In one of my previous posts, I have discussed the patronizing tone most books on pregnancy employ towards pregnant women. One of the favorite topics of such books is breastfeeding. Instead of offering women information and letting them decide for themselves, they introduce a variety of scary stories aimed at shaming women into breastfeeding at all costs.
Pregnancy books are not the only source striving to bully women into breastfeeding. Recently, a new study has appeared linking breastfeeding with academic success. These studies crop up every two seconds, and each one sounds more hilarious than the previous one. Here is the main conclusion of this particular study:
"The study, published in the Journal of Human Capital, found that an additional month of breastfeeding was associated with an increase in high school grade point averages of 0.019 points and an increase in the probability of college attendance of 0.014."
Wow, if only my mother managed to breastfeed me, imagine what heights of academic achievement I might have accomplished. I mean, 0.019 and 0.014 points, that's some serious shit, people. Don't even think of depriving your child of these precious 0.014 points.
I have absolutely nothing whatsoever against breastfeeding. What annoys me, though, is seeing how difficult it is for everybody to just let women decide for themselves. The study I'm quoting based its conclusions on 126 children and arrived at 0.019 and 0.014 points. Doesn't this sound like a statistically negligible result? Is this kind of data really so conclusive and definitive that it needs to be published everywhere? It basically tells us nothing. But how on earth can we forego one more chance to tell women what to do?
61 comments:
OMG, so it wasn't enough for you to stigmatize asexuality, now you've got to mock breastfeeding too?
I know. I've been waiting for her to come up with a new group to hate. This is so predictable.
People, people, here is what I understand from this post, as clearly put as possible.
She is not mocking breastfeeding. She is not hating another group. She writes that she has nothing against breastfeeding.
She writes that she wants women to decide for themselves.
What on earth is wrong with that?
Is anybody thinking about the BABIES? Breastfeeding is in THEIR best interest.
It doesn't happen often that I find myself at a loss for words, but this is just that case. Huh? HUH??
are you people on crack? I am wondering what was in YOUR milk. LOL
learn how to read - there is nothing against breastfeeding in this post. all the writer said was that the propaganda and stretched out studies have to stop. I am pregnant right now and I am TIRED of all of the books and articles and magazines telling me what to do and what's best for my baby. all this manages to do is make women feel inadequate if they are unable to breastfeed (or reproduce or deliver vaginally, etc. etc. etc. etc.).
God forbid anyone tell women what is best for their babies... because we're all born with that innate knowledge, doncha know? What gets me is that people think that any unpleasant or potentially offensive information is presented to "bully" them, it couldn't possibly be there to INFORM them of real risks? Noooo... you're just trying to make me feel bad about my choice to use/do something risky with my infant. Patronizing? I think that patting every mom on the back and telling her that anything she decides to do is the "right thing" is far more patronizing than assuming that most women are intelligent enough to read and process the information about risks and make their own decisions based on actual information and not their fragile emotions. Because guess what? Formula manufacturers present the *exact same info* about their product, (improves vision, IQ, etc.) and I have NEVER heard a blogger gripe about how the new formula ads are just designed to make them feel bad about using the old ones. Maybe it's time to grow up and stop whining about things you don't want to hear.
hi Mom of seven! I think you missed the point entirely. It is absolutely necessary to get as much information as possible when you are pregnant. The problem begins, however, when studies come out and results are stretched out to prove a certain point in a misleading fashion. Trust me, if formula manufacturers came out with studies "proving" that their product results in a 0.0X improvement of whatever, I would laugh at it, mock it and call it propaganda as well. How does the study described in Clarissa's blog help me decided if it is better to breastfeed or not? It is based on 126 participants only (an unheard bias in research studies - look it up) and the results are laughable.
In the 70's women were made believe that breast milk was terrible and breastfeeding was frown upon. There were plenty of studies to "prove" the point. If I were living in the 70's, I would fight against that propaganda as much as I do about the one we are faced with now.
By the way, please don't tell me that expectant mothers are not patronized every step of the way as it is. I am pregnant and having read 5 pregnancy books so far, I am blown away by how it is just assumed that pregnant women are braindead and require every bit of information to be dissected into miniscule bits of information. The last thing we need are biased studies that our tax money pays for!
All I am saying is that I just want to know what my options are and then make my own opinion without being brainwashed one way or the other. Because that truly is patronizing.
Dear Mom of Seven, I don't bellieve that any one is born with the "innate knowledge" either. However, such studies assume that people don't even have the basic knowledge of 3rd grade math to see how silly their "conclusions" are.
