Is the AlphaParent anti-feminist?

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

Was pondering this earlier. AlphaParent on FB, if you don't know, is a very pro-breastfeeding page. It's sort of hard to describe what they post, but it's mostly links to other articles and then they rip apart formula feeding and people's reasons for it. This grates on me a bit, as while I do think BF is the biological norm and women should be given as much support as they want/need, at the end of the day it's a choice.

There was a link today to an article on '15 Good Reasons for Formula Feeding Every Mom Can Agree On'. Some of the listed reasons included FF helping with their PND, lack of resources to pump at work, having cancer treatments, finding it incompatible with a demanding carer. These got ripped to shred on the AP, posters saying 'well, did you want a career or a baby' and lots of people saying things along the lines of 'how selfish are you for wanting to do anything other than what is best for your baby'. My favourite included someone pointing out that if she could carry on breastfeeding while having a brain tumour removed, then anyone could carry on during their cancer treatment. Obviously.

So does this count as anti-feminist? I just find the tone of the whole thing incredibly judgemental and anti-women. As if, by not breastfeeding, we are somehow failing as women and mothers and if only we had tried harder and not wanted to do anything other than parent and feed then we would have succeeded rather than failed at infant feeding.

I'm feeling a bit grim today, so sorry if this is a bit obtuse. I'm sure I've got a point in there somewhere if someone can help me unpick it?

I was reading AP as AlphaParent on this thread.
I agree with SinisterSal. There seems to be a belief that if you do a,b, and c it will produce a lovely, emotionally mature and well rounded child and then adult. However, in reality, there is no magic formula. You can do what you think of as all the 'right' things and have an over anxious child, a spiteful child etc . I know a child of alcoholics, he has had a very dysfunctional upbringing but is a sunny, outgoing, kind,intelligent teenager. Obviously I am not saying it doesn't matter,but all the little things like whether you give your baby purées or finger food or both matter not one jot.
There is no such thing as an Alpha Parent- a parent that suits one child is an utter nightmare for another- adults and children are all different and one size can't possibly fit all.

Why did I look at that Blog and facebook page?

One of the comments on the facebook page " I still managed to exclusively BF and pump when I went back to work full time 4 weeks post partum. It wasn't easy giving up all my spare time to make enough milk for my LO but ya know what?! It was damn well worth it! Because when I decided to be a mom, I decided my childs need were above my own"

Some might argue that going to work full time after only 4 weeks isn't in fact putting your child first.

Feeding is the perfect battleground for creating anxiety because only women can nurse.

We all make some sacrifices. I sacrificed my child's gut for my sanity. I sacrificed my career for his education giving up 12 years. We all make choices that suit us and our own children.

I don't like this image that mother's are martyrs. It is a pedestal that sets women up to fail. The patriarchal system we live in is very good at setting women up to fail, also at pitting women against each other. As Minx said, this is the perfect environment. Women are the only ones who can breastfeed, women do most of the childcare. I think this pressure would be alleviated if men stepped up to the plate a bit more with regards childcare.

I also think that there is a fair amount of cognitive dissonance going on on that blog/FB page.

It is hideously anti-feminist.

I heartily recommend checking out Sanctimommy on Facebook for the antidote.

Mini - that woman is probably American, they only get 6 weeks mat leave maximum.

GoshAnne you are probably right, I hadn't thought of that. I chose that comment because of the obvious contradiction and because I think it raises an important point about the pressures of juggling career and motherhood.

The woman leaves herself open to the charge that she isn't in fact putting her child's needs above her own when she brags confesses to having left the baby at 4 weeks. But it could be argued that she wasn't putting her child's needs after hers but after the needs of her employer.

There are contradictions to all of this. We are under increased pressures because of the very competitive world in which we live under advanced western capitalism. If you take the view that there is a huge level of competition for good jobs and that the full time job is now not just a 9-5 affair but an all encompassing life's work. Where one invests more and more of oneself into it, both in terms of time and money spent on qualifications/training. Then it could be argued that in such a competitive environment then ones main priority should be to invest as much time effort and money in to your child's development. There is no short cutting this with electronic toys or pushing children into childcare settings with unqualified or poorly educated proxy parenting.

