The Economist
Оригинал взят у krotyha в The Economist
Originally posted by procontra at The Economist
Сегодня тему ГВ на публике затронуло одно из наиболее авторитетных в мире деловых изданий - The Economist.
Если вкратце, то они однозначно высказались в поддержку кормящих мам. Поводом стала неприятная история в люксовом лондонском отеле Claridge's, где маму попросили скрыть процесс кормления от других посетителей под салфеткой. Это вызвало бурю негодования в интернете, в прессе, и акции протеста под стенами отеля.
Глупо, что в обществе до сих пор происходит стигматизация кормления грудью, - говорит The Economist. ГВ - естественный процесс, он никому не причиняет вреда. Те же, кому это неприятно, могут просто отвернуться. В конце концов, что лучше - зрелище кормления или безутешные крики голодного ребенка?
От себя добавлю: что характерно, любимый соотечественниками вариант общественной реакции "вот и сидела бы с ребенком дома, нечего его по кафе таскать" вообще не обсуждается.
Статью могу перевести полностью, если нужно.
Rules at hotels
Lactose intolerance
Dec 9th 2014, 17:24 BY B.R.
A GROUP of mothers staged a “nurse-in” outside Claridge's, a posh London hotel, today. The demonstrators took to breast-feeding their children outside the establishment in protest against its treatment of a young mother earlier this week. Louise Burns was taking afternoon tea at the hotel and began breast-feeding her hungry baby. A waiter told her-politely, by Ms Burns’s own account-that it was Claridge’s policy to ask mothers to cover up while feeding. He then produced a large napkin to drape over the baby. An embarrassed Ms Burns tweeted the episode (pictured), the Guardian picked it up, and a debate about the rights and wrongs of Claridge’s actions ensued. Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, a popular right-wing political party, added fuel when he suggested that mothers might prefer to “sit in a corner” when breast-feeding so as not to upset others.
We are all surely now big enough and old enough not to be bothered about women breast-feeding in public. It seems silly that there should still be any stigma attached to it; it is a natural act that harms no one. Those sensitive souls who are offended at the sight should try averting their gazes. (And in any case, on a purely selfish level, surely it is better that mums feel comfortable enough to breast-feed in coffee-shops, or on buses and planes, rather than the rest of us having to put up with a screaming baby.)
To be fair to Claridge's, it does not ban the act. It asks that women cover up with a shawl or, in this case, a large napkin-out of respect, it says, for other guests. Yet most women are perfectly capable of breast-feeding discreetly. If anything is going to the draw prudes’ attention to what is going on, it is placing an oversize white serviette on the baby’s head.
One counter-argument goes that, even if not inherently offensive, not all behaviour is appropriate for all settings. Hotels set all manner of arbitrary rules because they wish to convey a certain image. Decrees that Gulliver has fallen foul of include the prohibition of headphones, and of jeans at breakfast (and boy did he feel silly eating his toast in the previous night’s tuxedo). Mobile phones are an everyday part of life, but if a hotel wanted to stop guests from using them in its restaurants, they would find Gulliver right behind them. But breast-feeding is different. Banning it discriminates against a specific group-new mothers-and as such might be illegal in Britain in any case. That should give establishments pause for thought; after all, lawyers, like babies, are prone to milking opportunities for all they're worth.
Originally posted by procontra at The Economist
Сегодня тему ГВ на публике затронуло одно из наиболее авторитетных в мире деловых изданий - The Economist.
Если вкратце, то они однозначно высказались в поддержку кормящих мам. Поводом стала неприятная история в люксовом лондонском отеле Claridge's, где маму попросили скрыть процесс кормления от других посетителей под салфеткой. Это вызвало бурю негодования в интернете, в прессе, и акции протеста под стенами отеля.
Глупо, что в обществе до сих пор происходит стигматизация кормления грудью, - говорит The Economist. ГВ - естественный процесс, он никому не причиняет вреда. Те же, кому это неприятно, могут просто отвернуться. В конце концов, что лучше - зрелище кормления или безутешные крики голодного ребенка?
От себя добавлю: что характерно, любимый соотечественниками вариант общественной реакции "вот и сидела бы с ребенком дома, нечего его по кафе таскать" вообще не обсуждается.
Статью могу перевести полностью, если нужно.
Rules at hotels
Lactose intolerance
Dec 9th 2014, 17:24 BY B.R.
A GROUP of mothers staged a “nurse-in” outside Claridge's, a posh London hotel, today. The demonstrators took to breast-feeding their children outside the establishment in protest against its treatment of a young mother earlier this week. Louise Burns was taking afternoon tea at the hotel and began breast-feeding her hungry baby. A waiter told her-politely, by Ms Burns’s own account-that it was Claridge’s policy to ask mothers to cover up while feeding. He then produced a large napkin to drape over the baby. An embarrassed Ms Burns tweeted the episode (pictured), the Guardian picked it up, and a debate about the rights and wrongs of Claridge’s actions ensued. Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, a popular right-wing political party, added fuel when he suggested that mothers might prefer to “sit in a corner” when breast-feeding so as not to upset others.
We are all surely now big enough and old enough not to be bothered about women breast-feeding in public. It seems silly that there should still be any stigma attached to it; it is a natural act that harms no one. Those sensitive souls who are offended at the sight should try averting their gazes. (And in any case, on a purely selfish level, surely it is better that mums feel comfortable enough to breast-feed in coffee-shops, or on buses and planes, rather than the rest of us having to put up with a screaming baby.)
To be fair to Claridge's, it does not ban the act. It asks that women cover up with a shawl or, in this case, a large napkin-out of respect, it says, for other guests. Yet most women are perfectly capable of breast-feeding discreetly. If anything is going to the draw prudes’ attention to what is going on, it is placing an oversize white serviette on the baby’s head.
One counter-argument goes that, even if not inherently offensive, not all behaviour is appropriate for all settings. Hotels set all manner of arbitrary rules because they wish to convey a certain image. Decrees that Gulliver has fallen foul of include the prohibition of headphones, and of jeans at breakfast (and boy did he feel silly eating his toast in the previous night’s tuxedo). Mobile phones are an everyday part of life, but if a hotel wanted to stop guests from using them in its restaurants, they would find Gulliver right behind them. But breast-feeding is different. Banning it discriminates against a specific group-new mothers-and as such might be illegal in Britain in any case. That should give establishments pause for thought; after all, lawyers, like babies, are prone to milking opportunities for all they're worth.