A recent Facebook controversy, in which some photos of nursing mothers were yanked from the social-networking site because of their potentially "pornographic" nature, is the latest reminder that our country's sexualized notion of breasts remains, shall we say, front and center. But the continuing debate uncovered another stubborn truth: Mothers still can be tough on other mothers.
"Breast-feeding may be a natural thing," one mom wrote in the often-heated Facebook exchange. "However ... why would I want to flop out a milk jug and show the world? 'Hey, look at me. I got a jug, and I'm feeding my kid. I dare ya to say something.'"
"It is a sad, sad country we live in that breast-feeding should feel awkward, uncomfortable, sexualized," one commenter countered on the Star Tribune's parenting blog, Cribsheet (www.startribune.com/cribsheet). "I don't feel that a mother should have to hide the fact that she is nursing her child. Formula is junk in comparison to breast milk. There is absolutely no debate there."
Well, of course there's debate. And this one is likely to continue, many women say, because it is so hard to be a mother and so easy to judge.
"If it's not about breast-feeding; it's about co-sleeping or stay-at-home vs. working," said Kate Eder, 29, of Minneapolis.
A stay-at-home mom of two, she has nursed her children "whenever and wherever they need to eat," including restaurants and the State Fair. She said she feels "embraced" when nursing sans blanket among friends.
"But in these online communities, it's a lot easier to say things that are rude or hurtful," she added. "None of us wants to show you our big swollen boob. I know women who practice in front of a mirror so they won't show anything."
Jill Lewis, 30, of St. Louis Park, nursed her 16-month-old son until three months ago, usually wearing a shawl or wrap. But the societal pressures to hide this natural act, even among other breast-feeders, bothered her.
"The American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical organizations have lauded the benefits of breast milk for some time," said Lewis, a senior account executive at the Maccabee Group in Minneapolis. "It sends a conflicting message to women if they are encouraged to breast-feed but given restrictions as to when and where."
Others noted that the baby might not appreciate having to eat undercover.
"Would you want to eat with a blanket over your head?" they asked.
Many moms said nursing every few hours throughout the day is physically and emotionally draining. Empathy, not judgment, from friends, strangers, mothers and others would be greatly appreciated.
"A lot of people would fully support going into another room or going home so I can breast-feed when I'm out, but that's not the reality of breast-feeding full-time," said Kate Bauer, 31, who has a 5 1/2-month-old daughter. The full-time student at the University of Minnesota also struggles to maintain her commitment to exclusively breast-feed while on campus. "I have a class, a seminar. What building am I going to go into to pump?"
"You try having a small person sucking on you six times a day," said Kristi Chan, 30, a stay-at-home mom in St. Paul. "Then see how concerned you are about offending someone at the mall."
Discretion advised
The Facebook flap began in December, when mothers including Kelli Roman of California noticed that photos of themselves nursing their children had been pulled from the site. Facebook's reason: While a bit of unidentifiable flesh is fine, a nipple or areola (the darker circle surrounding the nipple) falls into their definition of "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit."
The site, with more than 130 million users, "takes no action over most breast-feeding photos because they follow the site's terms of use," Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said. "But others are removed to ensure the site remains safe and secure for all users, including children."
Roman and others balked, creating a viral firestorm that produced a protest at Facebook's headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., and a new Facebook group called, "Hey Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!" That group now boasts nearly 200,000 members worldwide.
Not everyone is cheering them on. April Spencer of Fridley agrees that public breast-feeding is not obscene.
"But it's gross," said Spencer, 31, who has four children from 15 months to 10 years old. "It's not that I'm so offended by the human body. But it's not like it's a normal nipple. It's a big, swollen, wet nipple."
Robin Marty, 31, also champions discretion. The Minneapolis mother of a 13-month-old daughter visited the Facebook breast-feeding group a few weeks ago and, in general, supports the site's decision to yank certain photos. She didn't like seeing women "completely naked from the waist up," with babies nearby but not latched on.
"There should be some clothing on," Marty said. "It's important that this be a place where our kids can play online."
She and Spencer attempted to breast-feed, before Caesarean-section-related complications constricted their milk supply, causing them to shift quickly to formula.
Deju vu all over again
Susan Kane, editor-in-chief of Parenting magazine, has been following the Facebook debate closely.
"Breast-feeding is not nudity," she said. "These women are not putting tassels on their boobs."
Kane faced her own firestorm in 2006, when, as editor of Babytalk Magazine, she ran a cover featuring a cherubic infant latched onto a large breast. Although no areola or nipple was seen, she received more than 6,500 e-mails. Most were supportive of the cover photo; a few were nasty.
"One woman said, 'I don't want to see your saggy, stretch-marked breasts.'" Kane recalled.
But Kane, who formula-fed her first child and breast-fed her second, understands the complexities of this emotionally charged period of a woman's life. She believes that most women are at least trying to have other women's best interests at heart.
"Having a new baby is difficult," she said. "Once a mother gets perspective, we start becoming extremely supportive of one another."
Gail Rosenblum • 612-673-7350
