Nourishing, You Say
Or, Display Purposes Only.
Presumably, the statue above, which resembles its sculptor Aske Kreilgaard and is described by the museum as a “nourishing man,” and which was originally created to celebrate International Men’s Day, is meant to have some symbolic value. A message of sorts.
The decision to adorn what was once the Women’s Museum with a, shall we say, transitioning figure, this “nourishing man,” is likely an attempt to comply with prevailing fashions regarding those individuals who are somewhat at odds with their physical selves. A trans-friendly gesture. Or, as the museum puts it, somewhat coyly, a sign of “gender inclusivity.”
It occurs to me, however, that a man being given large doses of cross-sex hormones and subsequently developing facsimile breasts isn’t going to lactate anything remotely nourishing for a child. Given sufficiently high doses of female hormones, and given sufficiently zealous pumping, some men can be made to secrete a substance from their nipples, albeit unreliably and in very limited quantities – but the resulting discharge is of no nutritional value to an infant.
As Dr Maja Bowen notes here,
Given that the statue is apparently intended as both fashionable and symbolic, and a nod to the sexually dysmorphic, then an obvious reading of that gesture, rendered in stone, is that the actual feeding of the infant is of no great consequence. At best, a secondary concern. Sort of, Screw the hungry baby. Let’s focus on affirming the dysmorphic man. And which, it has to be said, is an odd message to send.
The ladies at Reduxx also have some thoughts.
Update, via the comments, from transgender Reddit:
Note the word successfully. To which, one might ask, for whom?
Band name.
It could also work as a pen name, for when I start churning out my historical romance novels.
LOL Would buy.
Heh. Nothing new there. Back in the 80’s when I was working in Tokyo, a coworker described the local female..mm…deficiencies to his wife back home and..well, I’ve said too much already…
The decision to adorn what was once the Women’s Museum
And yet anyone dare claim that Trans-ideology is erasing women is nothing but a dirty, lyin’, hatey hating transphobe.
The 1990s feminist boilerplate, the sample Gender Studies 101 essay, for a breastfeeding man statue would be that it symbolizes a man transcending the restrictions of gender roles by developing his feminine nurturing side; that women have responded well to the statue because they’ve done their part in the androgyny project and despair that their husbands and sons are lagging behind; and that men who respond negatively to the statue do so because they fear that committing fully to childcare will turn them into a woman and therefore deprive them of male privilege. Therefore a Conversation Has Been Started about how so-called women’s work will be undervalued until men take their full place in such domains.
What the museum is saying (shift towards “freer expression” of all genders) sounds similar enough to the 1990s messaging. This trans business is knocking it sideways though.
Well, I don’t share some of the views aired in a Reduxx Twitter thread on the above – I don’t find the sculpture “revolting” or “disgusting,” for instance. It doesn’t elicit any particular feeling. As sculpture, it seems rather banal and thematically confused. (Why would masculine nurturing require breasts?) But, given the location and the apparent attempt to milk – pun intended – transgender politics and thereby seem terribly current, it does suggest a certain… tone-deafness.
The 1990s feminist boilerplate,
And I’ll take 1990’s masculinity and how it was celebrated back right now:
Perhaps it’s an effect of contrast but the feminists seem a touch more sane these days.
…constructed in 2021 as a self-portrait by Aske Kreilgaard…
That in itself is disturbing, but small mercies he didn’t also have the thing having a period. For the inclusivity, you know.
The man bun is pretty offensive.
It’s also arguably the end-game for those drag queens who unapologetically encourage pre-pubescent children into far too close proximity to their own bodies.
That silliness was not uncommon in the 1970’s.
Thomas M. Disch’s short story* was supposed to be dark satire, not a utopia.
* Psychotherapist recommends that a male patient get breasts so that he can experience motherhood and so solve his psychological troubles. (Probably in the collection 334, but after so many decades I have forgotten much.)
Laurie Penny, for it is she, has taken time out from her busy schedule explaining the challenges of a life lived with (presumably self-diagnosed) autism and complex post-traumatic stress disorder to enlighten the heathens.
Though not actually discussing the statue in question, it could very easily do so.
