Speaker Hoyle to lift ban on breastfeeding in the chamber. Watch

Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
https://news.sky.com/story/breastfee...snt-sf-twitter

Mr speaker said it did not feel right for a man to dictate this policy?

I’m not sure what I think about this. On the one hand I have 0 issue with breastfeeding in public and do think it’s overegged (I believe it’s neither disgusting nor a wonderful thing, just a baby having lunch)

On the other I’m not sure we should encourage people to being babies to the place of work since it’s not conductive to most work places.
1
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Just fixed the title for you, since lifting a ban and a life ban are very different things

I could joke about how most of the house are basically as well behaved as babies anyway, but I see no reason against this.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Andrew97)
https://news.sky.com/story/breastfee...snt-sf-twitter

Mr speaker said it did not feel right for a man to dictate this policy?

I’m not sure what I think about this. On the one hand I have 0 issue with breastfeeding in public and do think it’s overegged (I believe it’s neither disgusting nor a wonderful thing, just a baby having lunch)

On the other I’m not sure we should encourage people to being babies to the place of work since it’s not conductive to most work places.
The Commons is very different from most workplaces. It has practices that are very family-unfriendly. Many of those exist for political or constitutional reasons. It is very difficult to justify retaining other practices that don't have a present reason just because of the sensibilities of others.

The three key things for an MP are:
  • The constitutional problem of extended maternity leave
  • The need for MPs to vote in person at almost random times
  • The need for MPs to be physically present in the Chamber for lengthy periods before and after participating in debate
3
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
I think this is a fantastic step forward into modernising what is an outdated chamber.

I normally dont like the "x indenity group, should not express a view on..." however this is a example where men should collectively button their lip.
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Just fixed the title for you, since lifting a ban and a life ban are very different things

I could joke about how most of the house are basically as well behaved as babies anyway, but I see no reason against this.
Thanks for fixing the title. That'll teach me to do it during breakfast..

On the crux of the matter, don't get me wrong I understand the arguements in favour. My issue is not with the breastfeeding itself as indicated in the OP, but I don't think its appropriate to bring a baby into a place of work on a daily basis.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
The Commons is very different from most workplaces. It has practices that are very family-unfriendly. Many of those exist for political or constitutional reasons. It is very difficult to justify retaining other practices that don't have a present reason just because of the sensibilities of others.

The three key things for an MP are:
  • The constitutional problem of extended maternity leave
  • The need for MPs to vote in person at almost random times
  • The need for MPs to be physically present in the Chamber for lengthy periods before and after participating in debate
I totally understand that, but the Commons is not on its own in being "non-Family friendly". I somewhat support the idea of proxy MPs for those who are unable to vote in the chamber, But think it should be restricted to maternity leave and illness.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
Woke.
0
reply
vicvic38
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
Well, I'd sooner trust a mother with the moral keys to our country than some rando rich boy anyway, so I think anything to make it easier for them to take their position, the better.

A mother is more representative of this country than some of the men in that chamber.
4
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Occitanie)
Woke.
You think brest feeding should be banned? Why?
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by vicvic38)
Well, I'd sooner trust a mother with the moral keys to our country than some rando rich boy anyway, so I think anything to make it easier for them to take their position, the better.

A mother is more representative of this country than some of the men in that chamber.
Oh dear...
0
reply
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
This ban overturning is well, well overdue. MPs shouldn't have to not represent their constituents in order to feed their child.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
Not keen at all.
Pervs just love leering at a breastfeeding mothers.

I am very wary of choosing to regularly bring young children into workplaces.
Particularly when the buildings are very old, known to have issues with rodents and are regularly targeted by the most aggressive of protesters.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You think brest feeding should be banned? Why?
Completely?! Don’t be absurd.

I don’t think it should be allowed at the workplace.

I know there’s the whole “A baby sucking on her mum’s tit is good for its health” explanation, but there are many other ways of making sure your baby is fed properly.

I mean the mother could even be excused to go do it somewhere private if breastfeeding is what she wants. There’s no need to do it out in the open.

But I guess I should “shut up you ****ing straight white male REEEEEE!!!”
Last edited by Occitanie; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by SnowMiku)
This ban overturning is well, well overdue. MPs shouldn't have to not represent their constituents in order to feed their child.
What?
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by londonmyst)
Not keen at all.
Pervs just love leering at a breastfeeding mothers.

