This post was removed by request of the author.

I came across this article about Margaret Somerville, a Canadian ethicist who opposes same-sex marriage (SSM), via Family Scholars Blog. Ms. Somerville is worried “that you will be able to make a baby probably in the future from two ovum, or two sperm”; in her view, admitting that same-sex couples have a right to marry would lead to a right to make a baby from two ovum or sperm. And that would be (she says) bad for children.

As usual, I object to the notion that in order to prevent __________ (whether you fill in the blank with group marriage, incest, or Artificial Reproductive Technology), it is justifiable to punish same-sex couples and their children by denying them equality. I call this line of thinking “queers are condoms.” Margaret Somerville’s argument assumes that queers and their kids, like condoms, are disposable things, useful only for preventing some unwanted outcome. I think that view is objectively less accurate than the view that queers and their kids are people, and their fundamental human rights are not disposable.

What struck me about this article, though, was this stunning piece of bad logic:

Somerville said society is ethically bound to a principle of non-malevolence, or of doing no harm when making such sweeping changes.

The burden of proof that same-sex marriage will not harm the rights of children rests with those making the change, not those who oppose it, she said.

Given her academic background, Ms. Somerville must be aware that it’s logically impossible to prove a negative - such as “same-sex marriage will not harm the rights of children.” I can no more logically prove that than I can logically prove that same-sex marriage will not cause the moon to fall out of its orbit.

If Ms. Somerville’s “principle of non-malevolence” had been applied historically, no advances in civil rights would have happened, ever. It would not have been possible, for example, to prove ahead of time that women’s right to vote wouldn’t “harm the rights of children”; presumably Ms. Somerville, had she been alive at the time, would have opposed suffrage.

It’s also striking, to me, that Ms. Somerville doesn’t call for a balance test; she doesn’t say we should consider the harms done to queers and their children by inequality, compare that to the harms she suspects SSM will cause children, and then choose the lesser harm. I might not agree with that approach, but it would at least show an awareness that queers and their children are human beings, and their rights have some value.

Instead, she says it’s up to advocates of SSM to prove that SSM will cause no harm to children, and if that can’t be proved than SSM isn’t justified. Her logic - at least, as it’s stated in this article - implicitly assumes that any amount of harm to “children” - however slight or inconsequential - automatically outweighs any harms done to queers and their children, however huge and important.

The cuteness! The cuteness! Aaaargh!

Breastfeeding and the need for strong societal support is a topic that was discussed at length in a prior post of mine, dealing with comments made by media maven Barbara Walters on her women’s talk show, The View. In the midst of the rather heated discussion, it became evident that many people aren’t aware of the numerous ways that breastfeeding can and does benefit women, children and society in general.

Knowing this, I’ve decided to compile a list of these benefits, and encourage and welcome others to add to the list. I’d also like to take a moment to encourage people who choose to read and participate in this thread to challenge their own ideas about ‘modesty’ and consider how these ideas might interfere with the larger issue of necessary support. If you get that far, please then take the time to introspect on whether you might need to do some work on incorporating new ways of thinking about this issue into your own mindset to become part of a society that understands, supports and celebrates the value of breastfeeding.

Also keep in mind that lack of support can and does perpetuate a negative feeling over an issue that new parents, especially mothers are very vulnerable about. It is all too frequent that women stop breastfeeding because they were made to feel embarassed or as if they were doing something so shameful it needed to be hidden from view. This sort of message simply isn’t healthy or productive. We as a society can improve the lives of women and children by such a small act of support which translates to acceptance and approval that helps a woman own her new post-pregnant body and it’s capabilities with pride and joy. In supporting these women, society too can feel a sense of pride and joy in our own embracing of respectful and honorable behavior towards both women and children.

*Note/Disclaimer: To make it clear in advance, this is not to say that bottle feeding parents should feel any shame for their choice (or need, whichever it was), to nourish their children through formula. As with most specifically female functions, I remain steadfast in my own feelings that it’s a woman’s body and a woman’s choice.

