Site menu:

The Black Breastfeeding Blog was created by Jennifer James as a way to reach black mothers who are currently breastfeeding or who want to breastfeed in the future. As a former breastfeeding mother of two daughters (who she breastfed for two years each), Jennifer believes in the powerful healing properties of breast milk and believes all black moms should at least start the nursing process to increase the health of their babies.

Send your breastfeeding photos to me at info (at) mommytoo (dot) com.

More Notes From the Race Trenches
Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Jennifer,

You responded to a comment by saying, "Thanks for sharing your perspective. I disagree. In choosing their logo MomsRising alienates an entire group of mothers -- subliminally."

Because Kentucky Fried Chicken's logo, Colonel Sanders, is white, has the franchise alienated the black population? Have you never eaten at Kentucky Fried Chicken merely based on the fact that their logo is a white man?

And the same question could be asked of Wendy's fast food restaurant... or any other business/product that has a non-black logo or icon: McDonalds, Pringles, or Gerber, just to name a few.

Labels: commentary, just because

posted by Jennifer James @ 10:49 AM,

19 Comments:

At September 12, 2007 12:32 PM,  Rachel's Tavern said...

I want to know why the commenter chose to bring up fried chicken. Of all the subconcious or conscious stereotypes you could possibly choose--fried chicken?

 

At September 12, 2007 12:48 PM,  Jennifer James said...

LOL!!! I know, right.

I almost used this post to get into my personal consumer habits like 1) I hate fried chicken 2) Why go to Wendy's when McDonald's has better fries? and 3) Why buy Gerber when you can make your own baby food?

But then I knew that would accomplish nothing.

 

At September 12, 2007 1:54 PM,  Mamaebeth said...

i think you hit the nail on the head with this line,
"Remember, Rosie the Riveter is an icon first. MomsRising turned the icon into a logo. It doesn't work. She will always stand for white women's empowerment no matter how anyone spins it."

i think that is the crux of your argument. it's an empoweing icon for white women, not ALL women. well, not even all white women, as a white woman i don't feel all that empowered by rosie and don't care for the logo either.

 

At September 12, 2007 1:55 PM,  Anonymous said...

Jennifer, the "We Can Do It!" poster was not used by the government for propaganda purposes. It was a _corporate_ poster, put out by Westinghouse (look closely at the logo at the bottom of an original). Since Westinghouse routinely discriminated against all of its female employees (whatever their background), one could argue that the poster acted as a symbol that actually hid oppression. Only recently has it become a symbol of (white) feminist empowerment.

 

At September 12, 2007 2:11 PM,  roslynholcomb said...

I started to bring that up Rachel, but decided not to go there. As I've said, pointing out obvious stupidity gives me a headache. I thank Goddess for people like you and Jennifer, because I'm not talking to them anymore.

Whoever created Rosie, these days she is indisputably seen as a model of white female empowerment. Period. Geez the nitpicking.

 

At September 12, 2007 2:44 PM,  Jennifer James said...

Anonymous,

Since Westinghouse routinely discriminated against all of its female employees (whatever their background), one could argue that the poster acted as a symbol that actually hid oppression.

Based on that argument, MomsRising REALLY shouldn't have used Rosie, yes.

It doesn't matter if the original poster was designed by Westinghouse or not. There are still tons of posters of white women war workers that were put out by the US government that conjure the same sentiments as the "We Can Do It" poster. Even the painting of Rosie the Riveter by Norman Rockwell evokes the same inherent discrimination. They're ALL Rosie.

 

At September 12, 2007 6:06 PM,  Aly Cat 121 said...

*sigh* I was gonna do this long post about how my grandmothers and great-grandmother all did "field work" (the same that "immigrant" day laborers do today picking fruit, veggies, cotton, etc) during the 1940's and up thru the 1950's. In fact my father was almost born in one of those "fields" while his mother picked cotton (yes they still have cotton fields and it was in California) because she could barely make it to the hospital.

But I decided against it. I've had no knowledge of "Rosie" or what she represented because my elders didn't work in factories. They did "field" work and "day's work" (meaning they cleaned homes, cooked, cleaned, etc for other's) and were paid very meager wages. And they have no knowledge of "Rosie" either and was she was SUPPOSE to present for them.

"To deny racism exists is racist in itself"

 

At September 12, 2007 10:02 PM,  Anna&Sophie said...

Very interesting post.

 

At September 12, 2007 11:36 PM,  Jamal O said...

I think its far fetched comparing Rosie the Riveter to the cheery colonel of KFC. During that time of history, advertisers were well known for the use of propaganda style posters and marketing.

symbols and Icons are very powerful.

Propaganda is still very much alive today its just much more covert in its operation.

cool blog.

 

At September 13, 2007 3:53 AM,  Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

At September 13, 2007 8:45 AM,  Anonymous said...

