If there’s one thing that National Review does loyally, it’s flog anti-feminist books. Last month, the conservatives worked themselves into ecstasy over the latest screed from one of their own contributors, Kate O’Beirne’s Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports. How she managed to leave out the clear and compelling connection between feminism and Hurricane Katrina is beyond me, but perhaps she and Pat Robertson haven’t been speaking lately.
Today, the Valentine’s love fest is with Jennifer Roback Morse, who is a far better writer than O’Beirne and thus a more troublesome opponent. Morse’s new book is Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World. Despite her background as an economist, Morse has emerged as a formidable writer on family and marriage issues from a traditional Christian perspective. What I like about the interview with Morse in today’s NRO is that it summarizes nicely what troubles me so much about the whole contemporary debate over marriage and family. The interview begins:
Kathryn Jean Lopez (National Review editor): : You’ve written a book called Smart Sex. That suggests there must be "Dumb Sex." Is there anything to "Dumb Sex" that I might not expect?
Jennifer Roback Morse: I don’t think you’d be surprised to learn that many forms of recreational sex often turn out to be quite foolish, and incidentally, not much fun. Every mature person realizes the potential dangers and disappointments of hooking up, shacking up and just plain messing around. The real surprise is to learn how systematic these disappointments are, and to learn the underlying problem that makes these disappointments so common.
Parsing her statement, I actually find little to disagree with. Most feminists, both Christian and secular, would agree that there are always "potential dangers" in any sexual behavior, inside or outside of marriage. But "potential" is not the same as "certain", and saying that "many forms of recreational sex often turn out to be quite foolish" is not the same as saying "all forms". Having read Morse’s book (or, to be honest, having skimmed it), I don’t think she’s as open-minded as her language in the interview implies. I’m happy to agree that casual sex can lead to heartache and disappointment; I’m just not prepared to say that the possibility of misfortune is the same as a guarantee thereof.
Frankly, most folks aren’t likely to buy the conservative notion that sex outside of marriage will invariably lead to unhappiness. Conservative Christians are on better ground when they make the argument that Lauren Winner made in Real Sex (which I reviewed last year). Winner argues that the best case for chastity is not rooted in happiness but in obedience. As she points out effectively, conservatives make a huge mistake when they insist that sexual sin will invariably make folks unhappy. Sometimes, she writes, sin will make us feel good and we won’t feel bad at all; the real argument for chastity must be based on fidelity to Scripture rather than one’s own longing for fulfillment. I can respect that line of reasoning much more than the rather patronizing — and surprisingly secular — notion that Morse and her ilk make, that pre-marital sex will always lead to hurt.
Morse mixes homey advice with nasty anti-feminism. Here’s this whopper:
Lopez: What is your biggest beef with the women’s movement, vis-à-vis how it has hurt marriage?
Morse: That is a tough question, because the women’s movement is so deeply culpable. However, if I had to name one issue, it would be the truly perverse view of equality that so much of the women’s movement embraced. Like much of the modern Left, the women’s movement insisted on "sameness" as their definition of equality. The fact is that the human species is a gendered species. We come in two sexes, male and female, that can never be made fully equal. This is one of the most basic biological facts of our species. You’d think our modern scientific age could accept this.
Bold emphasis is mine.
Yup, it was the feminist movement that made me get divorced three times. It had nothing to do with the fact that I was a neurotic, self-absorbed narcissist who tended to attract women at my same level of emotional and spiritual development. Poor blameless me! Betty Friedan did it!
And Jennifer, who are these feminists who insist on "sameness"? Who among us denies biological reality? Real "sameness" would mean not letting men use urinals in public restrooms (or teaching women to pee standing up). No mainstream contemporary feminist figure denies the importance of biological difference; Morse is erecting a tired straw woman to knock down.
I am horrified by this line of hers: We come in two sexes, male and female, that can never be made fully equal. That’s radically unbiblical and politically extreme. What she could have said is this: We come in two sexes, male and female, that can never be made fully identical. But as I never tire of telling my students, "Don’t buy the notion that equality equals sameness." We can appreciate and celebrate differences while demanding equality in the public and the private sphere. Men can pee standing up more easily than women; that’s a biological fact. Men aren’t as nurturing as women; that’s a pernicious socially constructed myth. Morse, like most social conservatives, conveniently blurs the distinction between the immutable and the constructed while claiming that feminists always ignore the reality of the former.
I tell ya, it gets my boxer briefs all in a twist.