Benefits to the child:

1. Breast milk contains all the nutrients babies need each day, plus many substances that help keep them healthy and promote optimal growth and development.
2. Breastfed babies have a decreased likelihood for allergies and dental caries.
3. Breastfeeding helps a baby with appropriate jaw, teeth and speech development as well as overall facial development.
4. Breast milk changes and conforms to the babies needs day to day (according to some studies hour to hour!).
5. The taste of breast milk changes based on the mothers diet, and help encourage lack of pickiness in particular tastes.
6. Breast milk is quick and easy to digest which translates into less colic, no constipation and less spitting up.
7. Due to it’s fast disgestive rate, babies who are breastfed have a smaller chance of SIDS due to a REM cycle of 45 minutes - in one study only 3 of 87 incidents of babies whom died from SIDS were breastfed.
8. Breastfed babies have a reported and documented lower incidence of illness (10 time less than that of bottlefed babies), hospitalization, ear infections, bladder infections, allergies, diaper rash and exzema, lower incidence of type 1 diabetes, lower incidence in childhood cancers such as Hodgkins and lymphoma.
9. Due to body proximity is more easily soothed, especially with the skin to skin contact and familiar in-utero sound of the mothers heartbeat and voice.
10. Female’s that are breastfed have a significantly reduced chance of breast cancer in adulthood.
11. Breastfeeding confers passive immunity to viruses.
12. Breastfeeding enhances brain development, neurological development and visual development.

Benefits to the Mother:

1. Breastfeeding releases oxitocin and prolactin in the mothers brain helping bonding occur (studies state similar to obsessive compulsives humorously enough).
2. Breastfeeding provides the mother with a hormone-induced contentment and reduces the rate of post-pardum emotional effects.
3. Breastfeeding creates efficient uterine contractions after childbirth which quickly reduces the uterus size to normal which decreases post-partum bleeding.
4. Breastfeeding is convenient - the milk is pre-warmed, sterilized and always available as long as the mother is nearby!
5. Breastfeeding is HUGELY cost-effective and saves families money.
6. Breastfeeding helps foster confidence, body acceptance and promotion of self-esteem in new mothers.
7. Breastfeeding reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections in mothers.
8. Breastfeeding significantly decreases the rate of reproductive cancers in women (breast, ovarian, cervical).
9. Breastfeeding lowers the incidence of chronic hepatitis among women.
10. Breastfeeding reduces the risk of osteoporosis in women.
11. Breastfeeding reduces the requirements of insulin for lactating diabetic mothers.
12. Breastfeeding often acts as a natural form of birthcontrol (don’t count on it though!) for women. *The reliability of this goes down upon introducing other types of food into the diet.
13. Since nightfeedings are easier, breastfeeding promotes a healthier sleep schedule for new parents.
14. Breastfeeding is an excellent way to comfort an infant whenever they need it. *My husband and I took advantage of this after shots and during plane rides with great success!

Benefits to Society:

1. It’s one step closer to helping society have respect for women and sex, instead of sexualizing and trying to control women’s bodies and the perceptions of women’s bodies.
2. Breastfeeding is better for the environment because it has an absence of waste.
3. Happy, contented children who are easily comforted.
4. Frequently healthy children which help working parents need less time away from work (studies indicate parents of breastfed children take less time away due to sickness).
5. Free’s up health resources for others who need it by naturally seeing to the babies needs.
6. Promotes a sense of pride and body acceptance in women that can only be seen as a good change!
7. It works hand in hand with other social programs to save money for other important needs - WIC statistics indicate that if all babies on the program in the U.S. were breastfed, our economical savings would be
8. $33,000,000 per month!
9. Reduced insurance premiums for child and parents.

Benefits on a plane (just for Barbara Walters!):

1. Babies ears are kept equalized causing less discomfort, potential for ruptures and inflammation.
2. Due to it’s ability to soothe a baby, they are less fussy and noisy (see, breastfeeding can still be all about how it affects you, Barbara, if you look at it in the right light!)
   