I have never seen a similar "study" on the merits of formula, but if I did, believe me, I would have written exactly the same.
I don't know why you talk about risks, since this study is specifically about benefits. And it has not managed to prove they exist.
"Dear Mom of Seven, I don't bellieve that any one is born with the "innate knowledge" either. However, such studies assume that people don't even have the basic knowledge of 3rd grade math to see how silly their "conclusions" are."
Dear Clarissa, Apparently *you* don't think that most moms have the basic knowledge of 3rd grade math if you think this study is somehow going to "bully" someone into breastfeeding. Give women a little more credit than that.
"I don't know why you talk about risks, since this study is specifically about benefits. And it has not managed to prove they exist."
Breastfeeding doesn't actually convey "benefits", because it is nothing more than standard human nutrition. Unfortuntely, most studies are not worded properly due to formula being viewed as "standard" in our culture. To be accurate, this study really should say that "a reduced amount of one month of breastfeeding was associated with a DECREASE in high school grade point averages and a DECREASE in the probability of college attendance." Whether that decrease was substantial enough to matter is ultimately up to the reader to decide. (assuming they have sufficient intelligence to figure it out on their own)
Oh, and the reason the study was even interesting was the fact that there was any statistically measurable difference at all from ONE MONTH of additional breastfeeding. If ONE month of breastfeeding even shows up in a study, what difference might a full year or two make? The study itself says "Much work remains to be done to establish a definitive causal link". Surely someone of even average intelligence can figure out what that means.
Mom of seven, if you do not think that women are constantly bullied into breastfeeding, you are delusional. I have witnessed too many women going into postpartum or feeling incomplete when they are unable to breastfeed. All the books, pregnancy magazines and pregnancy sites convey the constant propaganda.
"Apparently *you* don't think that most moms have the basic knowledge of 3rd grade math if you think this study is somehow going to "bully" someone into breastfeeding"
-I didn't say it was going to succeed. I said it was attempting to do so.
"To be accurate, this study really should say that "a reduced amount of one month of breastfeeding was associated with a DECREASE in high school grade point averages and a DECREASE in the probability of college attendance.""
-To be accurate, this study should have said "Sorry, we wasted the research money and proved nothing." The difference they did demonstrate is the kind that would appear between any two groups of people. Say, we compare the IQ of the blondes and the brunettes. The results will not be 100% equal. There will be a tiny difference, always. Making any conclusions on the basis of this statistically and practically negligible data, however, will be silly.
"The study itself says "Much work remains to be done to establish a definitive causal link". Surely someone of even average intelligence can figure out what that means."
-It means that they are suggesting that SOME, although not a definitive link has been established by their study. And it hasn't. So this sentence is nothing but an egregious manipulation of the facts.
would you argue with the obvious fact that breast milk is better for babies?
would you argue with the obvious fact that breast milk is better for babies?
"would you argue with the obvious fact that breast milk is better for babies"
- I have no idea. I'm not here to argue either way. What I am saying, though, is that this study is not just flawed, it's completely useless and manipulative.
Brief introduction to statistics:
Suppose you want to explore the correlation between two parameters (in this case - duration of breastfeeding and probability to get into college). You can explore the whole population, and come up with a result that each additional month of breastfeeding increases the latter probability by 1.4% (cannot be linear dependence, by the way, or those breastfed till age 7 would be all geniuses, and those bottle-fed would all end up shoveling manure). However, that 1.4 number has an error associated with it. Even if you explore the whole population, this error will not be zero. Because there are many factors influencing probability to go to college, not just breastfeeding. Humans are not simple machines... But if your sample is actually just 126 people, then the error becomes larger than the number you have determined. In other words, 1.4% plus/minus 5%, for example. Very meaningful...
V.
P.S. I have nothing against breastfeeding.
That's exactly what I've been trying to say!! Thank you.
Yep. And all studies pretending to be scientific should publish that error. At least I do... For example - 10.5 plus/minus 0.5. Note the ratio between number itself and the error... :) :)
V.
""Apparently *you* don't think that most moms have the basic knowledge of 3rd grade math if you think this study is somehow going to "bully" someone into breastfeeding"
-I didn't say it was going to succeed. I said it was attempting to do so."
Got to wonder about your definition of "bully" then. So someone published a study that *may* support the idea that breastfeeding can effect intelligence... how is that in any way threatening?
"Only Enfamil PREMIUM has Triple Health Guard — clinically proven to promote growth, to improve brain and eye development, and to support the immune system too.
Supports IQ scores similar to breastfed babies."
Feeling bullied to use formula. too?
