AIBU to be a bit cheesed off at this article?

[Cadpat]

Here

I am not sure what to think actually. One part of me is outraged, especially as it makes me feel like shite for actually thinking there may be some benefits to BF. Now, according to her, its all about class. The other, well, I just don't know.

I am debating writing in to Maclean's about this, as I am feeling quite emotional about this, but thought I would like to canvas a few opinions here first, to see if I was being a self righteous prat.

New studies come out all the time. Do what you want and don't get your knickers in a twist.
Write to them and say what?

TBH, just that the title of the article was misleading and it was the wrong message to be sending out to people.

My guess is that she's saying that, in the West, if you don't bf, it's not going to kill your baby. And that bf is tied into a discourse that puts a lot of (unjustified) pressure on mothers-who-are women. She stops short of saying bf isn't healthier, and says that research may be incomplete.

It sounds v. much to me as though she's saying: "Hey, French women have the right idea!" and: "Breastfeeding takes up a lot of women's time, and potentially inhibits their freedom!" and: "There is a discourse around motherhood, and in which the breastfeeding debate is involved, that is quite anti-women!"

None of which is news, per se, but she's presenting it in a very polemical fashion. I'd also say she sails close to the anti-feminist wind herself, in that she seems to hold feminists responsible for this.

These feminists must be so busy, mustn't they?

I don't know. I blame it on the whole "publish or perish", "sensationalist" trend in (American) academic publishing. Reminds me of Camille Paglia, somehow.

I still think a really interesting area of research would be the impact of working mothers on the discourse around motherhood, and the subjective experience and identity of motherhood. Which change, I think, is where this sort of stuff is really getting its energy from.

its an opinion. Are people only allowed one opinion? She's not a doctor or a scientist, shes giving her opinion as a feminist.

Why should she not be allowed to do that?

People are entitled to thier own opinions, if you think something else then good for you for having a brain and not following and/ or believing everything you read; do what you think is right. But why write in? Her theory may offend you but she is entitled to talk about it and believe in it.

Animula, you've put into words what I was thinking. I was not happy with the way she talked about her concept of 'total motherhood'. Surely if that's what someone wants to do its their prerogative?

It just felt a bit too sensationalist, but Macleans is a magazine with lots of influence and I think they should have countered it with someone who talks about the benefits of BF. The interviewer sounds like she's completely agreeing with her...

Oh, I don't know, maybe I am just being the bored housewife as DH accuses me of being.

Well, Buzz, I don't think anyone is saying she can't.

Cadpat is asking whether her own (negative) emotional response is justified, and, further, whether she should take the step of expressing her negative response to Macleans.

I don't think anyone is posting saying "Darn it, this opinion must be obliterated, never expressed again, and all memory of it wiped from the earth."

And, seriously, how might that be done?

There is, of course, a whole issue about power and representation. I suspect Cadpat has picked up on the disproportionate weighting in the forums of representation gifted to Cadpat and Thingy (sorry, forgotten her name). Thingy's opinion is represented as a book, and as an academice book, and will be widely circulated, as an academic treatise, ie raised above mere "opinion". Cadpat is posting on an internet forum, and thinking of writing a letter to the magazine. The two opinions do not carry equal weight.

Off at a tangent, isn't it interesting that someone is publishing an academic book about this? What sort of strange cultural currents is it picking up on?

Clearly, to bf, to not bf is a heated issue out in the world. I looked up the book on-line, and it doesn't seem to have a cultural-studies type chapter dealing with that objectively, which I would have expected from an academic, rather than a polemic/mass-market book.

TBH, I'm as poor/working class as they come and chose to breastfeed for 12 months. Everybody accepted and embraced my decision.

I resent assumptions that breast feeding is a purely middle class movement...but I recognise that there are qualms and reservations amongst my (social) peers...'tis a shame.

I just didn't like the implication (as I saw it) that theres something wrong with putting forward an opposing view.