   ---

Benefits that I forgot But Others Didn’t!:

1. Maynard reminds us that breastmilk bowel movements are extremely mild in scent, making the diaper changing process easier on the nose! (amen to that one, Maynard!)
2. Krupskaya breastfeeding closeness and contact makes mothers and infants happy because it just feels good darnit!
3. Maureen adds that breastfeeding reminds the world that breasts are amazing multi-functional tools whose success does not in any way depend on shape or size (other than inverted nipple issues), which in turn might mean less women subjecting themselves to needlessly dangerous breast augmentations.
4. Barbara Preuninger mentions that breastfeeding can create a wonderful bond between parent and child unlike any other.
5. CCW mentions she slept better because she could sleep through the feeding!
6. Lee reminds us that breastfeeding makes mothers the lucky winners of many wonderful baby-hugs!
7. La Luba relates her own experience with her daughter being born premature and the many ways breastfeeding helped her: “breastfeeding has special benefits for premature infants, including lowered incidence of RSV, respiratory ailments, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sepsis. As adults, both breastfed women and men are less likely to experience infertility.”
8. Ledasmom points out that nobody appreciates a breast in a manner that promotes such healthy esteem as a baby that loves them completely and unconditionally! (to quote my own daughter, Sydney: “Bahboo?” shortly followed by amazingly happy muffled laughing)
9. Ol Cranky relates that she’s heard (which I’ve read as well) that it lowers the rate of post-partum depression.
10. Barbara talks about her experience with breastfeeding and it’s benefits with her preemie baby as well, and mentions that despite the odds, her daughter had extremely low incidence of illness, which she attributes to breastfeeding.
11. Jodie mentions the very real and tangible benefit to the pocketbook - IT’S FREE!
12. Sarah mentions that as a bystander, it’s much easier to handle a breastfeeding mother and baby than a screaming baby in distress!

*NOTE: I’ve gathered information from so many websites on the Internet, I feel the task of listing them all is extremely daunting. If you have questions or want to find more information, here are the google phrases I used: emotional benefits of breastfeeding, physical benefits of breastfeeding, breastfeeding benefits to the baby, breastfeeding benefits to the mother.

Here’s Sydney way before she got her “Alas, a Blog” t-shirt. Notice that she looks subtly downcast. Also, she seems to have a bit of a drinking problem.

Here we see Sydney modeling her lovely new “Alas, a Blog” t-shirt. Note how confident she looks and feels. Once she was a pathetic loser, but that was before she was wearing “Alas!” Now she’s hanging out with models and celebrities and her breath is minty-fresh. Ever her poopy diapers have more pep and vim!

Sydney is so confident, she’s given up on drinking completely! Instead, Sydney just takes X - lots and lots and lots of X! Happy, happy Sydney!

At Left2Right, Elizabeth Anderson has been discussing freedom; in particular, she’s been discussing two different notions of freedom. The first, “freedom as non-interference,” is the notion of freedom most Libertarians appeal to. The second, “freedom as opportunity set” - the idea that people are most free when they have a large variety of desirably options to choose between - is more like my personal conception of freedom, and I suspect that of most folks who favor redistributive government policies.

If the only kind of freedom that matters is that no one intentionally interfere with one’s formal freedom of action, and not that one’s opportunity set be large and full of worthwhile options, then freedom-lovers would have to oppose traffic laws, stop lights, and so forth, for interfering with freedom of movement. The result of a lack of such laws, however, is not actual freedom of movement, but, in areas of high traffic density, gridlock. (And, in areas of high traffic flow, grave danger.) To be sure, in a state of gridlock, one has the formal freedom to choose any movement in one’s opportunity set–which amounts to being able to rock forward and back a couple of inches from bumper to bumper, getting nowhere. Some freedom! By contrast, if we give up certain formal freedoms–to run red lights and stop signs, to drive indiscriminately across lanes–we get in return a vastly expanded opportunity set, including the ability to actually get to places one wants to go, more safely and quickly than if we hadn’t given up those freedoms. The point of formal freedom of movement–the right to move around, without coercive inteference by the state or other people–is that it is instrumental to expanding actual opportunities to move around where one wants to go. Merely formal freedom of movement, with nowhere to move to, or nowhere worth moving to, is not an end in itself. Different configurations of formal freedom of movement–different traffic laws–are justified by the extent of the opportunities for safe freedom of movement they enable. Give up a little freedom-as-non-interference, get a big bundle of freedom as real opportunities to move around to worthwhile places in return. A pretty spectacular bargain in terms of freedom, if you ask me.

