Scan barcode
riotsquirrrl's review
4.0
3.5 stars, rounded up because of the value of the information about the history of breasts from the Middle Ages to about 1980. Especially strong is her section on the history of medical treatment of breasts, especially breast cancer and her section on women's depictions of their own bodies is important.
So the problem with this book is that Yalom has fairly clear biases about what breasts should be used for, and this book is from 1995 and it shows. (Technically 1997 but all of the information referenced in the book is pre-1996.) I'd also put this very firmly into the category of books written by 2nd wave women that are an essential part of how we got here, but maybe aren't as useful as they could be, and if the book was written in 2020 I would think that Yalom would take the book in a somewhat more nuanced direction.
To be direct about it: Yalom believes that all women should breast feed unless they really absolutely can't, and she supposes that bottles are ok if they absolutely have to. To me this is an interesting take because my mom considered bottle feeding to be a feminist action as it allows for people who are not the lactating mother to bond with the child over feeding and shifts the burden of feeding work to people besides the lactating mother. I get the feeling that Yalom's general approach to feminism is more along the lines of saying that "natural" bodies are best, but what even is natural? Isn't natural even a social construct?
Which brings me to my other issue with the book: Yalom is very much anti-breast-enlargement and anti-piercing. The handwringing of the latter is wicked quaint to me in 2020 as everyone I know who has gotten their nipples pierced have done it for their own enjoyment. With regards to breast enhancement there's that usual second wave feminist hand wringing that no matter what the women who have breast enlargements say, they're the unwitting tools of the patriarchy. This is especially interesting paired with her acclaim for women who have breast reductions. I admit that also as an AFAB nonbinary person who has had top surgery (ie, bilabial mastectomy), I can't help but wonder how Yalom would compare my choice in comparison to the choices of some of my AMAB trans friends who decide to get breast enhancements. Honestly I think the best part of this book being written in 1994 is that trans people are completely left out of the conversation given that we're edge cases often used to make the intellectual points of authors with only shallow understanding of trans issues.
Yalom is also anti-pornography, which in her case is anything sexually explicit that she determines to be violent or humiliating. But apparently all of the boobs she's showing in this book are not porn, nope, no siree. Although maybe Cindy Sherman's photos are. Isn't there a whiff of self-loathing and humiliation in her portraits? No?
So yeah, I know the personal is political, and the point of this book is to show the ways in which breasts represent a locus of control regarding women's bodies. The problem is that the number of pages devoted to what end up being minor issues of the 1990's detract from the pages that point to what end up being much bigger issues. Yalom talks a lot about the rise in breast cancer awareness and research, and about the long history of breasts as items for men's enjoyment, but she unfortunately was unable to predict the eventual descent of breast cancer awareness into "save the tatas." Increasingly in this era of pink everything in October the question is, who are we saving breasts for? But still, there was something unmistakably quaint about reading about tiny marches of 7000 people or one of the groups that decide to show up with pink ribbons that echo the red ribbons of the 1990's AIDS movement. (Does anyone under the age of 30 even know why we use ribbons? Or is so much about the AIDS crisis gone from collective memory?)
At the heart of this book is the question: how do men think about breasts and how do women think about them? Yalom's strength is in showing us women's words and art and how different it is from the words and art of men. There is an especially notable gap, however. While Yalom talks about how women enjoy pleasure from breast feeding and from having their breasts pleasured during sex, she leaves out the enjoyment of women for other women's breasts. This gap is especially odd because several lesbian authors are mentioned and there is discussion of queer organizations and institutions. To me one woman's enjoyment of another woman's breasts would be a ripe place for analysis as to how to talk about breasts and sexuality apart from the male gaze. It's an odd gap in a book filled with frank talk of sex and desire and filled with images of breasts, but then again it also jives with the fact that this is a woman who compiled an entire book about breasts and desire but seems to not have really looked into why she wanted to do so.
So the problem with this book is that Yalom has fairly clear biases about what breasts should be used for, and this book is from 1995 and it shows. (Technically 1997 but all of the information referenced in the book is pre-1996.) I'd also put this very firmly into the category of books written by 2nd wave women that are an essential part of how we got here, but maybe aren't as useful as they could be, and if the book was written in 2020 I would think that Yalom would take the book in a somewhat more nuanced direction.
To be direct about it: Yalom believes that all women should breast feed unless they really absolutely can't, and she supposes that bottles are ok if they absolutely have to. To me this is an interesting take because my mom considered bottle feeding to be a feminist action as it allows for people who are not the lactating mother to bond with the child over feeding and shifts the burden of feeding work to people besides the lactating mother. I get the feeling that Yalom's general approach to feminism is more along the lines of saying that "natural" bodies are best, but what even is natural? Isn't natural even a social construct?
