'Bribed to breastfeed'

[AmIThough]

On Good Morning Britain today, they're talking about a new scheme to offer mothers shopping vouchers in return for breastfeeding.

Personally I think it seems unreasonable. As mothers we do what's right for us and our children. Breastfeeding isn't right for everyone and there's already a lot of pressure for us to do so.

All of my friends and I tried to breastfeed.

I have been successful but choose to combination feed which works best for me.

Some friends haven't been able to continue breastfeeding for various reasons - pain, MH etc

One even got told she needed to FF as the baby wasn't getting enough nutrition.

Would this have made a difference to the choices you made?

Biology not your subject, is it?

What do you think mammals have breasts for?

Do you also think that it's 'profoundly offensive ' to mention the biological function of bladders, kidneys, stomachs, hearts, ears, teeth, eyes, and noses, because some people might not use that function or it might not work properly - or is it only acknowledging that female mammals have breasts in order to feed their babies that you object to?

Science of any sort is not delinked from wider sociological discourse (which I think we sort of agree upon from different perspectives). The meaning, or the value, or personal identities around the body, the flesh and all things material are not somehow unreal, or of less value. These are complex, nuanced, subjective things which hold memories, value, pain etc for many people and around which identities are formulated. Sociology is also clearly not your subject, is it? This is precisely why maternity, childbirth and the perinatal is the site of SO much discord debate moralisation and trauma. Because none of this is ever solely about biology. Decades of nuanced sociological research and discussion exist on this. We cannot possibly tell someone they are wrong to attach x or Y part of their identity to A or B part of their flesh, because the biological functions of that part of their flesh is THIS.

Sociology is also clearly not your subject, is it?

You're right. My PhD was in Critical and Cultural Theory, as was my MA, and my undergrad degree was in Philosophy.

I lectured in Critical Theory, in English Literature, and in Media, Communication and Culture. But no, not Sociology, so thanks for that helpful explanation, with the extra-helpful words in bold.

Still love to know why you think mammals have breasts - could you answer? Cheers.

Oooooh we could be colleagues!! My PhD is in one of the subjects you’ve mentioned!! (Gets slightly excited). Not outing myself but it’s in the first half of your response.

My point is about the value/meaning attached to breasts or any other body part by individual women. If my breasts mean X or Y to me, if they link to my identity or the narrative I have for myself in own life in a particular way - then it is not useful I think to be told that that particular narrative is somehow not primary or authentic because: biology. Our bodies are the site of so much more than biology. So of course Mammary glands secrete milk for babies. Of course organ X or Y has this or that function. But they could also be a complex site of so much more - in terms of meaning, value, identity work - depending on the person we are speaking to that I couldn’t possibly tell someone they’ve missed out/misunderstood what the purpose of their body parts is in their eyes.

We won't be colleagues because I left academia well over ten years ago, but you might well be in the same department where I did mine, presuming it's the more obscure of those subjects. Send me a PM if you want to discuss privately.

As for the topic in hand: it's obfuscatory to talk about what a particular body part means to an individual in the context of this thread. No one is questioning the idea that individuals attach personal meanings to their own bodies.

And nor has anyone suggested that the fact that the biological function of breasts - the reason that they exist - is to feed babies means that they don't have any other meaning for women, or that women who can't/won't breastfeed should consider themselves lacking or failing. That's a straw man and no one has suggested it.

You can take joy in your breasts for their own sake if you feel so inclined; no one is suggesting otherwise, and no one apart from you has called that joy misplaced.

But it's bollocks to dispute the very simple fact that the reason women have breasts is to feed babies.

"Feelz" don't cancel out biological reality.

So childless women, childfree women, women who’ve had breasts removed owing to cancer before kids and yes indeed women who couldn’t or wouldn’t breastfeed must walk around feeling like their significant feminine body part has not fulfilled their prime purpose in life?

You could say exactly the same about the uteri of women who haven't/won't have children. No one - absolutely no one - is saying that they should consider themselves unfulfilled or lacking. But it's equally ridiculous to think that means that the primary purpose of a womb isn't to gestate a baby.