Via Big Fat Deal, I read this interesting article in New York Magazine about fat people who have (at least temporarily) turned into thin people through weight-loss surgery. Here’s a few select quotes:

A 1991 study in The American Journal of Surgery also contains some interesting data about the mental-health effects of bariatric surgery. In the first six months, patients reported they were ecstatic. But after two years, most were back to where they started, at least in the aggregate. The crude explanation for this, says Walter Pories, one of the study’s authors and a surgeon at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, is that real life once again begins to reassert itself, and the trials of real life aren’t always things that skinniness can cure: bad jobs, neglectful spouses, rebellious children, faces and bodies that turn out only ho-hum. The more interesting mental-health discovery he and his colleagues made, Pories says, were the effects the surgery had on people’s marriages. “If the woman married when she was thin, had kids, became obese, and then had the surgery, the marriage almost always got a lot better,” he explains. (An estimated 75 percent of all bariatric patients are female.) “But if the woman married someone while she was obese and then became pretty . . . well, then she found a job. Got her colors done. Felt better about herself. And almost every one of those marriages ended in divorce.”

A few months ago, the various pressures of Show’s new life began to catch up with her, and she began to see a therapist, Jude Milner, who’s had bariatric surgery, too. “The problems actually started maybe a year after my surgery, when I was cast in a show where I was an adagio dancer,” Show explains. “The guy had to lift the girls up. At that time, I was 157 pounds, and all I could think was, This guy is going to break his back.” She’s quiet for a second. “That’s when I started. The vomiting and purging. That’s when I realized how easy it was to develop that habit.” Within two weeks, she’d gotten her weight down to about 145 pounds.

“I used to think that if I were thin, I’d be so much happier, and my life, from that moment on, would be perfect,” she says. “But it’s almost as if I’ve created other ways to be unhappy.”

“The day she went for her consultation,” she continues, “the doctor said, ‘I want you to understand that you’re not going to come out of this looking like Gloria. I can’t promise you’re going to be a size 8.’ And that was fine. She was not doing this to get skinny. And yet . . . when I see myself at 135 pounds, I see part of what Susie died for. By no means all of it. But part.”

Cahill’s crying now, discreetly but steadily. “It would be very easy for me to say, ‘This surgery killed my sister, and it’s the worst thing in the world,’ ” she says. “And her last moments of consciousness may have been imbued with terrible fear . . . “She looks away. “But also hope,” she resumes, looking directly at me. “This gave my sister hope, and nothing else did.”

I swear, I’ve almost never seen a better argument for fat acceptance than this article. (The article-writer, by the way, never mentions or considers the idea that it’s possible to be fat and healthy.)

Although the article does admit that gastric bypasses have high deathrates (some procedures as high as 1 in 100), it also implies that those who survive generally have long-term health improvements. Sandy Szwarc points out that the evidence is actually less than compelling.

For further criticisms of surgical weight loss, check out the Obesity Surgery Information Center, especially their letters section, for the kind of obesity surgery stories that will never get reported in the mainstream media. And also read this comment by Paul Ernsberger (you’ll need to scroll down a bit for it)..

Over on Family Scholar’s Blog, Elizabeth writes:

If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father. […] then the idea that children need their mother and father becomes not something supported and affirmed by the state, but instead a marginalized idea, declared off-sides from secular debate. The result? More children growing up without their own mother and father, and exposed to the risks and losses that come with it.

The truth is, our society regularly and routinely accepts that not every child needs their own mother and father. Divorce is legal even for parents with young children. Single parenthood is legal; no law forces heterosexual parents to marry, and no law forces parents to live with or even know their child, so long as its physical needs are provided for. There used to be laws and traditions punishing single mothers and their bastard children, but I assume you’re not wanting those punitive measures reinstated. Sperm donation is legal, and so is egg donation (Elizabeth may want these procedures banned). There is absolutely no legal barrier preventing capable parents from giving up their kids for adoption, if the parents want to.

