Tag Archives: breastfeeding

NPFP Guest Post: My Breasts, My Children, My Self

Welcome to RMB’s Naked Pictures of Faceless People, a series of guest posts from diverse anonymous writers. (Read more about NPFP’s origins.) These are the posts that are jumping to get out of us, but for whatever reason — safety, embarrassment, conflict of interest, protection of loved ones’ reputations or feelings, or so on — we don’t or won’t or can’t post at our own blogs. Anyone, whether blogger or reader only, is welcome to submit or discuss a potential post by emailing me at arwyn at raisingmyboychick dot com.

My Breasts, My Children, My Self

Boobs. Hooters. Knockers. Ta tas. Bazongas. Melons. Tits. Jugs.

Breasts have a lot of nicknames. It’s how you know they’re naughty, right? I can also think of a lot of nicknames for penises, vulvas and vaginas. But I can’t think of any for elbows or ankles. It tells you something about what were afraid to name. It probably also tells you something about why our society is so intensely uncomfortable with breastfeeding. Breasts are naughty, therefore breastfeeding must be naughty, right?

But that’s not my point. Not exactly.

No matter what you call them, I’ve always been rather proud of my breasts. Since I’m anonymous here I feel free to say that I have great breasts. I have enjoyed them immensely — both out of vanity, and as part of my sexuality. My breasts always play a large part when I express myself sexually.

Then I had babies. I always knew that I wanted to breastfeed. It wasn’t easy at first, but I did it. The exclusively breastfed-for-six-months-and-continued-well-into-toddlerhood kind of did it. Breastfeeding plays a large part in my mothering. I would have been a mother whether I breastfed or not, of course, but the fact that I did has been incorporated into most every part of my mother-identity.

In sex and breastfeeding my breasts serve two very different functions, and I keep them separate. I don’t feel aroused when I breastfeed. And I don’t think of my babies when my partner licks my nipples. My frame of mind is not the same. The sensations are not the same. The people I’m with are not the same.

And yet, my body isn’t always so clear on the separation. If I watch a suggestive TV show while I’m breastfeeding, I find the intermingling of nursing my baby and sexuality to be uncomfortable. The scene on the TV (which may only be PG-rated petting) plus the stimulation of breastfeeding leaves me feeling slightly aroused, and I don’t want to feel aroused while breastfeeding. So I steer clear of TV shows that are likely to feature anything more than chaste kissing while I breastfeed, and I’m fine.

When I’m sleeping, though, it’s not so easy. At least three times over during my years of breastfeeding I have woken up from a suggestive dream that happened to occur while my baby was latched on and nursing. My babies nursed at night a lot — eventually I was bound to have a sexy dream while they were doing it. But on these occasions, the telltale clenching in my vagina told me that I’d just had an orgasm.

This is not a good orgasm. It’s intensely emotionally disturbing. Breastfeeding my baby caused me to have an orgasm. What kind of mother am I? What kind of person am I? Children and sexuality should not intermingle. I don’t want them to intermingle. I am concerned about what other people would think of me, and my mothering, if they knew that they had intermingled in this way.

After waking up to an orgasm while breastfeeding, I feel reluctant to breastfeed for some time. For days, I try to put my baby off when he or she asks to nurse. To this day I haven’t told anyone that I orgasmed while breastfeeding, not even my husband. I am too afraid. I have faced a lot of internal turmoil, and decided that it’s something best kept to myself.

I do realize that I haven’t done anything wrong. I in no way asked for this to happen, or caused it to happen. If I were conscious, I would do everything in my power to keep myself from feeling aroused while breastfeeding. And to put it in perspective, we are talking about three occasions over the course of many years of accumulated breastfeeding. I believe that my own emotional discomfort over these incidents is outweighed by the benefit that my children gained through breastfeeding into toddlerhood. But I still wish it hadn’t happened.

I love my breasts. My breasts have provided some lovely window dressing. They have provided immense pleasure. They have nourished my children. They are a part of me, even though I haven’t always gotten along with them. I suppose this is why we’ve given breasts so many names – they can be enigmatic and fill us with conflict. They can sustain life and create pleasure, but they can also cause intense discomfort as we just try to get a decent night’s rest. By calling them boobies, or jugs, or melons, we’re just trying to lighten the blow.