UPDATE: Boxer briefs still twisted, but I do want to add — before my friends in the trans community write in — that there are many of us who might also take issue with the notion that "we come in (just) two sexes". But that’s another post.
Men can pee standing up more easily than women; that’s a biological fact.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. Women’s modern habit of wearing trousers and underwear is not a biological fact.
Women’s urinals used to be a common sight (http://www.urinal.net/texas_am/) and are still are in many countries.
I realize this has nothing to do with your point. That’s why it’s so irritating.
Perhaps I should amend it to: men can propel their urine farther away from their bodies than women can, that’s a biological fact!
This is a bit of a side-note, but on the subject of women taking a pee standing up, there are several tricks for that too, that any woman going on a road-trip and having to deal with naaaaasty public restrooms ought to learn, or especially at big festivals where the festering port-o-johns are rather stomach-turning by mid-day.
Here are some amusing new little gadgets that have been showing up at some of the bigger outdoor festivals: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3849381.stm
Kind of silly, maybe, but considering the alternative…
But “potential” is not the same as “certain”, and saying that “many forms of recreational sex often turn out to be quite foolish” is not the same as saying “all forms”.
And none of these leads, on its own, to normative assertions, eg, casual sex is bad. Are all forms of heroin usage physically harmful? I think we can say yes uncontroversially (but if someone disagrees, try substituting ’stabbing oneself in the hand with a fork’). Are all forms of heroin usage morally impermissible? That’s far from clear, and I’m inclined to say it’s false.
Perhaps I should amend it to
Hugo, then I wouldn’t have anything to argue about. That would be terrible.
I do, though, wonder if you meant to imply that the “sameness” resulting from be-trousered women peeing standing up with the aid of little plastic doohickeys is in some way bad or silly or something, because of this sentence:
Real “sameness” would mean not letting men use urinals in public restrooms (or teaching women to pee standing up). No mainstream contemporary feminist figure denies the importance of biological difference; Morse is erecting a tired straw woman to knock down.
That “real sameness” seems like a pretty great idea. Standing peeing’s a privilege that means absolutely nothing to me in my daily life, since I wouldn’t go camping on a bet, but there’s no reason women shouldn’t partake of it, even if the prospect of any physical similarity between the sexes does give some conservatives the vapors. I, for one, am not made of straw.
It is interesting how conservatives use terms such as “hooking up” and “shacking up” to denigrate sex they do not like. Actually, I thought “shacking up” stopped being used some time during the Korean War!
They also have an odd idea about what happens on campus. I am associated with several universities, and I just do not see any orgy going on. If anything, women are more likely to be looking for a husband or at least a permanent boyfriend (”I have a boyfriend” seems to be the number one badge of honor of young women, not “I had sex with a frat house.”). And men are looking to buy houses, not bachelor pads. Sorry, Hef’.
I wonder if this is all not just conservatives getting a vicarious thrill from what they imagine to be going on?
Gosh, I think I’ll have to leave urination out of this. Bad example. Perhaps I can say:
“Only men ejaculate semen; only women menstruate — these are biological facts. Men aren’t as nurturing as women; that’s a pernicious socially constructed myth. Morse, like most social conservatives, conveniently blurs the distinction between the immutable and the constructed while claiming that feminists always ignore the reality of the former.”
“Who are these feminists who insist on “sameness”? Who among us denies biological reality?
I don’t know any myself, but perhaps Larry Summers of Harvard could introduce you to a few. Dozen.
Would those be the feminists who dare to defy biological reality by being scientists? Math is hard!
Social conservatives who whine about androgyny are like old-time eugenecists who say that if we allow ‘race mixing’, there won’t be any white people.
Hugo write:
Mythago write:
I think Mythago just answered Hugo’s question better than I could.
X, I think you’re misunderstanding myth’s point. I don’t see a denial of basic (and ultimately insignificant) physiological differences, I see a resistance to sweeping generalizations. Those aren’t the same thing.
Okay, help me out here. I’m reading this exchange:
Lopez: What is your biggest beef with the women’s movement, vis-à-vis how it has hurt marriage?
Morse: That is a tough question, because the women’s movement is so deeply culpable. However, if I had to name one issue, it would be the truly perverse view of equality that so much of the women’s movement embraced. Like much of the modern Left, the women’s movement insisted on “sameness” as their definition of equality. The fact is that the human species is a gendered species. We come in two sexes, male and female, that can never be made fully equal. This is one of the most basic biological facts of our species. You’d think our modern scientific age could accept this.
