Did anyone see the ITV News piece about of water bills on customers?

[inkjet]

https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1674332639921045505

Yes this is the feminism board. Paul Embery clipped it but I wonder if anyone saw it in full? He says the piece was about the impact of soaring water bills on an everyday mother. The voiceover calls the person a customer but the customer calls themself a mum. On the Twitter thread someone points out that the customer works for the TUC and is an economist who has been published in the Guardian. I think it’s fair to say the customer is neither a mother nor an ‘everyday’ one.

It's there over and over again. In sharing a toilet with women with their knickers down, in using a changing room with women getting naked, in shoving wet tampons up bottoms, in using women's lingerie to wank and then putting it out on the shelf and watching to see a woman touch it....

It's a MAJOR part of all of this. Women are being involved and lied to that no no no no no, mustn't deprive men of lovely experiences because they don't want to be walking sex toys and don't be mean. Now babies are being involved.

Are Mika’s partner and the baby’s mother the same person?

And with a breast fed baby, a male parent having their nice experience interferes with the mother's time and feeding which will mess up her milk supply and threaten feeding happening productively at all

I thought, or rather suspected, that this is a baby via surrogate who already has no contact with its mother. I dont thinks this is about a transwoman in a relationship with a woman who have given birth, who is saying they are co-mothering.

Although do realise this is heavily influenced by the ITV news editor being open about his same sex marriage and getting a baby via a surrogate. For all we know he too has experienced breast feeding.

Again so non essential to be included in the screen visuals as for most mothers the issue is the costs of keeping children clean, warm and well fed.

Too many babies without their mums...

there's something really sad about that...

ALL drugs are contraindicated in breastfeeding unless there are sufficient safety data and / or a really compelling reason why it's in the infant's best interests to consume breastmilk that could contain those drugs. Even some antibiotics which are used in newborns are contraindicated for breastfeeding. The default position is precautionary because we're talking about newborn health.

So massive doses of cross sex hormones on which there are no safety data at all are definitely not ok. And there is no compelling reason which is in the child's best interests for a man to breastfeed.

None. There is absolutely no reason for a man to breastfeed which is in the child's best interest.

I don't know any woman that would disregard their infant's wellbeing so callously. It's so bloody MALE. Not all men etc obviously, but ANY MAN trying to breastfeed is definitely showing pretty toxic male entitled and selfish behaviour and putting their wellbeing above that of the child.

Imagine being a child at say 14, 18, 20 finding out your father tried to breastfeed you for his own selfish reasons? Talk about needing therapy for life.

It may actually be harmful to a baby to be fed secretions from a man just because of the man's level of natural hormones too. Babies aren't evolved to be fed by men.

Ignoring evolution and the material reality of biology like this won't end well.

"I don't know any woman that would disregard their infant's wellbeing so callously"

You wouldn't think so, but a few of them even came on to the other thread (now zapped) to say they would be happy with this.

Such is the "be kind" mind set of 2023.

I can't think of many fathers disregarding their infant's welfare either.

Two threads (one I started) have been zapped about this biological male role-playing breastfeeding a baby. What is happening behind the scenes on Mumsnet where this topic cannot be discussed as a separate thread?

It's actually very alarming that an issue with multiple safeguarding concerns around a small baby cannot be permitted it's own topic.

Good question.
Again, what exactly was said in the thread that was against the rules that individual deletions could not have dealt with it?
Why zap the whole thread? With all the links to legitimate scientific studies, now gone.
You have to ask who's benefit these deletions are for, and why.

And why a couple of "reports" justifies sweeping all the concerns for safeguarding under the rug of zealous ideology.

Without fail EVERY time, threads about biological functions are deleted, be it men having periods, breastfeeding etc.
EVERY TIME.

I don't understand women who are OK with this. Are you all ok with their DD's meeting a man, giving birth to a baby, then that man taking over the role of mother and pretending to breastfeed the child?

This. Why can't more men do it if it's so easy and harmless and nothing to see here? Breastfeeding is a traumatic experience for some women, male partners could try instead?

Why zap the whole thread? With all the links to legitimate scientific studies, now gone.
You have to ask who's benefit these deletions are for, and why.

The last time I looked in on the thread there was some spectacular TRA nonsense being posted. So I suspect MN didn't want the hassle of moderating.

An awful lot of the posts on the thread were basically just calling this man a pervert and a paedophile. It's not in the spirit of civil or constructive debate and could open MN up to libel claims. If MN was to delete all those it would probably be 50% of the thread gone!

At some point it's easier for them to just delete the thread.

Mine hadn't even got started. It was zapped immediately. And I think some topics are worth the effort of additional moderating, as the topics are so serious they deserve to be aired and discussed opening. And I include the medically dubious posts being allowed to stand, sunlight is important.

Could you tell us please what is the benefit for this infant to be fed induced secretions from a male breast?

I am very happy to post the maximum mls that a male can produce and just how much an infant needs.

Eh? Why would I do that when IMO there is no benefit and I never said there was?

Apologies, that was in response to @Helleofabore

Why is he doing it then?

I breastfed my babies because it was best. Like all mothers.

So if there's no benefit to the baby, why would a man want to do this?

I mean like all mothers who breastfeed.

Coz he's a self indulgent cunt

Yep, no argument from me.

Excellent point well made. There’s no other reason apart from it being all about him

What should we call a man making a baby suckle at his nipples to eat chemically induced "milk" to validate his feelings?