Kristof is going to breastfeed African children

Nicholas Kristof and Wal-Mart in one week you guys, is it Christmas? His column for the New York Times was entitled, “A Free Miracle Food!.” Anyone want to guess where this is going? Right, to the patriarchy.

Kristof decided he too needed to get into the newborn mother shaming, because breast milk can save hundreds of thousands according to global health experts. Let me begin by saying, I’m not opposed to breastfeeding, it is beneficial to mother and child, but this shaming people do of mothers who opt not to either because they can’t (and some women can’t) or because it is their choice needs to stop. Of course, my experience with breastfeeding is rooted in the West, which is convenient because Kristof exports Western ideology to liberate women (mostly women of color) internationally.

As usual, Kristof shares a personal story about how he witnessed something; this time breastfeeding saving a life in West Africa. Kristof was in Africa on his annual win-a-trip journey where he takes a university student with him on a poverty tour (my language, but I can’t…just no).

He and his poverty tourist stopped in a village near Mopti, Mali to inquire about food shortages. They see an infant, three weeks old, starving to death. The infant appeared to be suffering from signs of malnutrition. Kristof, it should be noted, begins his piece by discussing the child, and not the teenage mother because of course the emphasis would be on the child and not the mother (because women, amiright?). The mother said she knew the child was suffering, but she wasn’t producing enough milk, and that she had invested in cow’s milk to save him. Kristof and tourist offer the mother and infant a ride to the hospital where the baby can be diagnosed by a physician. The doctor said the mother didn’t know how to breastfeed properly, and that this is a common problem.

Here Kristof launches into world hunger facts relating to children specifically. But don’t worry, he does make note that there is something uncomfortable about a Western, white, man shaming poor, African women for not breastfeeding, “Look, I realize that there’s something patronizing about a man griping about poor breast-feeding practices, and, in the West, the issue is linked to maternity leaved and other work practices. But if we want to save hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe a step forward is to offer more support to moms in poor countries trying to nurse their babies.”

Oh, thank the patriarchy, I thought he was going to mansplain without knowing it. It is so much better because he knows he is…wait, that doesn’t seem right. We could also offer money or food. I also love Kristof’s savior complex has evolved into saving babies by tying the mothers to the infants physical proximity. Because only in the West do women have to juggle work outside the home with childcare.

Kristof then points out why women aren’t breastfeeding, “In some parts of the world, a problem has been predatory marketing by formula manufacturers, but, in the poorest countries, the main concern is that moms delay breast-feeding for a day or two after birth and then give the babies water or food in the first six months.”

See, these mothers don’t know what to do. They need a Western white man to tell them how to raise children. I’m so glad Kristof can show tell them. Kristof continues to shame these women about how they don’t know any better with midwives suggesting water is good for an infant, which might be from unsanitary sources, when everyone in the West knows all infants need is milk. Kristof then provides a few breastfeeding stats: less than 25% in Mali, 8% in Niger, and 2% in Chad. Kristof notes that only 16% of US infants are breastfeed, but it is ok because the baby’s life isn’t “hang[ing] in the balance.”

 What Kristof doesn’t provide are female labor stats for these countries: 47.5% in Mali, 42% in Niger, and 46.9% in Chad. I just thought this might relevant since women in the West get a pass with our stats: 47% in US, 64.1% in France (remember their state childcare system), and 70% in England.* Now, the West does have a higher rate of employment for women except the US, which is lower than Mali where the women are expected to breastfeed and the US gets the pass. I’d still argue that African women are working in large numbers as well.

Then Kristof parades out some hypotheses that might be valid about breastfeeding raising IQs (I didn’t look up the “Several studies” he references). He also notes, “While many moms think they don’t produce enough milk, nutritionists say that that’s rare. Even when moms are malnourished, the baby’s frantic suckling will stimulate more milk.”

Pause, that’s what this article was supposed to be about, the food shortage in Mali. But don’t worry breastfeeding only burns 380 to 900 calories per day (the weight loss secret for many new moms), so I’m sure a malnourished woman will be fine, just fine, well, does it matter as long as the infant is fine. Then again you should probably keep the milk machine in working order, right. This drives me nuts because the same fucking argument is being used against women right now to strip us of reproductive rights. Women, now less worth less than men, infants, and fetuses. The food shortage began because of a rebellion that has grown into a war forcing incoming food to travel further over taking more time. The international community trying to help is running out of money to disperse food (again, maybe send money instead of Western parenting techniques?). It is also not exclusively in Mali; it has spread to most of the region.

