Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:34:44 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Heather wrote:
"I just ran across this and wanted to get the opinions of lactation
professionals.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CACA0.htm "Is Bottle-
Feeding a Mark of Bad Motherhood?""
Several others have already pointed out that this is simply a slick
move on the part of fomula manufacturers but what struck me the most is
the common use of *outsider status* to define bottlefeeders. This is of
course reversal since bottlefeeding is absolutey the norm, and only a
small minority of babies are actually breastfed in the U.S. and
Britain. Breastfeeding mothers are actually the ones under seige; with
public debate over whether they should be *allowed* to even mother in
public, and with arrests and citations not that uncommon. I have yet to
see an msnbc.com poll asking readers whether anyone should be allowed
to use formula. "Should public breastfeeding be allowed?" polls are
common. This is about the Status Quo. One thing that a majority,
status quo group can do to help maintain their status is to make sure
public opinion stays firmly in their favor - a common way of doing that
these days is by claiming an "underdog" status. Positioning oneself as
"under attack" by a bully often brings sympathy and attention, even
when it is of course totally false to the point of ludicrousness. While
breastfeeding mothers are told to go feed their babies where they go
poo, even ticketed and charged with crime, bottlefeeding advocates (ABM
companies and apologists, not usually bottlefeeding mothers) claim
"poor me" status, claiming that a lacto-nazi cabal that in fact doesn't
exist is victimizing them. The focus then is shifted away from the
pitifully low breastfeeding rates and poor public health (and
subsequent costs of health care) onto the "rights" of people to engage
in an activity that is not even under threat (but that is in fact the
norm, the status quo). Clever, no? I see this in other places too, when
young women are encouraged to get angry and assert their "rights" to
get breast implant surgery whenever criticism of the extreme body
fascism that encourages women to spend thousands to change their
appearance for the benefit of... who? Do women benefit in either of
these situations? No, but here some are, fighting for their rights to
buy things that harm them. Brilliant strategy.
Also notable in the article is the introduction of the ideas of
bottlefeeding mothers being "bad mothers" - does lactation literature
say that anywhere? No. Also, note the plea that feeding be
depoliticized, and removed as a moral issue - this leaves us confused
because *we* know it is not politicized but rather *commercialized*. It
has never been a moral issue, except in the opposite sense: that it is
indecent to show a breast in public, and/or that a woman breastfeeds
for her own perversion. Reversal and recruiting ("me-too"ism) all
around.
Michelle DePesa
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|