——————————

From Arwyn: Though our stories are different, this naked and faceless writer is not the only one to feel sexual sensations while breastfeeding. If you have as well, and thought you were alone, I promise you are not: On breastfeeding and things we don’t talk about, and Nursing and nuance: breastfeeding isn’t creepy, except when it is. Please share links in the comments or email me if you are aware of other stories of how parents who breastfeed have struggled with — or embraced, or ignored, or done away with — arousal during breastfeeding.

——————————

Please support the Naked Pictures of Faceless People project by commenting on the posts. Comments which attack or attempt to guess the identity or any aspect of the identity of the blogger will be deleted, however. Protect and respect this space as though it were your own work on display here, naked and faceless.

Anonymous comments are welcome on NPFP posts. Simply put “Anonymous” or any pseudonym in Name, and either your own or a fake email addresses (ex me@me.com) as the email. NOTE: If you have a Gravatar associated with your email address, it will show up even with an anonymous name, in which case please use a different or a fake email address.

Boobs. Hooters. Knockers. Ta tas. Bazongas. Melons. Tits. Jugs.

Breasts have a lot of nicknames. It�s how you know they�re naughty, right? I can also think of a lot of nicknames for penises, vulvas and vaginas. But I can�t think of any for elbows or ankles. It tells you something about what we�re afraid to name. It probably also tells you something about why our society is so intensely uncomfortable with breastfeeding. Breasts are naughty, therefore breastfeeding must be naughty, right?

But that�s not my point. Not exactly.

No matter what you call them, I�ve always been rather proud of my breasts. Since I�m anonymous here I feel free to say that I have great breasts. I have enjoyed them immensely - both out of vanity, and as part of my sexuality. My breasts always play a large part when I express myself sexually.

Then I had babies. I always knew that I wanted to breastfeed. It wasn�t easy at first, but I did it. The exclusively breastfed-for-six-months-and-continued-well-into-toddlerhood kind of did it. Breastfeeding plays a large part in my mothering. I would have been a mother whether I breastfed or not, of course, but the fact that I did has been incorporated into most every part of my mother-identity.

In sex and breastfeeding my breasts serve two very different functions, and I keep them separate. I don�t feel aroused when I breastfeed. And I don�t think of my babies when my partner licks my nipples. My frame of mind is not the same.The sensations are not the same. The people I�m with are not the same.

And yet, my body isn�t always so clear on the separation. If I watch a suggestive TV show while I�m breastfeeding, I find the intermingling of nursing my baby and sexuality to be uncomfortable. The scene on the TV (which may only be PG-rated petting) plus the stimulation of breastfeeding leaves me feeling slightly aroused, and I don't want to feel aroused while breastfeeding. So I steer clear of TV shows that are likely to feature anything more than chaste kissing while I breastfeed, and I'm fine.

When I�m sleeping, though, it�s not so easy. At least three times over during my years of breastfeeding I have woken up from a suggestive dream that happened to occur while my baby was latched on and nursing. My babies nursed at night a lot - eventually I was bound to have a sexy dream while they were doing it. But on these occasions, the telltale clenching in my vagina told me that I�d just had an orgasm.

This is not a good orgasm. It�s intensely emotionally disturbing. Breastfeeding my baby caused me to have an orgasm. What kind of mother am I? What kind of <em>person</em> am I? Children and sexuality should not intermingle. I don�t want them to intermingle. I am concerned about what other people would think of me, and my mothering, if they knew that they had intermingled in this way.

After waking up to an orgasm while breastfeeding, I feel reluctant to breastfeed for some time. For days, I try to put my baby off when he or she asks to nurse. To this day I haven�t told anyone that I orgasmed while breastfeeding, not even my husband. I am too afraid. I have faced a lot of internal turmoil, and decided that it's something best kept to myself.

