Breastfeeding, women's bodies and feminism

stargirl Ekphrasis Vix

Same - early weaning etc. But no health problems at all. No fillings in my late 40s. I'm not sure our four cases prove anything

I will add, bf my first was stressful till around 5 months due to lack of support and my unawareness of what bf a baby is really like. Tongue tie, reflux, strong let down etc.

Id personally been fed till 3.5 so it seemed natural to me to continue though.

Incidentally, extended bf spaces the teeth well which can mean fewer cavities. (Touching all wood I'm yet to have a filling in my 40s)

I do have hypothyroidism though and (non allergic) mild asthma but I was a very low birth weight which can have adverse health outcomes.

No allergies bar penicillin.

This was also quite eye opening

www.uppitysciencechick.com/Breastfeeding.html

I sort of had pnd (I had physical illnesses as well) and was seen by the perinatal team. I was passionate about bf but worried about staring sertraline. A psychiatrist I saw reassured me that it was fine (it is) and that if there was one thing he'd recommend it was that I carried on bf as he said we still don't know what is in breastmilk and he had read bits that indicated there were certain chemicals that directly benefitted the brain.

Unfortunately, as others have said there's no money in bf.

Yes the politics of bf was a real eye opener and made me realise how shit depictions of feeding babies is in film and tv.

The bit about how formula companies sponsored the design of maternity units - making sure separate infant rooms were created which makes it harder to est bf, was especially chilling. I now find it poignant when I see films with the dad going to see the infant in the baby room.

LOL at me being a "science denier"!

Formula is a terrible example of "science transcending biology" - it's an example of how science can mimic biology but fall slightly short (because even the best formula doesn't change itself to ensure that the baby gets what it needs at that time, nor pass on antibodies to the baby that protect it)

IVF is not "science transcending biology" - it's science helping biology to function properly. It's fixing a problem. Wombs are designed to receive sperm that mixes with an egg and provide a suitable environment to grow a healthy foetus to term. Sometimes, usually for reasons that we can't determine, some part of that process doesn't work, so science helps out by fertilising the egg outside the body, or implanting the egg into a completely different body.

Similarly, antibiotics aren't "science transcending biology", but helping biology along. Healthy human bodies are amazingly good at fighting infections, but sometimes they need a hand - and many antibiotics themselves have their roots in natural products, even if scientists have synthesized these over the years to develop a more accessible or effective product

Reading “the politics of breastfeeding” was an eye opener for me.

Agree Ofew

Artificial milk for babies wasn't invented for women's or baby's benefit. It was invented so men could get rich selling it and so women could work (and therefore make more men rich) without the inconvenience of having to feed their own baby. The men who run nestle and aptimil and the rest still get rich from selling it to women (usually poorer women).

It makes me laugh when people talk about the pressure to breastfeed and how much breastfeeding is pushed on new mums. I've never seen breastfeeding advertised on prime time telly, nor heard of breastfeeding supporters sponsoring events for healthcare professionals, nor seen adverts for breastfeeding in health professional's publications. Yet the massive companies that produce artificial milks spend millions doing this. To make men richer by selling more of it.

Stargirl1701 - me too.

I agree with painted.
“Transcending biology” op?
Surely what women need is the proper support to breastfeed ? Trying to transcend biology puts women in even more of a less respected position for the physical work they do in making , birthing and growing every single human being.
We are our biology. We are women.

@Babdoc

But, the individuals themselves can tell and the impact can be lifelong.

I was FF (70s baby) and weaned onto solids incredibly early (rusks in bottles at 8 weeks). I have IBS, asthma, eczema, a range of allergies and hay fever.

The interplay between my genes and these environmental factors are at the root of my lifelong health issues.

transcend
tranˈsɛnd,trɑːnˈsɛnd/
verb
1 be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere).

A reproductive system that cannot reproduce without scientific intervention, has therefore been transcended by science.

Duh! I meant ‘doesn’t’ mean mimic!

How does that transcend biology?

A biological event happens in the lab rather than the womb. The basic mechanisms are still the same.

When someone says ‘transcends’ to me that does mean ‘mimic’ to me that means ‘do it better and without requiring the base tools of the original process’.

Transcending biology puts me in mind of things like downloading personality onto computers so that the mind no longer requires a body to function. Not creating as similar an environment as you possibly can, doing the bare minimum possible in that environment and that transplanting the outcome back into the ‘natural’ biological environment.

IVF isn’t transcending biology. Growing babies in test tubes would be. Surely it’s an insult to women who have gestated embryos created by IVF to suggest that their biological labour in growing the child is irrelevant to the outcome which is purely an act of Glorious Science. No no no. Again, it’s the minimising of female biology.

but we are now able to transcend biology using science

No. No we are not

Yes, we absolutely are.

You might disagree with the OP, but no need to be science-denier.

