Meridian Magazine is holding an LDS themed “Celebrate Alaska” something or other. But their publicity needs some serious work, as it is rather insulting to a significant section of the potential audience.
Okay, as I am in Alaska for the summer, and Meridian seems to be using official church channels to publicize what is, in the end, a money making venture (they even have pass along cards – [ http://www.celebratemeridian.com/PassAlongCards.pdf ]for the event), which is why I know about this.
Anyway, the flyer that was handed out in Relief Society made my wife rather upset, and she showed it to me. It was rather awful, and it bears the name of Scott Proctor, the guy in charge of the whole thing.
Here’s the offending paragraph:
“This event will not include nursing mothers. We love our nursing mothers, but feel that this time should allow each woman in the audience to concentrate on the beautiful sessions with our speakers and entertainers.”
Now, a simple “Please, no nursing infants” or “No children under 5 please” (or similar brief statement) would have worked. But this example shows exactly what we in rhetoric talk about when the speaker/writer’s intentions are ruined/distorted so that the audience gets the exact wrong impression.
As a rhetorician, I’ll just do quick semi-close reading to show exactly what is wrong with this paragraph:
1. “This event will not include nursing mothers.”
– This has a definitional problem, in that it is Way Too Vague. Makes it sound like, even if you leave the kids at home, you’re not welcome as long as your breasts are full of milk. The term “nursing mothers” makes it seem as though it’s the “mothers” who aren’t welcome, as opposed to the inevitably disruptive infants. I get that it may not be a good idea to bring a nursing infant to the conference – but why use terms that make it seem like it’s the mothers that aren’t welcome?
2. “We love our nursing mothers,”
– Again, this centers the focus on the mothers, and this phrase is rather condescending. No matter how nice it’s meant, it puts the “mothers” in an inferior position, making them objects to be loved but excluded.
3. “but feel that this time should allow each woman in the audience to concentrate on the beautiful sessions with our speakers and entertainers.”
– This (unintentionally, I’m sure) sets up a duality – “beautiful sessions” on one side, “nursing mothers” on the other. It’s hard to avoid the implication that while nursing mothers are loved, they just ain’t purty enough for such enlightened conferencing among the beautiful people.
All of this would have been avoided by a simple “Please, no children” or some similar statement. Yes, there would still be people offended, but no matter what they would have said, it would offend someone somewhere. By trying to write a paragraph that would supposedly offend no one, they’ve managed to be even more offensive.
Let that be a case study. Simple statements are often the best, and often attempts to avoid offense will result in more offense. I know at least half a dozen women (my wife is nursing, the others aren’t though) who found the paragraph quite odd, out of place, and offensive.
And no, I don’t hate Meridian. I quite enjoy the website most of the time, when I get around to visiting it. But in this one case, they choose (their words) poorly.
I’m surprised that you weren’t even more irked by this getting handed out in RS–I’d be barking up every official channel I could think of (RS Pres, bishop, stake) pointing out that it is wrong, wrong, wrong to advertise in RS.
Scott Proctor probably wasn’t breast-fed as a child.
At any rate, couldn’t a nursing mother just attend and take her chances. What, are they really going to risk kicking a mother out?
As far as the advertising goes … we’re a bit too late to be complaining about advertisements in Church, aren’t we? [I agree with Julie, but I think that ship has sailed, as long as we promote things like HP golf outings at Church with a pricetag of $55 a head, and tickets to a professional baseball game as a “ward activity”, and promote Deseret Book and Covey books in classes…]
Have they already changed it?
http://www.celebratemeridian.com/Flyer.pdf seems to have language more along the lines of what you suggested (“No children or nursing babies”)
I am with you on this one, Julie. I would be saying something to the Bishop about advertising in Church.
Dan –
I’m not quoting the flyer on the website – this was from a page long letter written by Scott Proctor that was handed out in RS. As far as I can tell, it’s not on the website. But it has been distributed in several wards in Alaska, at least.
Julie –
I though my disapproval for it being handed out in RS was evidenced by my snarky tone at the beginning, but I guess I wasn’t snarky enough when discussing pass along cards, etc.
I’ve never had anything sold to me at church, except maybe the cruise line that someone or other went to (she really really enjoyed herself.)
And in general it seems that the longer you make any rule, and the more explanation you put in, you just dig yourself a deeper hole to sit in. Better to say “no smoking” than “owing to the fact that we love our lungs and hope to reduce dry-cleaning bills in this community and generally think of ourselves as civilized, well-mannered, clean people, we must ask those who insist upon poisoning themselves with tobacco to refrain from polluting the air within this facility with their noxious fumes.”
Actually, writing rules that are guaranteed to make someone mad might be a fun family game night activity.
Sarah, that was really funny.
what i don’t grasp is why only the nursing babies would be disruptive to the experience. as far as I know, bottlefed babies cry when they’re hungry, fuss sometimes, squirm around, need to be walked and bounced and rocked, and generally consume a parent’s attention.
Or is it that only nursing babies get brought out in public and bottlefed babies are always left at home?
Maybe the speakers would be offended by public nipple nudity.