I do realize that I haven't done anything wrong. I in no way asked for this to happen, or caused it to happen. If I were conscious, I would do everything in my power to keep myself from feeling aroused while breastfeeding. And to put it in perspective, we are talking about three occasions over the course of many years of accumulated breastfeeding. I believe that my own emotional discomfort over these incidents is outweighed by the benefit that my children gained through breastfeeding into toddlerhood. But I still wish it hadn't happened.

I love my breasts. My breasts have provided some lovely window dressing. They have provided immense pleasure. They have nourished my children. They are a part of me, even though I haven't always gotten along with them. I suppose this is why we've given breasts so many names - they can be enigmatic and fill us with conflict. They can sustain life and create pleasure, but they can also cause intense discomfort as we just try to get a decent night's rest. By calling them boobies, or jugs, or melons, we're just trying to lighten the blow.

The Boychick’s Bookshelf: Board Book Round Up #1

Welcome to a special edition of The Boychick’s Bookshelf! In this entry in the series, I review a small collection of children’s books of interest to those who want to raise children free from and opposed to kyriarchy. These reviews will focus on books which showcase stories and lives beyond the dominant culture of white straight middle-class families, or which contain explicitly anti-kyriarchy messages (anti-racism, anti-ableism, anti-sexism, anti-heterosexism, anti-cissexism, anti-violence, anti-colonialization, and so on).

Many people have not-exactly-complained about how the books reviewed on The Boychick’s Bookshelf are great, but too advanced for their six, twelve, twenty-four month old. So, to remedy that, here’s the first edition of a special Board Book Round Up: smaller reviews for smaller books, but more of ‘em at once.

To commence:

More More More, Said the Baby by Vera B Williams


The Boychick loved this book, once upon a time. It’s a trilogy of short stories, all with the same pace and many of the same words, in which we meet Little Guy and his father (both apparently white), Little Pumpkin and hir grandmother (apparently black and white, respectively), and Little Bird and her mother (apparently Asian or Latina). I love it for depicting a variety of caregivers — showing loving fathers to the Boychick is especially important to me — , a variety of races (including the apparently-white grandmother to black Little Pumpkin), and both the Boychick and I loved getting to act out the belly kisses and toe nibbles. As with many board books, it ends with Little Bird falling asleep and being put to bed, making it a good choice for nap or nighttime reading.

Downside: The text, while colorful and artistic, might be hard or painful to read for people with visual or focusing difficulties.

Peekaboo Morning by Rachel Isadora


Peekaboo Morning follows a black toddler through hir waking up, with visual clues leading to each next page, from “I see… my mommy” and daddy, through getting dressed, eating (and feeding hir breakfast to the dog), playing with toys, then going outside and greeting Grandma and Grandpa and a (apparently white) friend, and finally engaging the reader with “I see… you!” I wasn’t sure at first about getting the Boychick a book written in first-person with a non-white protagonist, fearing it might be appropriative, but I bought it anyway because books featuring families of color are so scarce, and it really is an enjoyable (if repetitious — but it makes it especially great for toddlers), quick read, with realistic paintings with enough detail to maintain interest over repeated viewings. It is very heteronormative, with a mommy and daddy, and grandma and grandpa, and very suburban (there is, truly, a white picket fence in one scene), but given the stereotypes of black families as urban and “broken”, I’m not sure that’s entirely a bad thing.

Downside: I’m reaching to find anything beyond the heteronormativity and repetitiousness (though again, that’s something of a plus when writing books for toddlers) to name as a downside. I will say that the painting of the dog looks like there is a smudge on the dog’s face, and it bugs me every time I look at it. But I have Issues.

Mommy, Mama, and Me – and – Daddy, Papa, and Me, both by Leslea Newman


These are two books, but a symmetrical pair, and we bought them together. Each is told from the perspective of the toddler-aged child of same-gender parents, describing how both Mommy and Mama or Daddy and Papa take care of hir, each alternately engaging complementary games or childcare duties. Besides the same-gender parents, these are fairly run-of-the-mill white suburban follow-the-child’s-day books, and the Boychick enjoys them. That very banality, though, is likely the point of the books: “Look, two-mother/two-father families are just like you!” or “we’re just like other (white, middle class) families!” This makes them a good intro to same-gender parents for the unfamiliar (and helped the Boychick accept that his friend with two moms did not, in fact, also have a dad), or normalizing books for kids who don’t get to see families like theirs very much, but also reinforces the white- and middle-class-ness of the “default family”.