And I’m wondering how the answer follows. It’s a criticism I hear fairly often, so I’m wondering what I’m missing. How does equality do damage to the institution of marriage? Is the thinking that marriage is premised on a set of predefined roles which cannot be tampered with? (i.e. some sort of male provider type model?)
How does equality do damage to the institution of marriage?
In the minds of people like this, marriage is inherently unequal: Dad is in charge, Mom defers; Dad brings home the bacon, Mom cooks it and tidies up afterward. Any deviation from this is chaos.
since when is being pregnant for nine months and breast feeding, for say a year, basic or insignificant? the whole experience is yet to be experienced by man.
sexual selection, not that i know that much about it, seems to differ with you hugo on the pernicious myth issue.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger/ep7.html
“…that feminists always ignore the reality of the former” feminism seems to be nothing but social theory, and it is only recently that they are delving into hard science, and hard science is just *beginning* to grasp the complexity of physiology. so don’t give feminist too much credit/comprehension/foresight for what isn’t even known.
If you really think ‘hard science’ supports your need to see women and men as separate species, I’d recommend Carol Tavris’s The Mismeasure of Woman (which demolishes pro-female ‘feminist’ myths as well as the other kind).
The parenthetical aside says it all. Clearly, between you and Mythago, the politically correct notion that men differ from women only in insignificant, physiological ways is alive and well. That gender-as-a-social-construct rubbish is precisely what Morse appears to be railing against, and rightly so.
Paul, plenty of women don’t ever get pregnant or breastfeed, so it’s not a primary difference between men and women. It’s something secondary, that some women choose to do and that men can’t do — but it isn’t something all women do.
Paul, we could cite studies at each other all day; it’s the secular equivalent of proof-text poker, where we throw bible quotes around. I will say that if the truth about men and women “isn’t even known”, then Roback Morse is being awfully presumptuous!
As for parenthood, when we imply that women are better suited for nurturing small children, we ignore the stories of so many wonderful stay-at-home Dads (several of whom are on my blogroll); that men excel as primary care givers to small children ought to be beyond doubt in 2006.
Ultimately, XRLQ, is it significant that I can write my name in the snow with my pee? Heck, is it ultimately significant that I can’t bear children and my wife can? We can each change diapers, bottle feed, hug and love; we can each support the family financially.
I honor the existence of differences. But what Roback Morse does is extrapolate from those differences to suggest that all women will immediately bond emotionally with their sex partners — a whopping and entirely unsupportable generalization.
No, but it is significant that you can make an analogy like that and think you’re being clever, let alone profound. Most women would find that analogy childish at best, or revolting at worst.
Remember, all those differences between men and women are statistical, including height and weight. Individual differences are a lot less “absolute.” In my family, I, a biological woman, was the “dad” and my husband was the “mom.” There were sound reasons for this choice (none of yer bizness). And he was a great mom. I flatter myself that I was a pretty great dad, too. I made us a living, I fixed the wiring and plumbing as needed, and I “helped” with the kids. Of course, having been the mom in a previous life made it easier for me to be a good dad. But my point here is that he was every bit as nurturing as any woman could have been, and I was evdery bit as earning-and-fixing as a man. So, yeah, the differences are a lot less than most people suppose. At least for us they were.
That gender-as-a-social-construct rubbish is precisely what Morse appears to be railing against
Well, no, it’s what *you’re* railing against, and applauding Morse because it’s a good excuse to trot out the phrase “politically correct”.
Whenever I hear somebody claim that men and women are from different planets and it’s coded into their genes, I wonder if they’ve been around actual children.
In the minds of people like this, marriage is inherently unequal: Dad is in charge, Mom defers; Dad brings home the bacon, Mom cooks it and tidies up afterward. Any deviation from this is chaos.
Yes, just ask the leaders of Hamas…
Article Eighteen
The woman in the jihadist home and family, as mother or sister, has the primary role in managing the household, raising the children according to the moral ideas and values inspired by Islam, and teaching them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the jihadist role that awaits them. Hence, it is necessary to pay close attention to the schools in which the Muslim girl is educated, and to their curricula, so that she will grow to be a good mother, conscious of her role in the war of liberation. She should have adequate awareness and understanding concerning the management of domestic affairs, since economy and avoiding wastefulness in family expenses are among the requirements in the ability to persist in the current difficult circumstances. She should ever be aware that available funds are like blood that must flow only in the veins for life to continue in both young and old.
