« The Ninth Day | Main | Outreach to the Lost »
June 08, 2005
Can a Lactivism Post Beat the Gay Post?
Let's see!
I will set myself apart from other "conservative" commentors (although I mightily resist that monikker myself - but please, let's not get off there) by saying I'm with the Lactivists all the way.
And please don't try to compare breastfeeding an infant with defecating. I mean - just don't.
Yeah, decorum and modesty and consideration of the feelings of others (which is why I drape) but never, in 20+ years of off and on nursing, have I ever retired to a restroom to nurse. I've even nursed, standing up, walking through an art museum. Don't remember which one, but I do remember doing so. Blanket drape, yes indeed, but I am not going to shunted off to a closet just because my baby's hungry.
I'm no romantic about nursing. I've known women who were and get terrifically sentimental about it. I'm not. It's all about the food and practicality to me. I also don't get nursing three-year olds, but oh well. There's a fight for the Lactivists to pick with me.
But poor Barbara Walters. You have the right to your Vaseline lens, the babies have a right to eat, okay? If Chavez can deal, so can you.
Yup, I'm so nurturing!
A scholarly paper on the image of nursing as a way to represent the virtue of Charity
Maria Lactans: A comprehensive collection of art
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Seconded.
Posted by: Nance at Jun 8, 2005 3:17:52 PM
I'm curious to know whether women breastfed in public say, 50 years ago.
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 8, 2005 3:24:49 PM
Thirded.
50 years ago in the US women did not breastfeed at all, in public or elsewhere. It had been put out that there was something wrong with it or something.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 8, 2005 3:27:04 PM
I don't really know why people get up in arms about it, especially if it is done modestly, as my wife does it. I mean, really, compared to what a lot of people are wearing ordinarily nowadays to which the same people don't raise an eyebrow this is nothing.
Posted by: Sean Gallagher at Jun 8, 2005 3:31:15 PM
My mother felt like a hero for nursing 3 months. I nursed 4 of 5 for about 2 years. Insanely, in the 50's doctors (male!) decided nursing wasn't good for babies. Query whether this was worse than hiring a wetnurse so you could save your figure in Victorian times... and even later. My mother-in-law recalls seeing black wetnurses available (like day laborers) in the segregated South of the late 50's. Amazing. Something so natural, and we have to mechanize and replace it? Anyway, at least now there's support (coercion?) in the other direction from the medical community.
Posted by: scotch meg at Jun 8, 2005 3:32:52 PM
My wife was actually complemented by an older woman while breastfeeding in a restaurant last week. While we have had the occassional dirty look or snide comment, the majority of people have been very helpful and considerate when it came to my wife and daughter's comfort.
Posted by: Anthony at Jun 8, 2005 3:34:26 PM
Very good point, Sean. I'm a lot more shocked by some of the "shirts" worn by very young women in my area than I am by someone feeding her baby.
Like you, I don't understand the problem.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 8, 2005 3:35:05 PM
I think that most folks feel much more comfortable with mammalian way to feed young offspring than avian ways.
Indeed, although we have scenes of Mary lactating to nourish the Lord Jesus and saints, we don't have a single painting or icon that I know of that shows the Holy Spirit as a dove regurtitating to nourish us, the children of God.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 8, 2005 3:38:07 PM
What do these women have that I didn't have ten to twenty years ago? A catchy name..."lactivist." I love it.
Posted by: Ellyn at Jun 8, 2005 3:38:46 PM
Amy, Great post! You are 100% correct.
I've never understood why the sight of a nursing baby bothered some people. Then again, we live in such an anti-natal society maybe it should not be such a surprise.
Simple decorum suggests nursing moms should make reasonable efforts to "drape" or otherwise be discreet. But whether they do or not, the horror some people seem to feel at the sight of a nursing mother is downright weird.
Posted by: Simon at Jun 8, 2005 3:42:59 PM
Regarding whether women breastfed in public fifty years ago: that may have depended on what type of community they lived in. My father grew up in a rural Nebraska farming community in the 1950's and said it was very common during church dinners and the like to see women breastfeeding their babies.
Posted by: Becky at Jun 8, 2005 3:43:44 PM
Actually, I feel just the opposite way from Ellyn. Does everything have to be turned into a movement and a pressure group? It reminds me of David Brooks's attempt to dub people who believed having children is good "natalist," or the whiny Christians who tried to introduce the term "Christophobic." (Both of these seem to have failed to catch on, thank goodness.) And their tactics seem either silly (the ABC demonstration) or downright sinister (wanting to amend the Civil Rights Act).
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 8, 2005 3:44:57 PM
50 years ago in the US women did not breastfeed at all, in public or elsewhere. It had been put out that there was something wrong with it or something.
OK, then, 100 years ago. Let's look back on a time when there was a much greater sense of modesty in our culture, and see if public breastfeeding was common during that time.
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 8, 2005 3:49:37 PM
Putting aside all activism and "take that! you prudes" mentality, as the nuns who taught me used to say about our clothes, would Mary wear that in public? Or perhaps another way to put it, would you be comfortable with the amount of exposure you were experiencing while nursing if you were in a private audience with Pope Benedict? I think most Catholics wouldn't be comfortable exposing to the Pope as much as the young woman exposed to Chavez, but a light blanket drape would be acceptable.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 3:50:03 PM
It's too bad God didn't make it so that milk came out of our fingers. But then I suppose some folks would require us all to wear gloves.
Posted by: ajb at Jun 8, 2005 3:54:17 PM
Hmmm, I breastfed five of five, but still have a tough time with the activism.
http://feminine-genius.typepad.com/femininegenius/2005/06/in_your_face_mo.html
Posted by: gsk at Jun 8, 2005 3:58:17 PM
Despite my mother's horror, I breast fed my four children. My pastor told me once he did not like going in the churches in Italy because the women there breast fed their bambinos in the pews. Crazy stuff. Modesty is important, I suppose, but come on what are the breasts' function in the first place?
Posted by: Jane at Jun 8, 2005 3:59:57 PM
Lauda,
There's no doubt that 100 years ago public breast feeding would have taken place when women were out in public which was, more than likely, to far less an extent than today.
Do you think that a woman travelling by train would not have breast fed her child? The trains of the day were definitely not equipped with rest rooms that facilitated private feeding. Nor were carriages or any other modes of transportation.
Finally, the society of 100 years ago was far less (over)sexualized than the one we live in today. What's the big deal? If someone has a problem with the fact that my wife needs to feed our child, then it is their problem, not ours.
Posted by: Anthony at Jun 8, 2005 4:01:58 PM
Re: nursing in public in ages past, in the US:
cultural distinctions: Many women didn't nurse, period, and secondly, people didn't take babies out the way they do now, into social settings. I'm sure, though, if Barbara Walters, ace reporter, were traveling on a train through Illinois in 1889, chances are, she might have seen a nursing mother or two.
The cultural issue also relates to other..cultures. Cultures in which women lived lives separate from men for much of the time, this isn't an issue.
So...it's a new situation: A public society in which men and women intermix and babies are taken into situations, in urban areas at least, in which they weren't regularly, decades ago.
So, if we're taking babies out, and we're encouraged to nurse...why should the baby have to eat in a bathroom?
Posted by: amy at Jun 8, 2005 4:03:53 PM
+J.M.J+
I will just make a few comments, treading on eggshells all the way to avoid riling up the anti-breastfeeding crowd of St Blogs (as I've done before).
I'm very much in favor of breastfeeding, having nursed all my children (the oldest didn't fully wean until age 2 1/2). I once belonged to La Leche League as well.
But the notion of a "nurse-in" has never quite sat right with me. I don't believe breastfeeding should be turned into a form of protest. I agree that nursing mothers need their rights protected and all that, I just don't like that particular type of protest.
Also, I don't breastfeed in public because I'm just hyper-modest. I've just never been able to bring myself to do it outside a restroom (and I'm not just talking in the stall; some ladies' rooms have a sitting area, which I would perhaps take advantage of - but still try to cover myself as much as possible.)
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie at Jun 8, 2005 4:06:26 PM
Hey, I have used the American fear of Breast Feeding to my advantage. I never got through airport security so fast as when I told the TSA that I had a breast pump in my carry-on.
