Battletard wrote:
Quite the opposite. Breasts were vessels for delivering nutrients long before they were made into sex objects. Ironically enough, most children wean themselves before they reach 3 years old- and no, occasionally nursing here and there less than a handful of times each month doesn't count.
If there was any hope of having a civilized discussion without the need to resort to petty insults, I'd be more than happy to give anyone interested insight as to my own first hand experiences utilizing attachment parenting with my girlfriend and our children.
Edit: I guess it's also helpful to mention that the WHO recommends a minimum of 6 months of breast feeding only, up to 2 years or more mixed in with solid foods and the like. So 3 really isn't that old, and most children really do wean themselves.
The USA has one of the lowest average durations for breast feeding worldwide.
You're not hearing me or Jubber or even your own claims. No one is insulting you or anyone else.
I'll say it again. Breast feeding is a red herring. No one needs to be convinced of the merits of breast feeding. And no one contests your assertion that human children, like all mammals, wean themselves. The very fact that the inevitability of self-weaning is evident to you and everyone else is proof that the nonsense about weaning is, in fact, a red herring.
We agree that self-weaning is natural and inevitable. We agree that boobs are both functional and attractive, although until relatively recently the former consideration was somewhat more significant than it is now. So if we agree on the latter point, then we must also agree that something has changed, hence the article. Something not inborn.
That "something" is social values. Which brings us back to my contention. Breast feeding is a red herring. The root cause of the article and the strange and unnatural picture is messed-up women who can't handle motherhood and have serious personal identity issues because of how hard the feminist ideology against men, domesticity and plausible sexual goals has failed them.
Now I'm going to volunteer two more facts to drive the point home.
First, some people saw it coming. Not religious freaks, not misogynists, not reactionaries of any sort. Deeply misguided but somewhat well-intentioned women like Phyllis Schlafly warned that these perverts - and that's what they are - hate "men, marriage, and children". And now here we are. We may be surprised, we may be nonplussed, but we can't say she was wrong.
If Schlafly said that yesterday, we could write her off as another Limbaugh, a hate-filled demogogue thinking only of pandering to the audience today, truth be damned. But she didn't - she said it 40 years ago. Tell me, how can we be justified in refusing to concede history's verdict?
That is what is driving this controversy. That is what the image - a vain failed mother, disdainful of her son's right to self-respect, without a man in sight - is about. Hatred of men, marriage and children.
Now maybe some people want to argue that Schlafly is a female misogynist and homophobe, and that drives her claims, not objective reality. Right or wrong, let's entertain the point. Logic dictates that if her interpretation of these issues as being driven by the abject failure of feminism, and not her own ideas, is correct, then those who do not share her inclinations would disagree on a solution but agree on the problem. So let's ask those feminists that actually wanted real results and not just to bash men:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1EoeoDM15I doubt you'll read that article in its entirety, probably you'll do what you did last time we had a similar discussion, draw faulty conclusions based on a quick superficial reading then put on the righteous indignation when you get called on it. But by all means, feel free prove me wrong by siting and reading the article. I would get a lot more pleasure being proven wrong on one point but moving discussion forward by way of real sharing of ideas and information. That's Aestu for you.
But I'll even help you out with a Cliff Notes:
Quote:
...in 1974 I decided to write Scream Quietly Or The Neighbours Will Hear, the first book in the world on domestic violence. I revealed that women and children were being abused in their own homes and they couldn't escape because the law wouldn't protect them...
...many of the radical lesbian and feminist activists that I had seen in the collectives attended. They began to vote themselves into a national movement across the country....
...Our grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as they were ignorant. "All women are innocent victims of men's violence," they declared.
They opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in them or sitting on their governing committees. Women with alcohol or drug problems were refused admittance, as were boys over 12 years old. Refuges that let men work there were refused affiliation...
...But I became aware of a far more insidious development in the form of public policy-making by powerful women, which was creating a poisonous attitude towards men...
..I look back with sadness to my young self and my vision that there could be places where people - men, women and children who have suffered physical and sexual abuse - could find help, and if they were violent could be given a second chance to learn to live peacefully.
I believe that vision was hijacked by vengeful women who have ghetto-ised the refuge movement and used it to persecute men. Surely the time has come to challenge this evil ideology and insist that men take their rightful place in the refuge movement...
So there you go. When did the legitimate feminists get off the train just before it left the station? At best, the mid-to-late 70s. Forty years ago.
Legitimate feminism has been DEAD since before either of us was born. There ARE no legitimate feminists today, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a liar or a fool. That is not an insult, it is a FACT based on logic and evidence. Evidence I have just presented to you.
So what does my diatribe against feminism have to do with the picture? Back to my initial point. BREAST FEEDING IS A RED HERRING. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BREAST FEEDING ITS MERITS ETC. This is about the abject failure of feminism and how its warped ideology is reflected in that picture, about its failure not for men but for women.
