One of themes of this blog is that natural parenting renders women’s needs invisible. Whether it’s childbirth, breastfeeding, or attachment parenting, women’s pain, distress and mental health are ignored.

Why? Follow the money. Natural childbirth advocates ignore women’s pain in labor because they can’t treat it effectively; lactivists ignore women’s pain, frustration and inconvenience with exclusive breastfeeding because to accept it might mean a loss of market share; attachment parenting advocates ignore women’s mental health because that might cut into profits for the books and products that they sell.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Postpartum depression is a disease not a mood change.[/pullquote]

But as Marianne Williamson demonstrates, natural parenting advocates are hardly alone in rendering women’s need invisible while clawing for market share.

Yesterday on her Facebook page, Williamson, a self described “acclaimed author and spiritual teacher” offer this bit of ugliness:

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says women should be “screened for depression” during and after pregnancy. Their answer, of course, is to “find the right medication.” And how many on the “Task Force” are on big pharma’s payroll? Follow the money on this one. Hormonal changes during and after pregnancy are NORMAL. Mood changes are NORMAL. Meditation helps. Prayer helps. Nutritional support helps. Love helps.

Wialliamson’s ignorant, self serving justification for minimizing the seriousness of postpartum depression has not gone unnoticed. Suffers of postpartum depression and those who care about them have created a social media campaign on Twitter with the hashtag #MeditateOnThis, seeking to educate Williamson. Thus far it appears to be having little effect on Williamson herself.

Why did the USPSTF recommend screening for postpartum depression?

… Depression is … common in postpartum and pregnant women and affects not only the woman but her child as well.

What’s the advantage of early detection by screening?

… [P]rograms combining depression screening with adequate support systems in place improve clinical outcomes (ie, reduction or remission of depression symptoms) in adults, including pregnant and postpartum women.

… [T]reatment of with antidepressants, psychotherapy, or both decreases clinical morbidity.

… [T]reatment with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) improves clinical outcomes in pregnant and postpartum women with depression.

Williamson derides the USPSTF screening program as an effort to increase Big Pharma profits. Curiously, she fails to note the the Task Force recommended talk therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy as often as medication. And she fails to note that the Task Force highlighted the risks of medication for depression.

… [S]econd-generation antidepressants (mostly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs]) are associated with some harms, such as an increase in suicidal behaviors in adults … The USPSTF found evidence of potential serious fetal harms from pharmacologic treatment of depression in pregnant women, but the likelihood of these serious harms is low…

Why does Williamson oppose the recommendations to screen women for postpartum depression? Follow the money. Women who are depressed are more likely to buy her books and attend her seminars. Screening women for depression and treating them with effective therapy undercuts her market share.

Williamson no different from natural childbirth advocates who insist that childbirth pain is “normal,” that treatment with ineffective methods that they profit from (waterbirth, hypnotherapy) is best, and that effectively treating it with epidurals is “giving in.” Williamson insists that the pain of postpartum depression is also “normal,” that treating it with meditation and prayer (her products) is best, and that effectively treating it with medication is “giving in” to Big Pharma.

Williams is a New Age “faith healer,” putting her needs ahead of effective treatment. She’s the updated version of those who advised prayer for diabetes or insisted that epilepsy was a sign of possession by the Devil. Her profit is more important to her than women’s need to live free of psychological pain.

I suggest that she meditate on this:

Postpartum depression is NOT a normal hormonal change.

Postpartum depression is NOT a normal mood change.

Postpartum depression is a disease, no different from diabetes or epilepsy.

While prayer and meditation may help manage the symptoms, they are not a treatment for postpartum depression any more than they are a treatment for diabetes or epilepsy.

Women’s needs MATTER. Women have every bit as much right to live without psychological pain as to live without physical pain.

Most importantly, women’s mental health is more important than your financial health.

I took your advice to follow the money, Marianne Williamson, and it led me right to your bank account. You’re like the natural parenting industry: your profits rest on demonizing what you can’t offer and promoting what you can, women’s needs be damned.