In short, under our current system, there is barely any legal practice implying that “children do not necessarily need their [biological] mother and father” that is not legal and acceptable - except, of course, for same-sex marriage. Why is it acceptable to single out same-sex couples and punish them, and them only, in order to send a pro-mom-and-dad message?

No matter how you sugar-coat it, your arguments imply that it’s acceptable to consider same-sex couples and their children tools used to benefit heterosexuals. The idea that the well-being and legal equalities of queers and their children are worth supporting in their own right - rather than just garbage to be thrown away whenever, in some dubious and unproven theory, denying them equality assists heterosexual families - is completely absent from your arguments.

Children of same-sex couples are not tools used to benefit heterosexual families.

Lesbians are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.

Gays are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.

How many times do we have to repeat this before SSM opponents get the message? Get it so completely so that they don’t just agree in words, but so that they stop making arguments based on the unspoken premise that any amount of harm to queers and their families, however extreme, is justified by the prevention of any theoretical harm to a heterosexual, however small?

If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.

I’m skeptical of the “hey, kids, let’s send a message!” approach to lawmaking. The idea that equality matters so little that it should be circular-filed so that Elizabeth and her allies can send a pro-mom-and-dad telegram is not persuasive to me.

But let’s accept for a moment that laws send a message. What message is sent by keeping marriage cross-sex only? Refusing to allow same-sex marriages “affirms loud and clear” that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals as human beings, and that the children raised by same-sex couples are bastards, low things who deserve lesser rights and lesser protections. What effect will that message have on children raised in same-sex households? (Judging by what they write, when Elizabeth and her allies say “think about the best interests of children,” they are refering only to children raised by heterosexuals).

Elizabeth, I don’t oppose your goal of seeing more children raised by their own mom and dad. I don’t have any emotional attachment to that model, but I think social science indicates that for most children it’s probably the best way to be raised (assuming that the parents are loving, that there’s no abuse, etc). But there are so many ways to support and encourage mom-dad families that don’t involve making common cause with the worse, most hateful homophobes in the nation, and attacking the civil rights of a group of people who have already been under attack for decades and decades.

The fact that divorce rates nationwide have gone down even as homosexuals have reached a level of acceptance never before seen in the USA, is clear evidence that the goal of equality and the goals of the marriage movement do not have to be in opposition.

You wouldn’t support bringing back the traditional marriage in which husbands are the owners and controllers of all their wives’s property - even though such a change might lower the divorce rate, and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dad. You wouldn’t support benning cross-racial or cross-religion marriage - even though such laws might reduce the divorce rate and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dads.

Why is it that only same-sex parents’ rights are disposable in this battle of yours? When are you going to put your own rights on the chopping block, rather than demanding that families that already have so much less privilege than your own be the ones sacrificed to benefit families that look like your own?

…that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.

And that should be affirmed loud and clear, because it is the truth. Children do not necessarily need their own mothers and fathers.

The vast majority of individual children do need their moms and dads, of course; and I’m happy to support non-bigoted policies to encourage and support such households.

But some children get along just fine with a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad. There are plenty of well-adjusted children of same-sex couples who are no more neurotic or suffering from angst than the rest of us are, and you constantly try to make them invisible in your approach to discussing these issues. What’s best for “most” is not what’s best for “all.” Why is admitting that not all households are, or should be, identical so threatening to you?

By now, most “Alas” readers know that Terri Schiavo’s autopsy has been released; you can read it here (pdf link). For an excellent summary of the report’s findings, I recommend this post at Abstract Appeal.

The most interesting finding, to me, is the finding that Schiavo was blind. How many tens of thousands of people saw the video of Schiavo appearing to follow a balloon with her eyes, and concluded that she must be conscious? How many times did “pro-”Schaivo folks who had viewed the video say, in response to an argument or a piece of evidence contradicting their opinion, “I know what I saw, and that woman is conscious”?

To some extent these people were fooled by tricky editing. But they were also fooled by the human tendency to anthromorphize - to assume that if something has a face, then we can read thoughts behind that face. That there are thoughts behind the face to read. That everything with a face is, in ways that matter, just like us. (You see this in the abortion debate a lot, as increasingly sophisticated ultrasound images of fetuses are seen by pro-lifers as proof positive, while pro-choicers like me find them beautiful and wonderful for eager expecting parents, but irrelevant to the freedom vs. forced childbirth debate.)

