Posted on 03/01/2003 3:28:37 PM PST by MadIvan
This week I will be mostly writing about breasts so read on, smut hounds. Actually, I will be writing about breastfeeding. No, not so sexy. And thats the problem, really, with the whole subject. We know that bosoms primary purpose is to feed infants, but we also live in a breast-obsessed society, where you can order yourself a pair of celebrity-lookalike knockers in your lunch hour.
Bosoms are everywhere: peering out pertly at the Baftas, bulging enticingly from advertisement hoardings, on extravagant display down your local high street, draped in wisps of fabric and omnipresent on MTV. Bosoms are sexy. Cor! Phwoar! Except, er, when theyre on display doing what theyre there for. No wonder were confused.
Not as confused as an Australian state parliament, though, which last week evicted Kirstie Marshall, a 33-year-old MP, for breastfeeding her 10-day-old daughter Charlotte in the chamber. Apparently this was because under some convenient antiquated law, Charlotte was a stranger to the house and therefore banned. A bizarre sort of reasoning, this, under which it would presumably be perfectly acceptable to breastfeed non-strangers, ie fellow MPs, without risking eviction. Lets just gag quietly and move swiftly on.
In Britain, a plan to allow women MPs to breastfeed in the House of Commons chamber was blocked by Michael Martin, the Speaker, last year. He overruled plans to allow women to breastfeed in the chamber, committee rooms and public gallery and instead decided to invest in four breastfeeding rooms with nappy-changing facilities (maybe its just me, but the idea of a special breastfeeding room has an unattractively bovine ring to it). Two years ago, Betty Boothroyd similarly blocked a request by the MP Julia Drown to breastfeed in the Commons tearoom.
Somethings not right here. Breastfeeding is natural, and good for both mother and child, which is why health authorities spend huge amounts each year encouraging new mothers to say no to the evil bottle and yes to the cosy breast pads, pumps and other fun accessories that come with the job. Whatever your views on breastfeeding, it would be absurd to deny women the right to feed their children in public. Why, then, does the subject make so many people wriggly and uncomfortable? Youd think it was a male thing and youd be right, but only to a certain extent. Ive seen men, often fathers themselves, die upon entering a room and sighting a woman breastfeeding her child: they go scarlet, they stammer, they make their excuses and practically gallop out of the room. Some men often the older ones are scandalised, as though a mother feeding her child was in fact (the hussy) putting on some kind of saucy floor show.
Theres a problem here and its not the mothers: its to do with men having instantly sexual reactions to a bosom. Theres a time and a place for sexual reactions to a pair of bosoms, and a nursing woman maternal, gentle, nurturing is not an appropriate recipient of such thoughts. Which men know full well hence their usually completely OTT reaction: panic, alarm, bluster, exit and the muttered I think its disgraceful and Couldnt she find a quiet room? which tell you more about the complainant than about the hapless woman.
I find this strange and incredibly irritating. If men cant differentiate between bosoms doing their thing and bosoms bursting alluringly out of a bra on a billboard well, its about time they tried harder and time we stopped indulging them. Why should a nursing mother be penalised for other peoples uncomfortable thoughts? Why should she be driven to nursing her children furtively, in another room, or with a ridiculous giant blanket thrown over both mother and child? What annoys and flummoxes me more, though, is the way the disgraceful argument has trickled its way into womens reactions.
I know two women with small babies who wouldnt dream of breastfeeding in public: they simply wont do it, even though this refusal can, and does, lead to incredible discomfort and stress for everybody involved.
Neither of them, pre-baby, would have batted an eyelid at going out in the skimpiest, sheerest, most revealing tops. Both go topless on holiday and have never expressed discomfort at the idea of having it all on show for anyone who cares to cop an eyeful. So whats the problem now? Its not nice, apparently. And this isnt necessarily a bonkers minority female view: motherhood, with its attendant insecurities, has a way of turning the most unlikely people into total weeds or temporary prigs. Nobody, after all, is suggesting you take off your shirt and bra to breastfeed comfortably: were talking discreet. And yet there is a division: women who breastfeed in public are almost despised by women who breastfeed only in private.
Its a sorry, namby-pamby, babyish (ho ho) state of affairs. The Victoria state parliament has ordered a review of parliamentary rules as a result of Marshalls eviction last week, which is something. Back over here, though, women are still made to feel ambiguous about doing something as fundamental as feeding their own children wherever they happen to be at the time. How pathetic can you get? And would Kirstie Marshall have been evicted if shed merely been wearing a very low-cut top?
According to research, one in four women takes no exercise at all. According to the Daily Mail, this means theyre going to die of cancer. This is a bit rich, no? One in four women may not go to the gym, or go jogging, but unless they are clinically obese and need to be craned out of their seat to get to the shops, they walk, run, hare after their children, bend down to pick up socks and toys with the monotony of an aerobics routine, and so on. We work all the hours God sends, we bring up children, we run houses, we try to remain vaguely physically attractive; we split ourselves into 18 to please everybody and make sure everyones happy and its not good enough, because we should swim more. Is it any wonder one in four of us would rather put her feet up?
So you won't mind if my spouse and I 'go for it' in our front yard? How about in the booth next to you at Red Lobster?
Check the seat at that booth first. After all, taking a dump is "natural" too. Right?
Wrong, but thanks for playing our little game.
L
Well, urinating and defecating and having sex are natural, too, but they're not something you do in public.
That's really misleading.
The Speaker had already arranged for a small antechamber to be available for Ms Marshall, in the event that she needed to breastfeed her baby. She did not avail herself of that option: my guess, due to the opportunity she'd be passing up, for a little feminist provocation.
Mothers, who breastfeed in public, are exhibitionistic feminists. You're " silly " to think that any " natural " act should not be hidden from view. You get over it !
I know of no such 'right', nor of any that protects exposing oneself in public.
Eew! Okay, now I'm uncomfortable right here in the privacy of my own home.
Sex is natural, too. But something tells me you would object to that in public. Not flaming, just pointing out the discrepancy......
5.56mm
More coffee is needed.
5.56mm
Allow me to set the record straight on this bit of oft-repeated claptrap. Mammary glands certainly do exist in order to feed mammals (get it?) but human breasts are sexual organs. To illustrate: a non-lactating human has much larger breasts than a lactating gorilla. Why? Because the size and roundness of human female breasts exist to entice the male--no more, no less. As a matter of fact, large pendulous breasts are actually a hindrance to successful breast feeding in that they can easily cover the nostrils of the feeding infant (infants obviously need to breathe through their noses while they nurse).
So, guys, if you like boobs, it is because God or Darwin (pick one or both) made it just so.
My favorite breast-delivery individual: Salma Hayek
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.