Does this quote come from an advertisement? Because it isn't fair to compare advertisements and supposedly objective research studies.
There have been women in this very topic who say they are pregnant and feel bullied into breastfeeding at all costs. I personally know women who say the same. And yes, I feel this study is part of this strategy.
Yep, that's right off Enfamil's website... why is THAT not offensive, but the same information WRT breastfeeding is? In case you missed it, the advertisement implies that breastfeeding improves brain development over "regular" formula... just like their new & improved product.
I know women are always saying "I feel I'm being bullied into breastfeeding", yet when you pin them down, they usually can't point to anything more substantial than a "feeling" in reaction to the information they are given by doctors, in baby books, etc. No one is physically chasing them around trying to force them to breastfeed, they just don't like the idea that by not breastfeeding (for whatever reason) they might be doing something risky to their baby or putting them at a disadvantage. The INFORMATION is offensive, not because it is being forcefully shoved down their throat, but solely because of the content. What is so offensive about the original study you referenced? It's the fact that it seems to be TRYING TO SUPPORT BREASTFEEDING that is upsetting people. If the same study showed the opposite result, would you still be here feeling "bullied" by it? "New formula improves high school grades and college attendance!" Should I feel pressured to use formula now?
There is no "strategy", people just don't like to hear unpleasant facts. Formula has risks and doesn't give the same results as breastfeeding. Deal with it.
Actually, this study proved that an extra month of breastfeeding makes NO DIFFERENCE barring the statistically accepted margin of error.
Bullying is what you are doing by telling women they are putting their children at risk (of what? Not getting into college? That's ridiculous) if they can't or won't breastfeed. As hard as people are trying to prove it, they just can't. Because it isn't true.
"Bullying is what you are doing by telling women they are putting their children at risk (of what? Not getting into college? That's ridiculous) if they can't or won't breastfeed. As hard as people are trying to prove it, they just can't. Because it isn't true."
Nice try... no cigar. By that logic, publishing studies about carseat safety is also "bullying" parents into using car seats, because they are telling them that by not using them, they are putting their child at risk. All the original study showed was a potential link between breastfeeding and improved acedemic performance. There is absolutely no way you can interpret this as "bullying" in any reasonable context without reading into it your own personal interpretation of the info.
What the study said: "BF'ing may support improved acedemic performance"
What some people apparently hear: "if you don't breastfeed, you're a bad mother".
Huge leap there.
And the risks of formula use have been indisputably established worldwide. This particular article only pointed to a possible reduction in acedemic performance due to not breastfeeding based on the fact that breastfeeding supports a higher level of brain development than any other infant food. The only real question is to what extent this difference may effect acedemic performance.
"All the original study showed was a potential link between breastfeeding and improved acedemic performance"
-No, it didn't. That's the point. As somebody said already, it showed that an extra month of breast-feeding makes no difference outside of margin of error.
As for why I don't feel bullied by information on how good it is NOT to breastfeed, it's simply because I've never seen it anywhere. I'm sure it's present in advertisements on formula sellers' websites, but in the context of public discussion I'm simply not seeing anything about that.
If I did see equally distorted studies on how bad it is to breastfeed (studies, not commercials), I would write the exact same post.
Mother of Seven, allow me to disagree with your statement of: "No one is physically chasing them around trying to force them to breastfeed". Wrong! There are pro-breastfeeding or lactation consulting groups that visit new moms at the hospital or even call them and visit them at home!! Some women sign up with these groups prior to giving birth and then cannot stop these people from calling and harrassing them if they change their minds and decide not to breastfeed.
A few of my pregnancy books list numerous (and I really mean numerous) examples of women who stuck with breastfeeding despite going through lots of pain, having cracks, bleeding and being overall miserable. They are being congratulated and expectant mothers are encouraged to be as heroic! The new trend is to breastfeed and when you opt for the formula you are certainly frowned upon. Women who stick through buying the formula, having to sterilize the bottles, warm up the milk and going through all of the ordeal related to it are definitely not being glorified.
Anyway, the original discussion was about the biased study. You make an example of a statement on a formula manufacturer's web-site. You know what the difference is between the two? Enfamil paid for its own study whereas we (the taxpayers) are paying for biased studies that come up with inconclusive results just to push the agenda.
"Some women sign up with these groups prior to giving birth and then cannot stop these people from calling and harrassing them if they change their minds and decide not to breastfeed."
-Seriously?? That sounds really scary. This sounds extremely fanatical. If you send me a source on this, I will be happy to write a post about it.
(If somebody has a source on how formula-promoters do the same, I will be writinga post about them too, believe me).
