In the eye of the beholder (breastfeeding)

This morning Blue Milk tweeted a link to a post by Heather at the mommypotamus which deals with extended breastfeeding and some of the myths that surround it (primarily in the West). It's a good post and worth a read (including the comments). Heather was responding to some concerns raised by a friend of hers around the issue of her breastfeeding her toddler. She devotes this particular post to just one of these myths:

"Extended breastfeeding could cause homosexuality."

You know, I thought that I'd been exposed to a fair bit of the hysteria around extended breastfeeding, but I have never even heard this particular brand of crazytalk before. (Maybe my own family situation can partly explain this gap in my exposure.) Anyway, I felt compelled to deal with a few of the underlying assumptions behind this particular concern, because they have been buzzing around my head all morning:

Obviously the first assumption contained in this particular myth is that there is something wrong will your child growing up to become gay (or being gay and growing up to express their 'gayness,' etc). My first instinct here would be to say: Why? What on earth could possibly be wrong with your child being gay? What are you afraid of?

I can imagine that some people would argue that they are concerned that their child would be exposed to discrimination if they were to gay and that this is why they hope that their children will stick with the heterosexual 'norm.' I wonder if those same people would argue that black people should avoid breeding so that their children don't suffer from racism? Perhaps people should also avoid having girl-children so that their children don't suffer from sexism? Wouldn't it be more productive to try to fight discrimination so that our children don't have to be exposed to it? Also, isn't it more realistic to do our best to raise them to be resilient enough to deal with the inevitable ignorance and bigotry that they might encounter?

Of course, I know that other people are concerned about their children becoming gay because they think that there is something wrong or unnatural with homosexuality. Frankly, however, I have nothing to say to those people on the topic except that they have some serious issues to deal with and I would rather not share them.

The second assumption contained in this myth is the idea that breasts are primarily sexual objects. Yet again I find myself with the impulsive first instinct to simply cry out WTF? Are people honestly so incredibly ignorant of basic biology to believe that mammary glands evolved for the pleasure of the male (and, for those accepting of homosexuality, female) gaze? Do they really believe that we have managed to successfully continue as a species by virtue of the attractiveness or soft touch of female breasts? Infant mammals need to suckle on their mother's milk (through her nipples!) in order to live. This is one of our defining characteristics as mammals - hence the name "mammary glands". The relative attractiveness of these glands to adult members of the species has a fairly minimal to irrelevant impact on species survival.

OK, so yes in making this argument I have to contend with those people who believe that we are somehow markedly different from 'animals'; who think that humans and animals are actually separate groups rather than one being a subset of another - because we have evolved 'beyond' other animals and are now able to do things differently.

First, I disagree with the idea that just because we can now survive without something natural by substituting it for something human-made means that we ought to - that this is somehow a positive progression. An overwhelming amount of our supposed 'progress' has only served to make us more unhealthy and unhappy and has ultimately threatened the survival of not only our own species but every other species on this planet. I have absolutely no faith in the supposed superiority of our shift away from nature.

Second, even if you think that our capacity to move away from our dependence on nature and on our biological instincts is something that should be fostered, it does not follow that these practices are no longer 'natural'. They remain natural, you are just arguing for the superiority of something that is completely unnatural.

Another concern that I have for the assumption that breasts are primarily sexual objects is that this view is completely and utterly constructed by patriarchy. (Leaving aside lesbian relationships, because that is a separate topic and shouldn't confuse this one) Who wins when part of a woman's body is defined in terms of how much it pleases (or pleasures?) a man? Not women that is for bloody sure! Essentially this view is premised on the idea of men owning women's bodies.

I believe that one of the big reasons that extended breastfeeding (and, in fact, all breastfeeding in public) is viewed with such suspicion and hysteria is that it is an act of direct rejection of this claim of ownership. When a woman breastfeeds her child (particularly in public) many people are constructing or receiving the message:

"My breasts do not belong to men, they are mine and I will use them in a manner that is directly threatening to your desire to see them as sexual objects. I will use them to nurture and nourish my child and to increase a non-sexual bond from which you are excluded."

Or, if they view the child as a sexual being* (particularly once the breastfeeding child gets older than 12-months or so), they may alternatively be constructing the message as:

"Although my breasts are primarily sexual objects, I am excluding men from owning them because they belong solely to my child who is taking their own incestuous pleasure from them."

Of course, I'm not arguing that many women are deliberately sending out these messages (I highly doubt that any woman has ever deliberately sent out the second one!) or that many people are actually conscious of constructing it in such a way, but I do think that this is what happens. Why else would people view such a natural and healthy act as somehow suspect and disturbing?

It would be so nice if we could just laugh at these ridiculous attitudes. Sadly, we can't be so complacent. You see there are serious impacts of people having these crazy ideas. The most obvious is that many women will wean their babies before they are ready because of the incredible societal pressure to do so and to take up their anointed role as sexualised yummy mummies. This is unfair on both women and babies who could both benefit significantly from continuing their breastfeeding relationship until it concluded naturally due to the pressure-free preference of one or both parties.

It also means that many women who do breastfeed have to constantly suffer from a lack of societal support for what can be an exhausting and time consuming job. They are seen as misguided in their decision to do it and, perhaps, self-indulgent, and so many people feel entitled to deny them social support for what they are doing, by not:

• creating better leave entitlements so that mothers can spend more time breastfeeding their babies,
• creating safe and comfortable spaces in workplaces where mothers could breastfeed or express,
• creating childcare arrangement in or close to workplaces so that breastfeeding could continue easily after a mother has gone back to work,
• creating welcoming and comfortable places in public where mothers can breastfeed their babies,
• providing support to breastfeeding mothers such as a cooked meal, or helping hand or even a glass of water,
• you get the idea...

However, that doesn't even touch on the most serious risks that are posed by these dangerous attitudes. The assumption that breastfeeding is a sexual act can also lead to women being ejected from public places or off plane flights for simply feeding their babies. Far worse, it can also lead to women having their children removed from their care and being criminalised and incarcerated. As Heather mentions in her post this exact scenario took place in 2002 in Dallas Texas. In that case a couple had their children summarily removed by authorities after a photo lab developed a photo of their 12-month-old breastfeeding and reported it to authorities. The couple were then arrested on criminal charges of "sexual performance of a minor." They were then found guilty based on no other evidence than the photo in question. In 2002!

This is why these ideas of not just crazytalk; they are downright dangerous.

*And, of course, this particularly attitude leads naturally into a discussion of the sexualisation of children, but that is quite evidently a post for another day at this stage...