MovieChat Forums > The Mindy Project (2012) Discussion > How could an OB-GYN be against breastfee...

How could an OB-GYN be against breastfeeding?


I don't understand people who are against breastfeeding mothers in general. What, do they rather the mothers preserve their modesty and let their hungry baby cry?!

I sort of understand because the warped society associates breasts with sex rather than just mammary glands to feed an offspring. But an OB-GYN...? Even a Southern one?!

Also, would a whole subway cart full of New Yorkers really body shame a breastfeeding mother?
I would've thought that they just wouldn't bother to look up from their phones and kindles.

reply

I did notice that train car was largely male. But yeah, I never understood people who were against discreet nursing. I mean, obviously, she wasn't showing her breasts. I've also never understood women who do show their breasts. It's easy enough to wear a two-piece outfit and cover most of one's breast with the baby's head and the rest with a shirt. They'll say, "I don't want to hide my baby under a blanket," but that's really not necessary.

But yeah, my attitude was always that I was sure people would rather I breastfeed at a mall or whatever than have a crying baby there. I never once had anyone say anything, though apparently there are a-holes out there.

I think it was just to show how awful the character, Jody was. That worked. I think the actual disconnect is that someone with his attitude would randomly move to New York. I mean, where I live, there are definitely doctors who have old-fashioned attitudes and aren't into breastfeeding. Like, they'll pay lip-service to it, but don't really encourage it, and at the first sign of a problem, they advise to quit. But New York is hugely liberal. And they didn't have any real reason why Jody chose to move there. I mean, if he'd been offered a job as a professor at Columbia Medical School or something, that would make sense. Just to hang with Jeremy, not so much.

reply

Just because you don't associate breasts with sex doesn't necessarily mean that society itself is warped.

Furthermore, breasts can be a really erogenous zone for women. They aren't just for feeding babies.

reply

Alright, maybe I wasn't clear. Yeah, it's an erogenous zone but that's isn't the main function. I just meant the warped view society has on viewing breasts JUST as being associated with sex.

The idea that something so ingrained as being associated with sex used to feed a baby is uncomfortable to some men and women. These people could just not look if they're uncomfortable but to shame a mother and force her to starve her baby just to protect their delicate sensibilities is ridiculous.

Fun fact: Men's nipples have the ability to lactate as well- if a man chooses to use a breast pump for a couple of weeks.

reply

Furthermore, breasts can be a really erogenous zone for women. They aren't just for feeding babies.


Yes, the can be. But their purpose is for feeding babies. What you do with them after that is secondary. There are some cultures where women walk around without shirts and the men don't bat an eye at the women's breasts as they are simply part of their body and used mainly for feeding the kids. Our society has changed how breasts are viewed. But that does not change the facts about what they are for.

reply

Very, very few cultures is that true anymore.

For a woman who doesn't have babies, are her breasts' primary purpose for feeding babies?

What if she can't have babies? What if she doesn't want babies? What if she's 45?

reply