Which brings me to my other issue with the book: Yalom is very much anti-breast-enlargement and anti-piercing. The handwringing of the latter is wicked quaint to me in 2020 as everyone I know who has gotten their nipples pierced have done it for their own enjoyment. With regards to breast enhancement there's that usual second wave feminist hand wringing that no matter what the women who have breast enlargements say, they're the unwitting tools of the patriarchy. This is especially interesting paired with her acclaim for women who have breast reductions. I admit that also as an AFAB nonbinary person who has had top surgery (ie, bilabial mastectomy), I can't help but wonder how Yalom would compare my choice in comparison to the choices of some of my AMAB trans friends who decide to get breast enhancements. Honestly I think the best part of this book being written in 1994 is that trans people are completely left out of the conversation given that we're edge cases often used to make the intellectual points of authors with only shallow understanding of trans issues.
Yalom is also anti-pornography, which in her case is anything sexually explicit that she determines to be violent or humiliating. But apparently all of the boobs she's showing in this book are not porn, nope, no siree. Although maybe Cindy Sherman's photos are. Isn't there a whiff of self-loathing and humiliation in her portraits? No?
So yeah, I know the personal is political, and the point of this book is to show the ways in which breasts represent a locus of control regarding women's bodies. The problem is that the number of pages devoted to what end up being minor issues of the 1990's detract from the pages that point to what end up being much bigger issues. Yalom talks a lot about the rise in breast cancer awareness and research, and about the long history of breasts as items for men's enjoyment, but she unfortunately was unable to predict the eventual descent of breast cancer awareness into "save the tatas." Increasingly in this era of pink everything in October the question is, who are we saving breasts for? But still, there was something unmistakably quaint about reading about tiny marches of 7000 people or one of the groups that decide to show up with pink ribbons that echo the red ribbons of the 1990's AIDS movement. (Does anyone under the age of 30 even know why we use ribbons? Or is so much about the AIDS crisis gone from collective memory?)
At the heart of this book is the question: how do men think about breasts and how do women think about them? Yalom's strength is in showing us women's words and art and how different it is from the words and art of men. There is an especially notable gap, however. While Yalom talks about how women enjoy pleasure from breast feeding and from having their breasts pleasured during sex, she leaves out the enjoyment of women for other women's breasts. This gap is especially odd because several lesbian authors are mentioned and there is discussion of queer organizations and institutions. To me one woman's enjoyment of another woman's breasts would be a ripe place for analysis as to how to talk about breasts and sexuality apart from the male gaze. It's an odd gap in a book filled with frank talk of sex and desire and filled with images of breasts, but then again it also jives with the fact that this is a woman who compiled an entire book about breasts and desire but seems to not have really looked into why she wanted to do so.
erikars's review
3.0
Yalom presents us with an engaging look at the history of the breast. The arrangement is roughly chronological, but she breaks away from the straight chronological presentation to divide the chapters thematically, subsequently exploring the breast as sacred, erotic, domestic, political, psychological, commercial, medicalized, and liberated.
To a large degree, the story of the breast is the story of women. Thus, if you've read much along those lines, much of that will be familiar. Even so, I found much that was new to me. The chapter the medicalized breast, which included a history of breast cancer treatments, was educational (and heart wrenching, at times).
My main criticism of this book is that it is primarily a history of the western and mostly upper class breast as seen by men. The second and third criticism -- upper class and the male gaze -- are hardly Yalom's fault. In fact, one of her themes throughout the book is how it is only in recent decades that women's voices have been able to openly speak about the breast. Before that men often defined the societal meaning of the breast, just as they defined women. And since much of that definition was through art, paintings and poetry in particular, that vision tended to focuses on upper class women.
But I am surprised at the lack of non-western perspective, beyond a couple scattered remarks. Just as it was an "ah hah" moment for my really feeling that attractiveness is socially constructed when I learned that the ideal French medieval breast was small and high, it would have been even more perspective stretching to see views of the breast in cultures I am less familiar with.
Overall, this was an engaging read.
To a large degree, the story of the breast is the story of women. Thus, if you've read much along those lines, much of that will be familiar. Even so, I found much that was new to me. The chapter the medicalized breast, which included a history of breast cancer treatments, was educational (and heart wrenching, at times).
My main criticism of this book is that it is primarily a history of the western and mostly upper class breast as seen by men. The second and third criticism -- upper class and the male gaze -- are hardly Yalom's fault. In fact, one of her themes throughout the book is how it is only in recent decades that women's voices have been able to openly speak about the breast. Before that men often defined the societal meaning of the breast, just as they defined women. And since much of that definition was through art, paintings and poetry in particular, that vision tended to focuses on upper class women.
But I am surprised at the lack of non-western perspective, beyond a couple scattered remarks. Just as it was an "ah hah" moment for my really feeling that attractiveness is socially constructed when I learned that the ideal French medieval breast was small and high, it would have been even more perspective stretching to see views of the breast in cultures I am less familiar with.
Overall, this was an engaging read.
mikecross's review against another edition
4.0
Very good historical view of the breast from a societal perspective. A little dated and preachy at the end, but still very enjoyable.
More...