I've been thinking long and hard on this one. And I am beginning to understand. Rosie the Riveter represented middle class white women. She empowered them to do all they could do for the war effort. She became a symbol of strength for them.
Because let's face it, the advertisers and the companies were not looking to employ minority women OR working class women of ANY race.
Rosie was created as propaganda to entice these women into the factory workforce by the government and big business because they needed the workers. The women who responded helped our country become the world leader by the end of the war. Their efforts and accomplishments should be applauded.
So Rosie became a symbol of the strength of women.
But I see it now-- of those women- of white middle class women.
Not minority women and not working class women.
That I now understand. 3
Though I don't think that was what Momsrising- or anyone- who uses and promotes the logo is looking to accomplish.
So why don't we try to loot at Rosie in a different way? Why can't we say look what those women accomplished- what can we accomplish?
I would like to think that is what Momsrising was aiming at when they chose this logo.
Why don't we create a new 'Rosie' for modern mothers?
What type of mother would encompass all that mother's are today?
She couldn't be white, black, or any race.
She couldn't be a SAHM, a WOHM, a WAHM.
She couldn't be a minimum wage worker, she couldn't be a CEO.
This seems to be an impossible task.
One that you can ask your readers for help on, and then submit the idea to Momsrising.
What should a modern day Rosie, a Rosie that could/will be used as propaganda to entice ALL women to support and organize for children's and mother's rights look like?

 

At September 13, 2007 11:41 AM,  Mama Bear said...

Anonymous:

How about the International Breastfeeding Symbol? (Which now also comes in black: http://www.cafepress.com/mamabearshop.169403827)

Does it transcend enough? Is it neutral enough? Does it include as many as possible? I think it does, but I may be a little biased. ;)

 

At September 13, 2007 2:23 PM,  Fat Lady said...

I agree with the last anonymous poster. I think if they wanted to use Rosie, there are so many ways they could have altered her to make her an appropriate symbol for all women. Something as simple as flipping her around so that she is seen from the back, holding a clothed baby with a hat on it's head, so that you can't see her ethnicity or that of the baby.

I don't know if that works or if it's more effective to scrap Rosie than appropriating and changing her. But the point really is, that when diverse people come together in intelligent conversation myriad possibilities open up.

The Moms Rising logo seems like the result of limited exploration.

And if people want to discuss company logos, they would do better to ask how many people still feel about Uncle Ben's or Aunt Jemima. I know many people who still won't buy those products because of their logos.

 

At September 13, 2007 2:29 PM,  Jennifer James said...

Hi Fat Lady -- Just wanted to point out quickly that both of your latest comments have been great!

 

At September 13, 2007 2:40 PM,  Jennifer James said...

Thank you -- everyone -- for chiming in! Look! My first comment from a man ;)

Anon -- I really don't think Rosie can be effectively modernized. Someone would have to be absolutely brilliant to pull it off.

 

At September 16, 2007 9:03 PM,  Lone Star Ma said...

This has been very educational for me. While I do support Momsrising's work on mother's issues (and their book is currently peeking out from the corner of my desk), I had already had some dissatisfaction with the way their original start-up promotions seemed to ignore all the work for mothers' rights that poor women had been doing for so many years - groups like Welfare Warriors. I decided then that I could support them anyway because I really do want all of the groups in the mothers' movement (like the great ones you have mentioned) to work together, and I expected that their lack of credit to the welfare rights movement was unintentional. I never thought about the Rosie issue until reading about it here, though, and now it bothers me in a similar way. I still think I can support their work although that ridiculous communication to you makes it tough. I am a very passionate feminist and am proud of the accomplishments of the feminist movement but am of course always disturbed at how focused it has been on middle class white women like myself...I want a feminist movement and a mothers' movement that is for all women and all mothers. I would say thank you for bringing this to my attention but it also seems really wrong that women of color should have to bring these things to my attention...thank you, though.

 

At September 18, 2007 10:09 AM,  Alkelda the Gleeful said...

I came here via LoneStarMa.

Thank you for working on the issue of this logo and knowing it's important. It's hard to keep focused sometimes when you get responses that say, "Well, if you disagree with this item, then you must disagree with everything that remotely connects to it." I think those arguments are meant to distract. All I have to do is think of times when I've pointed out something was sexist, and remember the arguments I got about how something really wasn't sexist.

Just because one group of people can't ever know first-hand what another group of people experience in terms of prejudice doesn't mean that we can't get some sort of insight into how it must feel. If somehow we've never experienced racism ourselves, we can imagine what it's like for other people to experience prejudice. We can think, "Okay, how would I feel if I saw that image that was supposed to represent all women?"

 

At September 18, 2007 1:13 PM,  Anonymous said...

Although it's still rare, artists _have_ occasionally adjusted the familiar "We Can Do It!" image with more diversity. I can't paste the image here for some reason, but you can find one of my favorites at this URL:

http://moomoney.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/moo-the-riveter/

Perhaps Moms Rising could incorporate _that_ image. :-)

 

At September 18, 2007 1:30 PM,  Jennifer James said...

Anon --

Huh. Interesting. Let me ponder....

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home