> Sigh.
>
> As to my attempt at humor. I was trying to be sympathetic to the
> boys. As a bisexual woman, I certainly understand the attraction of
> breasts.
>
> But the topic of the original post was about the commodification of
> breast milk and the exploitation of the women who would have to
> provide it.
>
> But, apparently the breast imagery was so overpowering, that the
> males on this list who chose to respond could not see commodification
> or exploitation -- or anything much other than Breasts.
With some trepidation, I'll wade into this, because I do have something to say that doesn't involve Breasts. Yes, the commodification of breast milk and the exploitation of women is beyond the pale. So is the commodification of coal and the exploitation of miners. So is the commodification of cars and the exploitation of auto workers. The fundamental problem of capitalist society is the commodification of life. When we make explicit or implicit judgments about how some products of social activity are particularly gruesome to commodify--e.g., breast milk, sex--we are inadvertently reinforcing the notion that there are other aspects of social life that are reasonable and acceptable to commodify. That's why I challenge the idea that there is a fundamental difference between the commodification of breast milk and the commodification of cars or education or health care. I do not want to live in a world where there are little, special islands of human activity isolated from the commodity system; I want to live in a world where there are no commodities at all.
I recognize that's the grandiose statement, but I think it's good to be grandiose in these dark times.
Miles