Kristof advocates national breastfeeding programs to increase rates. As I mentioned before I’m not opposed, but I will say this I know two women who didn’t feel comfortable breastfeeding because their infants were losing weight instead of putting it on in the initial days of life. They felt ashamed and like bad mothers because of the hospitals’ emphasis on breastfeeding. I can only imagine their feelings if it was a full on nationwide program.

He concludes with this, “There are many ways to save lives, some involving dazzling technologies. But maybe in our sophistication we’ve overlooked a way to ease childhood malnutrition that is sustainable, scalable, free—and so straightforward that all hungry newborns cry for it.”

I’m not the only one pissed about this. An excellent post about this is up here.  Juliacarriewong does a wonderful job of laying out how not free breastfeeding is. Kristof’s assertion is that women are worth less than men, our time, our energy, our bodies are free. Oh, when it is phrased that way everybody gets uncomfortable. Yes, Kristof is advocating a being other than the woman herself has a right to her body. What does that sound like? Patriarchy, rape culture, awfulness. Kristof’s assertion is rooted in believing that women’s domestic work isn’t actually work, but it is, and it is valuable. So Kristof and his patriarchy can take a walk, and hopefully not come across any more women of color while he’s at it. 

*Note: this data isn’t uniform coming from different years, but I didn't want to waste a lot of time getting the data when Kristof couldn't be bothered to check his argument at all.

Happy Father’s Day, feminists ruin everything

Sometimes I think people just troll feminists for fun. Laurie Shrage wrote a piece on how unfair it is to force men into fatherhood last week.  She begins with a roundabout “father’s day” discussion, but asks her readers to focus on the fathers who assume the role not freely, but because it is legally mandated. She thinks we should ask some really messy questions about this. I agree. You know what is crazy to me? Forcing an intimate partner violence victim to disclose the name of her child’s father when her safety is at risk for welfare benefits.

Shrage argues that men are somehow more trapped than women when a child is unplanned…I’m not sure we should be trying to rate this, but ok hierarchy of oppression it is. She also blames the women’s rights advocates and feminists (hide your children the scary feminists are coming) because they demand motherhood be a voluntary condition, not imposed by culture of nature. Men, she argues aren’t afforded the same. Instead they can suggest abortion, but the decision is the woman’s to make (damn right because we can’t have abusive partners forcing women to carry children as a way to control them). However, if the woman chooses to keep the fetus the man is stuck with child support payments.

Shrage then asks these two gems: “Do men now have less reproductive autonomy than women? Should men have more control over when and how they become parents, as many women now do?”

Shrage cites political philosopher Elizabeth Brake, who argues that feminists should be in support of providing men with more options instead of compulsory fatherhood. Brake argues that men should at most be responsible for partial costs of pregnancy, which they are partially responsible. No feminists are in favor of granting men the men the right to coerce women into making specific reproductive choices. According to Shrage, women shouldn’t be allowed to force men into fatherhood.

She argues that historically it was necessary for women to determine paternity because of children born to unmarried women being deemed “illegitimate” and had few rights. She argues that now a child’s paternity has less impact on the child’s future. Um false, but we’ll come back to that. She concludes having two parents provides significant advantages for the child.

Of course, there are obligations for fathers via the state. Shrage notes legal scholar Jane Murphy argues that fatherhood’s definition is being defined by laws and court decisions by privileging a man’s biological tie to a child over other criteria. Murphy also claims that the government’s goal of establishing paternity is driven by the collection of child support from men whose biological offspring are in the welfare system, and lawsuits from men aiming to avoid financial responsibility for their dependents. Murphy argues for legislators and judges to “recognize multiple bases for legal fatherhood” guided by “the traditional goals of family law—protecting children and preserving family stability.”

They are looking for alternative ties to the child instead of just the biological. Shrage does use the phrasing, “They [different ties to the child] would protect a naïve man who, in a moment of exuberance with a girlfriend, allows his name to be put on a birth certificate, and a man whose only tie to the child is biological.” Um, sorry. Poor dudes, willingly putting their names on birth certificates. I’m not sure why these men are naïve. You become the legally responsible father when you put your name on the birth certificate. Any questions?

