Hayek Our Hero
Rare is the celebrity who can manage her self-promoting humanitarianism in such a way that the mutual objectives are met.
And yet Salma Hayek, via video of her breastfeeding a starving African baby, has proven that she can do just that – perform a genuinely good deed, and earn recognition for it (the “Nightline†cameras didn’t invite themselves, people).
Risking sentimentality, we’re struck by the bare beauty of Salma’s act, the raw candor of which nearly eclipses its plain practicality.
That there are hungry babies is shame, and a testament to the waste of wealth.
Western women, able to afford formula – ounce for ounce, it approximates the cost of champagne – stomp on that luxury by refusing to donate their breast milk.
Salma Hayek, with her left nipple, has done more for children, for women, for Africa, and for hunger than America’s billions in guilt funds ever could.
All of that and she’s deeply thoughtful, wondering aloud if sharing her daughter’s milk is “disloyal.â€
Immediately she explains that of course it isn’t, but her insight is endearing all the more for her curiousity even in spite of her certainty.
When called for comment, the African baby referred to Hayek’s cheesy movies. “Why buy the Bandidas when you can get the milk for free?”
While we can’t argue with that logic – and while we’ve never stooped as low as Frieda or Bandidas – we’d still never part with our copy of Fools Rush In.
It’s classic. It’s vintage. It’s VHS.
Comments
By CL on February 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I had hoped from the title that you were referring to Friedrich Hayek, so imagine my disappointment when instead I encountered this nonsense:
“Western women, able to afford formula – ounce for ounce, it approximates the cost of champagne – stomp on that luxury by refusing to donate their breast milk.”
This is also rather insulting to working moms who use formula out of necessity, not as a “luxury.” And do you really think there are mothers who feed their children formula and still have breastmilk to donate? You do realize that their bodies do not produce milk forever? Why would they pump and buy formula?
Plus there are numerous other issues that make this statement stupid, such as the lack of any organization to take, preserve, and distribute these types of donations.
By Mande Wilkes on February 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
CL -
There’s a “lack of any organization” to facilitate breast milk donations??
A cursory google search for “breast milk donation” suggests otherwise. Since google itself is as inaccessible to you as you believe these donation organizations to be, here’s a link to the query result page:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=breast+milk+donation&aq=f&oq=
-Mande
By Strom on February 12th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I’d trade Piggy Park for a lunch like that any day.
By CL on February 13th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
You may want to look at your own search results. Note the lack of sponsored links, and the fact that only one of these 5 or so relevant hits even purports to be international in scope. So unless Selma is willing to go on permanent breast patrol in the 3rd world, your dream of breast milk for all will go unfulfilled.
As you might find out one day when you are confronted with this dilemma, in the real world women use formula because they have to work, not because they are spoiled. It is idiotic to think that women across this country are just discarding breastmilk that could go to charity.
Maybe you can demonstrate your grasp of Christian teachings and tell us whether Mary donated her milk. I think she gave it to the Good Samaritan. Something like that.
By friend of a friend. on February 13th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Here’s hoping that the intent was the welfare of the child and not only publicity.
That would be just like so many other current celebs.
By Mande Wilkes on February 14th, 2009 at 3:27 am
CL -
You flatter me! To hear you tell it, I’ve come up with these milk donation shenanigans on my very own. I know I’ve demonstrated a good bit of ingenuity here at FITS, but the fact is that I didn’t invent the concept of breast milk donation. It’s not novel, nor even the least bit uncommon or extraordinary.
With that in mind, my “grasp of Christian teachings” is not unlike your grasp on reality: Tenuous on a good day, but otherwise positively nonexistent. You’re way ahead of me on the topic of Mary, ’cause I didn’t even know she lactated. I just figured that, in keeping with the majesty of the rest of the birth story, she bypassed the mess of milk altogether.
- Mande
By Natasha on February 14th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Who was it that said it is the lucky child who gets to breastfeed beyond a year? Too many babies don’t get mothers milk…working or nonworking moms period. And it ain’t easy to provide in today’s busy world where expectations of motherhood are out of balance, it is sad for those babies…
By CL on February 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
How could I forget the White Cross, with its army of volunteers ready, willing, and able to extract(I hear young male volunteers are particularly keen on the extraction part) and distribute the milk that will one day save the world. If only all of these self-involved Western women will quit throwing away all the milk that could be donated.
I hate to keep poking holes in your “gotcha” argument, but I would once again refer to your linked “proof” of an extensive network of milk donation:
“At this time, there are only six human milk banks in the United States.”
Unless there is some magic increase in both supply (you still have not addressed the pesky problem of why a woman would simultaneously bottle feed and continue to express milk) and distribution networks, your dream of human milk for all will remain just that. Until then, I guess Selma will have to work overtime. But I think she is well equipped to the task.