Connect with us

Breastfeeding In Uniform: Latest Battle In America’s War On Women

Published

on

In January, a few women in the military got together and formed a support group designed to spread the word to women in the military and women spouses of military personnel that breastfeeding infants is a good thing. The Mom2Mom Breastfeeding Support Group even got a professional photographer to take pictures of women –some in uniform — breastfeeding. Tasteful, beautiful, life-affirming photographs.

And then on May 22, they took their message to Facebook. In just days, there was outrage, and some called the women a “disgrace to the uniform” and labeled their actions “conduct unbecoming.”

The Today Show” picked up the story and felt the strange need to offer a warning to viewers before airing it: “A few of you may find it too revealing.” Seriously? Is America so prude that the act of feeding a baby causes “controversy”?

The Today Show story includes a Washington State National Guard supervisor stating that it is a violation of regulations for the Mom2Mom Breastfeeding Support Group women to be in uniform and endorse a product or further a cause or ideology. Yes, according to Keith Kosik, State Public Affairs Officer, Washington National Guard, breastfeeding is a “cause” and an “ideology.” Would Kosik say that bottle feeding too is a “cause” and an “ideology”?

Via MSNBC:

“A lot of people are saying it’s a disgrace to the uniform. They’re comparing it to urinating and defecating [while in uniform],” says Crystal Scott, a military spouse who started Mom2Mom in January as a breast-feeding support group for military moms and “anyone related to the base” at Fairchild AFB outside Spokane, Wash. “It’s extremely upsetting. Defecating in public is illegal. Breast-feeding is not.”

It was Scott’s idea to ask photographer Brynja Sigurdardottir to take photos of real-life breast-feeding moms to create posters for National Breastfeeding Awareness Month in August. One of the moms photographed in uniform, Terran Echegoyen-McCabe, breast-feeds her 10-month-old twin girls on her lunch breaks during drill weekends as a member of the Air National Guard.

“I have breast-fed in our lobby, in my car, in the park … and I pump, usually in the locker room,” she says. “I’m proud to be wearing a uniform while breast-feeding. I’m proud of the photo and I hope it encourages other women to know they can breast-feed whether they’re active duty, guard or civilian.”

She said she’s surprised by the reaction to the photos, which also feature her friend Christina Luna, because it never occurred to her that breast-feeding in uniform would cause such a stir.

“There isn’t a policy saying we can or cannot breast-feed in uniform,” Echegoyen-McCabe says. “I think it’s something that every military mom who is breast-feeding has done. … I think we do need to be able to breast-feed in uniform and be protected.”
The Air Force has no policy specifically addressing breast-feeding in uniform, according to Air Force spokesperson Captain Rose Richeson, who added, “Airmen should be mindful of their dress and appearance and present a professional image at all times while in uniform.”

Except, they’re all wrong. Why?

Part One

In “We’re Seriously Debating Whether It’s Okay for Military Moms to Breastfeed While in Uniform?,” Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel writes:

Apparently, this was a grievous offense to the respectability and professionalism of the military, and, by extension, to America and freedom and Jesus. These colors don’t run! Or lactate!

A nice cross section of shitty reactions to military breastfeeding can be found on the blog of ex-military mom turned breastfeeding advocate Robyn Roche-Paull, who has spent much of her post-military career trying to convince the sausage fest that is the US military that they should really think about drafting a policy that allows women to breastfeed while in uniform. As it stands, there’s no such policy, and as a result, women like Echegoyen-McCabe and Luna face criticism and reprimand should they choose to breastfeed.

So, what’s the big deal? According to comments on Roche-Paull’s blog that frequently begin with “As a… ” (general rule of thumb — if a sentence starts with the words “As a…” then 75% of the time, the implied third word is “shithead know-it-all”), breastfeeding is akin to peeing in your uniform in front of everybody. One commenter said,

As a former Marine, Active Duty, I am appalled by the notion that any service woman would feel it is appropriate to breast feed a child while in uniform. I believe it is an utter disgrace to all women before us who made many sacrifices for the roles we have today. I believe it is an honor to be a woman, a mother, and a Marine. I believe those who chose to breast feed in uniform are only making a joke of the hard work and dedication of service women in the past. You wanted to participate in a career that is slightly more demanding than that of say a receptionist, housewife, lawyer, doctor, writer, etc. so you should adhere to a more professional standard and take your job more seriously.