Posted by: Ambrose at Jun 8, 2005 4:12:31 PM
I was surprised that the article actually pointed out (in my mind) the true issue: "'To many mothers, breast-feeding runs up against sexual attitudes toward the breast,' said Dr. Lawrence Gartner." And the article mentions it again later on.
Isn't this the clearest form of women being a sexual object? Think breast, think sex or indecent exposure. Being a father of now three, I see how wonderful it is that my wife, through her own gift can sustain this new born life for the first six months or more.
As far as the social action, I don't have any issue with it expect the sad fact that it actually has to occur to bring attention to it. Fortunately, my wife hasn't been in this situation and she doesn't use a blanket. If anything, that brings attention to it.
Come to think of it, I'll have to poll my NFP classes and see how who can figure out how many times my wife nurses in class. I'll better barely 10% will have noticed.
Posted by: Adrian at Jun 8, 2005 4:13:04 PM
I wonder if the Starbucks' incident involved an offer of a "special latte"...
Posted by: Anon at Jun 8, 2005 4:14:19 PM
I've never found "in your face" activism to build bridges of understanding be it breast-feeding or anything else. A hundred years ago, a woman would probably have breast-fed on a train or a stage-coach or wherever she was, but it's very unlikely she would have exposed her entire breast in doing so. If you are breast-feeding discretely, people probably don't even notice you are breast-feeding. If you are doing it to show off, you probably are exposing too much.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 4:14:56 PM
I was glad to see Rosemary's post. The tone of the comments here is conflating anti-breastfeeding-in-public with anti-breastfeeding in general, when that is far from necessarily the case.
I never liked Barbara Walters, but the attempt to portray her mild remarks as a monstrous injustice (for which some are demanding a public apology!) is so ridiculous that is likely to backfire on the lactivists. Aren't there some real problems (e.g., abortion, world hunger, Darfur, AIDS) that these women could devote their time and energy to?
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 8, 2005 4:20:17 PM
I had to laugh because I was nursing my 5 month old as I read this. I'm no "militant" breastfeeder, I just think it's easier, cheaper and more practical than making a bottle. (And no periods! Hey!) If I'm ever in public, I always drape a blanket. I've never had anyone say anything bad to me, if they even knew what I was doing. After 5 kids, I can do it pretty discretely.
I don't think women should have to go to a bathroom to nurse, but a cover is appropriate in this day and age. You never know what whacko is looking at you.
Posted by: Jennifer at Jun 8, 2005 4:27:33 PM
I know there are many wannabee lactavists out there, but how many of you have a Master's Degree in Human Lactation?
...There is also an increasing demand for lactation consultants, as greater numbers of women choose to breastfeed their infants. In response, private and public health agencies have focused on improving the nutrition of mothers and children. The UC Davis Master of Advanced Study in Maternal and Child Nutrition Program is designed to provide a strong scientific background in these topics, and to train professionals to design, implement, and evaluate nutrition intervention programs for mothers and children from a wide variety of cultural, ethnic, and social backgrounds.
The University of California at Davis has an entire Human Lactation Center.
Don't endanger the life of your child by attempting to breastfeed before consulting a professional lactation consultant! (That may be child abuse!)
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 8, 2005 4:28:59 PM
I was brestfead starting 51 years ago untill I grew some teeth...
Posted by: Touchy Technician at Jun 8, 2005 4:32:32 PM
Are we all being a bit unfair re Barbara Walter's comment? First of all, I'd like to have heard exactly what she said. It's possible the breastfeeding woman on her flight was being very immodest -- perhaps she had completely exposed her breasts. Extensive public exposure is just not something that should be done in polite society -- or is everyone now okay with that?
Second, I think a lot of us find breastfeeding to be a very intimate act between mother and child, and we feel we're slighty intruding on this. I have a feeling that, even when it was a common practice a hundred years or so ago, women probably did it on the quiet.
Third, I believe Barbara Walters was unable to bear a child (she had many miscarriages) but does have an adopted daughter. So, maybe viewing breastfeeding could be a bit painful for her.
Posted by: Claire at Jun 8, 2005 4:33:35 PM
Hard to figure what the problem could be. Possible that some men might object because they're a little confused and don't want to be caught looking, as it were. It's OK to look at a baby nursing, but if one sees a momentarily exposed nipple, it's all of a sudden a little sexual or at least private, and one doesn't want to be looking. So perhaps people can feel awkward in the presence of nursing out of a sense of misplaced delicacy.
Most of the time with draping and discretion nothing at all shows, but I remember times when one of our apparently milk-drugged babies would all of sudden unlatch and pop his head up, often with big smile. Great moments, but hard to maintain discretion.
Posted by: James Englert at Jun 8, 2005 4:37:01 PM
I have the perfect slogan
Lactivism: Because every child deserves a bust in the mouth!
(ducking)
Posted by: Mark Shea at Jun 8, 2005 4:37:16 PM
I don't think women should have to go to a bathroom to nurse, but a cover is appropriate in this day and age. You never know what whacko is looking at you.
That's one of the things I was getting at. Asking women to be modest about their breastfeeding protects them as well as protecting our sense of modesty.
I believe the breastfeeding mother than made Ms. Walters "uncomfortable" had not covered herself with a blanket.
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 8, 2005 4:40:00 PM
I think Claire's second point, along with Jennifer's, point the way to the bulk of the "problem" and the "solution."
My only problem with public nursing is when I intrude on a mother and baby. I am embarrassed when I notice too late that I'm interrupting this intimate moment.
Now, that embarrassment is my problem, I realize, but the simple solution is the drape so many moms use. It has become a nearly universal signal of nursing-in-progress that even a klod like me can read.
So, nurse away, mothers! Just give me a clue that it's happening and I'll go away quietly.
But, amy, doesn't nursing in an art museum violate the "no smoking, food, or drink" regulations?
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at Jun 8, 2005 4:43:11 PM
Since my hands are handicapped, I always had trouble getting a baby latched on discreetly, so I rarely breastfed in public, only when it was absolutely necessary. When my second child was a few months old, we were at a tourist attraction, and I went down into the basement where there were just some empty rooms, got her latched on and draped a blanket over "ground zero" so nobody could see if they happened to wander down. Well, three little old ladies did wander down and noticed the cute little outfit my daughter was wearing. They assumed the baby was sleeping and asked if they could have a peek. I whispered -- yes, WHISPERED -- that the baby was eating, so sorry -- yes, I avoided saying the word "breast" and the three little old ladies were immediately aghast. They couldn't see anything more than when they first came down and were delighted a baby was nearby, but once they found out what the baby was doing, they thought I was a disgusting heathen.
All this to say, I don't think it's the SIGHT of breastfeeding that bothers people as much as the THOUGHT of it.
Posted by: Sparki at Jun 8, 2005 4:45:33 PM
As long as we are on the topic of baby needs while in public places, may I introduce two additional topics?
* What is the current readership's opinion of changing poopy diapers on the floor of a restaurant dining room? This is not a hypothetical question, as I have observed such (in Europe, by American parents). So maybe the restuarant did not have a changing station in the restroom (European restaurants don't have 200 square foot restooms like American restaurants). But, yuck! Sort of kills the appetite, and the air quality.
* Americans seem to be developing SUV sized baby strollers. I have no objections to small baby strollers, especially collapsable ones. But now there seems to be a move toward having baby strollers which are an SUV sized chassis upon which is placed an enormous (probably legal requirement) car seat with cup holders and magazine racks and room for 12 cubic feet of shopping. Some restaurants are now instructing parents to "Park the Stollers Outside" because they are just becoming too obstructive, maybe even impacting fire codes for egress.
Any thoughts on these baby topics?
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 8, 2005 4:46:16 PM
Shea, that's the breast joke I've seen all day.
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at Jun 8, 2005 4:47:25 PM
A century ago, the poor nursed their babies, the rich used wetnurses and formula (bottles). When I had my first baby in 1973, natural childbirth (LaMaze) and La Leche League were in vogue for many young mothers. (In 1947, my own mother was discouraged from nursing me - her first child - after only a few months, but she subsequently nursed my six siblings quite successfully, confident that God knew what He was doing better than the doctor.) I made many friendships through a nursing mothers group I belonged to and enjoyed helping new moms gain confidence in nursing and caring for their babies. Inevitably, as more working mothers returned to their jobs after their baby's birth, the choice was to bottle feed using either formula, or expressing their own breast milk - hardly enjoyable. I look back on my days of nursing my babies with fond memories - knowing I was doing the best for my babies, enjoying the time to be able to interact with each baby, and discovering as the baby grew month by month how being able to offer comfort to him or her when sick or just too overtired to sleep gave me such a sense of satisfaction. In this rush-rush world we live in, nursing a baby is a true gift of time and love that I hope more mothers will come to appreciate.