Downside: In addition to the aforementioned issues (and I cannot emphasize enough the problems with only ever modeling white queerness), although each book stands well on its own, with many examples of gender-role breaking (especially in Daddy, Papa, and Me, as is expected in a culture that says toddler-parenting is women’s work), when I compare the two, there is a greater emphasis on play in Daddy, and more on nurturing in Mommy: Daddy ends with Daddy and Papa collapsing in exhaustion at the end of a park trip, Mommy with being tucked in and getting kissed goodnight. This relatively minor difference wouldn’t be problematic except that it reflects and reinforces cultural memes, that fathers are playful (and easily overwhelmed), and mothers are nurturing and organized.

Global Babies by The Global Fund for Children


The Boychick, along with every other child I’ve heard of who has been introduced to Global Babies, loved this book for its close-up, face-focused photographs of babies and toddlers from all over the world. Babies, in general, are fascinated by other babies, and this gooey-sweet simplistic text’d book fills that desire perfectly. The Boychick and I loved especially that so many of the babies are shown being worn: of the 16 total photographs, 7 are shown in or apparently in carriers (this does include one baby in a cradleboard being help up but not on a person). Each of the photos is labeled with the country the baby is from, and although two are from USA, this includes one white seemingly-middle-class baby, and one Native child (in the aforementioned cradleboard). Not all of the babies are smiling (or indeed, awake), which seems to increase the appeal; the young reader is able to study faces reflecting a variety of emotional and alertness states.

Downside: The text is far less interesting than the photographs, with sometimes just one word per two-picture page; I’m not sure the Boychick ever absorbed the “[all babies] are beautiful, special, and loved” message with it being read so slowly, interspersed with up to several minutes of studying the photos. There is something of a photo-safari feel to the book, though I think this is somewhat mitigated by the lack of depicting less-advantaged children as “pitiful” or “unhappy”, as many such projects do. I must also say that I know nothing of the Global Fund for Children beyond the noble goal printed on the back of the book (“…advancing the dignity of young people around the world.”), and cannot speak to its work, good or otherwise.

Everywhere Babies by Susan Meyers


(Note: Cover pictured is for the hardback edition of the book.)

I love this book almost as much as the Boychick does. There is more text than in many other board books (including all of the ones mentioned here), but the text has a brilliant bounce and simple (but not overly so) rhyming rhythm. The text loosely follows a diverse crowd of babies from birth to the first year, often with several scenes on each page depicting many different races of babies and configurations of families (including an apparently-single mom of twins, multiracial and multigenerational families, and a two-mom family). Although very Western and moderately sub/urban and middle-class, the wealth of diversity shown in what “Every day, everywhere babies” are doing helps make it a delightful read. It’s also a favorite in the attachment parenting community for explicitly showing and mentioning breastfeeding (and I love that the mom shown breastfeeding is a woman of color, fully dressed, passed out in a rocker holding a book) and babywearing.

Downside: Along with depictions of breastfeeding and babywearing — though the ring sling appears to be drawn by someone who has never actually worn a baby in one — are abundant depictions of bottles, pacifiers, and strollers, as well as less than ideal carriers, and a baby in a carseat not in a car; I’ve somewhat mellowed on this since first reading Everywhere Babies, but on some level it still bothers me: these things are all ubiquitous in the culture the Boychick is growing up in, and the more he — and everyone else — sees them, the more they become/are reinforced as the cultural defaults. (An astute reader will note, however, that I haven’t let this stop me from enjoying this book with the Boychick, but I do usually change the words to the “babies are fed” page, to skip bottle, spoon, and cereal feeding.) I am also irked that the final scene, which depicts a single baby at hir first birthday party, features an apparently all-white, heteronormative family. It doesn’t completely negate the racial diversity of the rest of the book, but it does, once again, ultimately center whiteness, and reinforcing the white family as default. Also note that there are no visibly disabled parents or children depicted, and no assistive devices beyond one cane half-hidden behind an old woman seated in a chair.