I don't see why it would have to be countered with a bf best opinion. Thats not generally how these things work. If they were reporting on a book about , say, global warming;big con, it wouldn't need a view that global warming was real next to it.
Its for adults, not children. You don't have to like what it says. Opinions from all can be put forward.

It's ve weird, the whole "middle class" thing, isn't it? that seems to be the new stick to beat bf mothers with. and, bizarrely, to beat wc mothers with too. Amazing, that.

I'm old enough to remember when bf was considered a bit working class ...

weird, weird, weird.

Animula, the other thing I find odd about the article, is that the author fails to disclose if she breastfed or not. If she really cares about all these issues around BF surely some of her own experience would be what informs it?

Or is the book merely designed to shock us poor middle class mothers? Living in Canada, there is, to some extent, a difference to parenting that I haven't seen in the UK. I myself have been known to make fun of some of the earnestness of parenting.

But I just feel that this article, and I don't know to what extent, the book is going that bit too far.

Why should she disclose that? She is a professor in womens studies, its not always about personal experience.

And, btw, she does mention it, and goes on to say why she didn't detail this in her book. So perhaps its better to read the article before you decide its going too far.

Seriously though, who has a right to care as long as your kids are fed?

badcoverversion, exactly. Women have been breastfeeding pretty much forever. To call it a middle class 'obsession' if you will, is not justified.

Her argument is also that BF mothers tend to look after thier children better in terms of keeping them safer, and that is exaggerating the beneficial effects of BF.

I can't agree with that analysis either, does that mean working class women care less about the health and safety of their children?

BuzzLighBeer, I said in my OP that I don't know what to think. I had a negative experience of breastfeeding, but I continued it in the belief that it was best for my baby, I only stopped when I got very ill with TB and was on shedloads of ABs. Now she's saying that well, you went through all that pain for nothing but the fact that you were a middle class woman who thinks that her whole aim in life was to keep the child safe. Maybe I am being simplistic, but I just can't bring myself to agree with that.

I didn't read it like that, Cadpat. I think I read that as being precisely the thing that points up the way this book straddles mass market/academic in a rather painful, unsatisfying way. ie. manages the transition from "opinion" to something much more "weighty".

Objectivity is all important in academic things, hence she won't get drawn on what she did - that would be to insert her (female, mother's) body into a debate that, theoretically she is staking out her position in through objective research.

The "Total Mummy" thing is, I think, part of a bigger debate about what motherhood is, what it should be, what the stakes are in differing models for women ... and what we want from women in the C21.

It is clearly a far more political book, and with more clout, than mere opinion. I wonder if it will catch on? Or if it'll just die a quiet death?

Cadpat, I'm quite sure it's polemical enough to draw a response from someone with some weight.

I wonder if a part of Thingy's work doesn't play into the hands of those who think of humanity as workers: either employed workers, or unemployed workers, and thus motherhood as an interruption of the female good worker's sole purpose.

I think the bit you are missing is that you don't have to agree with it.

And she's not saying you went through all that for nothing, shes saying hey how about we don't make women feel like utter shit if they have a problem like cadpat?

Sorry I will disappear for a bit, will be back soon, have to feed the kid (who's demanding fried rice btw :))

Cadpat - well, lots and lots of people have taken issue with the WHO line on bf, but, at the end of the day, they're the WHO. So if I were you, I'd take some comfort in that.

Really, I think you should take joy in what you chose/were able to do, accept what you couldn't. Really. You sound as though you're a caring mother, and a thoughtful person. Don't let this upset you.

I, personally, tend to keep out of bf/ff debates. Bf worked for me, but I know it doesn't for everyone, and would never want to make a woman feel bad about her experience.

So I'm heading off now. And I hope you don't let this get to you.

animula, you know what you're right. I am sure there will be a huge number of responses to that article and probably several from the medical profession...

So I think I am going to shut up about it.

Yes, I agree with Buzz' post.

Cadpat - I don't think you have to shut up about it - I suspect it's stuff like this, and talking about it, that really helps all of us think about our experiences, and put words to them. Little stepping-stones through life 'n' all.

Have a lovely night.