Nursing Covers--a step forward or backward? - Page 5

[songbh]

Originally Posted by prothyraia

Let's not confuse judging or discussing a social status quo with judging individual mothers.

From a social standpoint, I think the prevelance of formula feeding is a problem. That doesn't mean I take issue with any particular individual woman who uses formula for her baby- she may very well have good reasons for doing it. Condemning formula feeding as a norm doesn't mean that it's never okay, or never appropriate, or that women who do are terrible, or that I'm judging them. That doesn't mean that if you feed your baby formula, you can't be a lactivist, or that you should feel guilty.

It's the same with nursing covers. I think that if covering comes to be perceived as the norm, that is a problem. And I say that even while I'm considering BUYING one, because my 8 month old won't eat when there's stuff to look at.

Very well put. As this is the board for lactivism -- the social movement in support of promoting, protecting, and supporting breastfeeding -- it is important that we be able to think about and discuss these issues in the abstract and in general, and not only in specific, individual, or personal terms.

As for the nursing covers question -- as with so many questions related to lactivism, I find a feminist perspective to be helpful. I see the whole modesty/discretion dynamic as a construct of the patriarchy. It is part of what oppresses us as women and as breastfeeding mothers. However, survival as a female under patriarchy requires some degree of cooperation, accommodation, or acquiescence to its rules. No one who is surviving patriarchy can afford to resist it totally at all times. Nursing covers can be some women's way of coping with the rules of the game. Weaning early to formula can be some other women's way of doing the same thing. Those who find they can nurse without covering are probably accommodating patriarchal oppression in some other sphere of their lives.

We can critique the system without bashing those who find it necessary to acquiesce to the system. Part of feminism involves trusting women's voices and seeing their experiences as valid indicators of reality. As a feminist activist, I prefer to trust that a mother who uses a nursing cover is doing the best she can under the patriarchy, and to focus my efforts not on changing her behavior or beliefs but on changing the laws and social norms that will guide everyone's behavior and beliefs.

[junipermuse]

Originally Posted by limabean

Nothing, as long as you don't expect everyone to. Just like there's nothing wrong with covering to nurse, as long as no one expects everyone to.

But the person to whom my question was directed specifically said "hopefully" we're not breastfeeding to make a social statement. It sounded to me like a value judgment on women who see their breastfeeding as both functional and political. And while I agree that we are allowed to have any intention we want when nursing our children, we can not change the facts that our actions do have an effect on others. While some women may not view breastfeeding as a social statement, there is still an implied message when they do it.

[Ambystoma]

Originally Posted by songbh

I see the whole modesty/discretion dynamic as a construct of the patriarchy. It is part of what oppresses us as women and as breastfeeding mothers. [...] As a feminist activist, I prefer to trust that a mother who uses a nursing cover is doing the best she can under the patriarchy, and to focus my efforts not on changing her behavior or beliefs but on changing the laws and social norms that will guide everyone's behavior and beliefs.

:

I agree that it can and should be looked at from a feminist perspective. It often seems in Western society that breastfeeding can be fitted into the madonna/whore complex. ie: People do not want to see breasts in public because breasts are for sex only and if you ARE one of "those" women who show them in public, (in a low cut shirt, etc) it's because you want men to look at you, and therefore, you are of course a tramp.

Currently I think the patriarchal movement is often confused by breastfeeding in public because obviously the breast in question is not being used for sex, so it isn't immodest, but it's still a breast, so it has to be sexual...does that make any sense? I have seen this with women close to me who don't want to breastfeed because they want their breasts to stay nice for their husbands, or because it makes their husband uncomfortable, etc.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by songbh

I see the whole modesty/discretion dynamic as a construct of the patriarchy. It is part of what oppresses us as women and as breastfeeding mothers.

This may be true if men are imposing modesty on women. In many systems, both men and women practice public modesty. Mennonites or Orthodox Jews, for example. I am sure a lot of women on this board would argue that modesty is something both sexes should practice voluntarily, and do not practice it in order to avoid persecution by male members of their community, who are free to run around in nothing but a thong and a headband, but because they believe there are good reasons for it which apply to all human beings.

[songbh]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

This may be true if men are imposing modesty on women.

Not necessarily. Feminist analysis of patriarchy finds that it often oppresses men as well as women, or that it is often women who "enforce" it upon other women or even upon men in certain circumstances. We can deal with patriarchy as a complex and shifting system; it isn't always as simplistic as "men ruling women."

In many systems, both men and women practice public modesty. Mennonites or Orthodox Jews, for example.

Quite true. However, this doesn't mean that both these religions aren't patriarchal.

I am sure a lot of women on this board would argue that modesty is something both sexes should practice voluntarily, and do not practice it in order to avoid persecution by male members of their community, who are free to run around in nothing but a thong and a headband, but because they believe there are good reasons for it which apply to all human beings.