In poor countries, many babies simply would not survive their first years without their mothers' milk. Here in the US the government pays for infant formula so a baby can go to daycare in order for mom to work. My own opinion is that God gave us marriage not just as a bond between husband and wife, but as a means to protect and nurture the little ones born to them, and provided the perfect way to nourish the baby both physically and emotionally - breastfeeding.
Posted by: ann at Jun 8, 2005 4:48:02 PM
It's entirely possible, given the tightness of airplanes today, that even if Ms. Walters was in first class, a nursing one or two year old would would make her uncomfortable. The seats (even in first class) are often so close together, the child's feet could well have been in Ms. Walters lap. Or, having seen how some women behave on airplanes in first class, the woman might have completely removed her top and sat there bare chested reading a magazine. There's more to this story than we probably know.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 4:53:39 PM
Some art of Our Lady of la Leche:
http://www.missionandshrine.org/statue.htm
http://www.jayikislakfoundation.org/millennium-exhibit/pics/time/0008.jpg
There are a many more portraits of Our Lady of la Leche from many different eras, including some that show a shocking (if you're a Puritan, that is) amount of breast, but I cannot find them on the web.
Posted by: GFvonB at Jun 8, 2005 4:54:20 PM
Asking women to be modest about their breastfeeding protects them as well as protecting our sense of modesty.
I believe the breastfeeding mother than made Ms. Walters "uncomfortable" had not covered herself with a blanket.
Careful there. The "protects them" argument is the basis of the chador, too.
Honestly, the idea that a journalist in her, what? Seventies? Someone who's traveled the world, sat at the elbow of the famous and powerful, interviewed anyone she ever wanted to -- that Barbara-freakin'-Walters could be made "uncomfortable" by the sight of a breastfeeding infant simply defies belief.
Maybe the plane was hot. Maybe the baby hated being draped. Maybe she ought to go back to her magazine. Please.
Posted by: Nance at Jun 8, 2005 4:57:28 PM
What is the current readership's opinion of changing poopy diapers on the floor of a restaurant dining room?
!
Americans seem to be developing SUV sized baby strollers.
Useless and obnoxious. The only stroller we've ever used extensively is our umbrella stroller (the collapsible variety).
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 8, 2005 5:01:22 PM
Modest breast-feeding mothers of babies never bother me. Better breast-feeding than having the child scream in hunger. But I will admit I have been uncomfortable when children age 4 or 5 run up to their mothers, unbottom their blouses or lift them up, take a couple of swigs and head back to the playground. And when a mother in a bikini removes her top to breast-feed, that is a little too much exposed skin in public for me. Yes, it would be hot under a beach towel for the baby, but...Perhaps I'm just jealous that someone who is breastfeeding has the figure to wear a bikini with or without the top. LOL!
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 5:07:45 PM
As for strollers being the size of SUVs and equipped like lunar landing modules, apparently bigger is better. I never see single strollers anymore. Always at least double and often triple. Kids big enough to walk are being pushed all the time.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 5:10:09 PM
Re Nance's comment:
If some people -- yes, even seventy-something "Barbara-freakin'-Walters" -- is offended by immodest breastfeeding, why do we have to expect them to just get over it and/or ignore it?
Why, instead, shouldn't the woman doing the breastfeeding feel she could best do it modestly?
Why offend unnecessarily? Why the imperative to be so in-your-face?
Posted by: Claire at Jun 8, 2005 5:18:40 PM
Speaking of humanity on airplanes....
I'd much rather see a mother nurse her baby, than a grandfather pull out his dentures after the meal and proceed to clean them by sucking off the food bits.
Hey, grandpa's need nutrition, too, I guess.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 8, 2005 5:21:07 PM
It seems agreed that mothers who can do so modestly can breastfeed in public.
But given the content of conversations I've heard and the outfits I've seen worn on The View, I hardly think that modesty was the basis of Barbara Walters' discomfort. I hesitate to say that she's uncomfortable with breastfeeding altogether because all liberal journalists are extremely tolerant and they know everything.
Posted by: Sue at Jun 8, 2005 5:24:33 PM
She was sitting next to the woman on an airplane. How "in your face" could anyone even have room to be? Besides, Barbara Walters is a WOMAN. Is she offended in the gym locker room?
I guess what this boils down to is: Is a breast offensive? Not when it's being used for its intended purpose. Not for me, anyway.
Posted by: Nance at Jun 8, 2005 5:25:11 PM
What especially bothers me is that people assume the woman was being immodest when breastfeeding otherwise no one would have had an issue. I have never seen anyone breastfeed immodestly and I live in an urban area where lots of mothers breastfeed. People, including me, go to great lengths to expose as little breast as possible when breastfeeding. I think the presumption would have to be that the mother was being perfectly modest, but Baba was uncomfortable anyway. In which case, c'est dommage baba, but your problem is with messy yucky biology and you are just going to have to deal.
i should add that i saw the video of baba's remark and she seemed extremely prissy about it, there was no story about the mother flashing her breasts, etc., which i'm sure she would have added if it were the case.
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jun 8, 2005 5:44:04 PM
Ms. Walters - if you again find yourself sitting next to a nursing mom, just MYOB and put your nose in a book or magazine! I'm sure that as a journalist you have seen alot of offensive stuff and heard alot of offensive things - surely, a mother doing what God intended for her baby has to be very far down on your "offensive" list.
(I am thinking that Ms. Walters simply considers breastfeeding "declasse" - her generation preferred bottle feeding.)
If you look at some of the religious art noted above, seems to me the Child Jesus is bigger than an infant in most of them, and Mary doesn't have a blanket thrown over her either.
Amy - can I be practical and sentimental at the same time? I loved nursing my kids and was glad I didn't have to fiddle with bottles.
Posted by: ann at Jun 8, 2005 5:48:47 PM
Question: I don't quite understand why the mother has to use a blanket for (apparently) most people to see her as "modest," and not just cover herself with her shirt? Are we only talking about latch-on here? Or is it not thought possible to keep covered with just the shirt? Really curious. I have tried the blanket thing without success at either latching on or keeping the baby and the blanket in place. I don't breastfeed just anywhere because I cannot always latch on without "flashing" anyone. But if the latch-on can be done discreetly enough, then the shirt and the baby are usually sufficient to cover everything.
Posted by: ro at Jun 8, 2005 5:48:48 PM
This from the article:
"It's nothing against breast-feeding, it's about exposing yourself for people who don't want to see it," said Scotty Stroup, the owner of a restaurant in Round Rock, Tex., where a nursing mother was refused service last fall.
According to Texas law, this guy could have been sued, and he almost certainly would have lost if the report is accurate. From the Texas Statutes Health & Safety Code, Chapter 165:
§ 165.001. LEGISLATIVE FINDING. The legislature finds that breast-feeding a baby is an important and basic act of nurture
that must be encouraged in the interests of maternal and child health and family values. In compliance with the breast-feeding
promotion program established under the federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. Section 1771 et seq.), the legislature recognizes breast-feeding as the best method of infant nutrition.
§ 165.002. RIGHT TO BREAST-FEED. A mother is entitled to breast-feed her baby in any location in which the mother is authorized to be.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 8, 2005 5:51:20 PM
QUESTION: How many have seen the "Deleted Scenes" from the "Mr. Incredible" DVD? I sure with they had started the film with the original idea of that neighborhood backyard BBQ! Talk about a contemporary statement about motherhood!
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 8, 2005 5:55:13 PM
I'm not a mother, but I've always found it quite beautiful to see mothers' nursing in public. Not that they should go out and do it on purpose of course, but they're mothers, darnnit and if their kids are hungry, they should feed them.
Also, on the notion of modesty, I think some of us are confusing modesty with prudishness. What is immodest about a mother breastfeeding her child? I think a drape should be used in public and it's definitely not ideal to have someone's breast hanging out there, but seriously, that's what's breasts are for: to feed infants. It's not immodest to do so in public.
