In response to this.
The DU's editorial on the 13th was disappointing. The editorial board seems to believe that only certain causes are worth fighting for, while others should just be left to take care of themselves. But it is a disastrous philosophy to think that any effort is wasted if it could have gone to something bigger. They are right in saying that there are many causes throughout the world worthy of our attention and many of them are more important than being able to show pictures of breastfeeding mothers on Facebook. But the editors need to face reality. What did Heather Frayley organize? About 175,000 users joined her group. That's less than a third of those who have clicked to join the Britney Spears fan group. She also staged a three hour protest at the companies headquarters. No real money was raised and relatively little time was committed. "Countless hours"? Please. The editors suggest that "microloans to moms trying to feed their kids, or newborn kits for third-world moms who often carry their new babies home in newspaper" would be worthier causes. A small fraction of the Facebook community joining a group and a three hour protest will create zero microloans and generate zero newborn kits. Those things require a fair amount of capital to accomplish, something which the mothers with young children that supported this cause probably have very little of and which they gave none of to support this group. And still they accomplished what they set out to do: weaken some of the stigma attached to being a mother (the type of stigma that forces young BYU mothers into bathroom stalls to breastfeed) and fight an instance of the objectifying of women. It doesn't matter if you think these causes are worthwhile (as I do) or if you believe them to be (as the editors seem to) rather worthless; the fact is that those involved had a goal and they accomplished it. To ridicule that is incredibly counterproductive. We must fight wrong wherever we perceive it and Heather should be congratulated for accomplishing something significant without government grants or any sort of advertising campaign. I believe that the problems of AIDS, global warming, or world wide poverty mentioned in the article can be fixed if we join together to combat them. And there are hundreds of Facebook groups and causes and numerous real world gatherings and demonstrations devoted to these issues that are accomplishing good. The editors seem to think that somehow what Heather did pulled focus away from these efforts. That is absurd. Mrs. Frayley saw a cause she felt was worth fighting for, and she fought for it until something was accomplished. That's a lot more than I can say for the BYU editorial board.
Timothy Browning
I applaud Tim's efforts, but I raise an eyebrow at his worthless cause. It's good he wrote this, but I wonder if he couldn't have written something more worthwhile. I applaud Tim's cause, but shouldn't he be fighting world poverty?
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Daily Universe will hire me to write for them? I can attack someone without cause while repeating my ridiculous argument over and over.
Mothers can't nurse in public at BYU?! What?!
ReplyDeleteOh, and in rebuttal to Gordon's comment. THis is very important to the empowerment of women. If you take their ability and support for nurturing and love, you take the essence of motherhood. I applaud and uphold Tim and all fellow students speaking out, and making change in their community, for the better.
ReplyDeleteSorry that I didn't make clear that my comment was only meant to mock the ridiculous editorial to which Tim was responding - I'm 100% for Tim's efforts and agree with him completely.
ReplyDeleteMothers legally can breastfeed in public, but how many do? Not to mention there is no separate facilities specifically for breastfeeding moms, just couches in the bathroom and sometimes not even couches. When I do see girls breastfeeding at BYU, it's usually in the bathroom.
ReplyDeleteYeah that editorial was pretty ridiculous Tim. Thanks for pointing it out.
ReplyDeleteIt is any mother`s right to nurse her baby where she chooses. No one has the right to tell her otherwise. There was this JERK in a restaurant once staring at me the whole time while I was nursing Aidan at our table like who did I think I was that I had the right to do that right there. I eventually did go nurse him in the bathroom, but only because it was a small table and it was a bit difficult to do. I was very shy about it when Aidan was first born, but I`ll feed him wherever I feel like it now, and no one can make me move.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused as to how breasfeeding in private objectifies women. I personally am glad mothers don't breastfeed in public very often. Just because it's something we as a society do in private doesn't make it less special. On the contrary, the most sacred and intimate things are done in private. Breastfeeding is an intimate thing that doesn't need to be shared with the rest of the world. Feeding is a necessity, but so is going to the bathroom, if you catch my drift :)
ReplyDeleteI actually don't catch your drift. We eat in public, why can't babies eat in public? Why do mothers have to go to bathroom stalls to nurse their babies? That's just gross. You poop in there. I shouldn't have to feed my baby in there. And breastfeeding doesn't even compare to going to the bathroom.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to go to bathroom stalls--just cover yourself properly and nobody will have any issues. Still wanting to know how private breasfeeding objectifies women--I really am interested though (and this truly is not sarcastic--though the more I try to get that across, the more sarcastic it is sounding... sorry)
ReplyDeleteBy objectifying of woman I meant the fact that, the way I see it, most people are uncomfortable with the sight of breasts because they view them as sexual objects. Nobody's being grossed out by babies suckling to get milk. If they did then bottles were be offensive. But breasts are sexual because guys talk about them and rate them. This idea objectifies women as a whole because it turns them into sexual objects for the pleasure of men. Now I know this is not always the case, but the fact that it is ever the case is a problem. In many cultures breasts aren't sexual and there is no problem with breastfeeding in public in these countries. That doesn't mean I think believing breasts to be sexual in sexual situations is wrong. We just need to separate the sexual from the biological.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful response! Here are my thoughts on the issue. Seeing breasts as sexual only objectifies women as a whole as much as seeing a penis as sexual objectifies men as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a grown man is concerned, yes, a grown woman's breasts are sexual. Aside from that context, breasts dont really have any more meaning to men, and that's ok. To a nursing child, breasts serve a different function, which is healthy and natural and good. But because breasts evoke different emotions from different people (which is NOT a bad thing, but quite natural), our culture has decided it proper and modest to keep breasts covered in public.
When nursing mothers respectfully take the time to cover themselves properly, everyone else should give them the same respect. It's sad that people stare and are disrespectful back.