While one side prones their right to the expression of their religious feelings, the opposing masses accentuate the religious-free modern state (when the argument needs to be rationally oriented) or redefine the burka as a symbol of female submission. I favour the last argument, because wearing either the tschador or the burka is Islamic law and not the expression of the islamic religion. The difference might be small for some, but decisive for me. I – as a Catholic – wouldn’t in my right mind as for the Catholic law to be applied in my everyday life or a return to the first inquisitional trial system when the state had no jurisdiction.

But this article is not about the burka per se, and I do not wish to go deeper into this particular discussion.

No. This article is about the Western version of the burka.

The nursing cover.

Never heard of a nursing cover before? Then please take a look is now advertised as one of the latest must haves for the soon-to-be or new mother.

Usually the reasoning goes as this (please note that I am describing the specific case as you’d encounter it in the US. Things are going this same direction in the rest of the world as well, however):

• Version 1. Since people don’t like to see naked boobs, these things are great for covering up.

If then, you have the impossible idea to argue against that, follows…

• Version 2. Since you really don’t want to show your boobs in public, these are still great for covering up.

This is what I would like to call the “naked boob-fallacy” in breastfeeding in public. What it suggests is that in any case, without any choice or other possibility, if you want to breastfeed, you have to expose your breast to the rest of the world around you. And since that is the case, you really should think about covering up. Like this.
I have been breastfeeding for over 6 months now, three months of those I have done it in public at least once a day (in a busy cafeteria at noon, to be quite precise) and I can tell you that I haven’t either flashed anything at anyone that could have been considered indecent by the greatest puritan standards, nor have I ever covered up either with a blanket or a nursing cover.

There are techniques for that, there are tricks to master which make breastfeeding in public as discrete as sitting in a doctor’s waiting room and nursing your 3 month old without any of the attendance even noticing or batting a lash. Sure, it takes time, it certainly takes some practice (which with friend is easily controlled), but the main point is: it is doable. Breastfeeding in public doesn’t mean flashing boobs.

We don’t have to rediscuss the particular problem of the US and their odd legislation in some states that prohibits breastfeeding in public at all or above a certain age, their weird attitude that allows them to not even blink at breasts in any kind of sexualised context, but scream in disgust at the sight of a drinking baby on the breast, but what we need to discuss are the reasons that make nursing covers the last trend. Why ‘covering up’ is necessary. Why a lot of people think, that breastfeeding needs to be done privately.

Because the reasons behind such attitudes, are the same that kept our grandmothers out of the public eye, refused suffrage to women on account of their supidity, advocated bottle feeding because there simply was no way that a woman’s milk could be better than what science had to offer.

Breastfeeding is a very special and very tricky thing at the same time. They key to a successful relationship between baby and mother that will make breastfeeding such an important part in both their lives is trust. Trust in your baby, trust in yourself as a mother, trust that you can find ways to solve problems, trust that you are enough and that you do enough… I could continue the list for a long while here.
Critique, side looks, the atmosphere that you are doing something wrong, the pressure to not feed in public because people might find it gross or indecent or wrong and lastly the automated link that has become so obvious between sex and breasts, make for immense pressure on new mums at a time when so many things are redefined for them. Their self-image, their self-appreciation, their role in life, their role in society, their status etc. etc.

Hiding is a natural reaction to all these changes. Hiding behind a nursing cover promises calm and protection from prying eyes. This is the wrong way to gain more understanding for breastfeeding or new mothers. All it does is draw even more attention to it. With the small addition of an act of concession that breastfeeding needs to be hidden. Needs to be done privately. Needs to be something odd that nobody wants to see.

When in truth it is the largest and most important building stone of the first lovestory your baby will experience. La Leche League says that breastfeeding is as much about communication as it is about feeding. As much about emotion, as it is about sustenence.

Nursing covers on the other hand are all about submission to the standards of a twisted vision, about breaking trust instead of furthering it.

Breastfeeding is something to be proud of and any mother that has breastfeed and seen how many pounds and kilos their kid has put on only with the help of their millk, will confirm this. Breastfeeding and milk production are hard work. It makes you tired, it challenges you, it draws on you even when you think you have nothing more to give and it pushes you to the limits of your love, but at the same time it helps you through the sleepless nights, gives you the confidence you need to let your little one start exploring that great world (because after all, sooner or later, she’ll need to eat… with you!) and it puts you in the middle of every single development of your child. You are the one that will know exactly when baby girl can hold her head, know how much she can flex her muscles, know her tells and her signs of fatigue.

Breastfeeding is that and so much more. WHY would we want to limit that to the private sphere? Hide it under a blanket or a cover? Why not show it outside and to the world?

