I absolutely must comment on this fascinating, and terrifically relevant
thread. Since posting to Lactnet for me is mostly like posting to a group of
cardiologists on what ³diastolic² means, I generally keep quiet - but here
is something I know about! I have been studying and working on and within
the subject of pornography (and its ³softer² cousin, the Calvin Klein ads
etc.) as a feminist for over a decade now, and I have unfortunately been on
both sides.
I was happy to read the article because Fiona Giles brought up important
subjects we should know about.
Since this post may get long, I will sum it up here for those who want to
move on: Pornography never has been, is not now, and *never will be* a
friend to women. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it is useless to define
sexuality or ³sexiness² in relation to pornography since porn is about as
divorced from actual human sexuality as it possibly can be, short of our
species being one what reproduces via mitosis.
By its very nature it cannot be, despite valiant attempts at
³woman-centered² ³erotica² and the re-claiming of erotic materials for
female use - something I myself even supported for a time. It is like trying
to make a ³womanıs urinal²; just in its nature not possible (nor needed,
really).
Yes, i wholeheartedly agree that bfıing is viewed negatively in our culture,
and as Diane W. says, how we ³package² it makes all the difference. But I do
not believe that embracing the male-defined ³sexy² component of
breastfeeding can do any long term good. Will launching the (remember, still
male-defined) idea of the ³sexy² lactating mom make bfıing more appealing?
possibly. it may possibly become trendy and therefore get more breastmilk
into more babies tummies, maybe even cause a percentage of those moms to
discover they love this relationship and continue it, trendy or not. But
when I even THINK of this scenario, of the milk-pouring image described in
the article, I see the word ³backlash!² in huge, obelisk-like letters
looming nearby. I do not think it will work. Remember, Pamela Anderson-Lee
had 2 homebirths and breastfed both sons; and she is the epitome of the
American ideal of sexiness and sensuality. Homebirth and breastfeeding are
no more popular because of.
The same men who go bananas over the Lactomania porn do *not* connect this
with infant nutrition. One especially distressing situation I personally
came across last year was a man, similarly inclined, who demanded weaning of
his new wifeıs 4 year old, and formula for their newborn - though he was
adamant her ³supply² remain. I regret having to relay this story, but i
*suspect* it might be typical. What is important to remember is that while,
to some of us, the images of pregnant and lactating women in porn may *seem
* like acceptance of these states, it is not. These are images from the
pornographers gaze (which is a male one, despite the increasing number of
women involved in direction and production; the target audience is men). I
have not noticed any positive correlation between men who fantasize this way
and support of breastfeeding; quite the contrary since lactation is viewed
as separate and unrelated to infants.
The pregnant womanıs body which is her own, respectable body, some may say
her ³babyıs* body, is reduced to an object, divorced entirely from being
that of a human woman carrying a human infant inside. Instead she is just
another ³thing², like a fetish shoe, a corset, etc. The same for her
lactating breasts - this is completely divorced from infant nourishment or
relationship - instead lactation is there for the male to enjoy. period. I
believe it may have something to do with infantile wishes in grown men, as
Ms. Giles points out; but anecdotal evidence shows that partners and fathers
who are desirous of this ³motherly love² do not want to compete with a baby
for it (they want their wife/partnersı breasts for themselves).
We must remain forever critical of this ³pornographic gaze² - it is nothing
like the way we see things. I was first struck by this in early
undergraduate Anthro courses in which the Venus of Willendorf figurine was
described as a ³prehistoric Playboy² - in other words, not as a possible
sacred object, a self portrait, wishful thinking, a feminine ideal etc. (we
will never know exactly what these figurines were for) but described by this
professor as an object of excitement for men. It all depends on who is
looking, whose ³gaze².
The reason breastfeeding is such a hard sell is because our culture just
doesnıt support it. Part of the non-support is because of the idea of
breasts as fashion accessories to some women, and sex objects to many men.
Part of it also is the almost impressive insidiousness of the formula
industry, the related ignorance of the inferiority of its product. In my
opinion, the one thing that has the power to counteract that on an
individual, family-by-family (and subsequently national) level is physician
support of breastfeeding. Most folks will go against trend, and even family
wishes on ³doctors orders². The flip side of that is that many many women
who wanted to breastfeed, even desperately so, have weaned because of bad
medical advice. I can fill a book with the many stories of breastfeeding
relationships ended or never begun due to hospital or pediatrician ³support²
(or even recommendation) of formula feeding, and I suspect everyone on
Lactnet can fill many more. This is why it might seem like there is so much
³doctor bashing² even though we all know many wonderful MDıs.; It is because
that is where the most power lies. It is also where the the immediate day to
day ³social change² can take place.
Michelle DePesa
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
