Now Salma's in the spotlight for travelling to Sierra Leone with UNICEF to help combat tetanus and other health issues facing women and children in that part of the world. What's most interesting to me about this activist endeavor is that it is all overshadowed by one moment caught on camera.
Yes, you probably already know the moment. It's the one when Salma Hayek breastfeeds a baby that isn't her own. She nurses a newborn in a symbolic gesture of compassion, education, and connection, and to show African mothers that breastfeeding is the best way to combat malnutrition in an area where infant mortality is of dire concern. And, of course, the whole campaign has taken a backseat to the YouTube video and blog buzz about Salma Hayek's boobs.
To be fair, a lot of the commentary has been on Salma Hayek hoisting up her breasts to feed an unrelated baby, and the shock and tears that come in seeing a woman offering up her body to heal the world. On this side of the world, we are not used to this. We are far more comfortable with women offering their bodies for blockbuster film roles, magazine spreads, and one twenty dollar bill at a time to get through college. I won't go into a whole patriarchy rant on this, but I will say that it amazes me that, after hearing reactions on TV news stories and filing through the hundreds of comments on blogs, people (and especially women) want to see (with their own eyes) a body nourishing another human being in need.
I also imagine that people (and now I mean men) are cheering Salma Hayek on in doing as much aid to Africa (and heck, why not America?) as she can possible fit into her schedule (and nursing tank top).
Maybe a few YouTubers or "Nightline" viewers did pay attention to the cause behind Salma Hayek's (oh, dare I say this?) staged breastfeeding session (maybe I've seen far too many episodes of "The Hills" to know that very little on TV is truly spontaneous). Maybe some people wondered why she had to have that little square of cotton covering her breast if the point was to be provocative.
Perhaps some of us are pondering the over-asked question of "would you breastfeed another woman's child?" and maybe others are considering why lactating is still considered so private, so intimate, and so shocking to see on-screen.
My opinion of Salma Hayek hasn't changed any after seeing her nurse that hungry newborn. It gave me a little let-down, but it certainly didn't make me think she'd crossed a line or even done something radical. She normalized something that should be normalized. Look at her. Save the fabric on her bust, she could be a woman at your playgroup, the park, or tucked away in the "Mother's Lounge" at Macy's.
It's the realness there that makes me swoon more over Salma, not the "controversy" over it. There's really nothing big about all this (well...), really nothing to see here other than a mother doing what many mothers would and have and will as long as women can produce milk.
What do you think? Why are we making such a big deal about Salma Hayek's breastfeeding footage?
And what about the cause that inspired it?