Summary

I would recommend any or all of these books as additions to a beginner anti-kyriarchy bookshelf; though a handful of books featuring racial and sexual diversity read to pre-literate and mostly pre-memory children are not going to subvert the dominant paradigm or counteract a culture of hate all by themselves, they’re not a bad way to start. Buy any of these or other titles online at Powells.com or Amazon.com and support your friendly neighbourhood blogger; or find or order them at a local independent bookseller.

Have you read any of these with your child, and what did you or s/he think? What are your favorite pro-diversity, anti-kyriarchy board books?

Everything is linked

Been a while since we’ve had a good ol’ fashioned link post, hasn’t it?1

Anyway, have some links. If you’re a Liker2 of Raising My Boychick on Facebook, you might’ve seen some of these, but fear not! for I have fresh content for you as well.3

***

I had the privilege of hearing Liz read a fabulous post about knitting, geekery, and feminism at BlogHer in August. In Kids and wheelchair manners she writes about curious kids, clueless adults, and her light-up chair.

I also don’t like it when grownups yell at kids not to stare or ask questions. I’m in a giant cool exoskeleton with light-up wheels. I have purple hair. Kids get to stare. They should be curious! If they ask me why I’m in a wheelchair, I can answer them however I like. The parent doesn’t have to step in and act all embarrassed. I might say that I use the chair to help me get around, or because my legs hurt if I walk very far. If we’re in a social situation or a playground I get out of the chair, sit on a bench, and teach random children how to push themselves around in my wheelchair. It’s fun and it demystifies disability for the kids and teaches them that mobility equipment is just another tool.

***

The right to bear at Spilt Milk is one close to my heart, as I still, happily, sleep with the bear my grandparents gave me for Christmas when I was eight. And yes, I take him on planes with me. Can I sleep without him, fly without him? Sure, but why should I want to? Why is my bear less socially acceptable than another person’s nightcap, gin-and-tonic, night light, Xanax? As Elizabeth says:

It’s not ‘babyish’ to find ways to self-soothe and to cultivate feelings of security: it’s human, and it’s smart. It’s not wrong to form attachments and dependencies and when it’s people and things that do not harm us, it’s actually desirable to do so.

***

The more I learn about Babble, the less I like them. Reason number three: Breastfeeding, Babble, and Business at Marf Mom. Prompted by PhD in Parenting’s post about the unethical advertisement of a formula company-run “Feeding Experts” hotline on Babble’s breastfeeding guide page (reason number two!), she wrote to Babble’s CEO. And he replied — but not terribly politely.

What was upsetting to me was how he characterized me.  …because I disagreed with the objectivity of his website, I must be looking for a mandate that every woman breastfeed?! Finally, what does La Leche League have to do with my email? I’m not a member. All I did was suggest their site as a better resource than a formula company!

It’s not great marketing to answer complaints by telling your consumers that THEY are the ones with the problem.

***

I adore equally the title, substance, and footnote to muslin: a threat to the fabric of society at a shiny new coin, so go, soak it all in.

You want to know about hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy is a country of immigrants, who continue to perpetrate a genocide on the original inhabitants, running around with stickers on their vehicles manufactured from natural resources that came from stolen land that proclaim “Fuck Off: We’re Full”.

Hypocrisy is a country where the banning of an item of dress is regularly recommended, saying no Australian has any right to dictate the standard of dress of another. Really? Can I have that in writing?

Hypocrisy is the complete lack of perspective, the total cognitive dissonance, that the 7000 people who voted that a Muslim function, in a room used after hours at a community facility, having dress code is fundamentally wrong. A dress code. You know, like the one bigots would impose when they say burqas should be outlawed.

***

Penultimately, I offer a trio of posts on rape culture — but it’s not as bad as it sounds. I’ve put them in order of painful, hopeful, and fabulous.