You want more proof? I'll give you more proof. The article I linked is damning but it only grazes the most important issue:
Quote:
I ended up being thrown out by the movement. My crime was to warn some of the women working in the Women's Liberation Movement office off Shaftesbury Avenue that if it persisted in cooperating with a plan to bomb Biba, a fashionable clothes shop in Kensington, I would call the police.
Biba was bombed because the women's movement thought it was a capitalist enterprise devoted to sexualising women's bodies...
...I knew that the radical feminist movement was running out of national support because more sensible women had shunned their anti-male, anti-family agenda. Not only were they looking for a cause, they also wanted money.
That there is what changed between 1974 and 2012. The feminists went from seeing the aspirations of humanly flawed but well-meaning heterosexual women - consumerism, being appealing to men, as something to be destroyed, blown up, obliterated...to a tool they could use.
Takes us back to that picture again. It is a picture of not a natural woman, it is a picture of a consumerist creature. A woman striving to grasp at the moon that the feminists sold her - eternal youth, eternal beauty, the appearance of wealth and social respectability sans men and motherhood...Botox, designer clothes, TV posture, the snarky 16-year-old teenage girl look transposed onto a woman at least twice that age...only now she finds out that it was a paper moon all along...the feminists sold her that moon to push their perverted ideology
when they realized that selling purses was better business than blowing them up. 
Do you think Lagarde is waving that purse around because she really identifies with what it represents any more than she did in the 60s....because she really wants what's best for the women who do any more than when her ilk tried to blow them up...or because she's making a grab for money and power and knows what buttons to press?
Do you think that evil feminist lesbian Lagarde cares any more about the millions of Eurolanders that will suffer for what she is using the feminist platform to do, exploit them for money? Do you think Lagarde cares that ironically enough the big winners are rich white male bankers and the big losers are poor Greek, Spanish and Italian women, who will surely suffer as the public state weakens and they are ever more at the mercy of individual men: providers, exploiters and victimizers alike?
Point being...feminists have become willing to use the icons of consumerism to Peter Piper these women off cliffs, and even after they've been all but raped by these evil lesbians they are too deluded to realize what happened.
How far we've come from 50 years ago when some women were too deluded to realize they'd been raped by evil men. Except that still happens too, just as surely as anti-black discrimination still happens in spite of affirmative action. Systems of patronage benefit the patrons, not the clients.
When one abuses another person's sexuality for the purpose of self-empowerment, it is called rape. The woman in that picture has been raped by the feminists, just as surely as the Eurolanders have, and by the very same dishonest means those feminists have been willing to employ, pandering to the consumerism of "useful idiot" hetero women. Male rapists bring spiked drinks and lesbian rapists bring empty purses. Both seek to satisfy malformed drives for sexual power and dominance. Both are evil and violent and no less dangerous to their own gender than the other.
And like every other unwitting rape victim, the woman in the picture is left with nothing but her sense of wrongness and forcibly perverted sexual drives.
That is what that picture is about. How the means and goals of the feminists and their choice to adopt consumerism as an ally has left a legacy of perversion and misery. And that's what's in that photo. How feminist-driven consumerism failed that woman.
Remove the feminist consumerism that drives her to regard motherhood and the natural life cycle with ambivalence and insecurity, and you remove her misery. You nullify what the article is about. THAT IS A FACT.Now I promised you a second fact, so here it is. That picture actually portrays a criminal act. Breast feeding is "legal" only because it's a natural process. Consent or no, making a child touch a parent in a sexual way is a crime. Doubly so if the child is not actually engaging in misguided but ordinary behavior but being contrived to pose for what is a sex act.
The use of a child for the depiction of sexual acts is called child pornography.
The classic parallel would be the mall Santa who gets an erection when a six-year-old girl sits on his lap. Whether the girl disapproves or not and whether Santa is making the girl fondle his erection or not, he's committing a crime if he allows the girl to handle his erection - as opposed to say, casual, unavoidable contact.
Are erections natural? Sure. Is breastfeeding natural? Sure. Is it legal or appropriate to have a six-year-old girl touch your erection or have a six-year-old boy touch your boobs? No, it's a felony.
So what does this prove? The fact that the inherently criminality of the image is completely lost on nearly everyone proves that BREAST FEEDING IS A RED HERRING and what this is all about is the elephant in the room: the fact that this woman and those like her are perverts manufactured by an evil social ideology.
After all, going back to the Santa analogy, would we consider portraying such a thing okay? What if the mall Santa was, like the loser mom in the picture, wearing no underwear, letting a six-year-old girl handle his naked erection while gazing wanly at the camera?
Why the double standard? Simple - feminist ideology, demonizing the male sex drive, and how it has succeeded in making decent women miserable. THAT'S WHAT THE IMAGE IS ABOUT. NOT BREAST FEEDING. It is about one miserable woman. That is what the article itself is about. Miserable women and their miserable lives, not the merits of breastfeeding, that are not contested by anyone.
So there you go. Do you find fault in my reasoning, React? Or Zaryi, or anyone else?
If my facts or logic are in any way flawed, show me where I go wrong from the facts I cited and the reasoning I employed.
I'm not convinced.
Try again.
