Monday, September 03, 2007

Missing the Point -- There Aren't Good Guys Here

Spotted at Rick Perlstein's place, under the unlikely title "E. coli conservatism hits the nursury" [sic]*, link in original to source is broken:
In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign...

I've seen other writing on the subject, most of which seems to dwell on the pressure against the ads having come from the formula makers' wanting to secure their profits.

Okay, but everyone's kind of missing the point here: Isn't using in-your-face pictorial ads to imply, nay, outright state "breastfeed or else [dire thing here]," rank emotional blackmail?! Further, isn't the point here that the Bush administration, while claiming first and foremost to represent the vaunted "culture of life,"** has done nothing to make it easier for mothers of newborns to nurse? No tax incentives for employers offering flex-time and parental leave, no publicly-funded parental/maternity leave, no living-wage laws, no increases in social benefits for nursing mothers, nothing.

And yet, they feel perfectly justified in producing ads that outright blame mothers for not nursing, even though they're utterly in favour of making it as impossible as possible for everyone outside of the upper class to reasonably do so. It's actually rather like their attitude towards pregnancy, only continuing after birth. As Mosh Pit Mom said in an entry titled "u cannot has cheezburger":
[E]nough with the mother-shaming, you jerks. Seriously, enough is enough. I have absolutely lost all track of what all isn’t safe to do, eat, have, wear, think, own, drink, or smoke while you’re knocked up. It seems that as long as they can keep on adding to that list, every single time a woman has a baby with some sickness or disorder, they can turn around and point their fingers at the mother, who had that one piece of salmon nigiri at 4 months gestation or that half glass of wine on her birthday at 7 months or went to listen to her favorite band and breathed a little secondhand smoke at 8 months and they can blame her.

This initiative is just more of the same -- it makes women's bodies public property by inviting everyone from the state on down to pass judgement on what the womb-carrier in question must've been or must be doing to produce a child with [insert condition here].

I'm really stunned that nobody much is picking up on this, preferring instead to go after the "evil corporation" angle. Evil corporations do undoubtedly exist, and I don't really have much sympathy for manufacturers of baby formula, especially after their disastrous "PR initiatives" in the developing world, but on the other hand, it is kind of good that they managed to blunt the force of these ads somewhat.

Of course, it would be better overall if there were actually pro-breastfeeding ads, instead of fearmongering, scare-tactic ads. However, given that the Bush Administration's means of relating to women is malign paternalism cloaked in blandly pro-women rhetoric, I guess that would be too much to hope for.

* Is that supposed to be some weird pun on "usury"?

** Which means, of course, pre-birth but nothing afterward, and don't mind us if your kid has a bullet with his/her name on it eighteen or twenty-one years in the future.


Anonymous Eli said...

Well, if you accept the premise that women's primary function is to bear healthy children, then obviously they have failed in some way whenever they produce something else. Or nothing at all.

And God forbid they should get an abortion...

8:57 PM  
Blogger Herdingcats said...

There's a conundrum on the right because they already "own" women's breasts in the form of sexual pleasure. If she's not willing to accept a tip in her g-string, why would we want her to "whip it out" in public. It's simply not a capitalist way of looking at her body.

Perhaps we could have public feeding stations with two-way mirrors. Women would quietly breast feed and men would go behind the mirror (paying an entry fee of course) and self-abuse. That way we could encourage breast feeding, and keep her tits the pleasure property of men. For the right it's a win-win.

10:13 AM  
Blogger Interrobang said...

That's the most demented thing I've ever heard. I like the cut of your jib. :)

6:10 PM  
Blogger Redbeard72 said...

You make a strong point, but here's something to consider; perhaps the Bush dis-administration was actually TRYING to send a positive message in the first place. I know it sounds far-fetched, but, come on, these are the jokers who brought us ironically named programs like: No Child Left Behind, The Clear Skies Act ... need I go on?

12:03 AM  
Blogger IAProgressive said...

Here's a point of view that I think can help explain this issue.

The wife belongs in the home where she takes care of the kids and can breastfeed on-demand and in private.

I think that is why you don't see tax incentives for flex time etc. "why ain't that woman at home?!?!"

I dunno, just a guess.

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


10:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home