"There are pro-breastfeeding or lactation consulting groups that visit new moms at the hospital or even call them and visit them at home!! Some women sign up with these groups prior to giving birth and then cannot stop these people from calling and harrassing them if they change their minds and decide not to breastfeed."
Sorry, but this is laughable at best. These "lactation consulting groups" are generally nurses, if not board certified IBCLC's, specially trained to help new mothers establish breastfeeding during the first few days after birth. If that help is DESIRED, then the calls and home-visits are seen as being "supportive". LC's in general DO NOT call or visit moms at home who have let them know that they are not interested in breastfeeding.
The problem usually arises when a new mom is getting tired or frustrated and the LC is forced to try to read their minds and find a way to balance SUPPORTING the mom's expressed desire to breastfeed, and not "harassing" her if she does decide she wants to quit. I've talked to many women who deeply regret giving up during those first few days and wish someone had been more persistent in encouraging them to keep going. Others get upset if the LC doesn't go away after the first time they start expressing a desire to quit. What are they supposed to say? "sure, quit, it doesn't make any difference"? or "I know it's rough now, but we can help you through this"?
You have to remember that breastfeeding is about the HEALTH OF THE INFANT. It is in the baby's best interest for breastfeeding to succeed, which is why hospitals usually PAY these women to help new moms do what is the healthiest thing for their babies. Just because some women decide for whatever reason that they don't WANT to breastfeed, it is not the fault of the LC's who are simply doing their job of encouraging the best health option. If you don't want to breastfeed... don't. But don't get offended when others around you encourage you to make the healthiest choice for your infant.
(and right here is where so many women get their backs up and start crying "harassment"... "you say I'm not doing the 'healthiest thing' for my baby, you must be calling me a bad mom... etc." Own your own choices... and don't blame others for your emotions. )
"Anyway, the original discussion was about the biased study. Enfamil paid for its own study whereas we (the taxpayers) are paying for biased studies that come up with inconclusive results just to push the agenda."
How, exactly, is this "biased"? What do you base that assessment on? It would appear that this study was based on well-documented evidence that breastfeeding promotes normal, healthy brain development, and other foods lack the necessary substances to support the same level of brain development. Even the formula companies acknowledge this. Is it "biased" to continue to try to figure out exactly what effect this difference can make on long-term academic performance? Because once they can isolate and figure out how this system works, they may be able to use this information to improve existing infant formulas. Are you saying that if an infant formula could be produced that could replicate the same kind of brain development as breastmilk, you would not use it? (like the ad for Enfamil was promoting?)
This is not about "breastfeeding vs. formula", this is "what is healthiest for babies, and how can we make sure ALL babies reach the highest possible level of health?" YOU are making it out to say "they are just trying to find yet another way to make non-breastfeeders feel bad". That is a bit self-centered, don't you think? It couldn't possibly be about the babies, could it?
Mom of seven, how do you know that it is best for babies to be breastfed? I always thought that the best and the healthiest thing for a baby was to have a happy mother who is not stressing out and feeling incomplete.
On a side note, if you truly do have 7 kids, I sincerely hope you are more open minded with them than you have demonstrated in this blog.
---It would appear that this study was based on well-documented evidence that breastfeeding promotes normal, healthy brain development, and other foods lack the necessary substances to support the same level of brain development.
It looks quite amusing when a group of respected highly-qualified scientists attempts to prove a "well-documented" fact, and the best they can come up with is 1.4+-[more than 1.4]% improvement.
Please do not get me wrong, I do believe natural things are usually better than artificial ones. But, from a scientist's viewpoint, the cited study is ridiculous. When I find that there is no correlation between parameters A and B, I just honestly say so, not try to weasel out by "results MAY indicate that there is correlation" (because results do not prove absence of correlation, because data scatter is too large).
The very fact that results of such "quality" get published (and publicized in popular, rather than scientific, literature) indicates somebody is invested in getting certain particular outcome.
V.
momofseven, why don't you check out the following blog: http://svmomblog.typepad.com/canada_moms_blog/2009/03/an-old-wifes-tale-about-breastfeeding-rtp-photo-sent.html
Here is an example of a mother who believes in breastfeeding YET is able to be open-minded and non-judgemental. Please take notice.
"Mom of seven, how do you know that it is best for babies to be breastfed? I always thought that the best and the healthiest thing for a baby was to have a happy mother who is not stressing out and feeling incomplete."