On Birth Rape, Definitions, and Language Policing at The Curvature carries a strong trigger warning, and is about rape denial in circles who should best know better.

I’m used to seeing this sort of thing — discussions about whether or not an event that is admittedly horrible really deserves to have the title “rape” attached to it, accompanied by convoluted reasons as to why calling it rape would just mess everything up for real rape victims. What I’m not quite as used to is seeing it being done in the name of feminism and/or anti-rape activism.

The Boiling Frog Principle of Boundary Violation at the Yes Means Yes blog should also come with a trigger warning, and goes through some pretty scary truths, but ends up, I feel, in a place of hope:

We need to look for the places where boundaries can’t and won’t be enforced … and fix them.  We can’t start when and where the rapes happen.  We have to start at the beginning.  We have to believe that bodily autonomy is a human right, and that the little violations matter.  If the whole culture believed that, it might not end all rape, but it would end a culture where rape is normalized and generally unpunished.

I wrote in reply4:

I take hope from this that yes, what we do as parents5 matter. We can be a part of the solution, by respecting our children’s bodily autonomy as much as we are able, and avoiding “the little violations” as much as possible.

Not to say that if we are not able, we are necessarily raising rapists, or rape victims — but rather that we CAN make a difference, here, now. Any step toward honoring our children’s boundaries and giving them the tools to recognize others’ and enforce their own is a step toward dismantling rape culture.

Will you take a step with me?

As your reward for making it through those, we have The Suffering Ween: An Important Social Essay over at Fatshionista:

When described in such terms, the frustration, resentment, and even violent rages of heterosexual men railing against the forced witnessing of women’s bodies that fail to give them hard-ons becomes a perfectly understandable and even sympathetic response to a world that has failed to identify how deeply (even irreparably, as some things can never be unseen) it has damaged them. We are, after all, describing the single most sensitive and vital organ in a man’s body, from which fully nine-tenths of their motivation to do anything in life is derived.

Clearly, these are young men suffering from a heartbreaking deficiency of boners.

***

And finally, if you missed it (embedded as it was in one of my gazillion-word-long self-important posts) I put up a new Glossary entry, to a word I hope catches on:

Emovtypical is a new word1, meaning those with emotions and moods which fall into the range which society expects. It is based on the use, largely in Autism circles but in other “mental disability” circles as well, of “neurotypical”, to contrast with the neurodivergent or neuroatypical, that is, those whose brains do not conform to society’s expectations.2

***

In other news, I just realized I could link straight to footnotes from other pages, and this might be the single coolest discovery since fire, ice, or the vibrating motor.

What say you, readers? Any interesting links or world-shaking discoveries to share? Self-promotion, frivolity, and non sequiturs always welcome.6

————————-

  1. In part because I’ve been reading these things that are kind of like bloggy link round ups, but when I go to click on “more” I can’t find it? Also they smell like pulp and intelligence. I think they’re called “books”?
  2. What? Have you come up with a better idea since Facebook decided to stop using “fans”?
  3. Plus copious footnotes. Because. Wait, you want a reason? Fine, because kittens.
  4. On Facebook — see? You really should follow me, if you’ve succumbed to that particular internet evil.
  5. There are many things about this post I would change now, having heard many more stories of rape being committed by women and other non-men, but I think the basic points still stand.
  6. This footnote exists solely so that the last footnote won’t be all serious and some junk. You’re welcome.

Dear White Lactivists

Dear White Lactivists,

Racism is not our prop.

Racism is not dead, it is not gone, it is not a thing of the past, it is not almost eradicated, it is not someone else’s problem, and it is not something we are subject to (please eliminate the phrase “reverse racism” from your vocabulary posthaste).

Racism is not our prop. It is not ours to hold up to compare breastfeeding discrimination against. It is not ours to make analogies with (“getting kicked off a plane due to breastfeeding discrimination is just like how black people used to not be able to eat in the same restaurants as white people!”1). Here’s the thing: the very fact that we think racism is ours to appropriate, to pin down and treat as dead and gone and harmless now, is a sign of racism’s continued existence.

