Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_monster  If you haven't seen the movie then don't read the post. I was okay with her not breastfeeding because the whole premise in the movie was that women weren't able to have babies for 18+ years so the knowledge of how to care for a baby wasn't known to the young mother. She knew nothing about caring for babies, including breastfeeding. It kinda reminded me of Blue Lagoon with Brooke Shields, who didn't have the knowledge to breastfeed.
|
Spoilers ahead...
*
*
*
I would kind of buy that except that her travelling companion was a
midwife and Clive Owen was also a father. Sure, it had been 18 years for the both of them, but you still think they could have given the young woman a few words of advice on breastfeeding. I didn't expect either of them to be IBCLCs but they could have at least said "Your baby's hungry."
Especially given the world that they were living in---pandemic diseases, unclean water, refugee camps---breastfeeding would have been essential for her little one.
OT for lactivism, but the other thing that bugged me was that the pregnant woman was laboring on her back as if that was somehow the
natural position that a woman would assume who was about to give birth rather than a product of a century of medicalized births.
:
I have this experience a lot with movies about childbirth and breastfeeding. [Anyone else have all these thoughts about nipple confusion when you saw
Tsotsi?] But eventually you realize that directors and screenwriters don't even
think to research this stuff. They just recreate other images from movies to evoke our cultural scripts for "woman in labor" or "newborn baby" and those cultural scripts have only a vague relationship to the real world experiences.
But
for cosleeping and no bottles!