Brazil is experiencing a massive increase in a rare, devastating birth defect.

The journal Science notes:

Brazil is facing a disturbing spike in a severe birth defect called microcephaly. Babies are born with heads that are far too small, a sign that the brain failed to fully develop. Doctors there have reported nearly 3000 cases since July 2015—more than 20 times the usual rate. Scientists are scrambling to understand what is going on. The leading theory so far is that the condition is caused by a little known mosquito-borne virus called Zika that surfaced in Brazil in March and is quickly spreading through Latin America…

What is microcephaly? The CDC updated its page on microcephaly only last week:

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The developing Zika crisis gives us a window into what the crises of smallpox, diphtheria, polio, rubella and other diseases were all about.[/pullquote]

Babies with microcephaly can have a range of other problems, depending on how severe their microcephaly is. Microcephaly has been linked with the following problems:

Seizures
Developmental delay, such as problems with speech or other developmental milestones (like sitting, standing, and walking)
Intellectual disability (decreased ability to learn and function in daily life)
Problems with movement and balance
Feeding problems, such as difficulty swallowing
Hearing loss
Vision problems

Zika virus is a flavivirus related to the viruses that cause yellow fever and dengue. It was identified 70 years ago in the Zika jungle of Uganda, and is spread by mosquitos. Until recently, it caused few outbreaks among humans. It hasn’t been definitively established as the cause of the epidemic of microcephaly in Brazil, but there is considerable evidence pointing in that direction; the working hypothesis is that infection of pregnant women in the first trimester can lead to microcephaly. At the moment there is no treatment for it and no vaccine.

It is devastating, it is spreading, and it is cause for alarm for pregnant women and anyone who cares about and for them … and it offers a history lesson for anti-vaxxers.

The anti-vax movement rests on several fundamental premises:

Vaccine preventable illnesses were prevalent because of poor sanitation.
They weren’t that bad.
Natural immunity to disease is preferable to vaccine induced immunity.
Vaccines cause more health problems than they prevent.
Vaccines exist just to enrich pharmaceutical companies.

The developing Zika crisis gives us a window into what the crises of smallpox, diphtheria, polio, rubella and other diseases were all about: devastating diseases, easily transmissible, with no effective treatment and no way to prevent them.

Are you afraid of Zika virus as it heads to the US? That’s how parents felt about smallpox, diphtheria, polio and other diseases a century ago. They could strike any child, at any time, and permanently maim or kill the child. Those diseases were bad, very bad, just like Zika induced microcephaly.

Do you think sanitation is going to protect you from Zika virus? You shouldn’t unless you think sanitation is going to protect you from mosquito bites. Parents in the early 1900’s knew that sanitation was not going to protect their children from smallpox, diphtheria or polio, either.

Do you think we should just let everyone get infected because natural immunity is better than anything a vaccine could produce? Are you willing to risk the health of your unborn babies rather than try to create a vaccine to protect them? Parents in the early 1900’s weren’t willing to gamble, either.

If a safe vaccine could be developed, would you refuse it and take your chances with Zika virus? Probably not, right?

Do you think that Zika virus induced microcephaly is a minor problem being hyped solely for the benefits of the pharmaceutical companies that will ultimately produce a vaccine? No? Then perhaps you can understand why a century ago parents didn’t feel that way about smallpox, diphtheria or polio.

We are watching a viral scourge unfold in real time. I have no doubt that we will eventually develop a vaccine for Zika. We’ve done it many times before; there’s no reason we can’t do it again. And I have no doubt that if vaccination for Zika virus becomes routine in order to protect the health of future generations, there will eventually be anti-vaxxers wailing that the vaccine is unnecessary, that the disease is caused by poor sanitation, that “natural” immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity and that microcephaly isn’t really that bad at all.

In the meantime anti-vaxxers might want to consider that their fundamental premises, which don’t apply to Zika virus, don’t apply to other vaccine preventable diseases, either.

Kudos to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for taking a small step toward ending lactimidation, the ongoing lactivist campaign to “encourage” women to breastfeed by shaming and browbeating them into making the choice that the intimidators approve.