I am very wary of choosing to regularly bring young children into workplaces.
Particularly when the buildings are very old, known to have issues with rodents and are regularly targeted by the most aggressive of protesters.
If there are pervs in our houses of Parliament, I'd be very happy for them to make themselves obvious so that they can be disciplined and if necessary thrown out.

I can only imagine that our Parliament buildings are some of the safest and best guarded in the country? Not every mother can breastfeed in a place where there are people actually paid to stand between them and whatever aggressive people may be around.
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Occitanie)
Completely?! Don’t be absurd.

I don’t think it should be allowed at the workplace.

I know there’s the whole “A baby sucking on her mum’s tit is good for its health” explanation, but there are many other ways of making sure your baby is fed properly.

I mean the mother could even be excused to go do it somewhere private if breastfeeding is what she wants. There’s no need to do it out in the open.

But I guess I should “shut up you ****ing straight white male REEEEEE!!!”
There are no better options for infants than breastfeeding.

If you don't like seeing women breastfeed, don't look; if thy eye offends thee, pluck it out.
Last edited by anosmianAcrimony; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
Breasts are there for breastfeeding not for boys to gawp at. Of course breastfeeding should be allowed in public, it should never be an issue. Also much better than the noise of a crying baby.
1
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Occitanie)
I mean the mother could even be excused to go do it somewhere private if breastfeeding is what she wants. There’s no need to do it out in the open.
(Original post by Occitanie)
What?
(Original post by SnowMiku)
This ban overturning is well, well overdue. MPs shouldn't have to not represent their constituents in order to feed their child.
Miku is saying that MPs shouldn't have to withdraw to some private room, and not represent their constituents in the meantime, to feed their child.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
Miku is saying that MPs shouldn't have to withdraw to some private room, and not represent their constituents in the meantime, to feed their child.
Isn’t there a recess?

Is the child going to spend all day with the mother?

Why can’t she hire someone?
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Occitanie)
Isn’t there a recess?

Is the child going to spend all day with the mother?

Why can’t she hire someone?
Recess: Sometimes it's just not convenient. This is a hungry baby we're talking about. You can't just ask them to wait.

Spend all day with mother: Not necessarily, but it's not unreasonable for a woman to want to spend at least some of her working day with her newborn baby.

Hire someone: Are we expecting the hireling to breastfeed the kid herself? Most mothers and most hirelings wouldn't be okay with that. Or are we suggesting nutritionally inferior formula milk? Why should MPs have to compromise on what their children are fed? I guess an MP could express milk with a breast pump and bottle it for a hireling to use, but that seems like a faff; what MP has time? Why divert time that could be used serving the country?

At the end of the day, if you have a problem with MPs who breastfeed, that would seem to be your problem to get over, not theirs. Grow thicker skin, avert your eyes, do whatever you need to.
Last edited by anosmianAcrimony; 2 weeks ago
2
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
If there are pervs in our houses of Parliament, I'd be very happy for them to make themselves obvious so that they can be disciplined and if necessary thrown out.
You have a lot of faith in Parliamentarians, their disciplinary procedures and willingness to deal with complaints.
Handling allegations of being an obvious pervert who does not touch, commits no crime or legal harassment but leers at women's chests and acts in a very creepy way- this would be a legal and ethical minefield.
Although exposing anyone idiotic enough to start leering during broadcasted debates to public ridicule could socially shame a few of the most obvious pervs.

According to the Independent Inquiry Report of July 2019, there are some pervs in Parliament who have been accused of sexual offences like groping or sexual harassment:
"unwelcome sexual advances, often accompanied by attempts at kissing.
Many involved some form of unwanted touching: for example breasts being grabbed, buttocks being slapped, thighs being stroked and crotches being pressed/rubbed against bodies".

MPs have also been accused of failing to effectively deal with complaints- "I heard of a number of cases, including reports of sexual harassment, in which the complaint was deliberately ignored or brushed aside by the MP and of others in which complaints were insufficiently rigorously dealt with. In one case an employer MP told a person complaining of sexual harassment that it was their responsibility to address the issues with their colleague."
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...ly%202019_.pdf
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (294)
65.63%
No (154)
34.38%

Watched Threads

View All