Sorry, but last time I checked, mom's emotional state does not have any effect on the nutritional value of what she feeds her kids. Otherwise, you could put Koolaid in a bottle and as long as mom is happy and stress-free, the baby would be fine. The reality is, not giving a baby what nature has designed them to eat puts them at a higher risk for illness, infection and disease. Mom being "happy" or not doesn't change this fact. Unless mom is acting out on her own negative emotions, then they are not going to effect her baby one way or the other.
Being "open minded" means being able to make decisions based on all the facts, regardless of how they may make you feel. I've used formula myself, and I have no problem stating that it is not the best nutritional choice for a baby. I'm not so closed-minded as to believe that just because I don't want to think about the potential risks of using formula, they magically disappear.
Unfortunately, people have come to believe that "open minded" means "accepting anything anyone wants to do". They want everyone to pat each other on the back and say "whatever you choose is just fine". Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions, but that doesn't mean that everything they decide is safe and risk-free.
"The very fact that results of such "quality" get published (and publicized in popular, rather than scientific, literature) indicates somebody is invested in getting certain particular outcome."
Or it could reflect the fact that the overwhelming body of evidence from all medical disciplines already points to the fact that breastmilk supports better overall health. It still sounds like you are more worried about whether this is an effort to make women do something they don't want to do rather than to actually find out whether formula is lowering the intellectual potential of babies and what we can do to correct that if it is. Who is more vulnerable, the babies who are being fed formula and may be missing key nutritional substances, or the moms with such fragile emotions that a simple study about breastfeeding can make them feel "bullied"? What actual HARM do these studies do to women? What harm might be done if the studies are NOT done, and formula continues to stay the same? (or are you claiming that there is no room for improvement?)
Still sounds selfish to me... all about mom's feelings, nothing to do with babies' health... breastfed or otherwise.
Playing Devil's advocate... :)
I find it interesting, Clarissa, that for you asexuality is suspect because "sex is a natural function and all healthy people should want sex", and in the same time society's support for breastfeeding, which is also natural function, is perceived as bullying.
I suspect that this is exactly how asexuals feel about dominant/our views concerning sexuality, and that's why they overreacted to your asexuality post...
V.
Mom of seven, this is my last post to you because I am questioning how well you can read or comprehend what is written.
Being open-minded means not being judgmental about other people's choices. I support those who breastfeed and those that don't because at the end of the day the only thing that matters to me is my own choices and the ability to make them without anyone making me feel guilty.
Emotional health of the mother is ESSENTIAL to the well-being of the baby (not nutritionally - touche - but in many other aspects).
I am sure you will respond with a super long post about the benefits of breastfeeding or what's best for the babies, but this is the last post addressed to you on my end. We are talking about different things here.
"Sorry, but last time I checked, mom's emotional state does not have any effect on the nutritional value of what she feeds her kids."
-Really?? Where did you "check" it? I hope it wasn't in the studies of the same quasi-scientific value that the one we are discussing. :-)
"Or it could reflect the fact that the overwhelming body of evidence from all medical disciplines already points to the fact that breastmilk supports better overall health."
-That's precisely the problem. Where is that evidence? If it's all like the above-quoted study, then you have to agree that it's worthless.
"I support those who breastfeed and those that don't because at the end of the day the only thing that matters to me is my own choices and the ability to make them without anyone making me feel guilty."
-This summarizes my own position perfectly.
"I suspect that this is exactly how asexuals feel about dominant/our views concerning sexuality, and that's why they overreacted to your asexuality post..."
-Good example. Let's say I publish a letter some place saying: "I feel disgusted by breastfeeding, the mere thought of me makes me want to puke". Then somebody tells me I should see a psychologist for it. Believe it or not, but I would really not get offended or upset. Nor would I set out to organize a community of similarly-minded people.
"I support those who breastfeed and those that don't because at the end of the day the only thing that matters to me is my own choices and the ability to make them without anyone making me feel guilty."
Then own your own choices and stop worrying about what you imagine other people are thinking about you. No one else has the power to MAKE you feel guilty unless you choose to let them.
To me, at the end of the day, my own choices and my own children's health are all that really matter. I don't "grade" other people based on what they feed their kids. I can separate the food choice from the person... can you? Is it possible that you can use formula AND be a "good mom"? YES!!! Is it possible that you can acknowledge that formula carries risks and NOT be calling people who use it "bad moms"? YES!!! Can an article talking about the "benefits of breastmilk" actually be about breastmilk and not implying that those who do not breastfeed are "bad moms"? YES!!!
It would be nice if people would stop taking breastfeeding information so personally and assuming malicious intent from others where none is intended.
"It would be nice if people would stop taking breastfeeding information so personally and assuming malicious intent from others where none is intended."