Hugo; I found the pee thing funny. With both my X chromosomes.
One counterexample disproves “all”. From the women I know, I can name one counterexample for every socialized stereotype out there. Just from a set of fewer than, what, 200 women?
“Most”, the amorphous idea presented by Xrql, leaves some individuals in the cold, alienated by some other person’s construction of their identities.
Unless you’ve got hard numbers, we have:
all - most = some
And that, precisely, is the point of equal rights movements. I mean, what’s the cutoff for “most”? 55%? That leaves 45% of women in the cold. (And many of the studies of gender show such a small margin for most.) 99%? Good luck trying to get that data. Even in deepest Iran.
The moment you say “most”, you’ve lost the argument, really: we the people who don’t accept the gender menu as others would like want other people to stop defining us.
And what exactly is on the list of woman?
Knitting?
Cooking?
Nurturance?
Hating Sex?
Multiple Orgasms?
Good with details?
Bad with money?
Good with money?
Right Brained?
Likes aesthetics?
Non-competitive?
What percentage of the stereotypes do you have to hit to be “woman”?
How many stereotypes are there?
If someone provided the list, we’d have a better matrix, hey? I’d like all the essentialists to make up their gender identity matrices. Just so I know whether I’m out of the definition, y’know.
Until terms are defined - about how, exactly, women and men differ - then there is no viable construction of gender outside of the individual. And what you’re left with is “men I like” and “women I like”. And that’s okay too.
Whenever I hear somebody claim that men and women are from different planets and it’s coded into their genes, I wonder if they’ve been around actual children.
Like the little Quaker girl in my First Day school class one day, who turned a broom into a toy gun. If she’d been a boy, and I told that story, it would be proof of the triumph of testosterone over Quaker conditioning.
Whenever I hear somebody claim that men and women are from different planets and it’s coded into their genes, I wonder if they’ve been around actual children.
Like the little Quaker girl in my First Day school class one day, who turned a broom into a toy gun. If she’d been a boy, and I told that story, it would be proof of the triumph of testosterone over Quaker conditioning.
The woman in the jihadist home and family, as mother or sister, has the primary role in managing the household, raising the children according to the moral ideas and values inspired by Islam, and teaching them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the jihadist role that awaits them.
I always find this sort of thing interesting to bring up with friends who support Palestinian “liberation.” How can they support third world movements which subordinate women?
The other problem with the argument from happiness (for chastity) is that there is no guarantee that marital sex will always be satisfying, either. One tends not to get as much public discussion of that, in part because any discussion of personal experiences along those lines may be hurtful to one’s partner, and in part because such discussion doesn’t promote a particular political agenda. But ask any marriage counsellor - the two things couples most often struggle with are money and sex.
Jennifer Roback Morse, like a lot of other conservative Christian writers on marriage and family, accentuate the biological differences between genders while ignoring the monumental biological and social differences between modern people and the ancient people whose mores Roback Morse obsessively clings to. We live much longer. Our occupations are more likely to involve wordplay than sword or club play, which leads to a very long gestational period that we call childhood and college and, often, graduate school, which are not usually conducive to entering a strong and lasting marriage. But, perversely, because of our much better health and nutrition, we are physically mature earlier, and therefore, face a 10-15 year period in which we are sexually mature but not ready for marriage and family. Sure, everybody’s different, but if you want to predict the likelihood that a couple will get divorced, it’s not whether they had premarital sex with each other or with other people, it’s how young they were when they got married.
We don’t live in the desert anymore, our children aren’t likely to die during their childhood, and women aren’t likely to die in childbirth or spend a significant part of their lives being pregnant and in need of protection. If we want Christianity to be a vital force in our lives, we have to learn to to extract its essential truths without pretending that we are or should be living in the desert. At the very least, each of these mores must be examined closely to determine whether it is essential, a good idea, or even counterproductive. You can’t do that if you won’t even ask the question and assume that it’s right for all people across all social constructs, for all time.
