Song Of Soloman by toni morrison...

[edamommy]

I had some other woman (not a mama) on a vegetarian board tell me that "anyone who has read this book knows that there is a problem w/ nursing a child too long...". I've not read the book. What is she talking about? Is this a non-fiction book? How should I respond?

[edamommy]

[sevenkids]

I read it years ago. I find Toni Morrison's books to be depressing, btw!

There's a little boy who is nursed by his mama until he's 7 or 8, she sort of forces him to nurse because she's lonely and doesn;t want him to grow up. Someone happens to walk in on them, and dubs him the "Milk Man" and the name sticks. So he gets teased by all the kids.

[Momtwice]

Maybe I'm being too quick to judge here, but I haven't read that, and now that you tell me that such a magnificent author perpetuates the myth that nursing moms are only "doing it for themselves" as the saying goes, I don't think I will.

This thread may offer some ideas for a rebuttal to that myth.
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...ight=Dettwyler

And this one could be really helpful to you.
http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/pr..._colletto.html

[DarkHorseMama]

I have not read the book, but I did find this snippet from an essay:

The abnormality of the mother and child relationship is apparent in Song of Solomon. The mother figure seems to have misguided hopes. Toni Morrison, presents an image of an unnatural, extended time of maternal bonding. The character, Ruth, breastfeeds her son, Milkman, until he is four or five years of age. Ruth breastfeeds Milkman for this unnaturally lengthy amount of time because it makes her feel like her son is a part of her. Breastfeeding him gives her immense pleasure and satisfaction. However, she hides her indulgence from the rest of the family until Freddie the janitor catches her. She knows it is wrong, but it makes her daily life bearable.

It seems like it is less the extended nursing, but more of the mother's personal hangups that are the issue. Again, I have not read the book so I can't make a true assessment, but I can see where some would get the wrong idea (and I don't think it is the author's true intent, btw). Similar to the Illinois woman who is (was?) still breastfeeding her DS at age 8, it strikes me as more of a mom who is unwilling to "cut the cord" in more ways than just nursing.

[Momtwice]

Ruth breastfeeds Milkman for this unnaturally lengthy amount of time

Please read my links above if anyone feels that nursing for 4 or 5 years is "unnatural." Nothing could be more wrong and even mainstream health experts such as the head of the AAP breastfeeding committee agree with me.

I always felt that the mom you mention was grossly misrepresented by the media. I always felt that they smelled a sensational story and distorted the truth for ratings.

I wonder if this will be moved to media (Books) or nursing past one year!

[sevenkids]

Originally Posted by DarkHorseMama

I have not read the book, but I did find this snippet from an essay:



It seems like it is less the extended nursing, but more of the mother's personal hangups that are the issue. Again, I have not read the book so I can't make a true assessment, but I can see where some would get the wrong idea (and I don't think it is the author's true intent, btw). Similar to the Illinois woman who is (was?) still breastfeeding her DS at age 8, it strikes me as more of a mom who is unwilling to "cut the cord" in more ways than just nursing.

That's what I got from it, of course it's been so long since I read it.
From what I recall, the little boy was not willing to nurse, but she forced him to to fulfill her own needs. I remember a paragraph describing Milkman's unwillingness to nurse and his resignation, and his distaste for nursing when he would rather be outside playing with his peers. Also his feet resting on the floor while Ruth held him in her lap, if I am recalling correctly he was 7 or 8, not 4.

She also refused to let him play with other children, and there were some other issues about her holding on to his babyhood.

[Irishmommy]

Moving this to Books, Music and Other Media...

[mother_sunshine]

Luckily I haven't read the book nor do I ever plan to. I am saddened by all of the misconceptions (even here on Mothering!) of breastfeeding a child beyond what society sees as "normal". We of all people should know that what society says is "right" and "normal" isn't always so.

It makes me sick to think of how others view breastfeeding, but at the same time I feel like I need to speak up and at least share my experience so others will hopefully see that all of the hoopla is based entirely on ignorance. I allowed my dd to breastfeed until she was ready to stop. She weaned herself at 7.5yrs.

The abnormality of the mother and child relationship is apparent in Song of Solomon. The mother figure seems to have misguided hopes. Toni Morrison, presents an image of an unnatural, extended time of maternal bonding. The character, Ruth, breastfeeds her son, Milkman, until he is four or five years of age. Ruth breastfeeds Milkman for this unnaturally lengthy amount of time because it makes her feel like her son is a part of her. Breastfeeding him gives her immense pleasure and satisfaction. However, she hides her indulgence from the rest of the family until Freddie the janitor catches her. She knows it is wrong, but it makes her daily life bearable.