There are countless examples of how science transcends biology. IVF and assisted reproduction for one.

Oh god, another one trotting out the crap about not being able to tell by looking at someone whether they were breastfed. Of course not, because you can't see someone's immune system, or their microbiome, or their propensity to asthma by looking at them. Nor can you tell how many ear infections and gastro issues they had as a baby etc e

No but we do know that there is evidence suggesting minimal difference in outcomes between formula fed and breast fed siblings, suggesting selection into breastfeeding is a big factor in outcomes. There is a study (in Brazil) I think which found a bigger difference not by using siblings but by otherwise attempting to account for this selection. The truth is it isn’t clear, but no one with access to clean drinking water and a kettle needs to fear they are doing any harm by their child by formula feeding. It is crucial women know this and don’t think they are failing their child by formula feeding, and nor are they to blame if their child gets an infection etc.

Female biology is unique and precious and cannot be replicated. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing our best to create the best possible formula for women who can’t or choose not to breast feed. It will never be the same. But it is a valid alternative for women.

Just because women, and only women, can breastfeed does not mean they should, not unless they want to. Only women can be pregnant and grow a child but obviously they should not be required to do so if they don’t want to. This is why access to reproductive services is crucial. Likewise breastfeeding. Women who want to should be supported, and women who don’t want to should also be supported. This includes trying to create the best possible alternative, and not judging her, and ramming down her throat that breastfeeding mums are doing better by their child than she is for hers.

Yeah I knew a guy who had a three year sabbatical to start up / run a fruit farm, in order to destress / re-evaluate priorities etc.

He walked straight back in to a top role.

I fail to see why fruit farming is so much better for your (financial services) career than maternity leave. But I expect that’s my muddled woman’s brain.

After all I have no idea what the OP is on about when she claims that the study of biology will transcend biology.

Oh god, another one trotting out the crap about not being able to tell by looking at someone whether they were breastfed. Of course not, because you can't see someone's immune system, or their microbiome, or their propensity to asthma by looking at them. Nor can you tell how many ear infections and gastro issues they had as a baby etc etc

OP I agree with many other posters on this thread. It's a shame that more research hasn't been done into what breast milk is and does. At the moment, there is so much we don't know about it and therefore no formula can replicate everything it does. It would be great if formula could be improved to make it closer to breast milk for all those women who don't want or can't breast feed, or who mix feed. But it is profoundly anti feminist to suggest that breastfeeding is anti feminist - the opposite is true. Anything that suppresses and downplays women and women's biology is anti feminist. Instead of looking for ways to outsource care of a baby we should be supporting women who want and are able to do this because it will ultimately benefit everyone in society. Time off on maternity leave is a tiny fraction of a woman's working life and there is no reason why this should preclude her from "important jobs".

In my sector (city law), people go on secondments to clients and sabbaticals all the time for 6-9 months and it has no impact on their careers whatsoever, yet somehow maternity leave seems to have a very different effect.

I planned to go back at 6 months but have to extend my maternity leave because my baby won't take a bottle and I realised that for this very short time in his life when he needs me and only me, it means more to me to be able to be there for him than immediate career progression and the luxury of savings. Of course I'm lucky to be able to make that choice but it's still a shame it has to be made.

If you look at all your adult friends, can you tell which ones were breast fed as infants? No?
Of course you can’t, because in the long term in the U.K. it makes bugger all difference!
I do wish women would stop fighting each other over breast v bottle and just accept that it’s up to each woman to choose whatever is easiest for her own circumstances.
You don’t get a medal for breast feeding, and it doesn’t come with bragging or criticising rights over formula feeders.
Maybe you could unite against the patriarchy instead of attacking each other?

Antibiotics aren’t created from scratch by chemists. They are extracted from biological organisms and then replicated.

In no way do antibiotics ‘transcend biology’ don’t be bloody ridiculous.

Yes, it’s society that’s the problem. Keeping the human race alive should be given more credit really. Polynerd I understand your argument but you could argue the same for pregnancy. I suppose it’s possible that one day we could grow all babies in test tubes but it will never be as good as growing them in a human womb and would most women chose that? This is a funny thread really given most of the feminist board is taken up with posters proclaiming the importance of recognising the physical differences between men and women and making sure society provides for them.

Couldn't agree more with @FloralBunting .

The feminist solution is to orient society around the biological reality of motherhood and infancy, not to pretend women are men and outsource as much as possible to corporations.

I actually think it’s deeply anti feminist to say formula is equal to the milk our own bodies produce specifically for our baby’s needs. No it’s not, but because society doesn’t value the work of breastfeeding, then you have opportunity cost vs a fixed few £ on a tin of formula.

I also would love to see data on nighttime feeding splits for formula families. Anecdotally none of my friends who used formula had a partner who consistently did overnights. A few started with good intentions and then made excuses within a few weeks.