Because the natural process of feeding your damn kid that you made with your body isn’t serious.

Another commenter added,

I feel very strongly that respect for both the uniform and for women would be compromised should women breast-feed in uniform in public. Women have fought the battle for equal rights and must be cognizant of the fact that they are still in the stage of proving themselves as equals in society and should always remain professional while in uniform. Professional women do not breast-feed in public, and female soldiers, who are professionals, should not either.

And now they drag feminism into this. Advocating for equal opportunity for men and women isn’t the same thing as demanding biological sameness — being granted the right to serve in the military alongside men doesn’t erase the fact that women are still the ones who bear children, still the ones who feed children.

Others echoed the concern that they’re worried that breast feeding in uniform could lead their male counterparts seeing them as less worthy of respect. To this I say: if the sight of a woman breastfeeding leads men en masse to think that women are inferior or not worthy of respect, then the problem isn’t with the women or with breastfeeding — it’s with a rigid culture that encourages acting like a dick. Why accomodate that?

Part Two

In “FACT: U.S. Air Force and DoD Officially Endorse Breastfeeding,” the website Look Dumbass picks up on the Washington National Guard’s State Public Affairs Officer’s comments in the Today Show video and notes:

Kosik went on to state:

“If you look at the press coverage that’s out there right now, it has been misconstrued as a battle against breastfeeding. It leads one to believe they are being persecuted for breastfeeding. The fact is they’re not being persecuted. The fact is breastfeeding was never an issue for us.”

So breastfeeding in uniform is NOT an issue at all. The issue seems to come from AFI 36-2903, Section 1.4.2, which states:

When NOT to wear the Air Force Uniform …
1.4.2. While participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, or rallies or in an public demonstration when participation may imply Air Force sanction of the cause.

Or maybe DoDD 1334.1 Section 3.1.2 which states that wearing of the uniform is prohibited “when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.” A claim which is being made by the bigwigs in a memo on Wednesday to all Fairchild AFB personnel to support this sort of smackdown on the women.

Were the women using their uniforms to further their cause or imply Air Force sanction of the cause?

No!

In fact, the women were essentially following a recommendation and direct order of the Secretary of the Air Force by breastfeeding their children.

Air Force Instruction 44-102, January 20th, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

4.16. Breastfeeding and Breast Pumping

4.16.1. Breastfeeding provides optimal health benefits for both mother and infant throughout their life spans. Exclusive breastfeeding is optimal nutrition for the first 6 months of life. Gradual introduction of solids begins in the second half of the first year and complements human milk, which remains essential to nutrition during this period. Extensive medical research has documented that breastfeeding has significant health, nutritional, immunologic, developmental, emotional, social, and economic benefits to mother and baby. The AFMS recommends that supervisors of AF members who are breastfeeding work with the member to arrange their work schedules to allow 15-30 minutes every 3-4 hours to pump breast milk in a room or an area that provides adequate privacy and cleanliness. Restrooms should not be considered an appropriate location for pumping. The AF member must supply the equipment needed to pump and store the breast milk.

You CAN’T accuse the women of exploiting their uniforms to further their cause and you CAN’T accuse the women of exploiting their uniforms to “imply Air Force sanction of the cause” and you CAN’T rightfully silence the women nor should they face disciplinary action for exploiting their uniforms to imply sanction of the cause.

Why?

There is nothing to imply when the Secretary of The Air Force issues an order for which compliance is mandatory, an order which specifically endorses and recommends breastfeeding and breast pumping. A picture of a woman in uniform breastfeeding her child is a direct reflection of the recommendations, values, and orders from the Department of Defense.

There is no cause. There is no implication that the Department of Defense and Air Force are in support of breastfeeding.

It’s a STATEMENT OF FACT.