I wonder how hard it would be to get used motor oil off a thing like that…
It seems likely her misery is attributable to something a bit closer to home than the ‘gender binary social system.’
And in a related area of dangerous insanity, a reminder that we should all support the Voluntary Leftist Extinction Movement.
At best, a secondary concern.
Imagine my surprise, that always works well.
Translated from the Danish “Kulturmagasinet Fine Spind“;
As you might expect. Damn TERFs. The museum director adds;
Which makes as little sense as the statue, but explains a lot..
I knew something didn’t seem right around here lately. David, you’ve been remiss in your duties.
I don’t get it. Why are the male organs still intact? Would not this matter have been attended too when the chest feeder was a minor?
complex post-traumatic stress disorder
I am not a licensed clinician and even if I were, it would be impossible and unethical to diagnose someone without a proper in-person evaluation.
That said, Laurie Penny does not have Complex PTSD. She’s just a **nt.
If that “person” has been given enough female hormones to grow (semi-)functioning breasts, how do they still have a beard?
‘I met a traveller from an antique land, who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert. . . .’
Laurie has been fairly dormant of late, at least in terms of inadvertently hilarious public pronouncements. You can imagine my sorrow.
Yes.
Although my understanding is that she attributes her misery to being disagreed with or mocked (or both) on regular basis.
You do have to wonder, though, what her husband makes of statements such as these:
Presumably, he’s aware already and accepts the implications that has for a marriage.
(1)
(2)
Will the baby have to pretend too?
[ Rummages in bin liner. Slides chipped ashtray towards EmC. ]
On the house.
“Such horseshit,” he said.
Note the word successfully. To which, one might ask, for whom?
Last I heard she had married. I like to believe that she now stays home ironing shirts, making sammiches, and enjoying a good rogering several times a week. Though I’ve heard nothing productive from said rogering. Could I be wrong? Sigh.
That’s because a number of us women, who would never have joined forces with feminists in the past, are now being compelled to do so in this culture war.
The human reproductive system is complex and finely tuned. Female anatomy has been highly modified to deliver a baby with such a large head. Fucking around (so to speak) with all that to satisfy a kink is whatever but throwing a baby into your mess is child abuse. An XX person (to be clear) taking a bunch of male hormones and then getting pregnant is irresponsible and endangering the child. It could cause all sorts of problems with the pregnancy and delivery. Who knows the effect on the fetus? Oh, no one knows but we will just do these experiments? The person depicted in the statue could not be the mother–there is a penis on view. Freud invented penis envy–I wonder what he would think?
The idea that dads are not nurturing could only exist in a society with lots of childless people. All the dads I know, and myself, hold the baby to comfort them, feed them (with a bottle or spoon), take them for a walk, play with them. How could we not? The type of nurturing differs between mom and dad but both are needed. Dads teach the kids to be more adventurous. Moms provide security. Dads provide protection for the whole family. Who does the family call when the toilet overflows or the tornado siren goes off? Dad. Who does the baby want when they get hurt? Mom. It is a wonderful, functional system and these twits want to wreck it. No sympathy to the rad fems either–they have tried to destroy it for decades too.
Is there a nightmare scenario whereby the actual mother has fecked up her own body with testosterone so that any milk she produces is useless if not harmful?
Is there an even worse one where any such hormones might have already compromised the well-being of the hapless child during gestation?
That.
…throwing a baby into your mess is child abuse…
Not unrelated,
A goal setter, a pioneer, a modern Amundsen.
This is exactly like any other relationship, and any one who doesn’t think so is a (______________)ophobe [please fill in your favorite].
The word ‘psychosomatic’ comes to mind.
For those who would like a change from that hack’s “sculpture”.
He’s a standard-issue Scandinavian male feminist with his beard and his manbun and his rhetoric about men developing their full humanity through unreserved equality with women (see here and here). Born in 1992, so third generation Scandinavian male feminist.
It’s quite a feat that he put up a 12ft naked statue of himself in the Women’s Museum, with his genitals at the eye level of the visitors, but it’s the boobs that people are complaining about.
The idea that dads are not nurturing could only exist in a society with lots of childless people.