And would Our Lady do it in public? If Jesus were hungry, why wouldn't she?
Posted by: Mary at Jun 8, 2005 5:56:36 PM
I feel pretty extreme about this too. I don't think a blanket is necessary if one has a top which pulls up; the top covers most of the breast. Babies can feel smothered by a blanket and use their arms to pull it off. I have nursed a baby in church at mass and the people standing on either side of me didn't know I was doing it. This doesn't always work, as some babies nurse a bit, pull off and throw their heads back etc. But a very young baby usually doesn't do this. Anyway, I think the right attitude is that babies have the right to nurse whenever and wherever and society would be a lot better off if people got used to this. I remember going in to visit my oldest son's kindergarden class for the morning and naturally taking my nursing infant, and naturally nursing her when she was hungry..and the other visiting mother whispered...maybe you shouldn't do that here...you know, because of the children" Heavy emphasis on "children" in her voice. I looked at her, astonished. Why should children not see a baby nurse? I just didn't get it. I didn't stop,either. There isn't anywhere I have gone with a baby where I didn't nurse. I admit to feeling a bit uncomfortable when I had one of those throw the head back suddenly babies, but just flopped my shirt down over the breast. Then there are those babies who like to play with the other nipple while they nurse on the one and are always trying to push up your blouse so they can do that. I did try to discourage that in public. Nursing toddlers can learn to wait til we get home, and I usually did ask them to wait til we get home. (I have nursed til 2 1/2 twice and til 3 once.) I did nurse my two year old youngest daughter when I visited her day care center at the community college where I was in nursing school. She was the least clingy easiest separating child there; happy to see me and nurse a few minutes but easily waving goodbye and running off to play when I had to go back to class. I know this was partly personality though, as I definitely also had kids who couldn't separate that easily...even, say, at their evaluation for kindergarden...but at least, the nursing didn't MAKE her clingy.
Women have a right to nurse their babies and babies have a right to be nursed. Women shouldn't have to go to the rest room to nurse. I have outright refused to do that, twice and the store people always backed down. No one should make anyone else uncomfortable on purpose though. Even though I think cultures which accept greater exposure of the breast to nurse are healthier in this regard, in this culture one should be as careful about this as one can without getting to the point where a nursing mother feels she has to use a pacifier or bring a bottle with her when she goes out.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Jun 8, 2005 6:02:28 PM
I'm ok with wimmin b-feeding in public, just as long as they're ok with my saying, "watchout, you'll put someone's eye out with that thing!"
Posted by: john c at Jun 8, 2005 6:02:39 PM
A mother is entitled to breast-feed her baby in any location in which the mother is authorized to be.
Yes, and if one is refused service at a restaurant one is no longer "authorized" to be there.
I think a good many people would probably be uncomfortable watching a woman breastfeed while they're sitting down to dinner. Maybe they're wrong, maybe not. But is someone compelled to lose business out of respect for a breastfeeding mother?
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 8, 2005 6:07:18 PM
And would Our Lady do it in public? If Jesus were hungry, why wouldn't she?
Given the standards of the time, I would be very surprised if Our Lady would do so in the presence of any man other than St. Joseph.
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 8, 2005 6:12:33 PM
PS: mothers breastfeed often because the only other alternative is a crying/fussing/screaming baby. Mothers are actually trying to spare those around them from such a racket, and people just sneer at the breastfeeding, when they should be grateful that some modicum of peace is maintained. obviously they would prefer it if mother and baby both stayed out of public the first few years of life.
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jun 8, 2005 6:13:50 PM
I'm with Nance. Breastfeeding IS the primary purpose of a breast, and babies need to eat, for heavens sake. It is even more surprising that a woman would express an objection, on television, and on a show that has a predominantly female audience to boot. Unless Barbara's seatmate was completely topless and flamboyant about the task at hand (which is a possibility, but so uncommon I find it hard to believe), you'd think after decades in journalism she'd have enough intuition to keep her discomfort to herself. Might as well broadcast a call for the lactation brigade.
But, Barbara has always seemed a bit self-absorbed to me and she is, after all, a product of her generation (when breastfeeding was seen as something only backward women did). My mom nursed me and my siblings in the early 1960s and endured plenty of grief from friends and family about it.
I nursed all three of my kids and am all for the right to breastfeed whenever and wherever as needed. But while I never went to extremes (restrooms without chairs!) to avoid nursing in public, it was honestly never something I was completely comfortable with either. I was always too worried that my baby wouldn't latch on easily, that the blankie would slip off, etc.
What is it they say about discretion being the better part of valor? ;-)
Posted by: Cheryl at Jun 8, 2005 6:14:05 PM
Lauda,
You want to test your interpretation in court? I think that it is pretty clear from the chapter in question what the intention of the law is.
Like it or not, that leaves the prudish restaurant owner in Texas with a decision -- do I risk economic loss from a few prudes who might not come back because breastfeeding bothers them, or do I risk an even bigger economic loss from a potential lawsuit if I refuse service to a nursing mother who happens to know her civil rights under Texas law.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 8, 2005 6:15:03 PM
I think a good many people would probably be uncomfortable watching a woman breastfeed while they're sitting down to dinner.
Why are they craning their necks to watch? Why is their attention so taken by people at another table? To the extent that they make the minute examination which would usually be necessary to figure out that a baby was being fed? Why is their attention not at their own table, their own food, the people with them?
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 8, 2005 6:15:48 PM
Lauda, if that were the case, then you are suggesting Mary stayed at home and inside for about 2-4 years. I doubt that. "Given the standards of the time" (which did not include formula, bottles, artificial nipples or air conditioning)
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jun 8, 2005 6:19:38 PM
Lauda
I think the Texas law would prohibit the restaurant in question from refusing service on the basis of breastfeeding, unless restaurants in Texas are authorized to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.
And if the restaurant's hands are tied in this way, I don't think that they would lose business.
Posted by: Sue at Jun 8, 2005 6:23:48 PM
Men and women didn't freely associate in the Middle East of Jesus' time (and still don't in many parts of the Middle East today). Nursing mothers would probably not have been out in public places where men would have been seeing them, and that would include Mary. She would have lived most of her life with women. Only women of scandal were out when men could see them...hence the woman at the well when Jesus was there. Had she been a "decent" woman she would have come with the other women at the designated time, but since she wasn't "decent" she had to do at a time when she would be seen by a man. I highly doubt that Mary nursed anywhere that she could have been seen by any man. And the Medieval paintings reflect a Medieval notion, not first century reality. Besides which, those paintings are intended to convey a theological truth, not a history lesson in how Mary breast fed.
And while breasts are intended to feed children, they are also a highly visible secondary sexual characteristic, especially in our culture. We might prefer that not to be the case, but it reamins a fact. In our Western culture, breasts are more than attached self-sustaining baby feeding devices.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 6:35:57 PM
Delicate people should stay indoors, where nasssty dirty real life won't bother them. (Note: never had a baby, never had an interest in having a baby, don't see anything wrong with mothers breastfeeding anywhere they want as long as they don't do it stark naked while yelling "Yoo hoo! My milkshake brings all the boys to my yard!)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 8, 2005 6:36:38 PM
That's... quite the image that you have put in my mind, Andrea.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 8, 2005 6:41:05 PM
Lauda, as a Historian, I assure you that your unsupported claims about the social history of breastfeeding are 100% false.
Posted by: GFvonB at Jun 8, 2005 6:42:45 PM
Andrea,
I am reassured to know that you would not be offended by my breastfeeding. You should be hosting The View. I hope that they're reading this.
Posted by: Sue at Jun 8, 2005 6:48:41 PM
Oh, Andrea, I love that song! My wife hits me every time I listen to it.
My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard,
And their like
It's better than yours,
Damn right it's better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I have to charge
Kelis must be one of those professional lactation consultants with a Master's degree from UC Davis!
I just listen to that rap for the intricate percussion rhythms, honest.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 8, 2005 6:52:54 PM
I had my first "breast-feeding woman" moment a couple of weeks ago. I was in a campus chapel's basement library, killing time reading before Mass when a mom walked in carrying a baby. She asked me if I minded if she fed: "I'll cover up and all," she assured me.
I offered to leave, but she said that wasn't needed. I was careful to remain seated in a chair that had my back to her, but I did notice that she closed the door.