All of these are misconceptions of breastfeeding a child. First of all, you cannot force a child to nurse at any age. Any breastfeeding mama can attest to that. And who says that allowing a child to complete their breastfeeding journey in their own time is unnatural? If all mothers trusted their children to stop when they were ready, they would understand how natural it is and this wouldn't even be an issue (and an author would never get away, unscathed, with writing something so ignorant and hurtful). If it wasn't natural, then why would a child still want to breastfeed when they are the ones who are not affected by what others say. They are running on pure instinct. And if trusting my child, and knowing that this was something that meant the World to her, was an indulgence, then long-live indulgences!


I am willing to bet the author never breastfed, or if she did she didn't make it past 1yr. But who am I to judge her? I have learned that you should not judge others (especially if you are doing so harshly, and publicly at that) unless you have walked in their shoes. Doing so is dangerous to our society and ourselves as compassionate human beings. It seems that people who do so either feel threatened in some way, or they are trying to make themselves feel better.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my views, just as I would not expect everyone to agree with the author's (and other's) views. But I have been there, and I know they are wrong. I don't know how to convince anyone that this is a very biologically natural way to go, and that it is an absolutely wonderful journey, nor do I plan to. I could talk and talk til I was red in the face. All I ask is to not judge so harshly (or buy into it) unless you have been there. And if you ever are there, I will hold your hand and support you along the way regardless of what you said beforehand. Because I've been there and I understand.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by DarkHorseMama

Similar to the Illinois woman who is (was?) still breastfeeding her DS at age 8, it strikes me as more of a mom who is unwilling to "cut the cord" in more ways than just nursing.

The MDC mama who's child was taken away and later returned? Why do you say she seemed unwilling to cut the cord? Everything I've heard about this situation sounded respectful of the child's needs--particularly his need to continue nursing after being reunited with his mother. That's all second-hand info, but several moms here know her and have said positive things. Just curious...

[DarkHorseMama]

monkey, I started to not even mention that situation, for this reason. It, however, seemed to be the best way to illustrate what the book appears to be mentioning. I do know that the "real" 8-year old took a lot of flack from schoolmates and such for continuing to nurse...much like the character in this book. (yup, gotta go and read the book now, too )

I wasn't ultimately trying to be disrepectful to the real-life mom, as I have heard a wide variety of reasonings and speculations on that situation. I am sympathetic to extended nursing as I am tandem nursing my own DD who is 3½. My point was mostly for illustration, but also that the recurring theme from what I have recalled is that the mother seemed to be the one with the "issue", moreso than the child. Make more sense...or clear as mud?

[mother_sunshine]

I don't think there is any way to justify what the author meant. She is spreading ignorance and misconception, period. People in general don't differentiate it. If they read crud like this they assume that is how it is for all mothers and children who nurse beyond 4yrs (or whatever their cut-off comfort level). It is breeding ignorance and apathy, whatever her message or motive.

[TiredX2]

Originally Posted by DarkHorseMama

I do know that the "real" 8-year old took a lot of flack from schoolmates and such for continuing to nurse...much like the character in this book. (yup, gotta go and read the book now, too )

Perhaps after the media circus, but before only the mother (family), child & babysitter knew.

[operamommy]

For those who haven't read it, I would highly suggest reading it before assuming anything about the author's prejudices, misconceptions, etc. It is really a great book, and as other people who've read it have noted, the part about the extended breastfeeding is *not* a rant against extended breastfeeding. Milkman is in fact very uncomfortable with nursing at his age, and his mother pressures him to - I see that as a rant against using a child to fulfill your own needs, not anything having to do with breastfeeding. It is so so easy to assume you know the author's message by simply reading a 6 sentence blurb that summarizes the book, but the fact still remains that you haven't read the book. I hope no one takes what I've said the wrong way.

[mother_sunshine]

Once again, whatever the author's intentions, she is spreading ignorance of something that society so misunderstands as it is. Especially in a society that looks down upon breastfeeding children even as young as 1yr.

Think of something that you do (or are) that most of society doesn't understand (pick just about any forum here at MDC). Then imagine a writer (author, screen writer or other media) writing something that feeds society's prejudice against it. Whether she intended to or not, she is doing just that no matter how well-written and interesting the book is.