Men on the whole are more awkward with children than their grandfathers were. Smaller families so less chance that they looked after siblings/cousins/nephews/nieces when they were growing up. More awareness of being regarded as a potential abuser, so less likely to interact playfully with other people’s kids.
The man bun is pretty offensive.
I prefer the term “dork knob.”
Heh.
Appropriately titled “Release From Deception”.
Who knows the effect on the fetus? Oh, no one knows but we will just do these experiments?
Whatever happened to the Precautionary Principle? Not that I was ever a fan, but still…
(deleted. accidental posting.)
From the second link:
And yet to show a man as loving and nuturing he put breasts on his chest. Is he a fool, or a liar, or just insane?
“Is he a fool, or a liar, or just insane?”
I’ll go with “nuts”
*shows self out*
If that were his sole point, the somewhat uncanny breasts seem unnecessary. Indeed, thematically counterproductive. Again, why would masculine nurturing require breasts? The implication that men can’t be nurturing – i.e., tender, encouraging and protective – without becoming more female – and becoming more female physically – is bizarre. In fact, it seems rather patronising. You’d think that a professional sculptor might be able to devise a way to convey masculine nurturing without the need to add incongruous, comedic breasts.
As if the concept might otherwise escape us.
What A Relief!
As a religious Jew I am so grateful that nobody who saw that statue is discussing circumcision… the progressives have moved on to other body parts… Of course there’s still the old “Your Traditional Family Is Destroying the Planet” crowd.
I’ll go with “nuts”
Brings to mind the Charlie Brown and the invisible bathing suit joke…
Punchline: Lucy says, Charlie Brown, I knew you were crazy but now I see your (sic) nuts.
[ Follows anon.a.mouse out ]
Brings to mind the Charlie Brown and the invisible bathing suit joke…
Not completely unlike Mickey in divorce court.
Judge: Mr. Mouse, insanity is not grounds for divorce.
Mickey: I didn’t say Minnie was crazy, I said she was fucking Goofy.
[Sets every one else’s coats on fire on the way out]
Rope sculpture: the sculptor’s assistants refused to touch it for fear of breakage.
First of all, Ben David, shalom aleichem. In fine “Jewish geography” style, where are you from? (I’m from Crown Heights.)
So about your comment – I don’t know; if that is supposed to be circumcised, it looks more to me like the incomplete kind described in the Mishnah, Shabbat 19:6. Not that I’m going to look any closer to verify, though.
I’d also be surprised if it is, since if it’s supposed to be a depiction of the (f)artist, why then AFAIK outside of the USA it’s pretty uncommon for boys to be circumcised unless they’re Jewish or Muslim (though famously Elizabeth II had it done for her boys).
After sixteen years of doing this, I can still be surprised by where the comment threads go.
That’s because a number of us women, who would never have joined forces with feminists in the past, are now being compelled to do so in this culture war.
Bezmenov tried to warn you.
The entire point here is the transgression.
If you don’t have anything to say, or have no talent, or are just depraved, then be transgressive!
Is there even a bourgeoisie left to épater?
Think I’ll just leave this here.
Until fairly recently, I wouldn’t have expected to find much common cause with self-styled feminists. However, current political fashions – which amount to a war on reality, on probity, and on one’s ability to say, “Actually, two plus two does not equal nine” – have shaken things up a bit. And so, strange bedfellows.
As I said in the thread linked above,
And compelled dishonesty is very much at the heart of the issue.
I was wondering quite how to take this statue; what mode it ought to be interpreted in.
We’re accustomed to over a century now of surrealist art where one might find all manner of items mixed up – objects not doing what they ought to (think Dali’s melting clocks), hands where there shouldn’t be hands, breasts where there shouldn’t be breasts. You name it.
But it’s not surrealism.
Nor is it realism – notwithstanding the few cases of bearded women, etc.
Nor science fiction art.
It’s framed as a ‘provocation’, partly – but one gets the impression it’s not meant as that at all. It’s a portrayal of the belief that men can be women and women can be men, and that men *can* breastfeed.
That mixture of odd, heterogeneous elements all mixed up and sincere belief reminds me of nothing so much as the old pagan Gods.
Somewhat related.
Well, a lot of artists are crazy. Dali is merely a more flamboyant example.