-If I see facts so blatantly manipulated as in this "study", I can't help but ask why? What is the purpose behind this? My answer is: the whole current pro-breastfeeding hysteria is aimed at tying women to the private sphere even stronger. Keep 'em in the home and outta the workplace.
"If I see facts so blatantly manipulated as in this "study", I can't help but ask why? What is the purpose behind this? My answer is: the whole current pro-breastfeeding hysteria is aimed at tying women to the private sphere even stronger. Keep 'em in the home and outta the workplace."
Ahhhh... the myth that breastfeeding means you are stuck at home and can't be a productive member of society strikes again! Because no study about breastfeeding could POSSIBLY be about the health and well being of babies... nooooo, it's all about keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where they belong.
You might want to check out some "working and breastfeeding" websites... women do both all the time. Maybe instead of whining about imagined oppression of women through promoting breastfeeding, you could be using your blogging time to champion the rights of women to be able to breastfeed AND WORK if they want to. Better working conditions for nursing mothers, including pumping breaks and pumping rooms. Better maternity leaves to allow them to get breastfeeding well established before they have to return to work. Getting insurance companies to cover things like good quality breastpumps that would allow moms to work AND BREASTFEED. Because right now it sounds like you are just worried about getting those babies off their mommies breasts so mommy can be equal with daddy again. Or can't you breastfeed and still be a good feminist?
Half of all babies are female... don't their rights to good nutrition and normal health and development count? Or do you have to be an adult female to qualify for any rights? Does a mom's right NOT to breastfeed supercede her daughter's right TO BE breastfed? Or do a baby girl's risks of not being able to reach her own full potential in the area of brain development, or her higher risk of infection, illness and disease not matter because she's not old enough to get job and be a "real" woman yet?
You pretend to be championing the underdog, but the reality is, over 80% of all mothers use formula at some point. They are the vast majority. If you want to be a voice for women's rights, why not help the ones who are actually being oppressed? Woman don't get kicked out of stores or off planes for pulling out a bottle of formula... their rights are secure. When breastfeeding women can have the same rights, instead of being seen as social pariahs who should be hidden away in their homes or under shrouds so as not to offend with their "disgusting" behavior, then women will truly have moved towards a greater level of equality and freedom. You are sitting here promoting the same oppression of women that you claim to hate... the idea that you can't breastfeed and be a productive member of society.
one more time:
( and please read slowly and absorb )
the blog was NOT about whether or not to breastfeed but about the fact that the study came out with a ridiculous result laughable according to all statistical standards
But do you disagree that this "study" is a fake? Because if there is no agreement between us on this crucial fact, I don't see how we can keep discussing it.
So: I propose that this study is a fake that doesn't follow the most basic rules of scientific research. Agree or not?
As for promoting pumping spaces in the workplace: that's a great idea. Thank you for the suggestion, I'll write about it in my next post.
Clarissa,
you reacted to the second half of my message and ignored the first. What exactly is wrong with support of "breastfeeding-the-natural-function"?
Let's analyze your argument that it is a part of some anti-feminist backlash aimed at confining women to private sphere... I do not deny that anti-feminist backlash does exist to certain extent, but one seeing it everywhere might also see it in the sphere of sexuality. Why not start suspecting "sex is good for you, women" line of argument as being part of that anti-feminist conspiracy, as actually meaning something like "women, you should believe sex is good, because it makes our [male] lives so much more enjoyable, and increases probability of you becoming pregnant, locked in the suburbs and dependent on us"? : :) Double standards? :)
On a more serious note, I do not believe that every real or imaginable manifestation of anti-feminism in the public life is a part of some conscious conspiracy. People are just expressing their beliefs and value-systems... Which may be too traditional, or not scientific enough, or plain wrong, but invoking anti-feminism conspiracy theories more often than necessary does not help to deal with those wrong beliefs, since it diminishes one's credibility.
Sorry.
V.
"one more time:
( and please read slowly and absorb )
the blog was NOT about whether or not to breastfeed but about the fact that the study came out with a ridiculous result laughable according to all statistical standards"
Perhaps you are not reading all of the comments that I am responding to?
"What is the purpose behind this[study]? My answer is: the whole current pro-breastfeeding hysteria is aimed at tying women to the private sphere even stronger. Keep 'em in the home and outta the workplace."
