Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

saras

(6,670 posts)
10. It's one of those questions that was scientifically settled before the backwards march started...
Mon Mar 5, 2012, 12:25 AM
Mar 2012

It's better for the mom's health, it's better for the baby's health, it's better for the relationship, if someone who WANTS a child has a lifestyle that conflicts with this, they need a lifestyle change, poverty notwithstanding.

I think it's within the range of individual choice, but the idea that they're even comparable is largely due to the industry carefully picking what to study and what questions to ask. Places with more public-health science find different things than America, especially post-Reagan.

The article tells a counter-story - that of people rejecting postwar consumerism based on results rather than on politics - as though it was the main story, and consumerism was an accidental happenstance, a byproduct of progress rather than a willfully constructed antifeminist movement. The LaLeche League people discovered that not just formula, but the culture associated with it and babies, sucked. Other than that they were fairly typical fifties moms, immersed in the culture of their times except where it obviously failed. That is, they liked breast feeding because it was better, and they framed it in terms of mom and apple pie because that's how everybody thought, especially conservatives like them.

In a way we're lucky they framed it in a system that's so irrelevant and outdated. It's better for breastfeeding to be judged on its merits in the present than in whatever originally sourced it.

It has become the defining feature of a philosophy in which motherhood, and only motherhood, determines a woman’s status and her role in society

To me, this just seems bizarre, and the surrounding article doesn't help at all. The people who feel this way about motherhood (mostly the radical right) have generally little interest in the kind of nurturing involved in breastfeeding - in my experience, anyways, and they philosophically prefer industry and commercial products anyways.

Maybe other parts of the country are different, but nearly everyone I've known who has valued breastfeeding has been progressive, pro-women's rights, often feminist, sometimes radical feminist - but both of those in the SAME philosophy? I've seen it a few times in letters to the editor of Mothering magazine, but not in real life.

It's fairly typical of a certain school of postmodernists who basically hold progressives responsible for nearly all of fascism - they blame utopians for prisons, they ignore Skinner and Watson and blame Dewey for everything bad in education, and anything "feminist" that suggests there's more to the world than filling the male role, whether "female" or outside the male/female box, is reactionary and dominionist, especially humane child care - which to me says a lot more about THEIR purposes than their politics.

If that's your thing, it's typical Harpers' quality. If it's NOT your thing, check out LaLeche League's website for what they're doing this decade.

To me, motherhood is something like playing music, or being part of a successful political collective, or having a spiritual experience, or loving the experience of speed. Some people get it and some don't; the ones that do it aren't necessarily the ones that get it; the failures are obvious.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The evil breastfeeding conspiracy. Crunchy Frog Mar 2012 #1
Did you read the entire essay? REP Mar 2012 #2
It'd help if you didn't link to a site Confusious Mar 2012 #6
Oh, good grief Warpy Mar 2012 #3
The thing is the "extra benefits" are over hyped and women are guilted into it REP Mar 2012 #4
Since you didn't quote the whole thing and Harper's didn't make it available Warpy Mar 2012 #5
Ah crap. Wasn't aware it wasn't available. I'd copy the whole thing except for DU's copyright rules. REP Mar 2012 #7
Studies have said it's better Confusious Mar 2012 #8
For immunity, if continued 3-6 months REP Mar 2012 #9
I can probably find 10 studies that say they do have those benefits. Confusious Mar 2012 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Mar 2012 #19
It's a reference from the essay, quoted in my OP REP Mar 2012 #21
I wouldn't; sounds like potential copyright trouble. gkhouston Mar 2012 #22
Yeah, me too - guess I'm radical! REP Mar 2012 #23
Same here. Well said n/t Catherina Mar 2012 #24
Women are incredibly sad when they cannot breastfeed. Adriennecliona Mar 2012 #28
It's one of those questions that was scientifically settled before the backwards march started... saras Mar 2012 #10
Breast feeding was a good choice for my little boy and I Nikia Mar 2012 #11
The best thing about breastfeeding, for me, was my health improvement clyrc Mar 2012 #12
I think breastfeeding is great. Fight profit-making companies like Nestlé Catherina Mar 2012 #13
The great Nestle boycott Catherina Mar 2012 #14
Nestle boycott list Catherina Mar 2012 #15
For women without access to potable water, this has always made sense REP Mar 2012 #16
I understand better now Catherina Mar 2012 #18
One of the first things you learn as a parent is that no matter what choices you make gkhouston Mar 2012 #20
Haha. Really? Catherina Mar 2012 #25
Re-read the post: "I wonder what *would* have happened." gkhouston Mar 2012 #26
What about the babies Adriennecliona Mar 2012 #27
Hi, Neighbor! REP Mar 2012 #29
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»Harpers - The Tyranny of ...»Reply #10