On the devaluation of motherhood...
My mother-in-law and I were Christmas shopping this weekend, and she wanted to get tree ornaments for her sons and daughters-in-law.
They had a lawyer (Dale), they had a teacher (me, when I'm not on maternity leave), a police officer as well as soldier (Doug), but nothing to represent a stay-at-home mother, which Maria has been since her position was phased out this spring.
Gee. Where teachers and lawyers get more respect than mothers...
Look at it this way--objections really do boil down to an "ick" factor, and a resentment of children . . .
Yes, it figures -- an infantile society that prefers sex-without-childbearing-consequences will have lots of infantile "ick" problems.
All of the people I've met who want to outlaw hunting have this same infantile fixation, except it manifests itself as a Disneyesque, saccharine-sentiment anthropomorphism.
Babies suckle at breasts, and emerge into the world in a bath of blood and water. Food has to have neck wrung, heart stopped, etc. and its viscera removed. That's just how it is, and I wish we'd spend more time appreciating the terrible and awesome beauty which is than trying to remain in a nursery-world of cabbage patches and talking does.
Dale - I'm old enough to remember when it was a bit unusual for mentally retarded people to be seen much in public. When I was very little (early Sixties, this would be) in our town there was a man of about thirty, I suppose, who often went about with his mother in the same places I went with mine; perhaps she preferred to go out during school hours when there wouldn't be so many children to stare and point. I asked my mother once why a grown-up man was holding his mother's hand. She told me he was retarded, which meant his body grew up but his mind was like a child's, and added sternly that I was never to laugh at such a person, because it was cruel and vulgar and she'd be ashamed of me. It impressed me, I can tell you.
The American fear of the disabled is alive and well, along with the fear of "sex with consequences." I've been weak and allowed myself to commit many a sin against charity when certain eedgits have stared, made comments, scowled, or otherwise acted rude when confronted by my handicapped child or my breastfeeding child. You build up a thick skin to protect yourself. And yet, one shouldn't HAVE to hide the disabled away, to hide the infirm away, or to secrete the "products of conception" away when they are inconveniently alive and in need of milk. Life is messy and real, bloody and flawed, and when you try to sanitize it you only succeed in removing yourself from reality.
I gotta work on this charity thing some more, my blood is boiling. But I was pleased to discover your blog anyway.
I think if they're going to let the ladies from Victoria's Secret prance around on our television sets, they can at least let the mothers of the world breast feed in public. But perhaps that act is something too sacred for them to observe.
I don't get it. I don't see how public nudity is ever justified. Isn't the reason why bathrooms were invented in the first place to hide necessary bodily functions that have an "ick factor"? (Well, also to make waste disposal easier, I suppose.)I don't see why breastfeeding is any different from urination in this sense. Both are necessary, but both involve the baring of parts that ought to be kept hidden. Only this woman's husband (and the lactating baby, of course) should ever see her breasts.
I see this controversy not as a symptom of child-hating by the complainer, but as a symptom of the decline of modesty.
"I see this controversy not as a symptom of child-hating by the complainer, but as a symptom of the decline of modesty."
So, what my wife does (with appropriate clothing and respect for bystanders) is exhibitionism?
Or, instead of a decline of modesty, it could be that our society is so sex-obsessed that all breasts are now hooters and we can't imagine any other purpose for them except (ahem) titillation and foreplay.
I wonder if you're appalled by this: http://www.promom.org/gallery/fi.../fine_art/
102_G
+J.M.J+
I can certainly understand James Kabala's concern for modesty. But as a former breastfeeding mom, who hopes and prays to be able to do the same with my next child, I cannot agree that a public restroom is the best place to feed an infant. They are typically very smelly, unsanitary and disgusting. None of us would want to eat in there, so why should we condemn delicate infants to eat there just because their mothers want to feed them the way God intended?
Breastfeeding is natural and not sexual. It's our sick society which can't handle it because we have sexualized the human mammary glands to the point where we are uncomfortable with their primary function - nourishing children. In many other cultures people have no problem with a woman feeding her infant in public.
That being said, since our culture is so abnormally touchy about it, and since modesty is a virtue, I believe nursing mothers should make full use of various discreet nursing tops and similar gadgets
(con't from above)
and similar gadgets (baby slings, nursing shawls) to cover themselves and their babies when feeding them in public.
Maybe someday, if/when a Culture of Life comes about, our society will be better able to handle breastfeeding.
Our Lady of La Leche, pray for us!
See: http://www.oldcity.com/sites/mis...ion/
statue.html
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Incidently, since the article mentions "nurse ins", I'd just like to state that I dislike the idea of a nurse-in. That's basically where a bunch of breastfeeding women gather to nurse their children in public to protest discrimination against nursing women at a particular establishment.
While I sympathize with their cause, I don't like the idea of making nursing a "political" act. It's intended for the nourishment of a child, not to make a statement. I guess some breastfeeding activists might disagree with me, but that's MHO. Better to be modest and discreet than in-your-face; you just alienate more would-be supporters that way.
In Jesu et Maria,
If I am nursing in public, you can be assured that there is no exposure of my breasts involved. After a couple weeks, one becomes very adept at slinging the receiving blanket over the shoulder, adjusting the flaps of one's undergarments, and putting the child to breast. The only way anyone would get an eyeful of my bosom would be if they were posiitoned at the same angle as the baby.