Ironic -- to preserve modesty, she shut herself in a room with a strange man not her husband. There are places in the world where that will get you killed.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jun 8, 2005 6:55:59 PM
+J.M.J+
Maybe I should clarify: I'm all for public breastfeeding as long as it's discreet, I just can't bring myself to do it.
As for women who want to "let it all hang out," well, that would be okey-doke if we lived in Africa where that have different standards of modesty, but not here. Yeah, our culture is excessively prudish and absurdly squemish about a natural physical process, but like it or not we have to respect that.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie at Jun 8, 2005 7:00:03 PM
Victor, I would have done the Flight of Joseph at that point. No way in hell I would stay in a closed room with a woman alone like that (other than my wife or a doctor). Receipe for scandal at the very least.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 8, 2005 7:00:06 PM
Lauda, as a Historian, I assure you that your unsupported claims about the social history of breastfeeding are 100% false.
What claims are those? As an historian, I'm sure you know that men and women did not freely associate with one another at the time at which Our Lord was an infant. Surely you're not suggesting that a culture in which women covered their heads in public would have deemed public breastfeeding appropriate.
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum (dcs) at Jun 8, 2005 7:24:38 PM
Yeah, our culture is excessively prudish and absurdly squemish about a natural physical process
One might also consider whether, say, some African cultures are excessively open about such things.
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 8, 2005 7:26:55 PM
The Virgo Lactans images so popular in the Middle Ages were indeed teaching a theological truth about the humanity of Christ. Rich women of the day used hired wetnurses. Edward III's queen Philippa caused quite a sensation in the 14th C when she nursed her large brood herself.
So why don't we see images of the nursing Madonna any more? The Council of Trent demanded "dignified" religious art. Maria Lactans was out as well as the bare naked Christ Child. Hispanics ignored this new policy, however, in part because the decrees of Trent were not promulgated in Spain.
The baby bottle was known in Germany at least by 1500.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Jun 8, 2005 7:29:43 PM
"Only women of scandal were out when men could see them...hence the woman at the well when Jesus was there. Had she been a "decent" woman she would have come with the other women at the designated time, but since she wasn't "decent" she had to do at a time when she would be seen by a man."
Umm, yeah, Radactrice, and Jesus didn't exactly make a big deal of it, did He? It was, what we might call it today -- a "non-issue". Seems to me your argument defeats the point you seem to want to make, that public breastfeeding is indecent.
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jun 8, 2005 7:35:55 PM
There's no question that breast-feeding is better for the baby. Mom's milk has a lot of the important omega-3 fatty acids necessary for brain development. It's also high in cholesterol, which is a GOOD thing for the baby.
Studies have shown that breast-fed babies have health advantages later in life, including better cognitive development and even better blood pressure. God's way is the best way.
It's also a natural way to help space out children.
Posted by: Sr. Lorraine at Jun 8, 2005 7:36:04 PM
"One might also consider whether, say, some African cultures are excessively open about such things."
That is exceptionally xenophobic don't you think? "Excessively open"? Don't make the mistake of applying your worldview to an environmental situation unless you have experienced it for yourself.
Posted by: Anthony at Jun 8, 2005 7:37:34 PM
Benedetto:
When her husband came back and caught us in full shirtless embrace and lip-lock, well ... that's when the fireworks started ...
Seriously, after a while, the husband came into the library room, and he neither said nor paid me any heed, although the layout of the room made it impossible for him not to see me and not to see that I was sitting with my back to his wife.
I think it would have been ungentlemanly and potentially needlessly-guilt-inducing for me to have left the room, particularly after she turned down my offer to leave. She was being as modest as possible, and the circumstances allowed me to avoid seeing anything at all. That said, I would not die unfulfilled if I never see a woman breast-feed in person, and if circumstances did not allow it (say, she was in a seat directly opposite mine on a train, so I'm looking right at her), I probably would find an excuse to go somewhere else.
As for scandal ... that's too tied to the behavioral customs of a given society to say anything absolute. In this society at this time, the public space, including the workplace and public accommodations like libraries, is mixed-sex. So no sane person can infer anything about two strangers like myself and this woman.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jun 8, 2005 7:45:09 PM
Isn't the point of asking, "What would Mary do?" or "What did Mary do?" to determine whether or not it is sinful to engage in whatever action is being contemplated? Or are we saying that the only acceptable behavior with regards to public breastfeeding and other practices that differ from culture to culture is to adhere to what a first-century Jewish woman would have done?
Is it sinful, then, to breastfeed in public? That's the question here, right? If the intent is not to provoke, but to provide nourishment, and if it's being done modestly enough to not reveal anything that would be barred from a PG movie - I don't see how it could be wrong.
If another person is uncomfortable with my breastfeeding my infant, I don't take the attitude of, "you can just deal with it," but I also haven't ever stopped feeding my child if it made someone uncomfortable. I've never been directly approached about this, of course, and I've always relied on a sling to drape during the latch-on. I guess I see myself as having the opportunity to educate the squeamish that it really isn't gross and exhibitionist to nurse an infant in public. I don't want to do anything to burn that bridge, but I also am not going to change my behavior to accomodate irrational responses to the very fact that I'm nursing.
It would be interesting to hear from the woman who discomfitted Barbara Walters, if she even realizes what's come of her decision.
For what it's worth, I've breastfed pretty much everywhere, including on several airplanes. I always made a big, big effort to completely cover myself on the airplane, and I felt sorry for the person sitting next to me - but what else could I do? Neither of my babies has been on board with the "taking a bottle from mom" plan, and it's good to keep their ears from hurting on the airplane.
Posted by: Dorian Speed at Jun 8, 2005 7:54:02 PM
Americans seem to be developing SUV sized baby strollers.
These aren't as useless as some commenters seem to assume. I have seven younger brothers, five of whom I pushed around in strollers all over the place, and my mother's expecting a ninth child as of July 1st. And I've got to say, thank God for our SUV sized baby stroller. For one thing, you can actually push those things up *mountains*. I'll never forget Hurricane Ridge, Washington State in the Olympic Mountains, the day the SUV stroller proved its worth. They turn on a dime, have much better breaking and maneuverability. Plus you can put stuff that you'd have to carry otherwise in the stroller with the kid. Not that we call it a stroller. We call it 'the baby buggy.'
Posted by: Eileen R at Jun 8, 2005 7:56:28 PM
Anyway, my mother is one of the most modest women I know. She uses a blanket or wears a long shirt when nursing in public. But it never occured to me or my brothers that we should ever have been shocked at home at seeing her nipple when the baby would look up from his meal. For a lot of people, the nipple is pretty de-sexualized in that context.
Posted by: Eileen R at Jun 8, 2005 8:00:18 PM
"My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard..."
Groan.... a new earworm.
And that Benedetto admitted it as his guilty pleasure....head spinning :-)
Posted by: Ambrose at Jun 8, 2005 8:02:04 PM
Posting anonymously this time only.
What really bothers me about Babs' reaction is that it seems more anti-child than anti-nursing. Would she have been less horrified if the mom next to her had been trying to spoon-feed a reluctant 11 month old some nice, staining vegetable like strained carrots which might at any moment be sent forth in a shower of glorious orange spray in Ms. Walter's direction? Or was she just annoyed to be seated next to a mother and child?
Children, even the best of them, are noisy, squirmy, messy, unpredictable and inconvenient little people--and they are also beyond wonderful. The people who say they don't want to watch a mom nurse in a restaurant probably don't want a bottle-fed baby unleashing projectile spit-up in the restaurant, either. The people who sniff about moms nursing in church--even in the back--are the same ones who glared at me when my then two-year-old discovered that a rosary made an enchanting clinking sound when you shook it. Those who think the only proper place to nurse in a store is in the restroom probably don't have much patience with a bored five-year-old playing peek-a-boo among the racks of merchandise while mom desperately tries to find a gift for her mother-in-law's birthday. And those who assert that our Lady certainly did not nurse in front of any man other than St. Joseph must think the newborn Christ Child didn't get hungry at all on the night of His birth, or at least, not until all those dirty shepherds had left.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that nursing moms have the right to walk around topless, or that they should go out of their way to make other people uncomfortable. But I think we need to acknowledge that behind at least a little of the "don't nurse that baby in public" attitude is the attitude that wishes parents of little ones would just stay home until the children are old enough not to bother anybody.
