Councilwoman “banned” from titfeeding during meetings

Moo in question is a councilwoman in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Apparently she was in the habit of titfeeding her baybee during Common Council meetings. She claimed that since she wasn’t on the dais when doing this, it should be okay. Other members of the council disagreed. By a 7-1 vote (3 abstaining) they passed a resolution that no children will be allowed on the dais during meetings. Moo of course is butthurt and says she can”t pump and feed the baybee later She says this resolution is targeted at her. No shit...

Cry me a bloody river! The state Democratic Party, of which I’m a member, says this is discrimination against women. Yes indeed, because ALL women are Moos and must be able to whip it out whenever and wherever they please. FFS, is this what women’s rights have devolved into? Fun Fact: Wisconsin law states that a woman can breastfeed her child in public or private areas “anywhere they are authorized to be.” Obviously, the Common Council didn’t think Baybee belongs in their meetings. Suck it up, Moo.

I guess I’m not as liberal as I once thought.

Being an elected official is an important job, and not one to shirk. I prefer that elected officials who are being paid to represent the will of the people pay 100% of their attention to the laws and statutes that they are passing. Perhaps the residents of Wisconsin feel differently.

If she's permitted to titfeed during these meetings, which are by the way financed by the taxpayer, I must also ask what else is permitted during the meetings?

Hypothetically, what if I were elected to this council? Could I spend my meeting time playing fantasy football? Selling Amway products? Listening to my iPod?

If distractions aren't frowned upon in Wisconsin government, I can't think of a good reason why I shouldn't be able to devote my partial attention to other matters, just as this person does.

Quote
cj
I guess I’m not as liberal as I once thought.

I don't see it as a political issue.

"Discrimination" is thrown around like it's a completely bad word. It isn't. I will proudly stand up and proclaim, "Yes, we should discriminate when voting for who represents us. Those who are easily distracted and can't/won't pay attention to the finer points of laws that will be passed, should not be elected."

We need to be very circumspect when it comes to the question of who will ultimately have power over us. And we must remember that they work for us, not the other way around.

I'm pretty far from being a "liberal" on most issues but I think there is some common ground in that we can do a lot better than electing anyone who disrespects the public by not giving their undivided attention to the tasks they are being paid to do.

Well, of course the law discriminates her in the sense that nobody thought there was a need to make a law against having children present until someone went and did it.

It's like when you hear about these really wacky laws like that nobody is allowed to ride naked through town on a horse sitting backward - you just know it is on the books precisely because someone once did precisely that because it was technically not illegal (because the law said nobody shall face the town naked), although anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have known it was clearly against the intent of the law.

Children were never banned from the meetings before, because in the past all adults knew that it was an inappropriate place to bring children.

Quote
yurble
Well, of course the law discriminates her in the sense that nobody thought there was a need to make a law against having children present until someone went and did it.

It's like when you hear about these really wacky laws like that nobody is allowed to ride naked through town on a horse sitting backward - you just know it is on the books precisely because someone once did precisely that because it was technically not illegal (because the law said nobody shall face the town naked), although anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have known it was clearly against the intent of the law.

Children were never banned from the meetings before, because in the past all adults knew that it was an inappropriate place to bring children.

All good points, yurble.

My question for your last statement is... why is this so? And when did this happen? Bringing children to a formal meeting of political leaders wasn't kosher in 1997, 1987, 1977, or any time prior. This "bring your children to... anywhere!" is a phenomenon of the last 15-20 years.

Why?

I was talking to a friend a little while back and she said that she noticed that society has become different since 9/11 and social media. Something in the psyche.

I do think people read about some moo, maybe in Dennmark or somewhere doing the same and just decide to see if they can get away with it, if they do then they can change what is acceptable to their benefit.

I could care less if women breastfeed their kid, but there's times when it's not the right place or time.

If she could breastfeed, then I want to run for city council and sit there in meetings with my cat on my lap and let her bat at images on my phone. It would be just as inappropriate and potentially distracting. Sure, I might be able to ignore the cat, she might be totally silent, but that doesn't mean she should even BE there.

Quote
cfdavep
I was talking to a friend a little while back and she said that she noticed that society has become different since 9/11 and social media. Something in the psyche.

You mean that many adults appear to have developed a perpetual fear of everything, along with a desperate need for validation?

I can almost not blame younger adults because it seems people gave up on teaching self-reliance and resilience to children. But I've also observed that a good many people who were adults at the turn of the century - people now in their 40s - appear to have reverted to childish behavior (while many of the younger adults seem to have never grown up in the first place).

On FB, I mostly see it among 40-somethings who have children at home, and not among those whose children are gone or who didn't have children. I suppose parents have always been afraid for their children, but, yes, since about the turn of the century they have become positively panicked about it. And social media gives them a platform to share their neurosis publicly instead of doing something productive about it. And yet, they keep reproducing, despite believing that the world is a dangerous place and humanity is in a dire position...

Reminds me of when I attended a Democratic party meeting and one of the speakers brought his babbling toadler with him. The kid interrupted constantly while his Duh tried to talk. I was the only one among us giving major stink eye to the carryings on.

To me, this is the same as her dropping trou and urinating on the floor during a council meeting. Gross, totally inappropriate and very distracting from the issues.

If those people wanted to swap bodily fluids with one another, they'd attend an orgy, not a town council meeting.