>I think that the discussion on the Conversation website is
>indicative of what will be a ongoing issue for breastfeeding
>advocacy throughout the developed world. Writings by people such as
>Joan Wolf and Hanna Rosin have really locked into the collective
>imagination of those who do not wish to breastfeed or have needed to
>use infant formula. Being able to maintain that how a baby is fed
>"doesn't really matter" resonates strongly with many. There is a
>need to work out how to respond to this. My personal approach is to
>look at what is rock solid in terms of the science of infant
>feeding, look at the nitty gritty and detail and communicate that
>whilst also recognising where some overstate the strength of the
>research or clarity of the research in any particular area. I'm
>interested in what others think.
>Karleen Gribble
>Australia
I agree, Karleen - the correspondent on that website is saying
(repeatedly) what you point out echoes a lot of current arguments,
and she uses very predictable phraseology: basically, breastfeeding
is lovely and nice and wonderful blah blah blah but when mothers find
it difficult/uncomfortable/inconvenient/time consuming, they should
be reassured that it does not make much health difference, really.
Lifestyle choice, sorta thing. So we should all shut up, and stop
kidding ourselves and others.
Of course, most of us here will accept that this ignores the
probability that not breastfeeding means missing out on an important
emotional, psychological and neurological *dynamic* between mothers
and their babies - understandable, because we don't yet have the
'rock solid' science to show it.
But if we stick with the rock solid biomedical science, we will
eventually win the day....we hope? I think that is a justifiable
hope, but in the meantime, we have to be super-super-super scrupulous
with language.
Forgive me, Karleen, but your use of the word 'devastating' in the
debate - while perfectly justifiable, even in scientific terms, and
well-explained by you - is best avoided in these contexts...because
while it has a respectable scientific meaning, it *can* also be
interpreted as emotional and ideological, and *not* scientific. Our
debaters don't mind a bit switching from a science-y discourse to an
emotional/ideological one when it suits ('you make mothers feel
guilty' is an example, which pops up all the time). But we can do our
best, being super-sensitive to interpretations of language, to avoid
the trap.....'cos it comes up behind us and bites us where we don't
want to be bit :) :) Not sure if you agree with me here - would be
interested in your response :)
I am finding the contributions to the debate very educational - here
for those who missed it
https://theconversation.edu.au/mothers-seeking-wet-nurses-need-support-not-scaremongering-11934.
My ability to argue stats and research is nowhere near Susan
Berger's, so I am glad Susan's doing it for us :)
Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc, tutor, UK
--
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