Posted by: Anon at Jun 8, 2005 8:10:50 PM
from an internet bulletin board in DC for mothers:
"
Thank you for sending me the NY Times article on breastfeeding. I believe
that I was the woman on the plane. I started my journey in Johannesburg
South Africa and flew to NY (18 hours) with my 2 month old son. I then
switched airports to fly the shuttle to DC and encountered Barbara Walters
on the plane. I was 3 seats from her. She made a comment about not
wanting to sit near a baby which I ignored. I breast fed during the
take-off and landing to protect my baby's ears. He did great - did not
cry at all - on all of the flights from South AFrica to DC and back. And
he got to meet all four grandparents ... I thank everyone for supporting
us about breastfeeding!"
two months old! for the non-experienced -- two month olds usually don't expose a lot of breast. they just lie there and eat and don't make a spectacle of it like older kids (not to mention the fact that the only other thing they can have is formula) note she also nursed during take off and landing, not the whole time.
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jun 8, 2005 8:13:19 PM
Like many here, I think a lot of this objection is, at bottom, as much anti-child as anything else. God forbid that we should have children at all, so messy, so inconvenient, so noisy. And if we do make the mistake of not having an abortion, the least we can do is sequester ourselves at home until the kids start college.
And actually feeding the little monster? Why, that might make it grow!
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 8, 2005 8:27:34 PM
"The people who... probably don't want a bottle-fed baby unleashing projectile spit-up in the restaurant, either."
You know, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that covers just about everyone, even the strange people who dote over every baby they see. I always thought that projectile vomiting was a baby's way of warning off the Strange Baby Doters, kind of like a rattlesnake's rattle.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 8, 2005 8:36:58 PM
Oh, just to help this thread jump past the "Gay Post", I'll chime in.
I have zero problem with breast feeding in public (including in church during Mass, just to hammer that nail in completely), and would only encourage more mothers to feel comfortable enough to do it if they so wish or need.
Posted by: Liam at Jun 8, 2005 8:39:23 PM
Maybe Baba Wawa is just jealwus. The grocery store mags have been busting with coverage of Brittany's pregnancy, Baby Apple, Julia Roberts and other celebrity moms and moms-to-be. Today I saw a very pregnant woman wearing a bra and panties on a Jockey underwear commercial. Having babies is "in".
I was not a militant breastfeeder, but I'm glad that these mothers protested. I think her critical remarks of a mother breastfeeding her infant stinks like dirty diapers and expose her as an old biddy.
Posted by: Pam at Jun 8, 2005 9:01:25 PM
Seems to me your argument defeats the point you seem to want to make, that public breastfeeding is indecent.
I've never said that. I've said I have no problem with breastfeeding. "Modest breast-feeding mothers of babies never bother me. Better breast-feeding than having the child scream in hunger." My only point was that Mary probably wasn't freely breast-feeding Jesus outside her home since she probably wasn't freely leaving her home, period. I hardly think Jesus would have been scandalized by breastfeeding since he wasn't scandalized by prostitution. But what Jesus did with prostititues and the low life, Mary probably didn't do with an infant.
As for what would Mary do being the criterion for sin, not when I was being reared. It was intended to be a measure of modesty and decorum, not sin, at least most of the time.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 9:02:24 PM
Radactrice, If Jesus doesn't care about such "modesty and decorum", then I don't care either.
Anyway, Radactrice, no nursing women in public in 1st c. Judea? see Luke: "People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
where there is a little child in 1c. Judea, there is a lactating woman not far behind.
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jun 8, 2005 9:38:25 PM
Having children brought to Jesus doesn't mean the mothers were nursing at that exact moment. I'm quite sure Jesus saw nursing mothers, but women didn't have the freedom we do now and simply weren't out in public as much as modern women are.
And Kathleen, where does Jesus and decorum come in here? When I was growing up, the nuns would say things like: Would Mary wear earrings like those? Or Would Mary wear that bright of a color? Would Mary speak in that loud of a voice? Mary was used as THE standard for dress, behavior, speech etc.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 9:51:20 PM
Here's what St. Bernard thought about breastfeeding in public:
http://www.stfx.ca/academic/catholic-studies/art/alonso-st_bernard_and_the_virgin.jpg
(Prudish people should not go to that link.)
Posted by: Michael Gorman at Jun 8, 2005 9:52:44 PM
Good aim.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 9:57:40 PM
Radactrice, I'm saying Jesus' example is more important than some remote notion of Marian decorum, especially one that is so divorced from biological reality.
you said "women didn't have the freedom we do now and simply weren't out in public as much as modern women are." what is the basis for this? The new testament doesn't describe many unisex public gatherings. sermon on the mount? loaves and fishes? wedding at cana? raising of lazarus? none have ever been described as men only, and almost all expressly included women.
Lately I nurse about every 90 minutes. if any public gathering with jesus lasted more than 90 minutes and was NOT unisex, then Jesus most assuredly witnessed nursing. In any case, you are FAR FROM safe in assuming that nobody nursed in the instance described in luke.
It's likely most adult women spent the majority of their adult life lactating, often nursing in tandem, as well as nursing while pregnant. So I just can't buy your version of events.
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jun 8, 2005 10:46:48 PM
If you believe that having kids is important and that allowing women to leave the house is important and you believe that it's important for infants to be well-fed (and I, for one, believe all three) then you cannot but support the right of women to breastfeed in public. Either provide public breastfeeding areas or deal with it. Sent women to the bathrooms to breastfeed? A disgraceful suggestion!
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jun 8, 2005 11:01:35 PM
Good aim.
No kidding, and good trajectory and distance to boot. I think that painting is an instance of a lesser known subset of Virgo Lactans that experts call Virgo Iaculans.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 8, 2005 11:15:06 PM
Here is a question -- who here would want to eat his or her dinner in a public restroom?
I thought so.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 8, 2005 11:16:44 PM
Victor, I would have done the Flight of Joseph at that point. No way in hell I would stay in a closed room with a woman alone like that (other than my wife or a doctor). Receipe for scandal at the very least.
Please tell me you are joking.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 8, 2005 11:17:55 PM
Radatrice, I must admit that I'm stumped. "Would Mary wear that bright a color?" What is the point of that question?
Is it that cultivating decorum and humility in dress is considered cultivating virtue? I guess I can see that, if that's what you're saying. I don't mean to be slamming on nuns. My nuns just didn't ask questions like that.
And I just don't see what it has to do with the question, I suppose. Is the act of breastfeeding inherently immodest, even if skin is not being exposed? I don't think so. Your arguments would seem to indicate that, perhaps, you do - based on the assertion that Mary wouldn't have breastfed in public. But is there any evidence that Mary herself considered breastfeeding an inherently immodest practice? Or are you just speculating as to what the cultural norms were of the time?
Posted by: Dorian Speed at Jun 8, 2005 11:19:56 PM
Has anyone read what I actually said? Okay, let's try again. Breast feeding is wonderful. Breast feeding is natural. Breast feeding is superlative. Everyone should be breast fed.
The only thing I'm trying to say is that it's unlikely that Mary was breast feeding with her breasts exposed in the presence of men she wasn't related to because it wasn't done in first century Israel and it's not done in certain areas of the Middle East even today.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 11:31:26 PM
Sorry - I guess I just didn't get the whole point of the "What would Mary do" meme.
I wonder if people will still be having these discussions 30 years from now?
Mostly, this post is intended to push us ever closer to the magic 161-post line. Hey, we had extraneous posts about the use of Nancy's name on that one...
Posted by: Dorian Speed at Jun 8, 2005 11:38:31 PM
The "what would Mary do" got off the general topic of breast feeding into using Mary as a example of modest living. I merely was mentioning that the nuns who tuaght me used Mary as the standard for a great many things including clothing color and earring choices. Oddly, they were probably using Medieval paintings as their standards of what Mary wore!
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 8, 2005 11:50:31 PM
Here's another question - an idle, curious one. I've read, here and there, of some folks who would say that choosing not to breastfeed a baby, if one is physically able to, would be sinful. A violation of God's intention. I don't buy this, but I'm curious to know if anyone else has ever heard this.
Posted by: amy at Jun 9, 2005 12:34:16 AM
Word McWordy!