Sure. Like I said upthread, we all accommodate patriarchy in some way. There are many perspectives women might inhabit that make certain aspects of patriarchy appear to be "good reasons that apply to all human beings."

I'm not attacking or criticizing anyone for their beliefs about modesty, just trying to offer an explanatory framework (feminist theory) that helps us make sense of it and hopefully find a way forward in this question about the use of nursing covers.

[NewMama2007]

I never used one (a blanket or sling was good enough for me), but I don't see a problem with them. For me, I want to cover my body, not my nursing baby. Seeing my baby eating? I don't care one bit. It's beautiful. Seeing my flabby tummy/sides? Freaks me out. A blanket just made me feel more comfortable. Plus, DD tended to be a bit distracted, and I have been known to spray when she would pull off to look around...and nailing a fellow diner in the eye is just something better off avoided, no?

[rhiandmoi]

I think it is interesting that this has taken a turn towards feminist theory. I am a feminist. And a modest person. I am modest because as a person I get to choose how and to whom I will display my body. This includes my sexual parts but it also includes my non-sexual parts. I do not do this because of a patriarchal tradition requiring modesty of women, for me that is a coincidence. I do not feel oppressed by my decision to clothe my body any more that I feel oppressed by my decision to otherwise decorate my body. I would feel more oppressed by a feminist tradition that would force me to expose my body as animal does. I prefer the feminist tradition that allows me to choose how I decorate and display my body.


That being said, it should be noted that in many patriarchal cultures the patriarchy is actively enforced by the women who live within it. Some of the most active oppression of young women is by older women.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by songbh

"This may be true if men are imposing modesty on women."

Not necessarily. Feminist analysis of patriarchy finds that it often oppresses men as well as women, or that it is often women who "enforce" it upon other women or even upon men in certain circumstances. We can deal with patriarchy as a complex and shifting system; it isn't always as simplistic as "men ruling women."

"In many systems, both men and women practice public modesty. Mennonites or Orthodox Jews, for example."

Quite true. However, this doesn't mean that both these religions aren't patriarchal.

Like I said upthread, we all accommodate patriarchy in some way. There are many perspectives women might inhabit that make certain aspects of patriarchy appear to be "good reasons that apply to all human beings."

I'm not attacking or criticizing anyone for their beliefs about modesty, just trying to offer an explanatory framework (feminist theory) that helps us make sense of it and hopefully find a way forward in this question about the use of nursing covers.

Oppression by the patriarchy, then, is something that can happen to men as well as to women; can be applied by men to women, women to men or other women, by men to men. Women who appear to be acting independently are unknowingly controlled by it; women who use their common sense to make a decision are in reality unwitting dupes. Even the most clearly independent thought or action is probably patriarchal oppression in disguise. The "feminist analysis of patriarchy" evidently finds it to be a sort of magical force which inhabits every object, fills every void, and turns everything into itself.

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

I would feel more oppressed by a feminist tradition that would force me to expose my body as animal does.

What strikes me is the idea that it is pressure from men, oppressive or otherwise, which causes women to be modest, to cover themselves in public. Apparently, if it were not for men's civilizing influence, women would just run around naked like wild beasts.

[rhiandmoi]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

What strikes me is the idea that it is pressure from men, oppressive or otherwise, which causes women to be modest, to cover themselves in public. Apparently, if it were not for men's civilizing influence, women would just run around naked like wild beasts.

I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but I don't think that "men" are a civilizing influence. I do think that our humanity what causes us to choose to clothe ourselves, because we have the knowledge of being exposed. An animal does not choose to cover themselves because they don't have the same self awareness that people have.

[hollycat]

all i can say is i think all you women rock.

all the ones who think x is right, all the ones who think y is right.

you all rock.

[songbh]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

I would feel more oppressed by a feminist tradition that would force me to expose my body as animal does.

I'm not aware of any such "feminist tradition," and just to be clear, I'm not proposing to create one.

[songbh]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

Oppression by the patriarchy, then, is something that can happen to men as well as to women; can be applied by men to women, women to men or other women, by men to men. Women who appear to be acting independently are unknowingly controlled by it; women who use their common sense to make a decision are in reality unwitting dupes. Even the most clearly independent thought or action is probably patriarchal oppression in disguise.

In responding to my post with the above, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say or imply any of these things, and for the record, I do not believe women are "unwitting dupes" or that anyone is incapable of independent thought or action.

[bramblevine]

I think they are a step forward for breastfeeding overall, and a step backward for normalizing the breast. And of course, there is a *ton* of gray area in the middle.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by songbh

In responding to my post with the above, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say or imply any of these things, and for the record, I do not believe women are "unwitting dupes" or that anyone is incapable of independent thought or action.

I do not want to completely derail the discussion, but I think the implication was there. The suggestion was that, even if a woman believes she has chosen a form of modesty for reasons of her own, they only "appear to be good reasons." In reality, she is "accommodating the patriarchy." When you assume you can identify a woman's true motives better than she can herself, it circumvents her argument in a very unfair way.