> We'll start with his bullshit calculations about how much
> milk a nursing mother produces per day (8-9 oz per feeding,
> 8-12 times per day).
If this is a "calculation" then it is yours alone; therefore I concur that your calculation is bullshit. See? We're friends again. You've conflated my "feeding 8-12 times per day" (which I believe is quite within the realm of normal) with "8-9oz per pump session" (which was presented as fact by many who use a pump) and came up with "8-12 times per day, 8-9oz per session" ...
C'mon, you can do better.
Note that Joanna did some calculations too, and even overtly lowered the stated labor rate by 50% to make it look better. Funny that Shag would still take the $10 :-) Attagirl ...
Also funny: there are almost no "facts" in this story, but one of the few that we do have (stated purchase price: one pound per ounce) is the one she chose to distort (to something like $7/cup?). (I'll forgive martin for coming late to the party and suggesting it could have something to do with norms in the US ... the story takes place IN LONDON ENGLAND, old chap!).
> And then we can add to that the throwaway line that
> full-time infant care is 88% free time.
Again, you read poorly; milk production, as a job, would be 88% idle (8 hours/day, weekends off!). 15 minutes, 4 times per day. This is apparently a normal amount of time spent by working women who use a pump. Double-up for twins! I said nothing of full-time infant care; using your imagination, just like Joanna asked you to do ...
> And then there's the bullshit about the economic benefits ...
None of which are representative of my position.
Again, it was *Joanna* who stated the economic position: this can only be done by poor exploited women, therefore it must be dismissed. It was Joanna who "failed to engage" -- none of my questions were answered. Who will complain for me? Waaaa.
I had *plenty* of imagination: what if the ice cream store owner was doing the pumping? What if it was donated labor (with the subsequent cash flowing to La Leche)? What if rich women *paid* for the privelege? Rich women will of course pay for pleasure, and, as Joanna says, breastfeeding can under the right circumstances be quite sublime. Oh I know, now you'll read this wrong and acuse me of saying that pumping is "the same" as breastfeeding, but I'm sure the Matrons of Westminster that I've imagined paying for the chance to participate can find some way to enjoy the pump -- if they want.
What I was trying to get to is that I suspect that Joanna has *other* reasons for finding the idea objectionable, but she wouldn't tell us why. Offlist speculation is that it's simply taboo. The answer to every question that tried to set aside -- using our, you know, imagination -- her economic argument was met with a strict return to The Plain Fact: this was going to be farms of poor, dehydrated women. No getting around it.
> Likewise with his "how much would you have to be paid
> for it not be exploitation" throwaway line. Joanna pointed
> out that this is just a variant of the cheap whore vs.
> expensive whore "joke".
Please try to pay attention when you're getting your flame keyboard out: it was Joanna who brought this up in the first place; I can refresh your memory (but really, I maintain gigabytes of searchable archives for you, so check next time, m'kay?):
>> Look, this isn't about a high class hooker making a
>> thousand dollars for two-hour date.
By drawing a distinction, it is *she* who provides the joke.
---
Which brings me back full-circle to the interest in this thread: it seems very easy for people here to get puffed up about stupid little shit, project all of their loathing onto something they mis-read -- on purpose or not -- and wind up kicking Wojtek's dog for it. I mean, how much Roemer do you think his dog can stand in one sitting?
Class dismissed. Or should I say "mansmissed" ...?
/jordan