Apparently you are missing the main point... the idea that studies like this are specifically aimed at bullying women to breastfeed. The real issue here wasn't whether the study was well done or not, but the idea that it was specifically done to "bully" women into breastfeeding and make those who don't feel guilty. "They are so desperate to make us feel bad that they will publish this kind of poorly done study just to rub our faces in the fact that we don't breastfeed or to make new moms afraid NOT to breastfeed, the big mean bullies"....hence the "Force Feeding Breastfeeding" title. The study was never the real issue, the motive behind publishing it was. I happen to disagree that this was the sole purpose that the study was done or published.
"But do you disagree that this "study" is a fake? Because if there is no agreement between us on this crucial fact, I don't see how we can keep discussing it.
So: I propose that this study is a fake that doesn't follow the most basic rules of scientific research. Agree or not?"
Do I think it was a fake? No. Does it prove anything? Not really, nor was it inteded to.
"The results of our study SUGGEST that the cognitive and health benefits of breastfeeding MAY lead to important long-run educational benefits for children," Sabia, a professor of public policy who focuses on health economics, said in a statement.
"But this is just a start. Much work remains to be done to establish a definitive causal link."
The whole idea was just trying to see if using siblings in a breastfeeding study would help reduce the amount of variables for a more realistic comparison:
"By focusing on differences between siblings, we can rule out the possibility that family-level factors such as socioeconomic status are driving the relationship between having been breastfed and educational attainment," said Rees, an economics professor.
Basically, it was redoing previous studies in a new way to see if it could give them more accurate results. No big news there... and certainly no dark ulterior motives to try to bully women into breastfeeding. It just wasn't that important of a study, and never claimed to be.
What makes you so sure it was a "fake", and why are you guessing at the motives of those who did the study?
"What exactly is wrong with support of "breastfeeding-the-natural-function"?"
-Absolutely nothing because it so obviously is a natural function. But there is tons wrong with supporting it with lies and fake quasi-scientific studies. Say, I believe that Juan Goytisolo is the greatest writer of the XXth century. If tomorrow somebody comes out to prove this idea that I believe in by attributing to him works he never wrote, I would criticize that study with a vengeance.
"Why not start suspecting "sex is good for you, women" line of argument as being part of that anti-feminist conspiracy, as actually meaning something like "women, you should believe sex is good, because it makes our [male] lives so much more enjoyable, and increases probability of you becoming pregnant, locked in the suburbs and dependent on us"? : :) Double standards? :)"
-I;m reading Ariel Levy's Female Chauuvinist Pigs and that's pretty much the argument she is making. I'm planning to address it in a series of posts when I finish reading.
There must be a reason why these people faked these results and there must be reasons for why they were so widely publicized Ithis study was quoted literally all over the place). The suggestion that it was done "for the good of the babies" seems pretty laughable to me.
" do not believe that every real or imaginable manifestation of anti-feminism in the public life is a part of some conscious conspiracy. People are just expressing their beliefs and value-systems... Which may be too traditional, or not scientific enough, or plain wrong, but invoking anti-feminism conspiracy theories more often than necessary does not help to deal with those wrong beliefs, since it diminishes one's credibility.
Sorry."
-As long as you don't vociferate "batshit" and "learn", you have nothing to be sorry about. :-)
I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy, of course it isn't. The public sentiment has turned against female liberation and towards putting women back into the kitchen. I believe that it's at leas as much women's doing as men's. From what I understood, you and I see the reasons for this in a pretty much the same way.
This "study" became so popular because people like nothing better than hearing what they heard before. The study just played into this public sentiment. The result, however, is women feeling justified in living their lives exclusively in terms of their (natural) physiological functions. And that is, ultimately, patriarchy.
mom of seven: Based on your suggestion:
http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/working-parents.html
Clarissa,
---people like nothing better than hearing what they heard before. The study just played into this public sentiment.
I agree with that. Breast-feeding moms want to hear that what they do is good and valuable. Non-breastfeeding moms want to hear their choice is good and valuable. Professors want to hear what they do is good and valuable. :) :) Etc. And I think this is all there is to it, there is nothing related to patriarchy about it. OK, not all. Some people got a grant for exploring benefits of breastfeeding, and need to publish something. Still no patriarchy...
---The result, however, is women feeling justified in living their lives exclusively in terms of their (natural) physiological functions. And that is, ultimately, patriarchy.
Please explain, how and why breastfeeding is more of "living their lives exclusively in terms of their (natural) physiological functions" than enjoying sex? Why are some natural functions more politically correct than others, which become suspect of patriarchy?
V.
I personally wish the patriarchy had repressed breastfeeding more than sexuality. We do spend more time having sex than breastfeeding in the course of our lives (hopefully). :-) Women have traditionally been relegated to childbearing and not to enjoying their sexuality. Still, within feminist circles praising breastfeeding is ok, while praising sex is, for some reason, not.
