Showing posts with label Mothers' Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mothers' Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Paid Maternity Leave? Forget it!
Get a load of this article from the New York Times about how the United States is NOT one of the 170 countries that offer a paid maternity leave. GET WITH THE PROGRAM ALREADY!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Another Blanket (Yawn)
By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
Latest from the nursing-mothers-are-legally-protected-to-breastfeed-in-public front:
this law is unfamiliar to the manager of a Kentucky Applebee’s. A story that ran in the Lexington Herald describes the dispute between a breastfeeding mom and the restaurant manager. Asked to cover up and offered a blanket to do so, little separates this seemingly ubiquitous story from being like the others. (And maybe that’s the point: even once protected by law, it’s such a hidden one that no one feels compelled to follow it). The nursing mom, Brooke Ryan, however, had a copy of the law in hand, pointing out to those in charge that she was within her rights to breastfeed in public—and without a blanket. In going public, Ryan compared her situation to Rosa Parks’ on the bus, except with a blanket.
A discreet breastfeeding mom (and we who have done it for years believe women if they say they are discreet) isn’t a public eyesore. Whether Ryan’s actions were staged, it matters not. While the nod to Parks might seem extreme, an articulate woman like Ryan demanded a simple, and I think fitting thing from Applebee’s: an apology.
Meantime, the June story is resurfacing now because on September 8th, a series of Nurse-Ins are being scheduled at Applebee’s restaurants around the country.
These stories don’t make big headlines necessarily beyond the local angles. Perhaps, though, on a national stage, it’s our duty in supporting women’s experiences from being invisible to keep taking note.
Latest from the nursing-mothers-are-legally-protected-to-breastfeed-in-public front:
this law is unfamiliar to the manager of a Kentucky Applebee’s. A story that ran in the Lexington Herald describes the dispute between a breastfeeding mom and the restaurant manager. Asked to cover up and offered a blanket to do so, little separates this seemingly ubiquitous story from being like the others. (And maybe that’s the point: even once protected by law, it’s such a hidden one that no one feels compelled to follow it). The nursing mom, Brooke Ryan, however, had a copy of the law in hand, pointing out to those in charge that she was within her rights to breastfeed in public—and without a blanket. In going public, Ryan compared her situation to Rosa Parks’ on the bus, except with a blanket.
A discreet breastfeeding mom (and we who have done it for years believe women if they say they are discreet) isn’t a public eyesore. Whether Ryan’s actions were staged, it matters not. While the nod to Parks might seem extreme, an articulate woman like Ryan demanded a simple, and I think fitting thing from Applebee’s: an apology.
Meantime, the June story is resurfacing now because on September 8th, a series of Nurse-Ins are being scheduled at Applebee’s restaurants around the country.
These stories don’t make big headlines necessarily beyond the local angles. Perhaps, though, on a national stage, it’s our duty in supporting women’s experiences from being invisible to keep taking note.
Watching the Post Reveal a Breastfeeding Campaign Gone Lame
By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser
It’s only a conspiracy theory if they’re NOT out to get you.
This could apply to breastfeeding advocates. A recent story in the Washington Post revealed that with help from a former head to the Republican National Committee turned lobbyist, formula companies were successful in getting political appointees from the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down their pro-breastfeeding campaigns. Rather than depict the ills of formula with asthma inhalers and insulin syringes, the ads instead showed more “friendly” images of
dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops to show how breastfeeding can help stem childhood obesity.
Representative Henry Waxman, investigating the matter in the wake of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s claims that the White House pressured him to make certain policies, called the softening of the breastfeeding campaign ads a “credible allegation of public interference” with potential “serious health consequences.” The US breastfeeding rate did not increase with the kinder, gentler ad campaign and lags well behind Europe. While the original ads were to scare women into breastfeeding, the final product became ads that tried to encourage women into breastfeeding by extolling its benefits, an approach the company hired to consult on the campaign predicted would be unsuccessful, and, not incidentally, was unsuccessful.
The Post article chronicles how formula companies were able to assert themselves such that HHS officials tried to “be fair” to the companies, rather than press hard for public health concerns. This story has made its way across the blogosphere. While some newspapers, including the Kansas City Star, picked up the Post story, other outlets have yet toreport upon it. Breaking just before Labor Day (no pun intended), the jury’s out about whether the story will travel further. Its narrative echoes other complaints about public health, but also management writ larger (think, Katrina, Iraq, oil drilling). My question: will the story follow in those footsteps of mismanagement due to pandering to big business or will the story not be as prominently featured because breastfeeding seems to be shunted to “women’s” issues rather than a national concern (even if the public health implications might loom
large).
It’s only a conspiracy theory if they’re NOT out to get you.
This could apply to breastfeeding advocates. A recent story in the Washington Post revealed that with help from a former head to the Republican National Committee turned lobbyist, formula companies were successful in getting political appointees from the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down their pro-breastfeeding campaigns. Rather than depict the ills of formula with asthma inhalers and insulin syringes, the ads instead showed more “friendly” images of
dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops to show how breastfeeding can help stem childhood obesity.
Representative Henry Waxman, investigating the matter in the wake of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s claims that the White House pressured him to make certain policies, called the softening of the breastfeeding campaign ads a “credible allegation of public interference” with potential “serious health consequences.” The US breastfeeding rate did not increase with the kinder, gentler ad campaign and lags well behind Europe. While the original ads were to scare women into breastfeeding, the final product became ads that tried to encourage women into breastfeeding by extolling its benefits, an approach the company hired to consult on the campaign predicted would be unsuccessful, and, not incidentally, was unsuccessful.
The Post article chronicles how formula companies were able to assert themselves such that HHS officials tried to “be fair” to the companies, rather than press hard for public health concerns. This story has made its way across the blogosphere. While some newspapers, including the Kansas City Star, picked up the Post story, other outlets have yet toreport upon it. Breaking just before Labor Day (no pun intended), the jury’s out about whether the story will travel further. Its narrative echoes other complaints about public health, but also management writ larger (think, Katrina, Iraq, oil drilling). My question: will the story follow in those footsteps of mismanagement due to pandering to big business or will the story not be as prominently featured because breastfeeding seems to be shunted to “women’s” issues rather than a national concern (even if the public health implications might loom
large).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)