Breastfeeding, women's bodies and feminism

[Polynerd]

A male friend just posted a link on FB about breastfeeding reducing a woman's risk of stroke. I was surprised to see that he got a furious response from his (largely middle-class, middle-aged) female friends. We're fed up of being told what we should do with our bodies.
I fed all of my children and frankly I wish I had gone with the bottle. How are we supposed to get to a position where men and women have equal responsibility for children if women are harangued into being the sole provider during a child's early life?
If as much scientific effort was put into reproductive health research as is put into designing cars and phones, we would have better milks and measures to offset any risks to women's health arising from not feeding.

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 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.

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.

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.

Duh! I meant ‘doesn’t’ mean mimic!

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.

@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.

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.

Stargirl1701 - me too.

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.

Agree Ofew

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

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

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.

This was also quite eye opening

www.uppitysciencechick.com/Breastfeeding.html

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.

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