Paul, even if pregnancy and breastfeeding are not “insignificant” you have to realize that, they make up a very small slice of the average woman’s life, even if she does have children. The average woman with two children spends no more than 8-12 years (and that’s generous) with here children being physically dependent on her. Your children need to know you’re there, they need your guidance and concern and so on, but they don’t need for any adult, even their mother, to be obsessed with their physical and emotional needs. Failure to realize that leads many women into a practice that is politely termed overmothering. When no more than 1/4 of adulthood is taken up with intense childrearing, even the most devoted mother has to think about the rest of her life. But Roback Morse (it seems to me) wants many women to make irrevocable decisions AS IF their whole adult life would be spent like their ancient ancestors — getting married at 16 and having a child more or less every third year and then dying within a decade of having the last birth. At its most extreme, the refusal to acknowledge the present reality can seriously corrode social life. There are places in Africa, for instance, where men who are no longer needed for hunting and protection simply do nothing but watch their wives, sisters and mothers engage in subsistence farming because “women’s work” is too demeaning for them. There has to be some recognition that as technology changes society, social roles must also moderate.
And, though I hardly need say it, the average western woman spends almost no time breastfeeding. Whatever is instinctual about breastfeeding has been totally bred out of the modern female. I am a complete outlier in having breastfed my children for ten months or longer. Daddy and older siblings are way capable of nurturing baby with a bottle of formula.
When I hear conservatives saying that feminism has undermined traditional marriage and family I have two somewhat opposing thoughts: “Thank God” and “Yes - that’s me.” In the sense that I am much more sensitive to the inequalities in my relationship than I might be had I not been reading things like The Feminine Mystique and The Beauty Myth since I was 18. And SOMETIMES I think that isn’t such a good thing because it causes a rift between my partner and I. I start to think of him as an opponent and I haven’t quite figured out how to deal with that.
Nobody is ignoring stories…somebody is ignoring biology. But if one is to put such stories in the limelight, put them also into perspective. How many families can really afford to have either parent be a stay at home “mom”? Relatively few? Is it enough to promote social change? Do “we” value the outcomes of these changes verse the “norm”? Do feminist ask, even explore, these “hard questions”?
I thought that if we were referring to who would be a better nurturer, man or women, then we were in fact referring to men and women who are parents and want to nurture. If we were to use breastfeeding as an example, there is a physiological difference between a man bottle feeding and a woman breast feeding. Not only is there the obvious benefit of breastfeeding verse formula bottle feeding for the infant, but physiologically a women breastfeeding automatically gains more then a man bottle feeding. Do you know what that is? If this were to occur for 3, 6, or 9 months what is that impact on a female verses a male? May it in fact place women at an advantage to nurturing over men? I don’t think it a stretch to say that women may actually be better nurtures, if we can also say men are generally physically stronger. I also don’t think it an insignificant fact. I also agree that if what I propose is even partially true, that it should in no way be used as an excuse for one not being the best nurturing father one can be.
I’m not playing poker, I am giving you empirical evidence border lining on fact. You on the other hand are playing the social theory card that is largely untested.
I am all for women making the best of themselves—that they have every opportunity available to them for such endeavors. If one of those endeavors is childbearing/rearing, then they deserve the best information for the best possible outcome, for them and their children. Leveling gender or construing social theory as a means to reach the desired end of social equality between the sexes will never work, and where it appears to work, SACRIFICES are being made.
Paul, breast may be best, but lots of (and in fact, most) moms aren’t maternal enough to care. They don’t breast feed. Even SAHMs don’t. What that says about their nurturing capability, I don’t know, but they aren’t any more nurturing in that regard than the baby’s father.
Barbara, “breast may be best” is in now way accurate. not trying, first site to pop up:
http://medicalreporter.health.org/tmr0297/breastfeed0297.html
this is not social theory! again, empirical evidence border lining fact! poor social policy is to hand out free formula for SAHMs, and maybe also anyone without medical problems. i would think this a grand issue for feminist to tackle, obliterating the false notions of the socially constructed pernicious myth that breastfeeding isn’t best and is socially burdensome to the point that the modern women must abandon breastfeeding or face loosing the “competitive” race over men to get a job at the cost of their children’s wellbeing etc.
but lots of (and in fact, most) moms aren’t maternal enough to care
Well, you know, they’re just not as good at being mommies as you were. Even thought you only nursed for ten months.
How many families can really afford to have either parent be a stay at home “mom”? Relatively few?
hmm. I’d guess relatively few families can afford to have *any* parent stay at stay at home.
I think “breast is best” is pretty well known. Not very many people (in the US at least?) are under the illusion that formula is just as good. But sometimes it’s a choice between breast milk and paying for diapers, yknow? And sometimes moms supplement breast milk with formula if they’re not producing enough. All things being equal, breast milk is undeniably better… but in the real world all things are rarely equal.