Please, read about white privilege (we have it), the definition of racism (we are all guilty of it), and the state of anti-racist activism since Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yes, there has been anti-racist activism since 1968. Because believe it or not, racism didn’t end after a declaration of a dream or with the death of a dreamer.

If you take away nothing else from this letter, please, please remember that there are many lactivists of color, and we need them, and we need to center them in our mutual activism (because for decades we have been excluding them from our circles), and when we deny and erase and ignore and perpetuate the racism they face every damn day, we are driving them away, shoving them to the margins again, and saying “Your experiences don’t matter, your lived reality doesn’t matter, and if you care about breastfeeding then you should just shut up and sit down and take this degradation of your humanity.” Furthermore, we miss out on learning about — and thus lose the opportunity to dismantle! — all the ways that racism and breastfeeding discrimination interact and reinforce each other. Which means we are failing at lactivism.

Now, if we are extremely careful, and extremely respectful, it might, sometimes, be possible to draw parallels between anti-racism work and anti-breastfeeding-discrimination work. Because while specific oppressions differ, marginalization often functions the same (or similar) regardless of the topic — but again, it’s not as simple as saying “breastfeeding discrimination is just like racism!”, because that’s simply not true. Breastfeeding discrimination, like racism, is a social justice issue; it is a systemic oppression, with aspects both institutional and social; it needs to end; and everyone, breastfeeding or not, white or nonwhite, ought to care about these topics. But breastfeeding discrimination is limited to a specific time in a person’s life; one’s breastfeeding status is not visible in every moment, as it is for most (though not all) nonwhite people; and perhaps most fundamental, breastfeeding (or not) is an act, whereas race is an intrinsic, immutable part of who someone is2. To say breastfeeding discrimination and racism are the same is to display a bewildering ignorance of the nature of both.

So please, my fellow white lactivists, I am begging you: stop it. Find other ways to raise awareness of the importance of breastfeeding, of the problems with discrimination against breastfeeding. Find other ways to make the emotional impact you desire. It may take you a few moments of thought before speaking, a few weeks or months to retrain your thoughts until it’s not the first analogy you reach for, but trust me: when fewer women are driven away from lactivism, when more babies are breastfed, when our common humanity is recognized and honored, it will be so worth it.

Sincerely,

A White Lactivist

  1. This and all else in quotation marks in this post are paraphrases; I am not quoting or linking to specific examples, because the meme is so widespread: to point to one or two instances would be to pretend that this doesn’t happen again and again and again and again in white lactivist circles. This is not a “them” problem, something that only some white lactivists do and therefore something only some white lactivists need to care about: no, this is very much an us problem, because even if we haven’t done it, we have allowed it to happen and to continue.
  2. Being a person-who-breastfeeds might be a very important part of one’s identity, and I am not denying that; I am saying, though, that that identity is not created or solidified until one does the act of breastfeeding — whereas one’s race is more or less assigned at birth, through no will of one’s own.

No, less-than-threes do not need their moms 24/7/365

“A mother shouldn’t leave her child until about the age of three”, declares a father.

Oh, I do not think so.

What infants and toddlers and preschoolers need is attachment — loving, responsive care from people they know and trust, preferably have known for most or all of their lives but at least with whom they have built a relationship. They need to have older people — adults, yes, but also teens, older children — who know them and love them and who they know and love, accessible to them when needed. The placement of that responsibility exclusively on the mother makes it not a joy, a task of life easily fulfilled, but a burden, under which so many of us are breaking.

Something is wrong with a culture that expects a six week old to sleep through the night, that tells a four month old her hunger is inconvenient and needs to be scheduled, that is surprised when a one year old doesn’t want to be left with a stranger. Some of us recognize this, and some have decided the problem must be because women are employed outside the home, have chosen to have lives that do not revolve around our children.

Not that we have moved away from our families of origin.

Not that we have built fences real and psychological between us and our neighbours.

Not that we have tiny families and a dearth of siblings and cousins.

Not that we have segregated adults and children, and alternately marginalize people with fewer years as second class citizens and exalt them as angels on earth (but never simply honor them as perfectly imperfect persons).

