Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I am sadly disappointed. I found this book after a friend sent me the WSJ article by Sarah Thornton, "I Used to Judge Women Who Got Boob Jobs Until I Got One." Ms. Thornton underwent a bilateral mastectomy and had reconstruction using implants several years ago. My friend sent it to me because she is married to a plastic surgeon (who I am also friends with), and she and I used to have strong opinions about women and plastic surgery and why women would want to put artificial sacks of liquid in their bodies. Then, I was diagnosed with breast cancer and needed a unilateral mastectomy. It did not take me two seconds to say I wanted reconstruction. Once I went through reconstruction, she and I spoke quite a bit about our attitudes about breast augmentation and how it has changed. More on that later, after this review. Anyway, I could only read a part of the article since I do not subscribe to WSJ, but I was intrigued that Thornton says she got a "boob job" because I have never once said I got a "boob job." I had breast reconstruction. Because I had breast cancer. So this made me look her up, and that is when I saw the book and ordered it.

Thornton breaks the book down into chapters to cover different aspects/uses/ideas of breasts/boobs/tits(she is fond of the "tits" usage): sex workers, childhood nourishment, plastic surgery, clothes designers, and religious aspects. Hmm, interesting.

In the Hardworking Tits chapter, it is easy to see that Thornton respects women who use their breasts to earn a living and would like her readers to do as well. Fair enough. We all deserve respect. She states early on in the chapter that "Strippers, as professional manipulators of male desire, are aware of the dynamics of the patriarchy. Sitting here (Thornton did her observational work in a strip club called Condor), I've come to respect their position on the frontline, observing their shrewd navigation of the global gender war. In the past, I might have assumed that they pandered to patriarchy, but I've come to see this perspective as prudish and thoughtlessly classist." Yet, near the end of the chapter, she tells us about Joey, the strip club floor manager. Joey seems to contradict exactly what Thornton was hoping to disprove. He says, "We sell fantasy here. My girls know how to make a guy feel like a million bucks." Ugh, notice he says, "My girls." And try as she might, isn't Joey affirming that stripper is just pandering to the patriarchy? My girls...sexual fantasy.....show us your tits, girls. So, in the end, the strippers are selling themselves to the patriarchy. Side note: Thornton has one of the strippers do an actual lap dance on her (Thronton is bisexual). Um, okay.....

Something that bothered me about this chapter is that Thornton devotes a whole two sentences, and only two sentences, to drug use and strippers. "Liquid courage and brain-numbing drugs are integral to the ecologies of strip clubs." That is it. I know this book is about breasts, but I felt like most of this chapter was more about actual strip clubs and legalizing the ability of women to sell their bodies, as Thornton herself admits: "When I set out to study the erotic performance of women's tits, I didn't expect it would lead me to prioritize the decriminalization of sex work as a political issue." So please discuss sex work and do not glamorize it or look at it through rose-colored glasses. She portrays the strippers' lives as all honky dory, just making a living stripping, and yea, strippers are controlling the events inside the strip clubs. But what is shocking is that she goes on to say, "I think the most fundamental issue inhibiting women's autonomy - our right to choose what we do with our bodies - is the state's policing of sex work. If some women can't sell their bodies, then none of us actually own our bodies." Um, hello? Roe v Wade was overturned. The right to abortion was taken away......but she thinks women not being able to sell their bodies is more troublesome?