Does anyone care about what baby wants? Bottle or breast. There isn't a baby out there that would choose a bottle full of stinky formula over sweet pure breastmilk from mom. AND don't tell me you couldn't make milk!!! Read the stats. It's nearly impossible for a mom to not have enough milk. Nursing on demand gives all moms as much milk as their babies will ever need. And yes..I have breastfed. 6 babies, into toddlerhood. I never used a bottle even 1 time. It can be done.
"There isn't a baby out there that would choose a bottle full of stinky formula over sweet pure breastmilk from mom."
Actually, mine did!
I realize I'm about two years late on this, but one thing I never ever see brought up in this never-ending debate is the issue of mothers who need medication that makes it impossible for them to breastfeed. I have bipolar disorder and should I choose to get pregnant some day, I will have to immediately resume my medication on birth. (In fact, I will probably have to take low doses of something during pregnancy, as I've discussed vaguely with my psychiatrist, and if I were to get pregnant now, I'd have to have an abortion because of the near-certainty of birth defects from my "cocktail.") What about women who get postpartum depression and need antidepressants? Are they doubly unfit because they're depressed after the Most Joyous Event Of Their Lives AND they can't breastfeed? This doesn't even begin to include the mothers who have other chronic health conditions, both mental and physical, who need medication to function. Clarissa, I'd love to know what your thoughts are on this topic.
First of all, it's never too late to revive a discussion. I always see all new comments the moment they are submitted, so please don't worry about being too late.
In return for your honesty in this comment, I want to be as honest as you have been. I'm a 35-year-old autistic who has delayed having kinds because I'm not sure I will even be able to love a child I might have. Until I find a very definitive answer to this question, I will not have children.
As for not being able to breastfeed at all for whatever reason (including being on medication), all I can tell you is that I was never breastfed. At all. In spite of the current medical consensus (that has changed completely over the years and is likely to change again in the foreseeable future), I don't seem to have suffered from any intellectual limitations as a result of not being breastfed. I have five degrees and speak many languages. My sister, who was breastfed till the age of 1 and a half, is equally brilliant.
So all I can say, is that of you want to have a child, just go ahead. If you feel like you have enough love to share with another human being, then just do it. Breastfeeding is such a completely unimportant aspect of the entire process.
The irony is that of my two sisters and me, I was the only one who was breastfed and I'm the one with the serious mental health issue and the terrible immune system! I have year-round allergies, I catch every passing virus, and it always takes me a long time to recover. Also, I am the only one of the three of us who wears glasses, and I am by far the shortest despite being the oldest. So much for those stories of the superpowers of breastfeeding. Of course, I'm going to a good law school right now, so *clearly* the breastfeeding was what pushed my test scores and GPA over the edge. (If only it could do the same for me now!) My younger sisters are 13 and 20. The teenager is brilliant and the older one is already starting her masters in accounting and is working for Deloitte this summer. Formula apparently didn't hold them back!
Maybe the answer is that it isn't about breastfeeding at all.People want to believe in breastfeeding as this one thing that will turn your kid into a genius without you having to invest any effort into it. Isn't it possible, though, that the simple physiological act of breastfeeding is worth a lot less than what the parents invest in the kids (as seems to be the case in your case and in mine)?
My sister, who breastfed her daughter until the age of 10 months, says that breastfeeding makes no difference to a kids intelligence and/or health.
P.S. All of this breast-feeding vs no breast-feeding stuff is completely unimportant in view of the really crucial issue of whether you or me, real, actual women, want to have a child.
My take is: you want to, do it. You don't want to, don't do it. Either way, I'm 100% on your side. You are a woman, it's your choice. Any decision you make, is absolutely the right one.
A laughed when I read about this study, because I was physically unable to be breastfed due to severe lactose intolerance. It made me wonder idly whether I might be in third or fourth place in my class rankings rather than fifth had I not had to drink formula. Because clearly that makes so much of a difference to a person already in the top percent of their class.
This study could easily be seen to place a stigma on anyone who could not drink breast milk, for whatever reason. Since when does something that happened when we were so little as to not remember it--and for no reason within our control--affect our social and academic standing so profoundly?
Exactly. If only academic and professional success could be achieved so easily.
I have absolutely no doubt that there is the exact same number of lazy layabouts who haven't opened a book since childhood among people who were never breastfed and those who were for a very long time.
Otherwise, we could just start accepting people to universities on the basis of how long they were breastfed. :-) :-)
Post a Comment