Murphy notes that forcing legal paternity can endanger the mother and child because the legal fathers may resort to violence when child support orders are issued. Shrage continues to argue that “Feminists have long held that women should not be penalized for being sexually active by taking away their options when an accidental pregnancy occurs. Do our policies now aim to publish and shame men for their sexual promiscuity?...Moreover, the asymmetrical options that men and women now have when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy set up power imbalances in their sexual relationship that my male students find hugely unfair to them Rather than punish men (or women) for their apparent reproductive irresponsibility by coercing legal paternity (or maternity), the government has other options, such as mandatory sex education, family planning counseling, or community service.”

Shrage concludes with this “Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These ‘fathers’ are not ‘dead-beat dads’ failing to live up to responsibility they once took on—they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child. We need to respect men’s reproductive autonomy, as Brake suggests, by providing them more options in the case of an accidental pregnancy.”

I think there are a few things to remember in all this. Forced fatherhood blows, but condoms are really effective. So if you don’t want to be a father use one. Also, who is having sex with people who haven’t discussed views on repro-choice? I know us feminist killjoys are always bring the serious, but as a rule, I will not have sex with anyone anti-choice. But let’s look at a few of the main points.

First, power imbalances and privilege. I’m sorry, but I can’t get behind argument that men are at a power disadvantage when it comes to repro rights. Forced fatherhood sucks, but women who carry condoms are harassed by police and accused of sex work. Some pharmacies refuse to sell birth control because RELIGION. If we’re looking for the oppression Olympics, as Shrage asserts early in her article, I’m not sold. That isn’t even including the restricting of abortion rights across the country. Now birth control tampering is a real thing, and it works both ways. Some men refuse to wear a condom or screw up a woman's hormonal birth control, and like wise some women refuse to take hormonal birth control or tamper with condoms, etc. But let's be clear, coercion is more often the menfolk than the women when it comes to coercive pregnancies.

Second, there are separate standards and consequences for promiscuous men and women. This also ties to privilege. Men who sleep around are awesome and seen to be more masculine. I don’t agree with the pressures put on men to have multiple partners if they don’t want to, but a 14 year old girl was raped in Indiana, and the town decided she was a slut and deserved it. So fellas, check your privilege before you can come crying to me about a double standard. I am regularly slut shamed by male friends, yes friends (demonstrating how little they know about my personal life or issues surrounding women in US culture). The expectations are still very gendered. Additionally, women who walk away from their children are viewed as much worse than their male counterparts because parenting is still largely seen as a woman’s responsibility. Men are fiscally responsible, but that is it. It sucks, but no one demands biological fathers spend time with the child. Also, men who reject their children might get the term dead-beat dad used, but that is often accompanied by the assumption that the mother is a slut and the child isn’t his. That discussion isn’t included by Shrage either.

Third, paternity has an impact on a child’s future.  Shrage asserts that paternity has less of an impact on a child’s future now than ever before. Not in low-income communities (Shrage notes her students who are low-income people of color) because there is a discussion around welfare to be had. I don’t agree with forcing paternity for child support payments because it isn’t an effective system. My research in Cleveland and Baltimore has shown that black women who receive TANF have to report the fathers’ of their children to receive benefits, which at times puts the women in a dangerous place when violence is part of the relationship (all poor people and people of color don’t have violent relationships). But also, black men are incarcerated at a higher rate than other races, when you are in prison you cannot make child support payments. The payments are suspended so when/if you get out you have all these back payments. So maybe this is the first conversation we should be having around child support? It is also still being debated whether the child support payments assist in raising the income of the mother enough to have her exit welfare. What we know now, is there seems to be a correlation, but we need more data. Women leaving welfare with employment are less likely to come back on welfare when they receive child support.

I’m sure I’m missing things, but these are the three areas that struck me. Men and women occupy different spaces and powers. As a result behaviors including sexual behaviors are still perceived and punished differently, and paternity has lasting impacts on children. Men shouldn’t be forced into paternity, but as long as women have to demonstrate paternity to receive benefits from the state, men will be forced to take legal responsibility.