I’m a little scared to leap into the social vs. biological fray, but hey, I’d be willing to believe it’s some of both. I don’t think we know quite enough to quantify how big of a factor either is on adult gendered behavior. (And, bear in mind that while brain influences behavior, behavior also influences brain.) Given my dilettante’s knowledge of bio/neuro and sociology, i’d guess that in our day-to-day lives our social environment is gonna matter more than our genes. That’s not to discount biological factors or claim they don’t matter, that’s just to say there’s currently a lot of noise right now making it hard to detect that signal. If we didn’t socialize so strongly based on gender, then it’d probably be easier to see where biology comes into play.
and I dunno about social theory being “unproven”. Just as there are many studies regarding biology and sex or gender, there are many psych-type studies regarding how people behave towards and evaluate individuals depending on gender.
poor social policy is to hand out free formula for SAHMs, and maybe also anyone without medical problems.
Someone’s handing out free formula to SAHMs? Can SAHDs qualify, too?
That’s not to discount biological factors or claim they don’t matter, that’s just to say there’s currently a lot of noise right now making it hard to detect that signal.
Yup. Especially when the concept of averages and group-level differences get rather lost in the shuffle.
Mythago, I didn’t mean that the way it came out and the way you obviously took it. I should have put maternal in quotes — It was in response to Paul’s suggestion (as I understood it) that somehow women’s maternal instincts regarding breastfeeding and pregnancy make them more nurturing. My main point is that whatever else you can say about breastfeeding, it obviously doesn’t come to women as some deeply ingrained biological imperative because most women give it up or don’t start it. This is true even in developing nations, if women can afford formula. I don’t think those who use formula are lesser parents than those who breast feed. I have used formula myself, though I do think that if you can breast feed without too much inconvenience, it’s probably better health wise (not to mention financially) for mother and baby. As a working mom, the last thing I want to do is try to make other moms feel guilty.
And yes, SAHD’s can get free formula. There’s something called the WIC program, but the “women” stands for pregnant women. Infants and children qualify in their own right.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/eligibilityrequirements.htm
And just fyi Paul — the WIC program in my state (hardly blue) encourages breastfeeding through education and loaning of breast pumps. Now if only employers would provide a quiet and discreet place for women to use them.
“it obviously doesn’t come to women as some deeply ingrained biological imperative because most women give it up or don’t start it.”
your confusing a social construct with biological fact.
No, I’m not.
I know this is a little off the general subject, but has anyone considered the fact that some people (granted a small percentage) are born without a clear sex designation? What then?
In regards to breastfeeding, a quick comment. I am a SAHM, and before dd was born was somewhat ambivilent about whether or not I was going to. I wanted to, but if it was too challenging, I was quite willing to put it aside for formula.
now that I have had her and I did bf her for 14 months until she self weaned, I began to do a lot more research into the “support” of bfing in NA society. really, its pretty much nil. in spite of the fact that at hospitals we are told “breast is best”, they are also handed formula samples in the same breath. formula companies hand out freebies and diaper bags to the new moms. not only that, Nestle goes into third world countries, tells the women lies about their breastmilk and gives them formula. which they then feed their babies with their water that is usually full of crap. so babies die. it really pisses me off.
the unfortunate fact is that breasts have been highly sexualized in this culture, where even in Islamic cultures bf’ing is not even blinked at. I was just in Egpyt and there was a woman on the street bfing her 10 month old and I asked the driver of our cab about it, he said “totally normal”, in fact I wonder if he even knew what I was pointing out. women are known to scramble to cover their hair, not their breast.
also the complete lack of support for WOHM’s who are trying to breastfeed is completely infuriating. how are you suppose to pump in some stinky bathroom with people coming in and out? strictly from an economic standpoint, bf children are healthier and actually smarter too. so it makes more sense, economically to set these WOHMS up for success breastfeeding because they are a lot less likely to take sick days because of a sick child.
Lastly, bf should be considered “normal” for feeding a child. not formula feeding. all of these pictures of bottle fed babies in childrens’ books and videos and TV commercials is really irritating. no wonder people aren’t comfortable with it. its “wierd” or whatever.
I know the stats for women even trying bfing are dismal, and in NA the BFing beyond a year is only 14%. it is the lowest in the world. there is also a ton of misinformation out there about bfing, that its not wonder women give up easily. its ridiculous to me. women need support from employers to do this if they are going to chose to have a child. its by far the healthiest decision for the child and the mother.
sorry for the rant. it just really annoys me.