It seems that we have too much pressure in terms of our work/life balance because of the dirge of good well paid work.

Motherhood is being compressed into a short period of a few months with the emphasis on breastfeeding and not on child caring. The contradiction to this is that childhood is becoming longer precisely because of that competition for work. And the period in which women are encouraged to devote themselves to parenting is condensed to suit the needs of capitalism, not childhood development.

In the middle ages in Europe the world "child" did not exists and there was no such thing as adolescence. We had infants and adults. But now we have nurseries and schools acting as a depository for children to live out this extended childhood away from parents so that their care doesn't interfere with capitals need to exploit female labour. But where are the men in this? if less labour is needed and work is increasingly feminised and non-manual why don't we see fathers stepping up? They don't so all the pressure is on us, which is why breastfeeding becomes the ideal battlefield on which women can fight. I would even contend that many women (whatever work choices) choose this issue because women feel undue anxiety quite unrelated to breastfeeding. The issue of breastfeeding is used as a substitute representing other fears around their child's ability to compete in a very competitive world.

I also question why now a bottle of breastmilk is better than 5-6 years of full-time parenting. I am fairly certain that no amount of analysing the constituents of breastmilk v FF brings us any closer to understanding whether breastmilk is good/bad substitute for nurture and which of these aspects produces an emotionally as well as physically healthy child.

In short..... the world is wrong now can we put the sticks down?

Mini - for all the anticapitalist spin, with the talk of all-consuming jobs vs "full-time parenting", you're starting to sound a bit Alpha Parent.

I work part time, my child goes to nursery. I think it's great and do not need anyone handwringing over it.

I am not even going to look at that page because I know it will make me ragey.
Completely agree with those who say " think it's a backlash against increased power women have now" and words to that effect. What is depressing is that the footsoldiers of the campaign are women themselves.

However, AnnieLobeseder, feminism is NOT about choice. There are anti-feminist choices. I think it is arguably anti-feminist to apply social pressure to deny women the physical and economic freedoms of choosing not to breastfeed, for instance. But to boil this down to "feminism is about choice" is stupid and pernicious.

Choice is a horrible, mis-used, over-used buzzword. "choice" in schools, for example, is about empowering already-socially-and-economically-empowered parents to get their children into good schools, as opposed to shit ones. I would rather ditch the choice and shit schools not exist. For reasons like this, and others, more directly related to feminism, hoisting "choice" as a sacred desideratum brings me out in a rash. It is usually a cover for some sort of every-man-for-himself, devil-take-the-hindmost position.

Zut - the issue then is, who gets to decide what is or isn't a feminist choice?

Especially as similar choices may be made for widely different reasons.

My biggest issue is that many of the proponents of "choice feminism" are hugely privileged women who think the answer to all issues would be for women to make the same choices they did. Which completely ignores that many choices aren't available to many women.

No where have I suggested that one choice is better. I am just saying that with the economic situation being what it is, with rising housing costs and inflation, stagnating wages, lots of jobs now being over professionalised but increasingly underpaid and the loss of traditional "male" jobs the pressure upon women to work means that many do. Most women do not make choices free from having to consider income. It may be better for children to have SAHM it may be better for children to have working mothers???? I am simply suggesting that analysing what is best for children or mothers can not be undertaken unless we understand fully that choices are not made in some place outside of society. Gosh if you read my post pls notice I am not giving a personal opinion on what I think is best.

I question why a bottle of breastmilk is better than looking after children full time. I am not saying one is better than the other but I can tell you why we are increasingly being told "breastfeeding is better, right done that, now get back to your desk" It may be better but then the argument could be made that parenting your children is best, so therefore to get maximum efficacy you should do this full time. But we don't receive those messages in the mainstream.

There was another woman commenting on the FB page that she had lost everything and been made bankrupt legally because she chose to BF and AP "my children have everything they need" So they might at the moment, how can we know. How many women would choose to go broke in the name of BF? not many because going back to work is both an economic necessity and a socially conditioned choice.

Really interesting points, Mini. I think that, not just with bfing but with nutrition in general, there can be a tendency to displace all one's parenting anxiety onto it - perhaps because it is relatively controllable?

