Continued from Part 1
Why did Crane's co-workers think breastfeeding another's child was
unsanitary and disgusting? Note that she would have been 48 at the time of
the "crimes". It is possible but unlikely that the babies in question
actually received breastmilk or any other secretion from her breasts.
Certainly no one claimed that she was presently lactating. Her co-workers
would have known this. For the child, sucking on her breast would have been
the approximate microbiological equivalent of sucking on someone's shoulder
or clean finger. Since she presumptively had no milk, what then, was
disgusting? What was unsanitary? Do women not wash their nipples? Or does
it go beyond this? Are they uncomfortable with the thought of mouth on
breast? The thought of a child's mouth on a woman's breast is inherently
disgusting? ....the woman might get excited. The woman from the AA meeting
thought so: Crane breastfed her child to "satisfy her own sick sexual
needs". Apparently the State of California agreed.
I am reminded of various feminist analyses of the male/societal view of the
female body and its functions, found notably in Andrea Dworkin's
"Intercourse" and "Woman Hating", which I
unfortunately do not have on hand.* (Dworkin just died in April,
incidentally.) In lieu of those, the idea is well conveyed by Jenny Diski
in a recent review of a book on misogyny by anthropologist David Gilmore.
This first paragraph is from Diski; she then quotes Gilmore (second
paragraph below):
"Men huddle together, cowering in fear of women's secretions, which are
unclean, polluting and contagious, and likely to cause disease, decay, even
death if not strictly controlled. Gilmore's florid attempt to describe the
phenomenon betrays a certain relish at having to say the unsayable:
>Misogynistic fear centres on the flesh that makes woman man's opposite and
renders her unknowable to him. Misogynists tremble before the bodily
labyrinth: veins, intestines, sexual organs. With her lunar cycles and
genital effluvia, woman destroys the idealist's illusions of a pristine
universe. But physical repugnance is only part of the picture. For many
misogynists revulsion grows into an indictment not of feminine flesh but of
her spirit, her intellect, her character and will."
Oh, Andrea Dworkin
Jenny Diski
A review of "Misogyny: The Male Malady" by David Gilmore
London Review of Books
http://lrb.veriovps.co.uk/v23/n17/disk01_.html
Of course, "breast effluvia" (breastmilk) is regarded with equal unease.
Remember how "disgusting" one breastfeeding mother in the news last year
thought it was to have to drink some of her own breastmilk at the security
gate before boarding a flight?
So the reasons all swirl around...
It was sexual.
It was not sexual.
It could have been interpreted as sexual.
And was, at least by some.
There was milk.
There was no milk.
It was dirty.
It was not dirty, but might have been.
It was disgusting.
Breastfeeding is disgusting.
But we already knew that, didn't we?
Our ongoing battles to breastfeed in public are ample testimony to this.
Then there is the question of culture, national culture, that is. I am no
world traveller or cultural expert, but it seems to me that the Dutch are
generally somewhat more progressive and relaxed in terms of comfort with the
body, attitudes towards breastfeeding in public, and certainly, with the
highest home birth rate in the industrialized world, towards natural birth
and woman-centred reproductive care.
This woman is from Holland. Although
I am sure not every woman cross-nurses in the Netherlands, I think it very
plausible that more do than in North America, and that it is not met with
the consternation that it is so often here in N.A. To illustrate this I
take note of the dire warnings that representatives of some milk banking and
breastfeeding advocacy organizations have issued regarding cross-nursing; I
see these warnings as important but somewhat sterner than necessary and
certainly not as encouraging of the practice, a practice which could be very
empowering for mothers.
Being of Dutch descent and perhaps of a rebellious
nature, she perhaps thought a little breastfeeding wouldn't hurt, why not
calm this crying child in such an easy manner?
Should she have asked permission to do so? Of course she should have.
Should she have had the social intelligence to understand that this sort of
thing just isn't done in the United States, and likely almost no where in
world while on the job? Of course she should have. Does she deserve to be
jailed for three years? Here a resounding "No". She should never have been
charged, let alone been allowed to plead guilty.
The matter should have stopped with her state nursing association, who
should have disciplined her -- not revoked her licence -- not for doing
something disgusting or unsanitary, not for doing something lewd, but for
violating the rights of a stranger to decide how her child is treated and
comforted. This is however no felony. This is no lascivious act. Shame on
the legal system of California, and shame on those who so quickly and
harshly condemned her.
Barb Strange
[log in to unmask]
Canada
*As an aside, there are some good essays and memoirs on Andrea Dworkin's
life and recent death on the net, including some rebutting the many myths
about
her writing, life and beliefs. See -
'She never hated men'
Katharine Viner
Tuesday April 12, 2005
The Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1457408,00.html
And:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/
http://www.andreadworkin.net/memorial/
This website contains links to some of the articles written about Dworkin
after her death.
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