Okay, next chapter: Lifesaving Jugs. To clarify, I breastfed all of my children. Well, I knew I was not going to like this chapter when, early on, Thornton stated, "Feminism has tended to focus on how women can be more like men, ignoring the power of what women can uniquely do - namely, give birth and breastfeed." I COMPLETELY agree that we should embrace that second part, but excuse me. No, feminism has not tended to focus on how women can be more like men. What? More like men in what ways, Ms. Thornton? Gee, I thought feminism was about political, economic, and social equality. Then the big hit came, where she rates the best way to feed your baby! First is direct nipple-to-mouth nursing. "Second best" is a combination of breastfeeding and pumped milk. The third best is "exclusively pumping." The fourth best is donor milk. "Last and least come all the cow and soy milk replacement beverages." Wow. How about feeding your baby is the best, period, no matter what and how you provide it. Let me stop here for a moment and suggest the book "Lactivism: How Feminists and Fundamentalists, Hippies and Yuppies, and Physicians and Politicians Made Breastfeeding Big Business and Bad Policy" by Courtney Jung. Jung (who breastfed each of her children for two years) argues that the current atmosphere where breastfeeding is forced on women and women are made to feel guilty if they choose not to do so is harmful and counterproductive. Jung argues through her detailed analysis of multiple studies, most notably the PROBIT study, that the "breast is best" is a fallacy. Breastfeeding provides a mild, almost negligible reduction in ear and GI infections. That's it. In other categories, the difference is nil. She argues there are no conclusive studies because the studies people often cite to support the "breast is best" (some studies that have been paid for by breast pump manufacturers) are observational, not randomized, with many flaws. Jung argues how breast milk has become a commodity (as Thornton discusses with all the milk banking). The guilt that women like Thornton put on women concerning breastfeeding is why Jung wrote her book. As Jung points out, "no woman has ever harmed her child by choosing NOT to breastfeed." Then the weird stuff comes..... Thornton speaks with a legal scholar whose "research focuses on milk." A legal scholar. The legal scholar says, "Breastfeeding is also an example of effective communication in which love, frustration, anger, a whole range of emotions are enacted." What? I don't know about you all, but I breastfed not to enact emotions but because I thought it was convenient and cheap. Interestingly, she also says, "Breastfeeding is a form of social positioning in which you convey ideas about what a parent should be. While you communicate with your baby, you're also communicating to those around you." So, what type of parent is a mother who chooses not to breastfeed? Why are you trying to communicate about your parenting skills with strangers? Thornton even throws in a nod toward breastfeeding and the Enlightenment...I know my eyes rolled far with that one. The legal scholar also compares weaning to menopause and mourning and geez......... The legal scholar also states that formula feeding is an environmental disaster. So much of the chapter is a condemnation of mothers who do not breastfeed. How about this quote from a "medical professional" (I put that in quotes because I looked up the woman and can't seem to find any medical education, let alone a higher education degree) certified lactation consultant: "In my opinion, if you choose to have a baby, you should do the optimal thing to protect your child." Wow.
Thornton condemns the formula business without discussing the breast pump and accessory business. I am all for supporting women who WANT to nurse but are struggling. But the entire chapter bashes those who CHOOSE not to—okay, moving on.

Treasured Chests is the chapter I looked forward to. I was disappointed in the lack of depth of discussion concerning breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Whereas in the Hardworking Tits chapter Thornton spoke with MANY sex workers, in this chapter, she did not talk with women who have gone through what she and I both have. Why did she not talk with women (reconstruction, augmentation, reduction) about their experiences and breasts as she did with the sex workers? I just would have liked to hear some other perspectives on breast reconstruction stories. I know how I felt, but I would like to listen to others, especially in a book about breasts! She describes her reconstruction as a "gender reaffirmation surgery; it did not restore any real functionality; it reinstalled a graphic marker of my gender." Okay, those are her thoughts and feelings. How about others? My reasons for reconstruction are I just wanted to look like me and feel like me. I didn't want cancer to alter me. It was not necessarily about making sure I looked like a woman; it was just me being me. I am not sure if Thornton has issues with her reconstruction surgery because she seems to portray implant reconstruction negatively. On the other hand, she describes the DIEP flap reconstruction method positively. DIEP reconstruction has far more complications and a significant failure rate. Thornton says just a lot of strange things and many assumptions. This one is when she describes a female plastic surgeon: "Like many surgeons, Potter wears a sports bra in the OR.." What? Did she take a survey of female surgeons? She did speak at length with plastic surgeons, but I would have liked more from the patients - not just reconstructions, but augmentation and reductions.

I found the Active Apexes chapter dull and skimmed most of it.

I feel like I am rambling, so all I will say about the Holy Mammaries chapter is that it is odd. In the final chapter, where she wraps up each chapter, she says about the religious stories about breasts, "Rather than spurring religion for its overarching patriarchal values, I marvel at the power of these specific breast-affirming narratives to unite some, inspire action, and spur change." There are just so many odd comments in this book.

She wraps it up in Toward a LIberated Rack and summarizes her previous chapters. Again I take issue with her "fake boobs" comment -when she says that since 1998 American women have had the right to "fake boobs" following mastectomy (the law states that if insurance covers a mastectomy, it must cover all reconstruction), but have yet to be "granted the federal right to breastfeed, nor protections that would allow women to feel safe nursing their babies in public." I don't know...maybe she regrets her reconstruction; it seems there was so little talk about reconstruction, yet so much of the book -in every chapter - focuses on breastfeeding. I wish I would've noted where she discusses why she prefers to call breasts "tits" and not breasts or boobs because frankly, I tired of "tits.".

As for how my opinion concerning breast augmentation changed following my reconstruction, I admit to less judging. If that makes a woman happy, go for it if she can afford it. And as long as she knows, there is more to happiness than big boobs, boobs that don't sag anymore, etc.

One last comment - Thornton names her two breasts post reconstruction: Bert and Ernie. What????