In a Practice Bulletin entitled Optimizing Support for Breastfeeding as Part of Obstetric Practice, ACOG states:

Obstetrician–gynecologists and other obstetric care providers should support each woman’s informed decision about whether to initiate or continue breastfeeding, recognizing that she is uniquely qualified to decide whether exclusive breastfeeding, mixed feeding, or formula feeding is optimal for her and her infant.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”#D21A24″ class=”” size=””]Deciding how to use their own breasts is integral to women’s bodily autonomy.[/pullquote]

Why are mothers uniquely qualified to make that decision? Because deciding how to use their own breasts is integral to their bodily autonomy.

As Tara Haelle notes in a piece for Forbes:

Such a seemingly simple change — let each individual woman decide the best way to feed her infant — would seem obvious, but it hasn’t been the norm in the medical community for more than a decade. The constant refrain of “breast is best,” whether explicitly stated or only implied, has often ended up a bludgeon to women’s self-confidence and competence as mothers. However well-intentioned, the message that all women should breastfeed or at least want to breastfeed their babies has become a source of shaming and blaming those who don’t.

It’s first step and only a tiny one. Within the same Practice Bulletin that appears to caution against shaming formula feeders, there’s a whole lot of shaming going on:

Breastfeeding is optimal and appropriate for most women.

No, didn’t we just acknowledge that the woman HERSELF decides what is optimal?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) strongly encourages women to breastfeed …

Why is ACOG strongly encouraging women to do something that has only minimal benefits? They don’t “strongly encourage” women to avoid homebirth even though that might kill their babies; why are they strongly encouraging breastfeeding?

Because they are still responding to pressure from the breastfeeding industry.

For example:

The World Health Organization’s “Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding” should be integrated into maternity care to increase the likelihood that a woman achieves her personal breastfeeding goals.

But those steps, integral to the deliberately named-to-shame “Baby Friendly” Hospital Initiative embrace shaming tactics.

Enabling women to breastfeed is also a public health priority because, on a population level, interruption of lactation is associated with adverse health outcomes for the woman and her child, including higher maternal risks of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, and greater infant risks of infectious disease, sudden infant death syndrome, and metabolic disease.

It shouldn’t be a public health priority because those “benefits” are very small and far from proven.

Clearly, ACOG still has a long, long way to go before rejects the shaming tactics so beloved of lactivists, their organizations, and their allies . For example:

Consider this label, created in what was undoubtedly viewed an act of public service, Pro-Breastfeeding Ads Come With Produce-Style Freshness Stickers for Your Boobs:

Breasts and supermarket produce go well together in advertising lately.

A few month ago, we saw melons in a grocery store made up to look like breasts for a breast cancer awareness campaign. Now, we’ve got the opposite—produce-style freshness stickers that new moms can attach to their boobs as part of a pro-breastfeeding campaign.

BooneOakley in Charlotte, N.C., agency created the campaign, and is handing out the stickers—as well as related wall posters—free of charge to all “baby-friendly” hospitals. (Women and Babies Hospital in Lancaster, Pa., is the first to accept them.) Along with giving info about the health benefits of breastfeeding, the stickers also have a practical purpose—nursing moms can place them on one breast at a time to remind them which breast to feed their baby from next.

The stickers carry a “100% natural” claim, along with the line, “The best nutrition for your baby is you.” They come in three colors, with three different health messages—claiming that breastfeeding reduces a baby’s risk of obesity by 24 percent, of SIDS by 36 percent, and of asthma by 26 percent.

Except that breastfeeding does NOT decrease a baby’s risk of obesity or asthma.

Another not-so-subtle effort at lactimidation. What’s next? “Good Mother” stickers for their foreheads?

It has given me an idea, though. I’m thinking about making stickers to be affixed by mothers to the doors of their hospital rooms (see above):

My baby, my body, my breasts, my choice … and none of your damn business!

In today’s NYTimes, pediatrician Aaron Carroll wonders How to Make Home birth a Safer Option.