Shrage makes no recommendations to correct the false she see. I have one, welfare reform. Take away the federal time limit and restrictions on children conceived while the mother is receiving benefits (often these children never qualify for benefits until they are 18 years old, putting an added importance on child support). Put more distance between child support and TANF. Relax restrictions on qualifying for TANF benefits which includes making it easier for men with children to qualify. Amazingly, Shrage has nothing to say about expanding welfare to include more fathers. Perhaps most important, we need to remove the emphasis placed on marriage by TANF. Finally and anecdotally, I’ve seen women who refuse to name a father on a birth certificate; they are denied benefits, and then the father/family of the father attempt to screw with the mother by claiming paternity rights. These men and their families should then be legally required to pay back child support for the child they claim after the fact. These situations are often violent and abusive. 

***"Denise, disable the youtube comments." for BA. This is going to be a thing.

Motherhood isn't for me

Full disclosure, I’ll probably never be a mom. I never grew up wanting to be one. I don’t even remember playing with dolls all that much as a kid. I know my sisters and I had them, and we owned Barbie (mine was a secret agent), but as for baby dolls with the mommy and me kind of stuff, not so much. And because of my disinterest in parenthood, I’ve never really given much thought to the whole, stay at home mom vs. working mom thing. I have some good friends who choose one or the other, and some who like me stare in wonder. When pushed (mostly by my breeder friends) I talk up adoption, and honestly, if I ever do end up with kids it will be because my partner and I bought adopted them.

So what has me thinking about all this? I heard Jessica Valenti speak on a podcast. She was interviewed about a variety of topics, and while I enjoy some of her work she leaves out a lot particularly around class. Like many progressives the obligatory head nod is given to all things not applicable to me as an individual and then we never speak of them again. This is why I prefer her work accompanied by someone else like Yes Means Yes over Full Frontal Feminism. However, the interview included aspects of her life as mother and experience writing Why Have Kids?. Valenti mentions that she offhandedly mentioned she didn’t define herself first as a mother, but instead as a person. She didn’t expect this to be a controversial aspect of the book, but obviously she was wrong.

A good friend of mine, who I rarely agree with on politics, is a stay at home mom. That is her choice, and she should be able to make that choice. She shouldn’t have to work outside the home because her family can’t afford not to have two incomes. But I remember when she told me that she and her husband had decided this was right for their family, but said it in a really defensive way like I am expected to have an issue with it. Naturally, I don’t. Again, whatever works for you is what you should do.

That being said we regularly argue about welfare. For the life of me I don’t understand why some people have the choice to stay home with their children and others are forced to work outside the home based on arbitrary regulations rooted in classism. Right, the assumption is that poor people are lazy, and they have to be forced to work outside the home, because childcare isn’t considered labor unless it is for other people’s kids and even then undervalued. By extension are we as a society saying that not only are the poor lazy, but they are incapable of teaching values to their children, and their children’s care should be entrusted to outsiders through Head Start Programs and daycares, which frequently employs the very people being forced to work outside the home in the first place.

Mother/child: Mother has to work outside home to receive + welfare benefit = Child in daycare

Work outside home = low-wage service work (most often). This includes fast food, child care, and house cleaning. So what am I missing?

Obviously, this comes down to privilege. The Valenti interview made me think of it because when the hosts and Valenti were talking about the other ways we know that motherhood isn’t actually the most important job a woman can do included maternity level, waged housework, etc, but it left out the poor who don’t have the option not to work. Hear that? That’s second wave feminism. I’m not accusing Valenti or the hosts of being second wavers nor do I mean to imply that it is negative, just demonstrating that logic has an origin. So I have no answers here. I have trouble even following the logic of the condescension when I say I don’t want kids of my own.  I usually get that, “Right now. You don’t want kids right now.” Nope, don’t want to go through a kind of pain that literally numbs your brain and rips your body open.

However, there is another side to this statement: Motherhood is the greatest most important job ever. If women are supposed to define themselves as mothers first, when shouldn’t men define themselves as fathers first?

Clearly, this is a double standard. Men are usually defined by what they do in the public sphere, which boils down to employment. I think this is a disservice to men because we are all more than our paycheck and wage. However, that is exactly the point right? You are this one quality and nothing more. So the simplistic version is caretaker vs. provider. But that’s not how things really work. This division of power is really unfair to everyone involved.

Essentially, this is a really complicated issue, but one that should probably be investigated further. I’ve never understood the good for me, but no one else argument, which seems to permeate these discussions. The “I as an individual should be able to do whatever I want, but anyone else needs to do it this way.” I find this frequent in discussions of welfare and welfare reform.

Given the school shooting in Connecticut, I feel I should state I wrote this Friday morning before I heard about the shooting. But I assume many a person will be highly emotional.