Nothing says Mother’s Day like breastfeeding, and thanks to a
University of North Texas student ad campaign supporting
pro-breastfeeding in public, I get to discuss my favorite topic: breastfeeding
in public!
The other day, I read an article about the assignment of
junior graphic-art majors Jonathan Wenske and Kris Haro, which required them to
design and ad campaign for a social issue or product, as though it were for a
paying client.
Their campaign, “When Nurture Calls,” features images of
three different mothers nursing their babies in public bathroom stalls. The ads
include such catchy phrases as “Table for Two” and “Private Dining” and they
ask the question, “Would You Eat Here?”
Well, OF COURSE you would not eat your lunch in a bathroom
stall is the natural conclusion most of us draw from what I thought to be a
clever ad campaign.
But, as usual, the issue of public breastfeeding raises the
heckles of a surprisingly large population of folks who, in their feedback to
Wenske and Haro, refer to breasts as “goodies” and “sex organs.”
Really, people?
Can we get over vilifying mothers for using their breasts
for their intended purpose?
Here is the answer:
No. We cannot. Not when women continue to be objectified and our body
parts seen as commodities.
I get it— breasts are fascinating. They are big and
mysterious and round and sexy. But their main function is to feed babies. Face
it.
Yet, the pervading idea still exists that a woman’s breasts
are better served up in an erotic way, where they can be ogled freely, without
her cumbersome offspring suckling them. I mean, nothing ruins a good sexual
fantasy like some hungry baby getting in the way of the object of your lust. Pesky
progeny. Fellas, amiright?
Have you checked out a magazine aisle lately? They are besot
with covers that seem, primarily, to be an advertisement for boobies.
Airbrushed photos of Hollywood’s most luscious melons adorn the covers of practically
every magazine. And that’s just the women’s magazines. The men’s mags are
worse.
Does the word “Maxim” mean anything to you? A quick search
of the magazine title immediately yields a library of images revealing so much
skin it looks like a dermatology ad. Or possibly an orgy ad. It’s kind of hard
to tell. Every single cover displays lots of boobage—several covers featured
completely naked women. The Sports Illustrated swim suit cover, which is currently
on display at a child’s eye-level at my Walgreen’s, depicts three supermodels, clad
only in thongs and naked from the waist up.
Yeah. But they aren’t nursing babies, so, you know, no
public outcry over the juicy doubles that jump out and smack you up side the
head. I guess it’s only erogenous female breasts used to sell sex (or cologne,
cars, make up, cheeseburgers) that we will tolerate in public. I mean, Carl’s
Jr.and GoDaddy treat us to several minutes of soft porn every Super Bowl
Sunday.
It’s a topic that continues to push my buttons, long after
the last of my 11-year milk supply has dried up. But I still stand with any
mother who wishes to feed her child without being accused of trotting out her
“goodies” or “sex organs," when all she really aims to do is sooth,
nurture and nourish her child.
I say, make yourself at home, Mother, whether you are in the
lobby of your bank, the Target shoe department, or the Cracker Barrel. Most
people will understand that you are feeding your child, not tempting other
patrons with your milky, sore, tired breasts that you vaguely remember being
second-trimester-perky.
There will still be those that stare at your chest,
insulted by your brazen resolve to feed your baby. Don’t mind them. They’re
just a handful of misguided haters.
And more than a handful is a waste.