Why would people be staring a a nursing woman anyhow? I can imagine a 5 year old child staring, but an adult should have more self-control over their gaze.
Well, what about the example of changing tables, which someone at another blog brought up? Whereas a normal adult male is likely to find breasts sexually attractive, I doubt if even Paul Shanley would find the rear end of a one-year old to be sexually stimulating. Nonetheless, the consensus of society is still that this is not an activity that should be done in public. This is not the fault of "sick society" for "sexualizing" children's non-sexual private parts; it is the common sense of inculcating modesty at a young age.
I apologize if I seemed to be attacking your wife. I am sure that she is modest. However, I don't see how your defense of public breastfeeding can't be applied to just about any form of partial public nudity. Why should high schools have separate locker rooms for boys and girls? By your definition, if anyone is disturbed by co-ed disrobing, it is his fault for "sexualizing" his female classmates and their underclothes. This is changing the
definition of modesty. If we follow your words to their unintended but logically following conclusion, any public nudity is OK as long as those who see do not respond sexually. The traditional definition of modesty, as I understand it, is that certain parts are best kept hidden regardless of the circumstances.
Artworks are a separate case because they are not real people. No one lusts after a painting(at least, I hope not, so displaying private parts is merely glorifying God's creation.
Best wishes,
James Kabala
P.S.
I am not anti-breastfeeding. I was breastfed myself, but (I assume) always in private.
Lynn B: If you can keep the breats hidden, I guess it's OK, but still, I think an "ick factor" is morally justified.
Good comments, everyone. I'm glad I'm retired from the discussion. For now. 
+JMJ+
Diaper changing relates to excretion, which society has designated a private activity. If you change a diaper in public, you potentially expose others to the sight and smell of urine or feces, which people find naturally offensive because of the foul odor and potential health issues if one comes into contact with them.
Breastfeeding, OTOH, is a form of eating, not excretion. Society has not designated eating to be a private activity like excretion; in fact it is often a social activity. Notice that no one ever complains about a baby being bottlefed in public, even though that is the artificial equivalent of breastfeeding.
(con't below)
Re. the modesty factor : I remember diaper commercials two decades ago which showed baby’s bottoms. Long before that portion of the adult anatomy was shown on TV (which I naturally oppose) it was okay to show an infant’s bare bottom! Do you remember the old Coppertone ads with the little girl and the dog? Clearly, there has long been a double standard in society regarding public nudity; okay for little kids, not adults!
So I don’t think that diaper changing is equivalent to breastfeeding. But I repeat that women should nurse discreetly in public, keeping covered as much as possible. In that case, no one should have reason to complain, and anyone who does complain about modest nursing is out-of-line.
>>>Artworks are a separate case because they are not real people
Though a real person often models for the picture. And some people find nude paintings an occasion of sin. So we could build an argument against nudity in art as well.
In Jesu et Maria
Rosemarie, it's a good thing you're here. You are much more articulate than I would be. My dander gets up and I sputter and any cogent point goes right out the window.
Last Word
I think I may actually have been converted. If you want to breastfeed your baby in public and you can manage to do it modestly, fine. I renounce dogmatic opposition to it.
But - I still don't understand dogmatic advocates of the practice. The claims that those disturbed by the practice are anti-motherhood, are infantile, live in a "nursery world", or even are opposed to the culture of life (that was on a different blog) still strike me as ridiculously over the top. I discussed this matter with my own mother today and while she wasn't shocked or disturbed by the practice of public breastfeeding, she was quite surprised to learn that pro-public breastfeeding was not the "liberal" position, but that rather it was being advocated as a practically holy activity that only the wicked would object to.
As for the idea that there should be state laws mandating that public breastfeeding is OK; I am not a hard-core libertarian, but that is not my idea of the reaso
reason why government exists.
+J.M.J+
The "anti-motherhood" charge might be a bit excessive, in most cases at least. People who object to public breastfeeding probably have a variety of reasons for doing so; we can't attribute one attitude to everyone.
I think a big part of this is society's attitude toward the human mammary glands. We tend to see them as purely "decorative" and forget that they are functional. Hence the breast enlargement industry, the "Hooters" restaurant chain, etc. - not to mention the whole porn industry.
After all that brainwashing, if we ever witness them actually functioning as God intended - namely feeding a baby - it makes us uncomfortable. It's understandable, considering how society has trained us to view the breasts, but perhaps our discomfort with a perfectly natural human activity should give us pause. Perhaps it says a lot about our culture’s unhealthy obsession with sex.
In Jesu et Maria,
James, I am impressed that you have been able to see the other side. Another reason to thank your mom. 
God bless,
Hmm..Breastfeeding in public? What a concept.
All the "modesty" broo-hoo. You all do realize that this is a purely cultural thing/perception? It has nothing to do with God or being Christian, LDS, per se. In most countries, breastfeeding, whether "in public" or "in private" are the norm. And to top it off, the very definition of "public vs private" differs according to your culture as well.Breastfeeding is an expected, matter of fact part of life, whether the society is topless (as in many African areas) or whether they are fully covered.
**It is not something to be ashamed of
**It is not something that should be hidden
**It is not unnatural
**It is not a sin against modesty to breastfeed (unless perhaps the person doing it is flaunting the breasts ON PURPOSE in a provacative way. Even if this were the case, it is not the breastfeeding that is the problem, but the woman's actions.)
You can look at ANYTHING and take it the wrong way. A beautiful woman going down
Commenting by HaloScan
