A dear friend at mine was recently called into a private meeting with the bishop. The topic: Her breasts. She was asked to stop breastfeeding her child uncovered at church because he had been getting complaints about it. I was so angry on her behalf that I realized I was writing this blog post in my head at night when I couldn't sleep. I hope she doesn't mind my using her as an example, because I want to speak to our country as a whole--our attitudes on breast feeding have got to change.
So here are the most common attitudes I see against breastfeeding in public or breastfeeding uncovered, accompanied with my rebuttal. I'm glad there are so many conservative readers to my blog. I hope that even if you disagree with what I'm offering, you'll at least cut ladies like my friend more slack--and for heaven sakes, NOT bug the bishop about your personal problems.
"Breastfeeding uncovered is immodest." Let's begin with a quick lesson on modesty--it's less about square acreage of clothing than it is about your attitude. I can be just as immodest in a floor length, totally sleeved dress as I can be modest in a tank top and shorts. It's not about clothing, people. What modesty is and is not deserves its own post, so I'll leave it at that for now because I want to be able to argue this from the perspective of someone who believes that strict covering is what matters. (It's not. But so many believe that).
Women who breastfeed sans covering generally show very little skin. The baby's head covers her nipple--it's kind of the whole idea. Her clothing usually covers the rest of her. If, heaven forbid, you're worried about a nipple slip or seeing more than you want to, it's generally a good idea to look away rather than wait for someone to offend you so you can cry to a male authority about it.
"Think of the young men!" Yes, let's think about them. They are bombarded with images of women as sex objects. You cannot stop them from seeing these images. So why would you try to stop them from seeing a woman using her breasts for their intended non-sexual purpose? The image of a woman breastfeeding is normalizing--not arousing. Suddenly the concept of breasts aren't the tanned, perky orbs on the magazines and TV, but sloshy, stretchmarked, and damned useful. Still beautiful, but because she is a mother, not just a lover.
When we as a culture associate breasts solely with sexual pleasure for men, we're doing both men and women a great disservice. These young men might go on missions to other countries, and in just about every other country, women breastfeed openly, publicly, and to older children. I want my little brother to see women breastfeed to help shape him and his attitude about women well before he's in Ecuador for two years and sees the woman giving her talk while simultaneously breastfeeding.
And one more note on the young men--they're going to be fine. By virtue of being pubescent males, they will be aroused, and some times for no reason. There's simply no controlling this. But they mature. Give them the credit they deserve.
"Why don't women go somewhere else?" If a woman wants to go elsewhere to breastfeed, that's fine. But there should never be an expectation that a woman should completely leave her surroundings every 2 hours to ensure her child is fed. When people ask this question I have to assume they're ignorant about the time, effort, and commitment required to breastfeed. Because the alternative is that they do know, and they'd rather just have breastfeeding women locked away all day.
As a church culture in particular, we can not tell women to be mothers and then dictate how they should be mothers, down to how they can most appropriately feed their own baby. We can not tell women that motherhood is the greatest career and calling and simultaneously hamper their ability to be the mothers they want to be. We can not build up women one day a year on mother's day and then forget the rest of the time that their breasts may be aching or that they may be struggling to maintain a milk supply. We can not ask breastfeeding women to show up to church on Sunday but then make them spend a good chunk of their time locked away in the stinking, filthy, ill-appointed, poorly ventilated mother's ghetto where they can neither truly listen nor participate.
Quite simply stated, the reason a woman shouldn't have to go elsewhere to breastfeed is because there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world. It is not a private excretory function. It is the best possible way to feed a young human.
Just cover up. How about this?--you can "just look away." I've heard one machismo male say to breastfeeding women "your rights end where mine begin" apparently believing he has a right to not see breastfeeding even when staring at a breastfeeding woman. Luckily, even though many Americans are squeamish about breastfeeding, 45 states allow women to breastfeed uncovered in any place that women are allowed to be. Including private property. Including the church. Not only was it uncouth and completely inappropriate for my friend's bishop to ask her not to breastfeed, but it's illegal.
And about covering--how many of you like to eat with a blanket over your head? That's what I thought. Covering should be up to the woman and her baby. Many babies need to be isolated from distraction. Many like to breathe fresh air. It's not up to you whether or not a woman should cover.
-----
This is by no means an exhaustive list. If you would like to add to it in the comments, please feel free. But before I leave, let's talk about the less than Christlike, totally cowardly behavior of the people who apparently complained to the Bishop.
What. The. Hell? Where do you get off? If you have a problem with someone, take it up with them personally where together you can have a dialogue and work toward a mutually reasonable solution. Crawling to an authority figure to give a woman a one-sided smack down is beyond rude, it's despicable.
Can we stop for a moment and think less about "church standards" of dress and more about what Christ himself would do? What would Christ say to a breastfeeding mother? Would he ask her to cover up? NO! Get over your privileged, sheltered, white, American worldview and realize that in any other place in the world this is not even a discussion.
My friend is not the type to quit church just for spite. But that anyone would risk hurting and offending someone--without knowing their situation, without knowing how strong their faith is, and without knowing whether they're struggling with friendship--is absurd to me. What choices are available to someone in her situation? Her baby won't eat when he's covered and she has a calling that doesn't allow her to hide in the mother's ghetto. I'm appalled and angry, and I don't want anyone who reads this blog to think for a second that the behavior of those people was okay.
If you don't like breastfeeding, fine. But don't be a turd.
8 comments:
I have often thought that if we ghettoize mothers the most appropriate way to do it would be to exchange the high council room for the nursing room. Let women have a spacious room with windows, leather chairs, oak panelling, a selection of books, paintings on the wall etc. When men are crammed into a utility closet with too few chairs, no windows, no wall decor and an overriding smell of poop (ideally the few chairs there are should be broken and stained) I imagine we'd see a change or two.