Never nursed in a John, never will ask anyone else too, and as a waitress I ignore the customers who complain about the nursing mom at the next table.
What are you looking for anyway????
Posted by: julie at Jun 9, 2005 12:34:20 AM
Barbara Walters is being hung out to dry here. I watched the show and as I recall she said there was a man seated nearby who was the uncomfortable one. From the way she is being vilified here, I really don't think anyone heard what she said about breastfeeding.
Posted by: Diane at Jun 9, 2005 1:03:01 AM
Amy-
Are these from the same people that say circumcision of Christian boys is sinful? (giggle)
A lot of the Proverb 31 type of sites say that breastfeeding is and essential part of God's plan, like this one http://www.gentlemothering.com/articles/nancy/c2.php
Posted by: Ambrose at Jun 9, 2005 2:21:57 AM
I am NOT Giggling at circumcision; I was traumatized by my son's. I giggle at the Christian arguments against it.
Posted by: Ambrose at Jun 9, 2005 2:25:31 AM
I recall seeing in the 50's my sister attempt
to nurse, in public, twin boys. It didn't work
since both wanted both.
Later one played football for Arizona, the other for New Mexico
Posted by: gia at Jun 9, 2005 5:37:12 AM
"I recall seeing in the 50's my sister attempt
to nurse, in public, twin boys. It didn't work
since both wanted both.
Later one played football for Arizona, the other for New Mexico"
My wife had the same experience with our twins, although in private and not in public. Bottle fed after the first week, and the strapping lads did not seem to suffer from the change. We used to have 20 bottles lined up at a time in our refrigerator. Any woman who attempted to nurse those two bottomless infants would have had precious little time to do anything else. I have no objection to a woman nursing in public, as long as the woman isn't a slob about it. Most women are quite discrete, but the few who are not cause the problems just as much as the odd people who fail to understand that when a baby wants to nurse, it needs to be nursed. As in most areas of life, a modicum of common sense on all sides resolves the difficulties.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jun 9, 2005 6:16:42 AM
+J.M.J+
>>>Here's another question - an idle, curious one. I've read, here and there, of some folks who would say that choosing not to breastfeed a baby, if one is physically able to, would be sinful. A violation of God's intention. I don't buy this, but I'm curious to know if anyone else has ever heard this.
Though I'm very pro-breastfeeding (I am currently tandem nursing, BTW), I also don't buy that argument. I don't know of anyone who would actually argue that.
I read somewhere recently that Sheila Kippley of the Couple to Couple League will be releasing a new book which contains quotes from the Popes about the importance of breastfeeding. I doubt she will make that argument, though.
I can't find information about the book on the CCL site, but I did find this exerpt from an address by Pope Pius XII:
http://ccli.org/nfp/ebf/pius12.php
Note that the pope encourages women to breastfeed, but does not say that bottlefeeding is a sin. Surely if it were a sin for a woman who can breastfeed to decide not to do so, the Church would mention it among other sins, right?
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie at Jun 9, 2005 6:36:22 AM
Oh, and here's another one from JPG:
http://ccli.org/nfp/ebf/jp2.php
Again, notice that he mentions the decline of breastfeeding in many modern cultures, but never calls it sinful. He argues for breastfeeding based on its benefits for mother and child, not because the alternative is immoral.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie at Jun 9, 2005 7:01:30 AM
That is exceptionally xenophobic don't you think?
Nope. Western culture, until very recently, was based on Christianity and so the older Western standards of modesty are perfectly in line with the Church. We have no such assurance about African standards of modesty.
It gets hot in the Middle East, too, yet Middle Eastern women do not walk around with their breasts exposed.
I really have no objection to women breastfeeding in public as long as they are modest about it. Some of the protesters ("Lactivists") pictured in the link are clearly not being modest about it. That is why I am not exactly on their side.
Posted by: Lauda Jerusalem Dominum at Jun 9, 2005 7:56:57 AM
Amy,
You asked if a person was capable of breastfeeding but chose not to, would it be sinful.
I think the short answer is no. The Church doesn't say its sinful, so it aint.
That said, question of sin aside, I think a case can be made that there is a moral imperative to breastfeed. Here are some points.
1. If you are given something to hold "in trust" (say an inheritance, for example)for someone and you--without serious reason--do not give that thing to the person it was intended for, you would be guilty of stealing or at least misappropriation. In the same way, breastmilk is given to the mother NOT for the mother (she has no use for it) but for the baby. God gives the milk to the mother so that she can hold it in trust for her child. To withold the food that God intends to give his child without serious reason--some would argue--would at least imply some moral issue is in play.
2. Along the same lines, because breast milk is so much superior to formula, to intentionally withhold this greater good from a child without serious reason, would again, at least suggest some moral issues. The same moral issues, for example, that come into play when anyone chooses their own comfort and convenience over self-donative love.
3. I think in light of the theology of the body, that it is easier to make a case for the moral issues related to breastfeeding. If the entire reason God has given me a body is so that I would use it to work for the good of the other, then my chosing to not do something that so obviously is intended for the other would appear to violate God's intention for giving me a body in the first place. Again, this would at least suggest a basis for moral concern.
So, in sum, is choosing not to breastfeed without serious reason sinful? NO. IT IS NOT BECAUSE THE CHURCH DOES NOT SAY THAT IT IS.
However, is it morally problematic to choose not to breastfeed without serious reason? I, at least, would argue that it is. For more on this, I would suggest Fr. William Virtue's dissertation Mother and Infant: The Moral Theology of Motherhood. Or for something a little more accessible, may I be so bold as to suggest, Parenting with Grace? ;-)
God Bless
Posted by: Greg Popcak at Jun 9, 2005 8:19:20 AM
Should women breastfeed in public? In all these comments, nobody has discussed the alternative. In the early months, babies need to breastfeed very frequently--as often as every half hour (that's why so many women find they "don't have enough milk"--they try to breastfeed on a bottle schedule). Giving the babies bottles in public will interfere with the mother's milk supply (that's why so many women say they "just didn't have enough milk.") Also, after the first few months, a baby who's not used to bottles won't take one in public at all.
So, what are the alternatives to nursing in public? There are two: never leave the house while the baby's young; or bottlefeed the baby.
Posted by: Abigail at Jun 9, 2005 8:37:01 AM
Just read the Walters article. For goodness' sake, she was on an airplane! Where was the mother supposed to go to nurse her baby? Believe me, Walters' discomfort was nothing compared to what the baby would have felt if his mother had refused to nurse him.
People don't understand nursing. It's not just a matter of "feeding." Somebody should look at all those rubber pacifiers in bottle-fed babies' mouths and make some deductions. Nobody has any sense of natural law anymore.
Posted by: Abigail at Jun 9, 2005 8:48:18 AM
Jane writes:
Modesty is important, I suppose, but come on what are the breasts' function in the first place?
##
Attracting a husband? :)
Posted by: Tony Miller at Jun 9, 2005 8:59:14 AM
Greg:
Amy didn't ask if choosing not to nurse is sinful, which she said she didn't buy. She was wondering if anyone has heard the arguements that choosing not to is sinful. Some of the Proverb 31 Ministries, for instance, even provide a Breast-feeding Bible study to help women who might be struggling with some of the tempation not to nurse, to stop nursing, to wean a child younger than 2, to use a bottle, etc. Pretty clear SOME of these ministries (I can't say all) send the message of not just inadequacy for the non-nursing, but that they are not living according to God's Plan for them.
Posted by: Ambrose at Jun 9, 2005 8:59:30 AM
Of course breastfeeding is wonderful and the best thing for children. But what’s wrong with a little decorum in our lives today?
According to Webster’s, decorum covers the conventions of polite behavior, and polite behavior is that which is marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy.
Sounds like the kind of thing anyone with charity in his or her heart would strive to attain.
Posted by: an old biddy at Jun 9, 2005 9:02:40 AM
Greg,
If something is morally problematic, then it is very possibly sinful. At any rate, the choice of whether or not to breastfeed, given its positive benefits, one's child is certainly not a matter of moral indifference. Either you have good reasons for it or you don't, and if you don't, then it is likely at least venial matter. Good reasons could be rather expansively understood to include such things as needing to hold a job, health problems, or hostility from family.