[operamommy]

mother sunshine, I can understand and respect your point of view. This discussion for me brings up a certain question - how responsible is an author for the moral content of what s/he writes? Is it ethical for an author to write something that he or she disagrees with personally? (this is just me being chatty 'cause I love to talk about books and ideas) I've read many comments by different authors on this. Many of them say that it's important to remember while reading a story that it's told by a speaker, who isn't always the author themself, and therefore a story can have things in it that the author would drastically disagree with on a personal level. What do you think about this?

[mother_sunshine]

IMO I think most good writers include a part of themselves in their writing. If they are writing about something they strongly disagree with it is usually a character or voice used to contradict someone or something in the story. Antagonist vs protagonist, the hero vs the villain, good vs evil, etc., or someone used to make a point. But for an author to surround their entire story around something they so disagree with, I don't buy it unless they are using extreme sarcasm (Tartuffe for example). And even then they are walking on dangerous, and ignorant, grounds because they themselves don't walk in those shoes, ykwim?

[Momtwice]

Originally Posted by operamommy

For those who haven't read it, I would highly suggest reading it before assuming anything about the author's prejudices, misconceptions, etc. It is really a great book, and as other people who've read it have noted, the part about the extended breastfeeding is *not* a rant against extended breastfeeding. Milkman is in fact very uncomfortable with nursing at his age, and his mother pressures him to - I see that as a rant against using a child to fulfill your own needs, not anything having to do with breastfeeding. It is so so easy to assume you know the author's message by simply reading a 6 sentence blurb that summarizes the book, but the fact still remains that you haven't read the book. I hope no one takes what I've said the wrong way.

Another one of her books, Beloved, (graphically violent BTW) has a tandem nursing mother of an infant and a 2 or 3 year old...so matter of fact and normal. Yes, she's an amazing author, which makes me all the more disappointed. This description above just confirms my feeling that I would not enjoy reading it.

No I don't read only about things I agree with or characters I'd be friends with....but I'm on the same "page" as Mother Sunshine...I'm completely turned off to this book now.

[lorijds]

If you haven't read the book, I have a hard time seeing how you can justify your criticism of it.

This is an AMAZING book--it is my favorite of all her books! It is so uplifting and bittersweet.

The woman in the book who breastfeeds her son for an extended period of time is a manipulative, passive/aggressive woman who does indeed nurse her son for an extended time period for her own needs, and to keep him "on her side" in her power struggle with her husband.

So because Toni Morrison portrays nursing in a negative light, because she creates a character that is so manipulative that she will force her son to nurse, Toni Morrison is a bad writer, and her book is horrible? Is breastfeeding such a sacred cow, that we can not ever say anything bad about it, or portray it in a negative light? I don't buy that.

And obviously you have never read Beloved, either. There is a scene where a slave woman is held down and the master's sons drink from her breasts--it is one of the most horrific scenes of violation I have ever read. In a class I took we discussed this, and alot of people thought Morrison went overboard, that the woman wasn't "that" assaulted, that it wasn't like they actually harmed her or anything. I think that most people who haven't nursed have no idea how violating that would be, for someone to violently steal your milk from your breasts--breastfeeding is such a sacred, peaceful, intimate experience, and Morrison recognized this.

Thus when it was perverted, either by the slave master's sons or by the manipulative mother, the perpetrator's action is acute and offensive. I feel that Morrison *wants* us to be offended by the Milk Man's mother's action -- she manipulated a sacred, beautiful bond for her own gain in her power struggle with her husband. When the milk is stolen from the breasts of the slave woman, it's a horrible crime against the woman, her child, and the sacred space that is created by nursing.

[mother_sunshine]

I know how reputable of an author she is, which is all the more reason to speak out. Why did she have to choose breastfeeding an older child? Couldn't she have made her point without distorting the breastfeeding relationship between a mother and child. There is already so much misunderstanding, why create more in an already twisted society?

I honestly don't want to read this book and I don't feel I have to in order to criticize it. Reviewers and critics do it all the time. I feel that the subject of it will just make me sad and angry to see something so wonderful as breastfeeding turned into something demented and "for the mother". I have no doubt that, whether Morrison meant to or not, people in general will equate breastfeeding an older child with this book. Especially once Oprah gets her hands on it (if she hasn't already). That makes me sad.

I've said my piece. I realize the general public will not see it how I see it. I just don't understand how people can say that reading a book makes them more of an expert. And because the book was a good read, that makes everything okay. I am looking at the bigger picture. Not the book itself, but the results of it. Just when I think people are starting to understand breastfeeding, a big step is taken backwards.