Take a precious look at the picture that opens the main article of the last issue of ‘Breastfeeding Today’ (5/2011) by LLLI. Look into the eyes of these proud Guatemalteca, these shameless mothers.

That’s what proud breastfeeding looks like. And as mothers, as women, we have a right to feel like that. In public.

Please note that this article by no means is intended to pressure any woman to breastfeed. If you decide not to, the choice is yours, as are your reasons. This is a plaidoyer for visible breastfeeding, not against bottle feeding mothers.

There is a silence that destroys you. That annihilates everything you stand for, everything you fought for, all the pains you’ve endured and that made you. This kind of silence is a rejection of everything that you are and you’ve been. It’s a weird thing that silence which is the absence of something – namely talk, speech, exchange, connection etc. – can take on such violent forms. But there are situations in life where the things unsaid reveal much more about ourselves than the ones that we actually dare or care to voice.
In this kind of silence there is no peace, there’s only conjecture, construction, frustration and ultimately loss. Without word, there can be no understanding.

But then there are those other kinds of silences and one in particular can build things so much greater than words or explanation ever could. Sometimes, the “denial of words”-silence might mutate – without any real interference – into this latter kind, we could call it new silence.
It might take years or just a few hours. But ultimately that silence, that breaking of connection might spawn a new understanding. Thankfully enough as humans, we are able to forget and even the greatest horrors in life may lose their burning pain. They certainly leave their marks and they shape as much as anything else who we are and what we dream of, but with time, they’re shifted into the backgrounds of that huge scene of our consciousness. And one day we’ll wake up and our first thought isn’t that memory that broke our hearts, or that anger that made us forget all those important lessons of charity, forgiveness and love. We simply get over it. Over and beyond. Over and past it.

That’s the precise moment where the destructive silence can take on another twist and force and turn into forgiveness. Slowly. But once we’ve achieved that, whatever deserved explanation or laying out suddenly doesn’t need anymore clarification and things just become what they are, what they were more precisely.

Sometimes, a silence is a chance. And usually, as with anything, it takes two. One to be silent and the other to accept it.

I myself have just overcome such a silence of several years where no words could overcome what needed to be processed. Where projected ideas about past and future were blocking the way and view of the truth and the facts. I’ve fought that silence, have hated it, have loathed the person subjecting me to it, because of their inability to see me, hear me and accept me. And that silence has broken my heart on many occasions because I was forced into it. Because there was no ear, no possibility, no heart to listen.

And then one day, I just moved on. Laid it down at the altar of all sacrifices and got on with life. Not truly thinking that such things could indeed be overcome. Not for me. Redemption was for others. Or rather I didn’t trust myself to really get over it. I thought that something would always remain of that unspeakable pain.
Experiences and prayers later, suddenly there it was again, that thought that maybe, just maybe … or not? For years, it went on like that. Until one final day, the silence was no more. Without force or willing, but with a gentle turn of fates, suddenly the words flowed and whatever we thought needed saying suddenly had no power over us anymore.

Sometimes, a silence builds new things without us even noticing, without us even consciously working on doing it. Sometimes, those silences are bought with the pain of years past and sometimes what they build is a new house for our soul to live in.

We are how we talk and we talk like our parents have or have not taught us. Would teaching dialectics and discussion in school help with the current non-culture of debate and argumentation?

Prompted by the post on the communication style during the past US Presidential Elections, someone pointed out to me on plurk that they thought that communications, dialectics and the ethics of discourse should be taught in school to kids already and I gathered that for him that would mean a considerable improvement of certain things going wrong at this point in history when partisanship seems to be more important than the political, social et al. issue at hand.

I only half agree with that idea for one general reason: we talk like our parents. Or rather we discuss like our parents.

Let me explain this slightly exaggerated assertion. While I am all for teaching young adults the arts of talking properly, right and for effect on one hand and to analyse arguments and react to them on the other hand, I also believe that such a teaching is next to fruitless if it falls on unprepared ground.
Aren’t we much more influenced by the discussion style and culture going on in our parent’s house while growing up than shaped by what the teacher tells us at say… the age 14?

It is a common and widely accepted ground rule today that our way of talking, expressing ourselves in normal circumstance is shaped by our social upbringing, the surroundings we’ve been exposed to at tender age and the all the other socio-historical stimuli we’ve been subjected to. It’s shaped by what we read, when we read it, what we hear and process and finally who we consider our idols and personal heroes. (I had and still have a huge sympathy for the Roman Senators and it has pushed me at an early age to learn the history and nature of rhetoric making me real pain in discussions… )
If that is the case for ‘normal style’ communication, then it isn’t too far fetched to assume that the particular case of discursive discussion is just as influenced by our roots. As kids and adolescents we learn from what we see and if our parents have either a passive agressive discussion and confrontation style, or one that makes the roof blow off the house, as children we will either adopt that or refuse it completely depending our level of auto-evaluation and critical analysis of our actions.

