Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Obama and Kids.

Check out the tumblr from the wonderful @scATX.

Winter holidays

How much must your father love you if he builds you an outdoor playpen for your indoor guineapigs?

Picnic.

Lauca putting circus skills to use in crossing creeks.

Our vegetable gardens are ready for Spring.

An African mother and slave, presumably wet-nursing for a white master’s baby while her own child goes without. The image is from The Sociological Cinema files and they are having trouble tracing its true credit. I find this photo incredibly painful – breastfeeding, with all its hormones, bonds, and intimacy, and the transferral of that unwillingly from one’s baby to another’s.

Looking at the photo I was reminded of a description in this piece, which is not about slavery but which is truly beautiful writing from Mona Simpson in The New York Times with “Nannies – Love, Money And Other People’s Children”:

Seeing Michele Asselin’s portraits, I remember the heightened sensitivity of my first months as a parent. The pictures are beautiful and idealized. The women look at the children with love. No one looks frustrated. No one looks bored. No child is having a meltdown. They conjure the dome of tender air that encloses a mother, whose body is coursing with hormones, and a newborn.

But these moments of private contentment, with the serenity and depth borrowed from the portraiture legacy of the Madonna and child, do not depict mothers with their infants. The women holding the children are nannies. Part of what’s striking about the pictures is that they position front and center a person who is often left on the editing-room floor when a family’s memories are being assembled. Nannies have told me that their employers crop them out of photographs of their children. On the wall of a West Los Angeles home, I noticed a blown-up photo of a baby in a pretty white dress, held by a pair of hands of a darker color. In her photos, Asselin captures a radiance between caregivers and children, often of different races…

.. We don’t like to mix love with money. We want love to come as a gift that offers as much pleasure and reward to the giver as to ourselves. No one receiving love wishes to break it down to its component parts, of good sense and feasibility, much less to consider that payment may be necessary to inspire the whole project.

I highly recommend that article, it takes what can be a one note guilt-trip topic and goes somewhere else with it.

UPDATE: As you can see below in the comments the picture has now been identified – this is one of the things I love about writing on the Internet. Pretty much instant knowledge. Harper has the story in a comment below and the mother in the photograph may or may not be an African slave, because she might instead be a paid ‘wet nurse’.

The second thing that has changed since I first wrote this post is my assumption that this photograph would make everyone uncomfortable, as it did with me. The title of my post was, in part, a reference to all the many photographs of mothers breastfeeding their babies that we see where anti-breastfeeding types complain that the pictures are making them uncomfortable, offending them, or turning them on. I thought, now here’s a photo that really does make me uncomfortable and it is because the mother is doing this lovely, nurturing activity with the baby but there is, what I assumed to be given the information I had, a pretty awful backstory. It is the juxtaposition of ‘mother love’ against the cruelty of slavery that makes me feel uncomfortable. But Minna Salami of MsAfropolitan, and a Huffington Post blogger, told me she had quite a different reaction to the photo:

Minna Salami: Does this photo make you feel uncomfortable? I find it strong and compassionate even if poignant. Wondering why you presumed that the African woman’s own child wasn’t being breastfed? Takes away agency..

Me: Guess I’m imagining her baby isn’t allowed to be prioritised over this other baby. And it’s missing out on something.

Minna Salami: Whether prevented or not, a mother could find ways to protect her children. And surely often would. There was still agency. To me, the photo says love and humanness triumphs despite patriarchy and racism.

This is another thing I love about writing on the Internet. New ways of thinking. Minna Salami makes an excellent point and it is one that was also expressed by ifyspify in the comments below.

Finally, a word to clarify my original post: I wasn’t assuming that the mother in this photo was necessarily not able to also breastfeed her own baby but I was assuming that she would be forced to attend to this baby over her own baby.

PerthMum makes a good point in her comment that breastfeeding supply equals demand and obviously mothers are able to breastfeed twins and other multiples. My opinion on wet-nursing was also influenced by having recently read this article about Europe where Anne Manne says:

There was, however, an entirely different rule for poor women. For them it was not merely okay but necessary to breastfeed for they became wet nurses to elite women’s babies. Such babies replaced at the breast their own infants, who frequently died.

.. is up over at The Mamafesto.

I have an article up at Essential Baby - “In Defence of the Mothers You Hate”.