Joking aside, I agree completely. There is a sister in my ward who if I were guessing I would characterized as the most conservative molly of us all, and there she sits on the very front row nursing her child. And I say brava! I don't know if people have harassed her about it or not.
Amen, especially about the horrid 'lounges' for nursing. For the short time I could nurse I used a cover, but my boys where easily stimulated and liked the cover. I've seen other babies that will not relax at all when covered. To each their own. Asking a bishop to intervene is absurd, among other things. I appreciate your point about expecting more of our young men. We shouldnt be treated as wilting flowers and they shouldn't be treated as sex-obsessive with no self control.
Just look away and focus on Jesus people, not someone's clevage.
There are few situations in which I feel I can say with conviction that someones opinion on a topic is flat out wrong, but when people attack the issue of public breastfeeding, as well as the women that do it, my blood boils.
I think you touched on most of the ways in which arguments against feeding an infant in public are fundamentally flawed. And I find it humorous that people seem to forget that breasts exist for the purpose of nourishing our babies, and any sexual importance placed on women's breasts is purely culturally induced.
Your ire in my defense (and of breastfeeding women anywhere) warms the cockles of my menace to public decency heart. Great rebuttals. I should print it out and nail it to the bishop's office a la Martin Luther.
Okay, this is all so funny to me not because I think you're arguments are wrong but because the most conservative people on the planet are uncomfortable with a woman breastfeeding uncovered in church and this is even the slightest bit shocking to you? I would expect no less of them.
The only shocking thing is that one of these ultra conservative yahoos actually had a conversation with their bishop about it. I mean, can you imagine what that was like? "Ummmm, bishop, can I have a minute of your time?" If they were too sissy to tell your friend in person about their uncomfortableness with her exposure, can you imagine the embarrassment that ensued with talking to the bishop about it? Oh to be a fly on the wall. Hilarious!
Since you didn't like my last comment, I'm sure you won't like this one either, but as a mother who is currently nursing I wanted to comment. :)
First of all, since you're a lawyer, wasn't it technically illegal for the bishop to say something to her about it? Aren't there laws in place to protect nursing women?
Second, "What choices are available to someone in her situation?"
Several. One is called pumping. The breast pump was invented for this very reason. I have nothing against mother's who nurse in public but I can see how it could be awkward for people who aren't used to it (i.e. most of America). A bottle of expressed breast milk is awesome for public settings. I don't usually leave home without one. Now, you could argue that her baby won't take a bottle so her only choice is nursing but that is rare, and if it really is the case then my heart goes out to her because then that means her husband can't ever help her feed and her life is hard enough as it is. And that totally sucks. No pun intended. :)
Third, "Her baby won't eat when he's covered and she has a calling that doesn't allow her to hide in the mother's ghetto."
My little boy wouldn't eat when covered either. It was terrible so I get it. In a perfect world, or a third world country, nursing uncovered in public wouldn't be a big deal. But this is neither of those. Americans aren't cultured to think that way so you can't condemn them for it (although going to the bishop about it is totally unnecessary and kind of weird, actually).
That said, I feel bad for any nursing mom with a demanding Sunday calling--especially for your friend. If her calling is so intense that she feels like she can't go feed her baby in peace for a few minutes, then the bishop needs to give her a new calling or get someone to help her. No mom should have to deal with that added stress.
And amen for terming those blasted "mother's lounges" as the ghetto. Sometimes I walk in them and dry heave at the smell. Yet another reason why I bring a bottle to church with me. I refuse to go in them.
Brittany, a lot of your comment is totally inapplicable to me (I'm Motion de Smith's friend referenced in this blog) because I have different views on the status of my breastfeeding relationship with my son.
I understand the desire to pump and have a bottle on hand for a kiddo. It's great that works for some women, yourself included. I simply don't see the point. I have milk warm and ready on demand for my little nursling at all times. I don't see the point in creating more work for myself simply because it might make someone uncomfortable for me to breastfeed anywhere but in a closet or with a nursing tent on.
My son doesn't take a bottle. Hasn't since he was 7 weeks old. And honestly, I couldn't care less. Breastfeeding is convenient, quick, and there's nothing to clean up afterwards. I don't have to stumble into the kitchen at 3 AM to make a bottle. I sort of chuckled at your comment that "her life is hard enough as is" and your decision that it "totally sucks" for me. That's not your determination to make. My life does not totally suck. I love breastfeeding my son. Feeding is *far* from the only way for my husband to help out and bond with our son. Please. Oh, and loads of breastfed babies won't take a bottle.
My son doesn't like to be covered, and I can't blame him. It's hot and annoying to have my face covered up, let alone when I eat. I can't imagine doing that to my baby. He protested from the time he was 3 days old, and I didn't care to force it on him.
As far as my calling, I'm in the library. Normally, I shut the door to feed him. On a couple of occasions, the other librarians have left for some reason or another, so I discreetly popped my son on a breast during a slow time but left the door open to help someone if they came up. I don't let it all hang out. Though let's be honest. I could be breastfeeding my baby under a burqa and the very fact I was breastfeeding would make some people uncomfortable.
Brittany, I realize I sound fairly defensive in my response to your comment. I'm sorry. I was annoyed that you made assumptions about my life based on a very little information. In real life, I'm really a pretty temperate person. And breastfeeding isn't a political statement to me—it's about feeding my baby. It's an issue that gets people riled up, and I guess I'm not immune either. Take care.
Post a Comment