Erasure of 'mother' in Breastfeeding groups

[OhHolyJesus]

It's something I've noticed since the LA Leche League did it with 'nursing parent' and since SANDS called mothers 'birthing parents' but more and more breastfeeding networks appear to be doing it.

In the comments I've noticed most women rejecting the term and maybe just 5 women saying they appreciate the 'inclusivity' as they are gender queer or fluid or whatever.

I'm not surprised as such, I mean it's a female dominated space so of course men want access and women will 'be kind' and let them in, I suppose I struggle more with the mothers who have had elective mastectomies or have breasts and can breastfeed but don't consider themselves mothers, if they need help to breastfeed why would the language around breastfeeding as a whole need to change for them, they can still get help as breastfeeding mothers.

I realise it's for the few not the many but I'm struggling to understand why those running the groups do it and kick out the women who just want to use the word mother? It's our word, others get to use their words, why can't we have mother?

the women who are keen on the kind of inclusivity which disempowers women have been themselves oppressed and so their natural urge is towards appeasement and avoidance of conflict in order to keep safe. It is preemptive submission.

True, and it's a vicious circle. No amount of appeasement will ever be enough. Everything you give away will trigger demands for more.

@teezletangler and @chicklingpixies

Just because you are on the ground with this is there any way do you think this can be challenged from the top down?

It's not at al the same but recently the M&S chief Exec office confirmed to me that they still allow customers to chose which changing room they want to use, despite Baroness Nicholson tweeting that it was the opposite. What the email to me explained was that their staff were to apply common sense to it, so it's left up to the staff to hold the line.

Will the same apply in Breastfeeding groups? Many women leading them are volunteers aren't they?

I ask as I'm making complaints and would be interested in your thoughts.

This is just shocking - my preferred nouns are woman and mother (I wish I could use doctor too but sadly have never completed a PHD).

The erasure of women is terrible.

@DaisiesandButtercups

I tend to observe that the women who are keen on the kind of inclusivity which disempowers women have been themselves oppressed and so their natural urge is towards appeasement and avoidance of conflict in order to keep safe. It is preemptive submission.

I think this is sometimes true but a bit over-generous a reading, in the main. The women I know who are keenest on this are very privileged, and I think for that reason can't see the harm in giving away other women's power because they still have plenty. Notably, I've noticed that all the women I know in real life who are uncomfortable with the erasure of women have had children, which for many women like us - white, highly-educated, very middle class - was the first time we'd really recognised ourselves as experiencing overt sexism and the ways in which biological reality impacts on women; it certainly was for me.

Unfortunately I don’t think that it can be challenged from the top down. As with Girlguiding, those at the top are fully signed up to “inclusivity” even if the volunteers on the ground are not.

I presume it was strategic that those running the organisations have been targeted or maybe they were more susceptible in the first place for some reason.

As others have said it is in journals, on social media and in training and from there it filters down. Importantly the message that you had better keep it quiet if you don’t agree with the new language is loud and clear.

I suppose those who struggle to accept gender ideology will be less likely to join these organisations or take on roles as volunteers. Eventually the “wrong kind” of woman/mother will be pushed out. As a pp said it makes a mockery of these organisations saying they want to reach beyond their middle class bubble.

I take your point Hardbackwriter.

Some women I know like this are perhaps materially okay but have suffered emotional abuse on some level.

I was very struck that the moment my first child was in my arms everything changed. I realised that that was the point at which all my perceived equality went out the window.

Of course the women who volunteer for breastfeeding support groups will tend to be mothers so you might hope they would understand this too.

Ugh.

Have to say my local LLL fb groups are stoically sticking to mother. But the area isn't as woke as many.

I've noticed bf groups in the US don't seem to be too affected either, oddly.

I really think that the reality is the majority of women attending these groups would not feel comfortable with “inclusive” language and the majority of volunteers sense that or are equally uncomfortable with it so in local groups it hasn’t caught hold. Like so much of gender ideology it will eventually have to be imposed by some authoritarian means. Capturing women’s organisations at the national level and getting leaders such as lactation consultants, conference organisers and speakers and those who write articles and policies will pave the way. These would normally be the ones making the case for biologically accurate or plain English language which in times past was believed to be empowering to women.

I'm afraid the reason for this thread was down to a post using 'nursing parent' in place of mother in a US breastfeeding group, I fear the gender ideology in breastfeeding groups is strong.

www.facebook.com/194867850564727/posts/4005008772883930/?d=n

The sad thing is that in the 1960s we'd have been delighted to be called "person" instead of always being "woman" even when it was completely irrelevant (as in all newspaper reports about anything, where we also got our age in brackets after our names and were given a physical description including what our clothes were like), and it never once occurred to us that anyone would be idiotic enough to insist on calling us "person" when "woman" was the most relevant thing there could possibly be in a situation.

I think because back then "person" would have made us equal to men, whereas now when it is used it's deliberately reducing us to our bodily functions so that men can appropriate our non bodily experiences (and sometimes mimic the physically female ones). It again makes us a passive vessel for male desires.

I know, I know! It's just sad how it's been so turned round to be to our disadvantage.

I completely agree, it is. And also that it's sold to younger women and girls as "intersectional feminism". True intersectionality would recognise females as a specific group needing legal protections and appropriate policy making.

