Whilst quite an extreme example of it, (how could you give up the 
nursing joy of the new baby, knowing what you are giving up?) this is a 
perfect example of the underlying thinking behind a lot of the 'dicreet' 
issues we deal with.

The concept appears to be that breasts are sexual, and always sexual, 
but we apply a "do not go to jail" card for them for the duration of 
breastfeeding.  They move into a special catageory of "sexual but with 
privalegdes" and therefore can be used for breastfeeding as long as you 
apply the discretion rules: modifiers which allow you to over ride the 
sexual aspect for a short time.  But as soon as the modifier is 
compromised, you have to be true to the sexual heritage and that over 
rides the breastfeeding.  The most common modifer is when baby starts to 
be more active, and you can no longer camoflage your breast effectively, 
and so you wean as you 'can't have that going on in public'.

Women who feel this, that breasts are always sexual, unless you pass out 
the breastfeeeding card, are genuinely shocked to think otherwise, and 
many cannot get past that in their heads.   They see all attempts to 
promote and protect nursing as a way to negotiate negating the sexual 
aspect collectively.  Hence their expectation that the individual mother 
should do all she can to minimise distress and disruption by using 
camoflage and understanding that other feelings need to be taken into 
account.  Many are extremely resistant to the idea that the sexual 
identifying of breasts in this way is cultural - they see it as a 
biological norm.  In their view, I suppose, viewing breasts as 
non-sexual unless in context, is actually the cultural overlay.  Topsy 
turvy.

I'm always surprised when women accept and embrace this paradigm - that 
breasts are innately sexual and sexual identity is linked to their 
display.  Not because I didn't once think that myself - I was raised as 
a female in a culture that very much stated that breasts were sexual at 
all points and a woman's responsiblity was to camoflage them effectivly 
in order to prevent males from being inflamed by them. (Unless she was 
highlighting them in order to get a mate, then different camoflage rules 
applied)   Most of us have been raised in this paradigm.  It's that I 
was also incredibly interested when others came along and challanged 
that view.  To me, it was exciting when others told me about ankles 
being sexual in some cultures, and elbows in another.  I found the 
notion I was brought up within a cultural context (not a God given 
'natural' one) thrilling and exciting.  I still have somewhere, my 
battered and much thumbed copy of Desmond Morris's "Bodywatching".  So 
I'm surprised when others reject exploring other views of the world - 
that doesn't make sense to me at all! :-) 

I also find it fascinating that this view of the breast as innately 
sexual underpins so much of the discrimination that women suffer from in 
our 'equal' society.  The presence of the breast signifies difference, 
and that difference then becomes both fetishised (uplifted, seperated 
framed and shown off) and also a source of conflict (cover up, 
camoflage, remove from sight).  That infants are even lower down the 
scale of societal importance than females, and that lack of importance 
is posited through the female, their mother, could not be clearer in 
this case.  In rejecting her breasts as sexualised in front of her son. 
this mother isn't even taking on board the deprivation she's then 
extending to her daughter.  For in the world of the sexualised breast, 
the infant's right to the breast does not exist.  How can an infant have 
a right to a sexualised object?  The very thought opens a pit of despair 
for us all to fall into.

I'm so cheered that this message was preceded by Arly's wonderful 'info' 
one, as the arrival of such a succinct statement on the civil rights of 
a "baby's right to breastfeed" is the counter to the sorrow I feel for 
this newborn.  I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the 
construction of  The Severed Dyad as the cultural norm in our society, 
is so inextricably linked to feminism and woman's rights, as to be 
indistinguishable for purposes of discussion.  That this then faces us 
with the hard faced oppositonal view, so long touted by some feminist 
agenda, that breastfeeding and mothering is counter to a women's needs 
and desires (and formula a device to 'free' women from oppression) is 
something I'm finding I will have to tackle in my own head.   For just 
as I  grew up thinking my breasts were innately sexual, and that men 
would be driven out of their ability to control themselves if I flashed 
them at them, I also understood that formula and daycare freed women to 
be themselves. 

Now, as an empowed mother, looking at such as oppressive statements that 
actually seek to try and severe me from my own dyad - not in order to 
'free' me, but to keep me and my child under firm cultural control - I 
find myself wishing I'd actually done some of those 'wimmin's studies' 
during my University career.  I should have been paying more attention, 
rather than rejecting it as something that didn't concern me.  With 
Germaine Greer's comments about "women who turn themseves into cows" 
ringing in my ears... I wonder about the underlaying politics of such a 
position?  For surely, such attitudes can only spring from the idea that 
the breast is innately sexual - hence the need to overcome prejudice 
against women by the women in question deciding to pretend they don't 
have breasts in the first place?  If the breast is the symbol of 
difference, and thus of oppression (either to the male ego via 
sexualising them, or to the overpowering infant who feeds from it) then 
surely the correct way forward is to reject the breast as anything to do 
with being female?  Talk about tautology!

I really should do some more feminist reading... although I'm now all 
caught up in the concept of being an "Empowered Mother" so perhaps a 
trip to the library might wait whilst I go play with that!  :-)  I can 
definately see that as a mother of a nursing toddler, my empowerment in 
supporting my son's right to my breastmilk regardless of society's 
shock, horror and despair, must be truly frightening for said society.  
After all, why else would I now be 'one of those women', the ones you 
can completely negate from either intellectual discussion, or feminist 
theory, as both my intellect and my individuality is now utterly 
compromised by my son's continued access to my breast!  Given how strong 
the negating pressures are upon us as women and mothers, such as this 
example of denial of both self and infant, it's no wonder that those of 
us who have the strength to carry on nursing despite hegemonic 
suppression, frighten the bejeezers out of some.    What an unruly and 
uncontrollable bunch of  women we are when we take charge of our own 
breasts as opposed to try and deny them.  No wonder we have to avert the 
eyes of children - far too dangerous to let them see such empowerment of 
their own rights! :-)

Morgan Gallagher




Jacqulyn Lerch RN,BSN,IBCLC,CCCE wrote:
> Here's a mouth opener for you all. I was left speechless recently after 
> talking to an experienced nursing mom. She had recently had her second baby 
> (little girl) and had 1 little boy (3 yrs old) at home. She had previously nursed 
> the other baby for 6 months. While giving her some breastfeeding refresher 
> info she stopped me and stated that she was not going to breastfeed this 
> baby because... (while looking at me like I should already know this) she had   
> A BOY at home! When I said that I did not understand, she very matter of 
> fact replied... "Well he is a BOY and how would I feed HER without him seeing 
> my breasts!"    
>     Hmmm... I wonder why so many people in America think that breasts are 
> just sexual objects??!!!! So sad.
>
> Note: Although I could not get her to understand what a great teaching 
> opportunity this would be for her youngster...I did convince her to nurse while 
> in the hospital (but she would only do so when the little boy was not visiting). 
> Some people just don't get it.
>
>   

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]