Not that we hold ideal a single family home, and define family as up to two parents and 2.5 children.

Not that we have taught half the population to deny and repress any nurturing potential, for fear of being “unmanly”.

No, it is, as always, entirely the fault of women. Of mothers, for daring to stand up for our humanity and our autonomy, for daring to do the work that earns power and prestige and some amount of protection, for daring to say we have needs and wants and goals too, for daring to take even an hour away to nurture ourselves so we have something to give to our children.

How dare we?

What some misguided whistleblowers (on the problem that is our parenting culture) have deemed is the solution — a mother, subsuming her own desires entirely to her offspring for a full three years each, minimum, accessible at all times of day, all days of the week, all weeks of the year — is just as unnatural and damaging as the model it rebels against.

We are not supposed to do this gig — which risks becoming labor and work and mind-breaking, body-destroying toil the less it is shared with loved ones — all by ourselves. We are not. That some can do it and survive, even enjoy it and would pick it first over any other idealized options, speaks far more to the diversity and flexibility of humanity than it does to the failure or unnaturalness of any woman who doesn’t choose or wouldn’t enjoy (possibly wouldn’t survive) 24/7/365 sole caregiving.

Kids don’t need one person, if that person is going to break if she has to clean up one more fecal-smeared surface.

Kids don’t need one person, if that person is snapping and yelling and cannot catch her breath alone.

Kids don’t need one person, if that person’s back is breaking from twelve hour shifts of bending and lifting and carrying and holding.

Kids don’t need one person, if that person has lost herself and her center and has no core around which her child can revolve, no life from which her child can learn.

Kids need people, people they know and love and trust, people who are with them and responsive to them day after day, who know their rhythms and their personalities and their needs and their wants, who have done the work of endless toiletings and feedings, who have assisted nap times and play times, who have tickled and carried, who have been there through laugh fests and crying jags. Kids need as many of those people as possible. Blood relation entirely optional.

One? Is a bare minimum. The kid might survive, even thrive (because humans are fantastically adaptable); and the parent might as well (ditto): but it comes at a high risk of burning out the carer, torching the relationship, scorching the child. And if that happens, there is no one for the child to turn to.

Two is better.

Three or four are better still.

Half a dozen is getting closer to ideal.

Half a dozen? Sure: a parent or two, a grandparent or two, a parent’s sibling or two, a couple teens or older kids: it’s not a big family, as primate evolution (or human tribal history) goes. But good luck growing it in this society.

(My infant only wants me. She’ll have nothing to do with her dad!

Has her dad been there? Does he know her? Does she know him? Did she hear his voice in the womb? Did she breathe in his smell within hours of birth? Did he carry or wear her her first day out of the womb? And the second? And the third? Does she sleep with his breath on her face, his heat keeping her warm, his body keeping her safe? Does he respond to her attempts at communication about her hunger and elimination? Does he help keep her clean? Does she know him?)

Kids — the younger they are the truer this is — need to be with people they know, and trust, and love (who among us doesn’t, really?). They need attachment; this is immutable biological fact. They’ll make do with almost whatever we give them, but the more the better. It is only our messed up society — or the very rare, very exacting child — that says that this means all-mom all-the-time.

(Oh, the breasts. The sweet, sweet breasts. Yes, infants need near-immediate access to milk at basically all times; known and trusted lactating breasts are biologically expected to be on call 24/7. Only humans — and only some humans — would translate this as mother’s-breasts-only, and even fewer as mother-as-primary-minder-at-every-moment. But a ten, a twenty, a thirty month old gets ever less in need of such omnipresent access, even as their need for it sometimes, and their need for constant nearby presence of trusted caregiver(s), might remain unabated.)

Do you, caring mother, have to leave your less-than-three? Of course not. (If there’s no one around we trust our children to trust, why would we want to? If we have enough people to share the load with that it is still a joy and not a toil — however many that is for us, zero or a dozen — why would we want to?) But you could. If you wanted. If your child wanted. If there are other people your child knows will care for them.

And I promise — it wouldn’t destroy them.