The point I am trying to make here is simple really: an ethos is discussion and argumentation cannot be built by schooling and teaching alone, because these levels already assume a certain meta-level because they aim at teaching something. A good discussion style starts much earlier and parents are important in that process. The effect of an all-mighty father that can say ‘Yes, you’re right and making a good point there. I concede that I was wrong/hasty etc.’ are immense on the psyché of a child that will learn that even though a parent is the measure of all things in their life, conceding to being wrong isn’t the end of the world. This in turn will at a later age tell them that riding an argument even though you know that it’s flawed is a bad thing and that it’s better to learn from others rather than stand on your own viewpoint against all odds and the wrath of the gods.

I’ve seen people with a lot of kids being condescending with people who tried to have a decent discussion with them in the course of these Elections, who were deliberately mean and inflammatory and abrasive only to show how right they thought they were and it made me seriously worry about the example they give to their children, because I don’t believe that in their home environment they discuss differently than online. We are what we say and how we say it after all and if you don’t have a discussion ethos with the big topics, why would you have one in the most fundamental social cell, family?

Neither one of us has proof of the ultimate truth, if they did, the world would look differently and there wouldn’t be any need for discursive analysis and discussion or even so much as a teaching exchange. In such a utopian state of Eden, we all would know and thus wouldn’t need to exchange knowledge or different points of views. The second a person, locked in a discussion, assumes that they have the better point of view, the right way of looking at things, the respect clause has been violated and since at this point only condescension can be had from that person, the discussion dies a sudden death.
Now people will continue on, trying to work with such a person, to make them see other contrasting arguments to their view, or even pull the mother of all arguments: personal experience. (A well known ‘trick’ to try and bring emotion into the discussion and tone down the heat.) But with someone as fundamentally convinced as this, even that will be shot down.

There is no value to be had from such discussions. Not a social interactive value, not a personal one and certainly not a political one. All it serves is giving rhetorical bullies a box on which they can stand on their personal speaker’s corner. All that comes from it is insult.
Kids that grow up under such communication circumstances are bound to have a ‘strike first’ attitude in their discussion style and chances are such an attitude will also spill over into their general conflict resolution attitudes (hitting when no arguments are at hand etc.).

So, truly, as adults, we shape the future generation’s communication style as well as their ability to deal with information, process it and use it in discussion. A detail that often gets lost in the mayhem that can be child upbringing.

Sounds like an odd thing to say, doesn’t it? Why would the US elections keep me as a European, a writer or a philosopher from blogging my mind? The answer is easily given. There are only two ways to go about a topic that is so invasive in our everyday lives and has such a massive presence in the news: either you avoid talking about it completely, but then the avoidance will always show in your writing since it is what is on everyone’s mind after all OR you do write about it and open a can of worms that you cannot close again.

Of course I had an opinion on the votes and the elections, of course I have a personal stance and a professional one since I can rarely dissociate the one from the other. As someone trained in philosophy going about in the world, you can rarely not be influenced by the things and current topics around you and think about them with your ‘philosophical’ mind. So, even if I wasn’t to talk about the elephant in the room, I would in a way by avoiding it meticulously.

So the main question remains: why not blog about it if it’s such an important issue of our time?

Because in the myriad of comments, opinions, partisanship battles, demeaning thought processes etc. my word doesn’t count for anything. Not amongst the friends that I live around, close contacts over the internet that I’ve come to consider my friends on certain levels, not among the people that share my faith or convictions or the people I respect. Because just as the media coverage enlightens our knowledge of the world (not to be confounded with actual knowledge, I’m just referring to factual knowledge), it also taints and escalates the dialogue. There is practically no informed discussion to be had about anything in this respect. Not about the kind of dog Obama’s kids will get or the colour of Palin’s breakfast cereal.
I have in all honesty only seen ONE explame of a discussion that could be called constructive and instructive for both camps in all of over 2 years of following the whole circus called U.S. Presidential Election.

What a sad bottom line that makes.

And something I was not ready to expose myself to. There are only so many fall-outs with friends and family that you can get past and once certain things are being said… the going back is almost impossible. The Philosopher’s Attic isn’t about that. It’s about looking at the world in a different manner. It’s about getting a small spark of something else in your day and in mine. And that is what I’ll try to bring back now that this race is over.

A great weekend to all of you.