However, there’s one mother for whom we reserve a special place at the Table of Hatred, and she is the ‘militant mother’. A woman proud of her intervention-free birth makes us feel … what? Guilty, less-than, unwomanly, judged? One thing I know for sure: the militant mother makes us angry. She was recently derided by Mamamia’s Mia Freedman as a “birthzilla”, someone who cares about her birth more than her baby. Except Freedman set the benchmark curiously low for a militant mother; she was anyone with a birth plan. Consequently, a whole bunch of us were forced to consider ourselves “birthzillas” and wonder whether other militant mothers were similarly misunderstood.

The militant mother feels strongly about what happens to her body during birth – and to her baby’s – and she wants women to know about their options. She’s also readily marginalised by powerful institutions. In pro-choice circles we otherwise call the women fighting for rights like these ‘activists’. As a feminist, it concerns me that we’re so intolerant towards birth activism when abortion activism is core to our understanding of bodily autonomy. The activist mother’s beliefs are dismissed as inflexibility, but I’ve had just as many mothers recommend an epidural to me as I’ve had women recommend drug-free births, and they all did so with equal enthusiasm.

Exposure

I currently have an incoming link from Fark.com with a thread on extended breastfeeding, and it’s Fark.com so you’re not expecting much breastfeeding enlightenment and there isn’t, but then this:

baska: Can you not provide adequate comfort and reassurance without sticking a tit in the kid’s mouth?

factoryconnection: If nursing is suddenly inappropriate for comforting a child, then why should any other childish comfort be appropriate? For the record, I cannot comfort a child with my breast as I’m a guy. I’ve lived with a breastfeeding wife for the last five years (across three kids) and have seen:
1. Nothing remotely creepy nor sexual between mother and child (including our many friends that nursed their kids)
2. No “whipping out” of anything in public and even rarely in private
3. No strange behavior as a result of having weaned after 12 months of age, nor any particular air of indulgence at offering the same.

It is just so strange to see the terror with which seemingly reasonable farkers react to the thought of a 15-month-old nursing. I mean, the AWs on here that use their titties to get farkers to buy them things off their Amazon wishlists I understand; their relationship with their tits is a uniquely commercial one. But man there’s a whole lot of breathless fear of nursing on this site.

I’d like to offer a tip of the cap to those that suggested “American Suckers,” “Jugrats,” and “Battlestar Lactica” however. Those were good.

I really like seeing The Dads call this crap out instead of The Mums for a change.

While I’m explaining comedy to everyone because I am the expert on everything, can I just nitpick this one little thing that I see quite a lot about Sasha Baron Cohen?

From Jezebel’s post on “How to Make  Rape Joke”:

1. Borat

“In Kazakhstan the favorite hobbies are disco dancing, archery, rape, and table tennis.” Okay. Why is that funny? Who is the butt of the joke? Rape victims? Nah, I’d say that the butt of that joke is Kazakhstan, or, at least, the caricature of Kazakhstan that Sasha Baron Cohen has constructed—a borderline-medieval old world racist mud-hole. He’s satirizing the casual misogyny of a certain set of crusty old anti-Semitic post-Soviet eastern European men in stinky suits. And I have no problem with that. Though I could be wrong!

Sasha Baron Cohen’s joke is not on Kazakhstan and nor was his Ali G joke on UK immigrant rappers in council estates, his joke is you.

This is probably easier to see in the original TV series. The joke is actually about your prejudices. The hapless person representing you and your culture on-screen is being confronted unknowingly with one of Baron Cohen’s characters and they (you) have such a sense of superiority that they can be convinced these ‘foreign’ cultures and sub-cultures are as backward and stupid as he is playing them to be. That the person believes these stereotypes to be real people is the joke, not the stereotype itself. Baron Cohen often orchestrates situations where you get to see how patronising we can be to people of other cultures, too, and knowing Baron Cohen is English helps explain why he chooses to target class snobbery and xenophobia the way he does in his comedy. Another of his favourite jokes is about your hypocrisy. By playing these characters Baron Cohen gets people (you) to drop your guard and participate in, or at least tolerate, incredibly offensive things that you would otherwise be PC about. So, in the Borat joke on that Jezebel post we can see Borat expressing not only misogyny but also quite a lot of antisemitism and Baron Cohen is Jewish. His joke is about how you would speak up if someone was saying those things in front of him as a Jewish man but that you’ll let them pass by when you don’t think a Jewish person is in the room.

You can hate other things about the Borat joke but you can’t hate that it is a stereotype, because that’s the whole point. So, anyway, that’s how you suck eggs.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,221 other followers