India Knight: Well, pardon my breasts

The Sunday Times ^ | March 2, 2003 | India Knight

[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 that’s 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 they’re on display doing what they’re there for. No wonder we’re 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. Let’s 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 it’s 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.

Something’s 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? You’d think it was a male thing — and you’d be right, but only to a certain extent. I’ve 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.

There’s a problem here and it’s not the mother’s: it’s to do with men having instantly sexual reactions to a bosom. There’s 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 it’s disgraceful” and “Couldn’t 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 can’t differentiate between bosoms doing their thing and bosoms bursting alluringly out of a bra on a billboard — well, it’s about time they tried harder and time we stopped indulging them. Why should a nursing mother be penalised for other people’s 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 women’s reactions.

I know two women with small babies who wouldn’t dream of breastfeeding in public: they simply won’t 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 what’s the problem now? “It’s not nice,” apparently. And this isn’t 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: we’re talking discreet. And yet there is a division: women who breastfeed in public are almost despised by women who breastfeed only in private.

It’s 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 Marshall’s 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 she’d 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 they’re 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 everyone’s happy — and it’s not good enough, because we should swim more. Is it any wonder one in four of us would rather put her feet up?

[annyokie]

LOL! That's fried CHICKEN, not fish!

[unspun]

Well, just be careful not to lean into the pan, yourself! - unless you're tall enough that it doesn't matter.

[RightOnline]

Tempest in a teapot. There is nothing more natural than a mama breastfeeding her baby, fercryinoutloud. The Lovely Wife has nursed all seven of our babies (still nursing #7, as a matter of fact). Does she just whip out a boob while shaking hands at a cocktail party? Hardly. Never ceases to amaze me how discreetly she can nurse the baby darned near anywhere......and no one is the wiser.

[A_perfect_lady]

This is natural and people just need to get over it.

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?

[Lurker]

"We know that bosoms’ primary purpose is to feed infants,"

Wrong, but thanks for playing our little game.

L

[BlessedBeGod]

Breastfeeding is natural...Whatever your views on breastfeeding, it would be absurd to deny women the right to feed their children in public.

Well, urinating and defecating and having sex are natural, too, but they're not something you do in public.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..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....

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.

[earplug]

Baby is hungry. Your just horny. You can wait. Feeding a baby and your sex act are not the same.
This would be like comparing breathing with scratching my ass.

[nopardons]

Urinating and defficating are natural and " heathy " too. I don't want to see those healthful and natural activities done in public either. Did GOD creat us to defficate, urinate, and engage in sexual confgress in public view, during working hours, as well ? Why should one be ashamed to do those things out in the open ? hey, what about clothes ? GOD created Adam & Eve naked and so were we all born naked. Oh, I know, the expulsion from Eden; however, we counterman GOD's decree about pain, during childbirth , as well.

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 !

[Post Toasties]

it would be absurd to deny women the right to feed their children in public.

I know of no such 'right', nor of any that protects exposing oneself in public.

[MeekMom]

Can anyone say "Extremist needs a chill pill?"

[nopardons]

Yes, dear; so take one or two, or three. You do need to " chill out " some. ;^ )

[Happygal]

I don't believe it! You posted a whole thread about breasts, and hardly any pictures! *L*

[xm177e2]

Here you go

[Teacher317]

LOL! Good one

[Teacher317]

Check the seat at that booth first. After all, taking a dump is "natural" too. Right?

Eew! Okay, now I'm uncomfortable right here in the privacy of my own home.

[cardinal4]

This is natural and people just need to get over it.

Sex is natural, too. But something tells me you would object to that in public. Not flaming, just pointing out the discrepancy......

[M Kehoe]

What!? No pictures of the lady PM?

5.56mm

[M Kehoe]

PM=MP Sheesh!!

More coffee is needed.

5.56mm

[Pharmboy]

We know that bosoms’ primary purpose is to feed infants, but we also live in a breast-obsessed society...

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