Could she have pumped privately? Yes. She chose to do this in the most public way. It was her choice. I think it could have been handled differently.
Ai_1 wrote:
mwanner13 wrote:
Perhaps she could have peeled off course and taken care of it in a less public space or maybe the race just conflicts with what is going on in her life and her family needs are more important than this one race.
The action by her made the news it was so unconventional, but those who have a different view on her choices are chastised. The ones who are supposedly more tolerant usually are less tolerant of different views. It’s okay to not agree with how she handled the situation.
Anything goes these days and if you don’t agree with the masses they will tear you down for a difference of opinion.
People aren’t
edbikebabe wrote:
casper3043 wrote:
And what if she didn't pump?
I feel like she used the pumping excuse to make a statement - which was a very inspiring one for women, but I think this was unnecessary. her kids wouldn't starve to death if they didn't get their fresh milk that afternoon. the bigger statement would be if she just whipped it out without covering.
Being engorged is no joke. The pain would keep me up at night if I didn't do something. And running at the same time? Nope, nope, nope.
What bull.
Look, I know I'm not about to convince you of anything, it's obvious you're not about to take any logical arguments onboard, but in case anyone else thinks you have a point, let's just be clear about something:
Most people are saying if she wanted to race, she probably needed to pump. That there is no legitimate reason to accuse her of inventing a problem or making a fuss about nothing. Anyone here who breast fed or had a partner who did will know this is a perfectly legitimate need. Also, she didn't make a fuss about it, she just did what she needed to do. She didn't interfere with anyone else's race. There's no problem and indeed willingness to disregard silly old fashioned prudishness and ignorance does deserve credit.
Others either don't understand the situation (I wouldn't have known too much before my partner breast fed our son) and therefore have mistaken this for a publicity stunt, which is forgivable so long as you're open to feedback and willing to correct your error. However there are those, like mwanner13, who not only don't get it, but play the victim and pretend all opinions are equal and they are being persecuted for being different.
Opinion A is that she should be left to it. It's a perfectly natural need, which interferes with no-one else and allows her to race is do what she wishes so long. This opinion should offend no-one, since it imposes nothing on anyone.
Opinion B is that she should do what the contributor wants, regardless of her own needs or wishes. A contributor who appears not to even understand the situation. This opinion favours interfering with the freedoms of others without even suggesting a legitimate reason beyond perceived existing convention.
And the holder of option B is the one complaining about not having their freedom respected.
I challenge your position and your wish to interfere with others. I make no apology for that.
You challenge the freedom of others without cause. I believe that's where an apology is due.
The masses don't tear you down for a difference of opinion, and you're not being brave by having one.
Your ignorance is being criticised as it should be. If your position was defensible you wouldn't be pathetically playing the victim, you'd be defending your position.