-
Chapter Three. BREAST FETISHIZATION, BREAST CANCER, AND BREAST AUGMENTATION
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
THREE BREAST FETISHIZATION, BREAST CANCER, AND BREAST AUGMENTATION THE CURIOUS OMISSIONS OF BREASTFEEDING AND BREASTMILK CONTAMINATION AS SIGNIFICANT FEMINIST ISSUES A LACK OF FEMINIST ATTENTION A cursory survey suggests that, by and large, self-identified feminists, those who position their feminism as central to their self-conceptions, do not view breastfeeding or the environmental contamination of breastmilk as significant feminist issues. While some recent attention indicates that this attitude may be shifting somewhat, the reality is that feminists have not focused on child sustenance issues or positioned them within a larger feminist framework . Some readers might find such a claim awkward and problematic—after all, many La Leche Leaguers identify as feminists and clearly embrace breastfeeding. And the leftist-leaning, organic advocating pop magazine Mothering has from time to time covered breastfeeding, with a recent issue focusing on the environmental contamination of breastmilk.1 I suspect that many of its readers consider themselves feminists. In addition, environmental justice activists’ literature has focused on breastmilk contamination. But although these exhibit feminist praxis, they do not self-identify as “feminist,” and so I treat them as occupying a position somewhat different from that of more academically oriented feminists. One problem involves the term “feminism” and the difficulties surrounding our attempts to define it. In some respects, more academically oriented feminists have claimed the term, seeing sexism, racism, ageism, colonialism, heterosexim, and speciesism, as well as other oppressive approaches as part of 99 100 TAINTED MILK a vast network of privilege that serves the interests of Power. Feminist critic Suzanne Pharr’s identification of a defined “norm”—white, Christian, heterosexual , able-bodied, monied men who wield power and privilege—works well in beginning to address the “patriarchal” system located as the problem but has the added complication that most feminists would agree that men who meet the requirements of the “norm” can themselves be feminists (53). The picture is further muddled because many who uphold what we might call “feminist” ideals reject the term. In the latter portions of this chapter, I will consider environmental justice activists, many of whom, according to critic Laura Pulido, “often choose not to emphasize their female identities, but rather define themselves in terms of race and place” (Pulido 19). Others tend to support what I might label “feminist” perspectives, but may not embrace the term, or may, in some cases, clearly reject it. For example, my mother, sisters, and some of my students uphold many of the ideals I associate with feminisms; they support equal pay for equal work; they advocate for many social justice issues; they are pro-choice; and they believe that having more women in decision-making positions would be a good thing. But, because they associate feminists with a certain anti-man and anti-traditional positionality that seems too angry, too anti-establishment, and too leftist, they do not embrace the term. And several theorists, in particular those of color, have pointed to problems that many women of color have with embracing the label, most prominent of which is the view that feminists , for many years, tended to approach things from a white, middle-upper class, heterosexist, and colonizing perspective (Davis; Lorde “Age”). Given the breadth of feminist viewpoints, it makes sense to talk about “feminisms” in the plural, and to use the term loosely, allowing it to encompass a wide range of anti-privilege visions. So while I will start out focusing on academic feminisms, I do recognize that many whose interests may lie outside of academic approaches also either see themselves as feminists or reject the term but advocate for positions widely held to be feminist. I will also address (in)attention to breastmilk by these women. Contemplating the lack of feminist consideration of infant feeding and breastmilk toxicity, I find that this is a curious and surprising phenomenon given that feminists have prioritized several clearly related issues , including reproductive concerns, the sexual division of labor, and breasts and their embodiment in a patriarchal, heterosexist culture—or issues that I believe connect in specific ways to infant feeding. Feminists have critiqued cultural models that teach women to distrust our physical embodiment and see our bodies in narrow ways, as sexual objects in the service of male heterosexist fantasies, but have not tended to venture into the fields of breastfeeding and child nourishment. Why the focus on the sexualization of breasts, or on breast cancer, but not on breastfeeding? A quick review of (in)attention to infant feeding in feminist journals corroborates...