I had no idea that my query would set off such a discussion.  
Jen O'Quinn has identified that my 'problem' is that I view a discussion of
the physical benefits of the baby as out of the realm of morality, whereas I
seem to view a discussion of the physical benefits to the mother as within
that realm.  All of this is news to me.

I have never even hinted that I doubt that the neurochemistry of
breastfeeding exerts a powerful influence on mothers.  My question is
whether we have grounds on which to assert that EVERY mother will be a
BETTER mother if she experiences these effects.  Not happier, not more
relaxed, not with lower depression scores, but BETTER, for EVERY mother,
which was the original claim.  I will confirm that I do have big problems
with the notion that I am in a position to judge the goodness of a mother on
a normative moral scale, based on whether she is under the influence of the
neurotransmitters active in the lactating woman.  Kathy Lilleskov also
mentioned the lack of a linear correspondence between neurotransmitters and
human behavior, and that is the crux of my skepticism to this approach.

One thing I strive to be clear about is that when a mother seeks information
and support from me in order to solve her breastfeeding problem, she is
rarely looking for an argument couched in moral terms about why she should
want to breastfeed.  In fact, I don't think I have ever had such a request
from a mother, and I know that when I perceived such a response from a
breastfeeding peer counselor the one time in my life I sought help for a
breastfeeding challenge to myself as a mother, it made it hard for me to
take seriously any of the information that followed.  Likewise, any mother
seeking such an approach would be disappointed if she came to me.  I find
that asking the mother what she thinks is the problem is a useful way to
begin.  It shows that I respect her as the expert on her own life, which I
find is a good starting point for any further collaboration.

So, I think my problem is that I prefer to handle moral issues without
involving the individual who is helping me to breastfeed, or become more
physically fit, or sort out my tax return or repair my car.  My choice of
helpers in any of those matters will be based on my ethical sensibilities,
as will my choice of places to work, shop or vacation, but unless morals is
the subject of my quest for help, I don't want my individual helpers to
include a portion of their own version of morality as part of the package.  

I think imprecision of language is a serious pitfall, and when we are
communicating in writing it is even more serious.  All we have is language
on this list - no non-verbal cues, no tone of voice, no handwriting even.
So the language needs to be painstakingly precise if we are to get the point
across.  If what you mean is that most mothers will feel better if they
breastfeed than if they don't, then say that.  If you mean that all mothers
will be better mothers if they breastfeed, then be prepared to defend your
claim with solid evidence, because you will likely need to do so.

The editor in me insists that as long as I am on the topic of imprecision in
language, I mention that 'illicit' is an adjective meaning unlawful, while
'elicit' is a verb meaning to bring to light; 'illucidate' is not in my
dictionary at all, though it would make a nifty cross between 'elucidate',
to clear up, and 'illuminate', to supply with light.  Elucidate is listed in
my dog-eared Funk & Wagnall's as a synonym for illuminate, actually.

And the lactivist who has been inhabiting my body and soul for over 25 years
is mildly amused that by becoming antagonized by the claim that lactational
neurotransmitters make every mother better, I seem to have joined the ranks
of 'apologists for bottle feeding'.  Live and learn!

Cheers
Rachel Myr
Kristiansand, Norway  

 

             ***********************************************

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