[quote OhHolyJesus]I'm afraid the reason for this thread was down to a post using 'nursing parent' in place of mother in a US breastfeeding group, I fear the gender ideology in breastfeeding groups is strong.

www.facebook.com/194867850564727/posts/4005008772883930/?d=n[/quote]

Ah yes I saw that, didn't realise it was US. Some of the others I'm in aren't like that (yet, only a matter of time.)

Why is mother a dirty word?

I’m new to all this I’m sorry in advance. So if breastfeeding groups is extended to people who cannot breastfeed, what do they actually do in the group? How are they included in something they cannot physically do?

It’s the other way round; there may be trans men who are breast / chest feeding and who don’t want to be referred to as mothers.

I’m currently breastfeeding and I don’t object to inclusive language. For one thing I really object to being called ‘mum’ by doctors and nurses, which has happened multiple times since my son was born. I have a name and I’m not their mother and for another, breastfeeding is hard enough without the added complication of making someone doing it feel alienated or unwelcome. It doesn’t hurt me to be inclusive to them.

Because some people can't be mothers.

I doubt that any of the people who are suggesting that the word "mother" ought not to be used are female people who for some biological reason are unable to carry a child to term, though.

Loving this!

WOMEN!

I've posted about this topic several times over the last year, because I had my second baby in September and I have been following various communications about pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, mainly on Facebook but also elsewhere.

The erasure of the words "woman" and "mother" has been very noticeable and has irked me greatly. When I have challenged it, I've come across many naive and woke replies which I can basically paraphrase as "be nice". Apparently, we "birthing people" must STFU and accept the erasure of our identity as WOMEN and MOTHERS in order to appease a tiny but vocal minority. Gets on my lactating tits.

It doesn’t hurt me to be inclusive to them.

The problem is that it does.

I agree that I hated being referred to as 'mum' as though I didn't have a name, but I still need a word to refer to the biological reality of being a human who has given birth, that doesn't imply anything more than somebody who has just given birth.

This isn't species specific. I live rurally and you need language to explain which animals have given birth, might give birth, or are clearly about to give birth.

It's one thing to sympathise with somebody experiencing gender dysphoria. It's another to be forced to live within a restrictive world of gender stereotypes where 'mother' is a judgement of your core identity, and not a neutral description of a reproductive role.

It's also very harmful because 'inclusive' language hides the fact that some things only happen to women, and have been and still are a cause of indirect discrimination.

The fact that women are asked to accept this because they should 'be kind' just the icing on the cake.

Has the word ‘mother’ ever been a neutral description? I would consider it one of the most symbolically loaded terms there is. When someone refers to me as mum or mother it certainly doesn’t feel neutral, and I don’t always appreciate the implications it comes with.

What is the harm that you feel is caused? I can’t see it myself but I don’t want to dismiss someone else’s experience, so I am interested to know.

Notably, I've noticed that all the women I know in real life who are uncomfortable with the erasure of women have had children, which for many women like us - white, highly-educated, very middle class - was the first time we'd really recognised ourselves as experiencing overt sexism and the ways in which biological reality impacts on women; it certainly was for me.

Yes.

I'm worried my daughter will continue to think I'm a terrible bigot right up until the time she has a child of her own. (And if she never does, she might never change her mind.)

@Terracottasaur

Has the word ‘mother’ ever been a neutral description? I would consider it one of the most symbolically loaded terms there is. When someone refers to me as mum or mother it certainly doesn’t feel neutral, and I don’t always appreciate the implications it comes with.

What is the harm that you feel is caused? I can’t see it myself but I don’t want to dismiss someone else’s experience, so I am interested to know.

You don't have to accept any of the implications that come with being called a mum or a mother. You can reject everything that it implies - value, virtue and expectations. Some people have really awful mothers and some people never know their mothers and some mothers immediately and willingly give their children up for adoption.

Gender expectations can be cast aside - women can be doctors and lawyers, women can vote, women can drive, women don't have to love men. That is feminism.

However, you can't reject the medical consequences of having given birth and being related to another human by virtue of having given birth.

Once you have stripped everything down you inevitably reach a point where being born male or female has unavoidable consequences. Only women become pregnant (whether they want to or not). Women lactate whether they want to or not. Only women give birth. Women cannot and have not participated equally in society without specific rights and protections that take into account their physical reality.

It is possible to sympathise with gender dysphoria (as with any other kind of dysphoria) without wanting to live according to the world view of people who suffer from that dysphoria. To insist on gender and to ignore sex is to shove all women into a gender box and to remove the language they need to protect their rights.

It is wrong.

Notably, I've noticed that all the women I know in real life who are uncomfortable with the erasure of women have had children, which for many women like us - white, highly-educated, very middle class - was the first time we'd really recognised ourselves as experiencing overt sexism and the ways in which biological reality impacts on women; it certainly was for me
It was for me too. I'd always considered myself a feminist, and not one of those feminism means whatever you want it to be types, but I remember discussing feminism with a (older, single, childfree) family friend and finding her views a bit 'out there' and uncomfortable. Then I had DC and her views no longer seemed out there.

LLLInternational's very recent statement on the covid vaccine has used the word Mother, not some variation on lactating-befrontbumped-human-person.