Part Three — Earth To Tony Perkins… Where Are All The “Pro-Life” And “Pro-Family” Groups?

As for public reaction, it’s offensive to suggest women — in uniform  or not — go to a restroom to feed their children. Would you want to eat in a restroom?

Of course, we aren’t seeing any of the so-called “pro-family” and “pro-life” groups like the American Family Association, Family Research Council, or the National Organization For Marriage come out in support of these women who started the Mom2Mom Breastfeeding Support Group, military women who need to feed their children while they happen to be in uniform, or women in general breastfeeding in public.

Where are Tony Perkins and Bryan Fischer and Robert P. George when women need them? For that matter, where is Maggie Gallagher — who loves to tout that she was a needy single mother at one time?

Nowhere. Silent. Crickets…

Why? Because they’re all too busy attacking gay people for wanting to get married, or for being in the military, and they’re all too conservative to actually take their heads out of their asses and recognize that breastfeeding a baby is about as natural and as pro-life and pro-family as you can get.

Hypocrites.

For more, read about the Child’s Right to Nurse Act.

Then head over to the Mom2Mom Breastfeeding Support Group on Facebook, and show your support.

Image: Brynja SigurdardottirPhotography & Mom2Mom Breastfeeding Support Group 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Indictment Anytime’: Experts Explain Significance of Trump’s Attorneys Meeting With DOJ – Warn Plea Deal Possible

Published

on

Legal experts responding to news Donald Trump‘s legal team Monday morning walked into the U.S. Dept. of Justice agree it likely means Special Counsel Jack Smith is nearing a charging decision, but warn it could also mean the ex-president, under criminal investigation for unlawful handling of classified documents, among other possibly unlawful acts, might be offered a plea deal to avoid serving time in prison.

Trump’s attorneys being at DOJ “suggests indictment anytime. This would be the last step, and if neither side offers something worth thinking about, then DOJ would pull the trigger,” says former Dept. of Justice official Harry Litman.

“Plenty of possible angles they might choose to play including guilty plea for noncustodial sentence,” he adds, referring to any possible plea bargain with no sentence behind bars. “But unless Trump side leaks, discussions will stay confidential.”

READ MORE: ‘No Longer the Lord’s Chicken’: ‘Christian Woman’ Says She’s ‘Grieving’ Over ‘Woke’ Chick-fil-A Hiring a Diversity Officer

CBS News’ Robert Costa and Rob Legare broke the news that Trump’s attorneys had gone into DOJ. Responding to that, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance offers up a few possible scenarios.

“The smart move here for Trump is a guilty plea to a misdemeanor if DOJ will offer one & a felony with no jail time if they won’t,” she says, pointing to her Substack newsletter where she discussed this very subject Sunday night.

“For those who dislike these possible outcomes (I would number myself in that group), it’s nonetheless important to understand the prior precedent that will shape DOJ’s charging decisions & any plea offers in this matter. This is Trump’s best possible outcome, not the country’s,” says Vance.

READ MORE: Classified Pentagon ‘War Plans’ Document Trump Bragged About in Audio Recording Is Missing: Report

She adds, “Trump seems incapable of saying he’s done anything wrong. To plead, he’d have to say under oath in open court that he was guilty. It’ll be interesting to see if he can do that, or would rather run the risk of being convicted of felonies that carry up to 20 years in custody.”

“Good sign,” says former federal prosecutor of 30 years, Glenn Kirschner, observing, “if Jack Smith had decided against charging Trump, there would be no need for this meeting. The last federal prosecutors often do before indicting is meet with the target’s defense team & give them an opportunity to present any evidence or arguments they want to offer.”

Dave Aronberg, Palm Beach County, Florida state’s attorney on MSNBC Monday morning said he believes Trump will be indicted this week.

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

Trump’s Attorneys Just Walked Into DOJ – Special Counsel Expected to Reach Charging Decision Soon: Report

Published

on

Attorneys for Donald Trump Monday morning entered the U.S. Dept. of Justice, as expectations grow the ex-president could soon be charged in his unlawful removal, retention, and refusal to return hundreds of classified and top secret documents.

CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa reports sources say Special Counsel Jack Smith is expected to reach a decision on charging Trump in the case soon.

“Trump’s lawyers just spotted by @CBSNews entering the Justice Department, per @RobLegare who is on site,” Costa tweeted at 10:09 AM ET. He says that “comes as sources tell me the special counsel is moving toward a charging decision in the classified documents case.”

Citing sources, Costa adds, “Trump’s lawyers are expected to raise concerns about how prosecutors have handled atty-client questions during the grand jury but there is no sign the special counsel is going to waver from how he and his team have handled the crime-fraud exception…”

READ MORE: Former DOJ Official Says Audio of Trump Admitting to Keeping ‘War Plans’ Makes it ‘Inconceivable’ He Will Not Be Charged

Trump’s attorneys being at DOJ is a possible sign the Special Counsel could be close to asking a grand jury to bring charges against the one-term, twice impeached ex-president who is currently facing 34 felonies in an unrelated New York case.

“Often defense attorneys are given the opportunity to ‘pitch’ the DOJ before a charging decision is made,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti notes. “Trump’s team visiting DOJ likely means that we won’t see charges in the next few days—as their pitch is considered—but could potentially see charges in the next 5 to 15 days.”

The Special Counsel’s grand jury is reportedly reconvening this week.

Legal experts and Trump watchers have been expecting the ex-president to be charged as soon as this week, after CNN reported Special Counsel Jack Smith had an audio recording of Trump admitting to holding on to a classified document, described by some as “war plans” against Iran. In that audio Trump reportedly also said he knew the document was classified, and said he wished he could share it, which destroys multiple claims he has made in his defense of retaining the documents.

That document is still missing, and the Pentagon appears greatly concerned about the document.

On Sunday night Trump lashed out at Smith, calling him, the DOJ, and the FBI all “Marxist,” and described the investigation into his possibly illegal handling of classified documents as the “boxes hoax.”

 

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. 

Continue Reading

News

Right-Wingers’ Latest Chick-fil-A Meltdown Proves They Have ‘Officially Jumped the Shark’: Morning Joe Panel

Published

on

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Donny Deutsch mocked conservatives for running the “woke” hysteria into the ground.

Ron DeSantis and other Republicans have screeched about the so-called “woke agenda,” which they warn will undermine American values and put children at risk from all manner of threats, but the “Morning Joe” host said most voters simply don’t care about that manufactured issue.

“Joe Biden, 350 pieces of bipartisan legislation signed, and Ron DeSantis and everybody else is talking ‘woke, woke, woke, woke, woke,'” Scarborough said. “Again, something that I said on this show and I heard a lot about from liberals, even, in 2021. You’re not hearing it, again, in part because there have been some corrections. You have the head of Berkley Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School going, ‘Hold on, hold on, we’re not going to let these woke mobs get in the way of free speech.’ They’re saying it at the most elite law schools in America, so common-sense Americans are going, ‘Okay, there may still be a problem, but they’re working on it,’ and yet these Republicans are all acting like it’s 2019, 2020 and they just keep freaking out. Well, Joe Biden is talking about job training and signing bipartisan bills.”

Conservatives have turned against Chick-fil-A for hiring a vice president of diversity, equity and inclusion — which actually happened over a year ago but largely escaped notice until recently — and Deutsche said that was a nadir for “woke” hysteria.

READ MORE: ‘Cowards’: Soledad O’Brien rips former CNN colleagues for silence as Chris Licht wrecks the network

“The ‘woke’ movement officially jumped the shark,” he said. “Joe, you touched on this earlier with the Chick-fil-A move. Right-wing company, I don’t say that negatively, very family values, closed on Sundays, the head of the — [company chairman] Dan Cathy came out against same-sex marriages. They’re very conservative. Now, all of a sudden — you’re right, very conservative, obviously a great company, and they came under fire they have a DEI initiative, diversity, coming under fire from right-wing groups. That’s the official moment that ‘woke’ officially jumped the shark and put Fonzie on skis in Honolulu.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Image by Hector Alejandro via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.