Sometimes - just sometimes - it makes more sense to trust in science than to trust in what our eyes tell us.

The finding that Schiavo was blind also raises the possibility that she was misdiagnosed with PVS; at least one study has found that people who are visually impaired are the most likely to be misdiagnosed with PVS. However, the extreme damage to her brain (confirmed by the autopsy), combined with all the other evidence from before Schiavo’s body died, makes it overwhelmingly clear that Schiavo was, in fact, incapable of any cognition at all. 50% of her brain was simply gone, and what remained was in bad shape. So despite the blindness, I’m as confident as I can be that the PVS diagnosis was correct.

There is no autopsy evidence of trauma associated with abuse. In fact, the autopsy report seems more certain of this finding than any other. This doesn’t absolutely prove that she wasn’t abused - nothing can prove a negative - but it’s notable since the main evidence cited by the Terri-was-abused camp up to this point has been claims that her bones were damaged, and that claim has now definitively been proved an error.

There is no autopsy evidence that Schiavo suffered from bulimia, although as The J Train points out, it’s not clear that bulimia fifteen years in the past would leave any evidence for an autopsy to discover.

There’s more - as I said, see Matt’s post at Abstract Appeal for a fuller summary.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

A little over two years ago, Prometheus 6 made a brilliant observation that has stuck to me ever since:

And not to put too fine a point on it, but “racist” is the only word that makes white people as crazy as “nigger” makes Black people. It makes them crazier. White people don’t want to hear you talk about ANY white person being racist.

I don’t think the word “sexist” makes liberal guys quite as crazy as the word “racist” makes white people. But sometimes it comes close. Case in point: Some readers (mostly female, mostly feminist, I assume) objected to a sexist ad on the Kos sidebar, and Kos reacted with an over-the-top, condescending attack on the critics. He could have responded respectfully, in a way that didn’t alienate and insult a lot of his readers - but instead, he heard the word “sexist” and went a little crazy.

Kos, and the Kos community, is significant because it’s a window into how many of the most committed Democratic activists think - it’s the biggest, and most important, of the Democratic-party-pushing blogs. It’s instructive to read the comments on Kos’ post. There are many liberal Democrat “allies” eager to put feminists in their place, of course; but also a lot of good feminist comments. Kos reader Shadowthief got to the heart of the issue:

However, there is a larger issue involved here, far more than some silly advert that will be forgotten in about as much time as it takes to watch it–and that is the issue of how women’s issues are treated here on DKos.

Abortion rights, for example…dismissed by Kos as a “special interest” that is not a “core value” of the Democratic Party. I say, if you don’t have control over your own body, you don’t have any human rights, period–and if that’s not a core value of the Democratic Party, then why would any progressive-minded person in his or her right mind want to support it?

There is a consistent pattern on DailyKos of misogyny–yes, you read right–and I have found it on other “liberal” websites which (surprise) were founded and are operated by men.

And another Kos commenter, WakingUp, wrote:

[I’m trying] to think of other situations where a group that generally falls under the progressive umbrella would be told to basically “fuck off.” And to have their concerns cast aside as not important. It’s not really up to men to decide what is or should be important to women.

And if there are still any idiots who think the objections to this ad have anything to do with sex, I suggest you go back to the original diary and read it more carefully.

The thing we have learned here tonight is the fact that women not only will not be supported, but will also be mocked and otherwise abused when they dare to raise issues important to them.

And this excellent comment from Scribe:

I am an older woman, I love this site and spend much time here. Till now, I’ve been able to ignore most of the posts that were blatantly sexist and disrespectful to women, having long ago learned to pick my battles, and not to sweat the small stuff too much.

I am so sad to read Kos’s response to the objections from some community members members to this ad, and mostly, I see, to his posts that so disrespectfully dismissed their concerns. And also sad to see so many of the guys supporting his stance so strongly.