Or is it that only nursing babies get brought out in public and bottlefed babies are always left at home?
That’s probably correct.
Although – the problem I had with the official flyer, etc., was that it says “No nursing mothers”. What if they left their children at home? Could they still not attend? What if they promised to pump in between sessions or something?
I have heard from friends in AK that apparently, they are not doing very well in the ticket sales so that has prompted the extra push.
Wow, and I am opposed to even using church time to ask for donations for Boy Scouts, but they are full blown marketing. Talk about invading the sacred space.
Would your RS President allow me to come sell some Amway next Sunday Ivan?
Only if you are a woman who is in the “in” clique in RS here. (They also advertise a “diet plan” and a homeopathy clinic in RS here).
Ever since I learned Ivan Wolfe was an Alaska native, I’ve thought he has the perfect Alaska name.
Ivan — reflects Russian roots of Alaska
Wolfe — outdoorsy, Lupin-ish. The Wolfe Man. The extra E just makes him appear even more rugged.
Ok, now back to Nursing Mothers. Or something.
Geoff B –
You’re calling me an “Alaska Native” reminds me of a scene from the Simpsons that goes something like this:
Lisa: Everyone comes from Immigrant roots. Except for Native Americans.
Homer: Like me!
Lisa: No, I mean American Indians.
Apu: Like me!
Or something. I’m an Alaskan Native, but not a Native Alaskan (or is it the other way around?) My Native American/American Indian blood is thin and comes from Florida a long time ago.
And I’m very rugged, though I have no real Russian ancestry.
Back to nursing Meridian, or whatever…
Yeesh, I’m afraid my wife would have stopped attending long ago if RS were like this in our ward.
My reading is simply that women will be unable to concentrate if anyone is nursing during the conference. Therefore breastfeeding will be prohibited. Nothing in the paragraph excludes children of any age as long as they are not being breast fed during the sessions.
And yes, that is offensive, no matter how you read it.
To clarify my meaning a little..
A strict reading of the paragraph simply prohibits lactating women, even if they refrain from nursing during the sessions and even if they leave their children at home.
I think the most reasonable interpretation of the paragraph is that the intent is to prohibit breastfeeding during the sessions. If the intent were to prohibit all children, including those who are weaned or bottle-fed, it is puzzling why they would even refer to “nursing mothers.”
If people can’t concentrate on the speakers that is their own hang up not the nursing mothers. Having breastfed in RS as well as elsewhere I can attest to the fact that it’s usually easy to do it very inconspicuously.
Scott Proctor’s words are ignorant at the very least and inane and prejudicial at the most. I don’t know the laws in Alaska, but in most other places in North America it is illegal to prohibit nursing in public. He shoudl be made aware of this…and perhaps educated on breastfeeding. I wonder if the same rules apply for bottlefeeding? A bottlefeeding infant can be just as dist5racting (and often more so) as a breastfeeding one.
This discussion reminds me in a round-about way of an article in the latest FARMS review about 6th century BC reforms that were also about casting nursing mothers out of their midst.
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=639
Left Field –
I was trying to give it the most charitable reading possible. If I took the statement at its word (it’s the nursing mothers not welcome), then I would be forced to assume Meridian/Mr. Proctor is flat out idiotic. It makes no sense to exclude nursing moms who leave the kids at home for a day or two. If they really mean to exclude the mothers and not the the kids – well, I can’t even fathom that.
Ivan,
I agree. It’s difficult to figure out what the intent was. If the intent was to avoid the disruption of unruly children, the statement was horribly worded and offensive. If the intent was to avoid the “disruption” of breastfeeding, the statement was badly worded and horribly offensive. If the intent was to prohibit lactating women even if they didn’t breastfeed or bring their children, then the reasons for the policy are incomprehensible, and the statement is well-worded but horribly offensive.
The most charitable reading is that the statement is merely offensive rather than horribly offensive. Unfortunately, the charitable reading requires the most violence to the plain meaning of the text.
Geoff B – You’ve been quiet on the merits of the actual discussion. Do you still write for Meridian? Channeling my inner McCarthy, are you know or have you ever been, a close friend of Scott Proctor? And what is he thinking with this?
Aside from the offensiveness, a big problem with the statement is that it leaves the reader baffled as to the meaning. The literal meaning (“Don’t come if you’re lactating.”) makes no sense, so one is left to try to divine the writer’s actual intent. The mother of a child who is no longer nursing might reasonably conclude that she is welcome to bring her child with her. The statement gives no clear guidance for parents wishing to come to the conference.
I think that to be charitable to Mr. Proctor (or his ghostwriter), we should simply conclude that he’s illiterate. Which is an interesting (but not uncommon) condition for an editor.
By the way, the image conjured up by the phrase “nursing mothers” comes to me straight from Isaiah. Therefore, no queens allowed. Especially those that are kindly inclined toward the Jews.
2 things.
1. Commercial ventures do not belong in church. Ever.
2. This nursing thing is insane. I have 4 kids who all nursed for 10-12 months. We will discreetly nurse wherever we want. You don’t like it to bad.