GoshAnneGorilla - "the issue then is, who gets to decide what is or isn't a feminist point?"
you say that as if it is deeply problematic. Perhaps it is slightly problematic but I have absolutely no issue with all political and philosophical points not being a democracy. None at all. some people think better and make better decisions than others. Those people have a responsibility to share their thinking with others.

By the way, when I say that some choices are anti-feminist I am not coming down on either side of WOHM and SAHM debate. I think both can be supported by feminism and both can be talked about in a feminist or anti feminist way

Mini - I'm struggling to see your incredibly articulate posts as little more than biological determinism - if pesky capitalism and society didn't get in the way, we could all spend all of our time with our children, which is how it should be, right? Not in my world.

Surely we need to stop seeing motherhood as some sliding scale between selfish and selfless and put more energy into talking about parenting - as in mums and dads. By repeating the "mother as everything" mantra we are simply creating an ideal that few can live up to, and colouring the experiences we have outside our families with presumed negativity and sadness.

I think this is one of the areas where the western interpretation of attached parenting has become skewed - as I alluded to in an earlier post. Extremely poor women who carry their children on their backs while they get on with looking after animals, planting and harvesting, fetching water etc aren't doing it because they believe their children deserve a 'full time parent'. They're doing it because they have to look after the animals, harvest and plant and get the water.

While mini's posts do make good points about capitalism, the current alternatives to capitalism (at the moment) don't involve women having a greater range of choices, freedom, economic power or free time either.

By the way mini, I believe you when you say you don't think one choice is better, but loaded phrases like 'full time mother' will usually make readers suspect otherwise. I have been a full time mother since I gave birth. Even when I went out to work, I didn't stop being a mother.

Also I'm going to stop calling it attached parenting, because we all know we're really talking about Attached Mothering, right?

Sheshelob - I think you can critique the way capitalism limits our time with our families without going into silly biological determinism. I would love to spend more time with my children but not more than my dp. I wish we could both work less.

I really do think my children need more of me than they are getting. They get a lot of a good childminder and they get a reasonable amount of dp, but they need more of me, not because I am a woman but because I am their mother. If I were to stop woh and dp take up being out 14 hours a day, that wouldn't work either. they would miss him terribly. but it doesn't stop them needing me, either

er, I'm not advocating anything

I suppose you could argue that it is quite possible to be different and equal that equality is not the same as being identical. In which case it would be safe to say, "hey I don't want your job, nah I prefer knitting and homemaking" (except few can). A division of labour doesn't in and of itself create inequality. Being a SAHM doesn't have the same value as being a CEO or some such because value is denoted by economic value. Something unpaid has less economic value and is socially regarded therefore as having less value. Who wants seemingly to be of less social value? very few people. A division of labour where people might perform fairly gender specific roles doesn't have to entail making judgements of value. But it does now. Its a little like me saying to DP "I can drink you under the table" I can't and I don't want to be able to. Maybe that is socially conditioned but maybe I would still choose a glass of red over a pint, or the cross country over the rugby or whatever. Why does masculine culture whether it be chasing bonuses or chasing pints have to be emulated. Even women must to some extent have been guilty of agreeing to this system of values because many haven't sought to challenge it but to emulate it at work and at home. But then what makes some behaviour and some desires masculine/feminine and I am puzzled about how that came to be, was that as a result of material conditions? probably but can't think straight at the moment.

I don't have an opinion about what we should do, I would love it if every woman had free choice but we simply don't.

BF is biologically determined, some women seem intent on ensuring that women do not have bodily autonomy. I would like to know what some of the Breastapo think about abortion and rape.

Zut - of course it's problematic.

All you're suggesting is a feminism where those at the top if the pyramid will get to set the agenda, so it's exactly the same power dynamics that exist in wider society, but because it's women dictating to other women, it's somehow beneficial for women as a class.

You seriously don't see any limitations with that approach?

GoshAnneGorilla, you are extrapolating all sorts of things that don't apply.

"those at the top if the pyramid will get to set the agenda" - in the world in which I live, those at the top of the pyramid tend not to be feminist women. They tend to me more or less openly or consciously anti-feminist men and women who put up with how those men want things, more or less willingly. If you are implying that there is some sort of philosophical power-"pyramid" which operates alongside the other power structures in our society and awards rigorous feminists equivalent power and therefore potential corruption, then, oh please.

