India Knight: Well, pardon my breasts

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?

There are a couple of charming Winston Churchill stories regaring women with large breasts:

While in Washington on a speaking tour in 1900, Churchill was introduced to a generously proportioned woman - from Richmond, Virginia. Proud of her family's adherence to the former Confederacy, and still not accepting the Reconstruction - the process of re-incorporating the southern states into the United States - she declared, as she gave him her hand, "Mr. Churchill, you see before you a rebel who has not been Reconstructed."

"Madam," he replied, gazing upon her imposing bosom, "reconstruction in your case would be blasphemous.

And:

Getting on for half a century later, Churchill visited Richmond, Virginia, where a sculpture of him was being unveiled. A magnificently Rubenesque lady came up to him and cooed enthusiastically at him: "Mr. Churchill, I want you to know I got up at dawn and drove a hundred miles for the unveiling of your bust."

Looking at her generous endowments, Churchill answered, "Madam, I want you to know that I would happily reciprocate the honour."

Am I to believe from this that women in Virginia all have large breasts? ;)

Regards, Ivan

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.

Lady, I wish you could be a man for just a little while.

Well, it has been said that the women of the Old Dominion are the fairest in the colonies...the ampleness of their bosoms certainly couldn't hurt!

Thanks for the Churchill anecdotes...hadn't heard them before, but they seem in character!

Cheers,
PB

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.

What about a right to feed a baby with an artificial formula? Is eating allowed in public on condition that it is based on artificial ingredients? Can grown-up people eat in public?

All this rights talk is ridiculous - it is based on false Enlightenment myth of lone savages dropped into the primordial wilderness without any parents to take care of them (to breast-feed them without formula, o horror) but endowed with the absolute set of rights to be negotiated away in the social contracts.

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.

That's the problem right there. The "bosom" shouldn't be on display when a woman is breastfeeding, but should be discreetly covered. Yet, I have NEVER seen a woman who is breastfeeding do this. The breasts are on full display for all to see. If women were discreet, and properly covered, there would not be this problem. But since they are not discreet, that's why there's a problem.

So you won't mind if my spouse and I 'go for it' in our front yard?

You don't truly equate feeding a baby with sex, do you?

Is a bottle feeder similar to someone using a vibrator in public? Ban them too?

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

Are you nuts? Do you really think new mothers are rushing out to the mall so they can defiantly breastfeed infront of total strangers? Do you think these women have nothing better to do?

Sorry, but most likely the mom has things which need to get done and breastfed babies tend to get hungry often.

That's the problem right there. The "bosom" shouldn't be on display when a woman is breastfeeding, but should be discreetly covered. Yet, I have NEVER seen a woman who is breastfeeding do this

Might I suggest that you have seen plenty of women breastfeeding who are covered up, and because they are covered, you haven't noticed it?

I have very rarely seen a breastfeeding mother who isn't at least attempting to be discreet. It isn't always easy. But to suggest that "most" breastfeeding women are baring their breasts is simply ridiculous.

No, I'm most assiredly NOT " nuts " and am a mother. I think that any mother, of a newborn, or older child, who " rushes off to a mall ", when she knows her baby's feeding schedule, is NUTS ! Besides, the mother, in question, in this article, if you would take the time to read it, wants to breast feed in THE HOUSE OF COMMONS , DURING SESSIONS ! That's not acceptable. Well, not to me; maybe to YOU, it is. How Hitleryesque !

Nursing mothers, who feel it incumbent upon them, to be in the work force, should expell their milk, put it in bottles, and hire a nanny. Either stay home and nurse ( and don't drag the poor wee bae to a bloody mall ( ! ) , or make other arrangements for the care and feeding of said baby. Or, the women could choose to not have a baby at all. See... there are three good alternatives to her problem and those who think that everyone else should accomodate their whwims. :-)

I have NO problem with " discreation ". It's those, who demand that it is their " right " to opening nurse in public ( and in the House of Commons, ON THE FLOOR ! ), with whom I have problems.

I only have one child. OTOH, one of my dearest, oldest, and best friends has four. No, she NEVER had to openly nurse in public; not once. So, there goes that position. OTOH, I knew a woman, who OPENLY and FLAGRANTLY nursed her son, until he was five. It was NOT done with good taste and I can only surmise that she had / has mental problems.

I don't have any " hangups ", which need taking care of, dear. Respectfully, I suggest that some women, who feel the need to exhibit themselves and demand to do in public, what should be done in private/not ostentaciously, are the ones with " hangups. :-)

Did you, perchance, NOT read the article, nor the rest of this thread ? " DISCREET " isn't what this English member, of the House of Commons, or many of the posters, are talking about ; though I did . So did you. Stop being so emotional, calm down, and read what is written ; instead of imagining what isn't there and replying to that.

Frankly, I have a problem with anyone who flaunts body parts, which should remain hidden; no matter who is doing it. As the old saying goes : discreation is the better part of valor. :-)

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.