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