I am not leaving over this, but I also certainly don’t feel as welcome here as I did at first, or as valued. This was not your intent, I know, Kos, (and supporters of his stance,) but that is the outcome for many of us. I hope that matters to you: it’s hard to think it does, given the tone of your posts, which was generally, “So leave, you don’t like what I think: your opinion doesn’t matter.”

Further reading:
Shakespeare’s Sister has the definitive ass-kicking of Kos’ post.

But she’s not the only one doing first-rate commentary: I’ve really enjoyed the posts on this subject at I Blame the Patriarchy, Echidne, Majikthise, Lauren at Feministe, Shades of Grey, Lawyers Guns and Money, and Pandagon (twice), among others. Also check out Women Kossacks, a blog started by some women in the Kos community.

A new group of activists have joined the fray of fighting for women’s rights; their goal to nurse without shame or scorn where and when they choose or need. Cleverly touting themselves as ‘lactivists’, they’ve put Barbara Walters under fire due to some insensitively ignorant comments made by the long-time reporter and current co-host of ‘The View’. On the May 17th show new mother and co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck returned to the show and the discussion turned to her discomfort at nursing her daughter Grace. When the topic of breastfeeding was brought up, Walters related a story about a recent plane trip she’d taken, where a woman sitting in the next aisle over nursed her child. Walters stated: “It made me very nervous, she didn’t cover the baby with a blanket. It made us uncomfortable.” Further offense was taken at what was perceived to be an almost celebratory or congratulatory response to Hasselbeck’s decision to give her daughter formula.

According to the NYTimes, nearly 200 protesting mothers showed up quickly afterwards, babies and boobies ready to fire back at Walters insensitive comments with what is referred to as a ‘nurse-in.’

They stood nursing their babies in the unmistakably public venue of Columbus Avenue and West 67th Street. They held signs reading, “Shame on View,” and “Babies are born to be breastfed.” […]

But the rally at ABC is only the most visible example of a recent wave of “lactivism.” Prodded by mothers who say they are tired of being asked to adjourn to the bathroom while nursing in a public space, six states have recently passed laws giving a woman the right to breast-feed wherever she “is otherwise authorized to be.”

Adding further insult onto injury, Walter’s spokesman related bemusement at the protests, attempting to dismiss the commentary as singular and not reflective of Walter’s overall view on nursing. Interesting that this isn’t her ‘view,’ when she as a co-host spewed it out for public consumption on the national show, ‘The View.’

Despite the attempt at back-peddling that is going on with ‘The View’ folks, the controversy has had the benefit of generating attention on prejudice and reprehensible behavior towards nursing mothers. These situations getting more discussion time will hopefully lead to greater acceptance and understanding.

In interviews and Internet discussions, hundreds of women recount being asked to stop nursing in public spots, including the Children’s Museum in Huntsville, Ala.; a knitting store in the East Village; a Radisson Hotel lobby in Virginia; a public bus in Los Angeles; and a city commission meeting in Miami Beach.

As a nursing mother, my take on the situation is fairly personal ““ I’m offended at the unaccountable offense. When I nurse my child, I do so for her. Her comfort and hunger are the first priority. The next priority is my comfort while carrying out the task. The last thing I worry about, or should worry about is someone attempting to sexualize (which is where the squeamishness comes from) the tool I use to feed my child.

Additionally, the ignorance about how important nursing on airplanes is for the child is unexpected from a woman reportedly as intelligent as Walters. When it comes to protecting my child’s ear drums from rupturing, or even discomfort, my child is always going to come first. (When she wouldn’t nurse on the plane when we visited my folks at Christmas, the result was a 102.5 temperature and a trip to the emergency room).

So I’ll answer Ms. Walters ‘view’ with a quote from another celebrity that celebrated infants and children with more aplomb and grace:

“I will do it on a plane; I will do it in the rain. I will do it here or there, I will do it anywhere.” ““ Dr. Suess

(Related links: Feministe, Ms. Musings and The Freewheelin’ Kim-Loi Mergenthaler.)

For all the talk about “reframing” the abortion debate, the reframing I’d like to see never seems to come up. The issue is government-enforced childbirth. Right-wingers want government-enforced childbirth; lefties don’t.