I think you are imagining that there is some sort of Feminist Club which has a bunch of bullies on the committee which keeps announcing potentially oppressive things that suit them personally, like "this year we rule that feminists can't wear dresses" and all the feminists who love pretty dresses sigh but have to obey to stay in Feminist Club. Obviously that is stupid, but it isn't like that, and it is not oppressive to say "x is not a feminist point of view". The person who holds that view isn't stopped from doing or saying anything. They will be annoyed, perhaps because something they want or value is being threatened, but it doesn't actually stop them from doing anything. then there is an argument about it, and good, argument is good.

But the thing about feminism, and so many other things, that it is not a matter of personal preference. If you say "I love the film Pretty Woman!" I can't say "You are wrong, because I hate it". Of course if you love it, you love it, and you are free to say so. But I am right to say it is not a feminist movie, and if you disagree because you like it and you want to say you are a feminist, well you might get annoyed, but it doesn't make you right.

The thing to bear in mind is that while structures can oppress, the lack of structure will definitely oppress. So while we have laws against certain things (GBH, child labour) what we are doing is curbing the opportunities of the rich or physically strong to use their advantages to abuse the weak. It's a good thing. Similarly, if you just wave your hands and say "whatever, it's all good, it's all choice" you are failing to oppose the vested interests who are actively working against us for their own reasons

Of course that is why we hear so much anti-structure stuff. So much of the language of "choice" and "freedom" is rhetoric that means "stay out of my way while I use my privilege to get what I want". Some people who have little or no privilege buy it because they sound like lovely cheerful noble words. It's tragic. and I know this sounds awful and patronising, but some people don't know what's best for them. People who vote for low taxes who are completely dependent on public infrastructure (as we are, we use the nhs and the libraries and our children will be state educated and we can't afford private hospitals or private schools or gated communities and will never be able to) but who don't grasp that they are voting for rich people to pay less, because they can afford to do all this privately and don't care if the public goes to the dogs.

Similarly, people who are all pro-"choice" (not "pro-choice" which I definitely am!) are pro "nobody stopping the bullies from pushing everyone around"

Zut - to break it down, do you think all women are equally oppressed? Or that there are some women who have it harder then others? Clue - think about class, race, disabilities.

The idea that feminists are pure souls, free from any societal prejudices is a myth. I mentioned a pyramid for a reason, it's not just about whose at the top, it's all the hierarchies in between.

Mini, part of the reason "traditionally masculine"values were embraced so heartily by a certain strain of feminism was because having access to money other than through marriage was simply vital to the project. If women were paid for all the traditional things they do / did, outwith the arbitrary and discretionary goodwill of the good, bad, or ugly individual she happened to be married to, perhaps pretending to be like a man would have seemed less important. I would still like to see that.

And part is just good old internalised misogyny

Gosh thanks GoshAnneGorilla, thanks for the clue. HMmmmm think about that. I'm trying but I'm not quite patronised enough to get it, at the moment. Could you patronise me a bit more?

You're missing the point. Feminists qua feminists do not have structural power over "lesser" people of any kind. As academics, as white posh people, maybe - not as and through feminism. Maybe they are snotty to other mothers at the school gate, etc. But this is not part of feminism. This "pyramid" has nothing to do with feminism. And in fact, if you are trying to talk about intersectionality (I think, bless you, you might be) the pyramid is completely the wrong image. Because a pyramid is a structure in which every element is below or above every other element. You need something more flowing and rhizomatic.

I suppose, if you can grasp this, I am talking about feminism rather than feminists. To break it down. Clue - one is a body of thought, one is a group of people.

GoshAnneGorilla I think intersection is an interesting way of looking at class, gender, age, race etc, how they combine together to create particular oppressions but going forward isn't a useful theory that points to any sort of positive antagonism to either the economic structural or cultural hegemony that is at the root of all oppression.

And yep, fess up, I'm a leftie but I certainly don't think we women need a vanguard party of elite intellectuals. We do need solidarity and academic philosophical thinkers on which we can draw theoretical knowledge but I don't agree with mimicking existing structures, that is not the route to liberation. But neither is playing oppression top trumps.