OMG, I can't believe I'm even reading this right:

Sep 06, 2006 21:11

I told the mother that in being so devoted to her son, she had committed the cardinal sin of marriage, which is to put someone else before her spouse, even if that someone is your child. Furthermore, I said, her obsession had turned one of her most attractive body parts into a feeding station, an attractive cafeteria rather than a scintillating ( Read more... )

birth, rant, attachment parenting, breastfeeding, patriarchy must die!

Leave a comment

Comments 9

tamago23 September 7 2006, 01:23:53 UTC
That fellow is a moron, and we've had a lot of discussions about that article over in boob_nazis. There IS an excellent counterpoint to that article on the same website, written by a father. I don't have a link but you could probably find it.

Giving birth isn't supposed to be erotic

From a purely biological point of view, giving birth isn't supposed to be anything other than bringing another life-form from the inside to the outside. But it can be transformative, life-affirming, powerful, sexual, erotic, and all kinds of things.

That comment about "a mere birth canal" always says it all to me. He's griping about others de-eroticizing women and he's the one reducing our most powerful capability (giving birth) to simply being the function of a "mere canal". He's such a misogynistic asswipe.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

kettunainen September 7 2006, 01:38:53 UTC
lol! you're adorable! no way do I think this guy speaks for anyone but himself! The guy who wrote the rebuttal is jewish, too, which was good to see.

I still don't like organized religion.

Reply


thewronghands September 7 2006, 01:31:02 UTC
Cart before horse, what? Giving birth is the primary function of that piece of our anatomies. [hands him a biology textbook]

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

tamago23 September 7 2006, 15:54:23 UTC
the only problem that I see in some relationships is that mothers completely take over babies and won't let the fathers be part of anything,

The term for it is "gatekeeping". Essentially, the mother has more skill because she spends more time with the baby, and when the man does something different/less effectively then she tries to make him do it her way or gets overprotective, which makes the man back off, which means she continues to grow in skill while he doesn't get the same opportunity. It's just a vicious cycle. The woman ends up feeling like she does everything and her partner is useless, and he ends up feeling like a failure as a father.

Even being aware of this, I still found it difficult when I had a baby to not gatekeep. I had to keep reminding myself, every time my husband would do something for our son, "It's okay if he does things differently. And the only way he'll learn is if he gets to do it." Over time it gets easier and easier to check those urges to interfere, thankfully. And now, two years later, my son has a ( ... )

Reply


monkeyman September 7 2006, 12:37:16 UTC
Yeah, he's seriously fucked up on that issue. I don't believe a word of his explanations in the slightest; it's pretty obvious that what he's doing is trying to shore up the idea that women should be a mystery, and motherhood something left to, well, mothers solely. Speaking as a man who, if we were ever to have children, would damn well be involved, I'm offended that I'm being told to ignore those urges.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up