying, but I love the icon far too much to care.

[sdwolfpup]

Ah nursing in public. I nursed my two year old on a plane. Who knows what horrors I've caused innocent bystanders as they saw him, um, just laying there with me mostly. Sheesh.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think the two uses of graphically are really all that different. Graphic puppy killing is puppy killing you can see, as opposed to having the camera cut away, ditto for graphic pornography. The difference between graphic and not graphic violence is somewhat more complex, but it still comes down to how much of it you're seeing.

So I think that, either way, it's about invisibility. If he can look at it and see it happening... bad. If it's more like, "Oh, feeding time," *walks off camera to a place where he cannot see, feeds, returns to camera* then it's all fine.

The key point is that the world revolves around him. Now you might be thinking, "But he can just look away and then it'll be like it's off camera." Don't be absurd. You can't expect him to just not look at things he doesn't want to see. That would be too much to ask of him. No. Things that he does not want to see must be removed from anywhere that he might see them so that he is free to look wherever he wants without risking seeing them.

Clearly.

That's what I think it's saying, at any rate. And it is, obviously, an assholic thing to say.

(This message is from chris the cynic (http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/), who is having trouble logging in.)

[cheyinka]

Yeah, the disclaimer really is a "No offense, but you should have to hide while your child eats, lest someone staring at you catch a glimpse of your nipple and resent your child's access to that nipple, even though I wouldn't want that nipple anyway because milk would come out, grossssss!" kind of thing.