The issue is not whether we favor or oppose abortion. Plenty of people who are personally opposed to abortion are still pro-choice. You can’t tell the difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers by asking, “do you favor abortion?” You can tell the difference by asking, “should there be government-enforced childbirth for pregnant women?” Government-enforced childbirth is the defining issue; wanting government-enforced childbirth, not wanting abortion, is the difference between the opposition and us.

As Decnavda pointed out, fat politics makes for strange allies. Case in point: Right-wing columnist (and science fiction/fantasy novelist) Orson Scott Card’s latest column is a pretty decent fat rights column. (Link via Big Fat Blog). Here’s a sample:

When you look at the gloomy prediction that obesity will chop two to five years off the lifespan of overweight individuals, you find out that the study this was based on made some very iffy assumptions, relied on old data, did not look at potential deaths from underweight, and ignored the possibility of future advances in medicine.

Even with all those iffy assumptions and omissions, the study only showed a death rate increase of four to nine months. The “two to five years” warning is a wild guess based on what might happen in future decades. In other words, it’s a made-up number.

And you could look at the same stats, change the assumptions in perfectly reasonable ways, and reach the conclusion that the increase in deaths due to obesity will be zero.

Although Card highly praises W. Gibbs’ recent, terrific Scientific American article on obesity (and well he should praise it, a lot of his column is cribbed from it), he singles out one aspect of it for criticism:

Gibbs (and some of the critics he cites) thinks it’s significant that many or most of the studies that supposedly support the claims about a “fat epidemic” were funded in part by the weight-loss industry.

Aha, one thinks. So they have a motive! It’s about making money from people who want to lose weight!

But that’s absurd — pure conspiracy theory.

Card goes on to claim that Gibbs had jumped “to the conclusion that people are overtly dishonest,” had committed “irresponsible journalism,” and “should be ashamed of himself.”

Unfortunately, in his eagerness to club Gibbs, Card parted ways with the facts (note his conspicuous lack of direct quotes from Gibbs to support Card’s accusations). No where in the article does Gibbs “leap to the conclusion that people are overtly dishonest”; Card should have had the honesty to inform his readers that this is something he was reading between Gibbs’ lines, not something Gibbs actually said.

Nor is worrying about funding logically the same thing as suggesting a conspiracy theory, and it’s deceptive of Card to say it is. Most of the funding for obesity and diet related research comes from corporations who have a lot invested in supporting the theory that obesity equals death and weight loss equals health; those companies are, as Card admits, going to fund researchers who “share the same assumptions.” That’s not dishonest, but it does create a legitimate concern that the field is structured in such a way to give researchers whose work supports “fat = death” a prominence and funding unrelated to the scientific merit of their work.

In short, it’s possible that “funding bias” has caused the entire field of obesity and diet research to be strongly biased towards a particular view of the issues, regardless of scientific merit. Being concerned about funding isn’t the same as accusing people of conspiring or of deliberate dishonesty, and it’s Card’s accusation against Gibbs that is “journalistically irresponsible.”

I was also struck by this passage:

Yet they are condemned, ridiculed, treated hideously — often by medical professionals to whom they have come for help. You think fat people don’t know how they’re despised? You think they don’t want to be different?

It’s especially galling because the people mocking them are often of that tribe that doesn’t gain weight no matter what they eat. In other words, it’s easy for them to stay thin because their bodies burn up whatever they eat. People like that should keep their thin little mouths shut when fat people are being discussed, because they have no idea what it’s like to be heavy, or what it takes to lose the weight, when it can be lost at all.

First of all, although Card’s rhetoric has appeal, I wonder how true it is. It seems to me that many of the most fanatical fat-bashers are among the 5% of dieters who have successfully lost weight (unlike the 95% for whom diets fail).

Second of all, considering Card’s incredibly hateful views towards lesbians and gays, it would be appropriate to point out that queer-haters are often of that tribe that couldn’t be attracted to the same-sex no matter how hard they tried. People like that should keep their hetero little mouths shut when gay rights are being discussed, because they have no idea what it’s like to experience same-sex attraction, or what it’s like to be denied substantive legal equality just because you love someone of the “wrong” sex.

This post was removed by request of the author.