The idea that there may be a moral obligation to breastfeed is not confined to the CCL or La Leche League types, by the way. I have seen a manual of moral theology for confessors that predates Vatican II stating that such a duty does exist.
By the way, just because the Church has not definitively taught that a particular act is not an obligation or is not sinful does not mean that it is not either of these. Contrary to popular misconception, the Church does not have a handy list of highly particularized sins to avoid and duties to follow, and anything not on the list goes.
Believe it or not, I'm actually not as militant about the matter as this post may sound. It just seems to me that the quickness to dismiss the notion that there might be some degree of moral obligation to breastfeed is not entirely warranted.
Oh, and I have to mention that anyone who hastles a mother for modestly nursing her child in public is a boob (sorry -- couldn't resist).
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 9, 2005 9:03:45 AM
"Any woman who attempted to nurse those two bottomless infants would have had precious little time to do anything else"
Yes that is absolutely true. I nursed two bottomless babies, and had I not been totally OK with public breastfeeding I would not have been able to leave my bedroom for 5 months. I live in Europe and only received positive reactions while, discreetly, breastfeeding in public (one baby at the time - double breastfeeding is impossible to do in public). I remember sitting on a bench in a mall nursing one baby and rocking the baby carriage where the other one was sleeping and people who walked by applauded and raised invisible hats.
Posted by: Anna at Jun 9, 2005 9:20:12 AM
Greg says that choosing not to breastfeed isn't sinful because the Church doesn't say it's a sin.
Well, I agree that it's not a sin that you could confess during Saturday afternoon confessions. But there are many sins that you can't confess outside of a relationship with a regular confessor/spiritual director, because a priest to whom you're anonymous or not well-known won't know if you have sinned or are scrupulous.
But if we can do a known good, and choose not to, out of selfish motivations, is that not a sin? Just because some act cannot be encompassed via legislation doesn't make it right, does it?
I may just have a more black and white view of things than Greg, but in my mind we either do good or sin with every choice we make. Jesus tells us "on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter" (Mt 12:36), and do we think our actions will not similarly be weighed in the balance? Similarly, James writes "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." (James 4:17)
Aquinas writes "As was shown above (1), sin is nothing else than a bad human act." (ST, 1.2;71;6, see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/207106.htm). In this particular case of withholding breastfeeding without good reason it seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of good parenting envisioned by Jesus when he says "Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?" (Mt 7:9)
Perhaps there is no specific canon proscribing such an omission, but it sure seems as sinful as any other refusal to do what is best for a child on the part of a mother or father because of some selfish motive. In the end, the commandments, whether found in Scripture or in the canons of the Church, are minimum behavioral requirements. As is illustrated very clearly in the Sermon on the Mount, the spirit of the law requires us to go beyond the letter, to do more than the minimum.
And in writing all this, I do not, of course, propose my own life as any illustration of virtue. There are many sins which I have not been able to confess in the confessional because they aren't breaking of specific laws, but which I have to confess regularly none the less in prayer to the Father. I have all too often been to slothful, proud, etc., to do the right thing by my children, and give thanks that God's grace has helped me do the right thing on occasion.
Posted by: Steve Cavanaugh at Jun 9, 2005 9:20:52 AM
I may just have a more black and white view of things than Greg, but in my mind we either do good or sin with every choice we make.
No, you are simply stating things as they actually are. Morally neutral acts only exist in theory. Every particular concrete act is either good or bad.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 9, 2005 9:29:15 AM
In medieval England, pastors were required to preach to their flocks annually to encourage maternal breastfeeding. That's a pretty good sign that some women weren't doing it themselves. The reasoning then had to do with imbibing character along with milk.
Putting urban children out to nurse in the countryside was a common practice in 19th C France and Germany but it was really a form of passive infanticide because the babies almost always died. (The Little Flower was a lucky exception.) Some Germans weaned at a month, fed the baby on sops in cow's milk and the babies died. So don't think there was once a glorious Catholic past where every mother nursed joyously and long.
I have no problem with modest nursing in public but let's not indulge in Earthmother romanticism about it.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Jun 9, 2005 9:42:43 AM
Hey, we had extraneous posts about the use of Nancy's name on that one...
Here's one for this thread.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 9, 2005 9:46:49 AM
All this to say, I don't think it's the SIGHT of breastfeeding that bothers people as much as the THOUGHT of it.
I think that you are on to something, Sparki. Some of the most virulent screeds that I have read against breastfeeding seemed to be perturbed about the "bodily fluids" aspect of it. The modesty argument was just layered on top of the fundamental issue -- that it was somehow gross.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 9, 2005 9:56:00 AM
Maybe Barbara Walters would have preferred to sit next to a screaming baby who WANTED to nurse, but whose mother was doing everything but...
If the mother hadn't been nursing, I guess Barbara's comment would have been directed to what a pain in the neck it is to have to have babies on airplanes at all, crying as they do, and all those slack mothers who can't shut their babies up.
I find quietly nursing babies on airplanes much more pleasant (especially if I am sitting next to them), than babies whose ears hurt and are hungry, tired and upset. Of course, in a largely anti-child culture, the mother gets the dirty looks either way from SOMEONE - either the person who can't stand to hear the baby fuss, OR the person who can't stand to see the baby breastfeed (or more properly to know that the breastfeeding is going on, even if he or she can't actually see anything.)
As far as 100 years ago, there was a time when visbly pregnant women were not allowed to leave the house, or hold jobs, even as teachers, for reasons of modesty. I'm sure that breastfeeding in public was also not really done, but I'm not sure that's a standard we really want to return to.
I agree with those who see the problem not so much as what people can SEE when women breastfeed. Most women - the vast majority - breastfeed "discreetly" - if not under a drape, using discreet clothing (and the baby's head blocks an awful lot of breast...).
The real problem is the folks who are just uncomfortable with the IDEA that in their presence a baby or young child is SUCKING on the mother's breast even if they can't see it, something that our culture views as especially erotic. This reflects a distortion in our cultural view of the breast.
Anthropologist Katherine Dettwyler has done a great deal of work in this area and speaks out forcefully in favor of modesty OUTSIDE of breastfeeding in order to minimize the sexualization of the breast that burdens breastfeeding mothers in our society today. She made the argument recently at a La Leche League conference in Michigan that women should completely refrain from wearing revealing clothes that emphasize the breast as sexual, so that we can reclaim our breasts for nursing.
Interesting point, I thought.
Posted by: Pam at Jun 9, 2005 9:59:11 AM
+J.M.J+
>>>Nope. Western culture, until very recently, was based on Christianity and so the older Western standards of modesty are perfectly in line with the Church. We have no such assurance about African standards of modesty.
Well, public breastfeeding (even involving partial exposure) is also totally acceptable in Latin America, a traditionally Catholic area. Again, different standards of modesty and lack of squeamishness may come into play.
Nursing is a natural thing, the primary purpose of the breast. It's not sexual or shameful, so ideally any society should be okay with it. Yet American society has a deeply warped view of the female body (thank you, Hef) and so can't handle something perfectly natural. That's the reality with which we must deal.
I know some militant breastfeeders (like the ones at the nurse-in) believe that we must nurse in public fully exposed in order to desensitize the culture. I don't feel comfortable with that, since it sounds a lot like what gays want to do to get everyone to accept their lifestyle.
>>>The idea that there may be a moral obligation to breastfeed is not confined to the CCL or La Leche League types, by the way. I have seen a manual of moral theology for confessors that predates Vatican II stating that such a duty does exist
I would be interested in reading that. Do you remember the name of the book?
I still can't help but think that, if it were a sin (even just a venial one) for a mother who can nurse to choose not to without good reason, then Pius XII and JPG would have mentioned that while praising breastfeeding. I could be wrong, of course, but I find their silence telling. Both popes praise breastfeeding highly and strongly encourage it, but stop short of saying it's sinful to do otherwise.
Also, even if it is sinful, I'm sure many women in that situation don't know that, so their ignorance would decrease their culpability to almost nil. As much as I would love to see every mother who can nurse do so, I really doubt people are doing extra time in Purgatory (so to speak) because they neglected to breastfeed without good reason. Again, though, I could be wrong.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie at Jun 9, 2005 10:01:36 AM
I think it's wrong to refuse to nurse your baby unless you have a proportionate reason not to. What constitutes a serious-enough reason? Does that question sound familiar? It's very s