Noting that a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed out of hospital birth in Oregon doubles the risk of perinatal death, Dr. Carroll makes it clear that he and his wife did not think that homebirth was safe enough for their babies:

I and my wife, feared the deaths of our babies during delivery so much that we chose in-hospital births. Our zeal to minimize that specific risk outweighed any other considerations. If faced with the decision again, I don’t doubt we’d choose the same…

The overwhelming majority of American women (nearly 99%) feel exactly the same way. Homebirth is a fringe practice. The pressure to support homebirth is not being driven by women. It is being driven by midwives and the rest of the natural childbirth industry (doulas, childbirth educators, natural childbirth lobbying organizations). Why? Because homebirth is a business.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”F40000″ class=”” size=””]The push for homebirth is not being driven by women. It is being driven by midwives.[/pullquote]

Homebirth represents 100% of the income of American homebirth midwives, and it represents professional autonomy and a lack of professional scrutiny for others.

Dr. Carroll cites the UK experience with midwifery and efforts to lower treatment intensity. But the UK experience has hardly been encouraging. There, too, midwives have been aggressively clawing for market share both in and out of hospitals and the results have been ugly.

1. At Morecambe Bay:

Frontline staff were responsible for “inappropriate and unsafe care” and the response to potentially fatal incidents by the trust hierarchy was “grossly deficient, with repeated failure to investigate properly and learn lessons”.

Kirkup [the author of the report] said this “lethal mix” of factors had led to 20 instances of significant or major failures of care at Furness general hospital, associated with three maternal deaths and the deaths of 16 babies at or shortly after birth.

2. At Royal Oldham/Greater Manchester:

Seven babies and three mums have died in two Greater Manchester maternity units in the space of just eight months – sparking an independent investigation.

3. At Milton Keynes:

History is repeating itself with the deaths of FIVE more newborn babies following staff failures at the hospital maternity unit…

Milton Keynes has now seen at least eight such deaths in two separate periods over the last eight years.
The latest five deaths happened over eight months between 2013 and 2014…

Most of the deaths involved staff failing to recognise or act upon warning signs of foetal distress.
All the babies were full term and previously healthy, and in each case parents claim speedier medical intervention could have saved their lives.

This is not an isolated problem. Liability payments for dead and injured babies now represent fully 20% of the NHS maternity budget.

That’s what happens when health systems employ midwives to lower treatment intensity.

The question we ought to be asking is not how to make homebirth safer (although that is a worthy goal); the question we should be addressing is: why do midwives promote homebirth as safe when it manifestly increases the risk of death?

Midwives are infatuated with homebirth for a number of reasons:

1. It is the natural end point of their love affair with promoting what they can do and demonizing what they cannot. They’ve gone from favoring the employment of midwives in maternity units, to midwife led units and birth centers. Homebirth is the logical next step, freeing them from any scrutiny by other health professionals.

2. It reflects the intellectually and morally suspect philosophy that the “best” birth is NOT the safest birth, but the birth with the least interventions.

3. It ensures that women cannot get effective pain relief.

4. It is a midwife full-employment plan. In contrast to a hospital based unit where one midwife can care for multiple women at a time, homebirth (in many countries) requires two midwives to care for one woman.

Women (and their physicians) have very different priorities. Homebirth is not popular and will never be popular among pregnant women. Most women have no interest in anything that raises the risk of perinatal death. Homebirth is deeply unpopular among obstetricians; most of us abhor anything that increases the risk of perinatal death. Homebirth is anathema among neonatologists for the same reason.

Follow the money! Homebirth is a business. It isn’t about women or babies or birth; it’s about midwives … and women contemplating homebirth (and the doctors who care for them) need to understand both the risks of homebirth and the self-serving motivations of those who promote it.

Homebirth, and natural childbirth advocates insist that “Peace on Earth Begins With Birth.”

That’s not what my research shows. I’ve discovered an astounding fact about natural childbirth, breastfeeding and attachment parenting: all are risk factors for tyranny, mass murder and a variety of other ills.

Consider:

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”#00A8BD” class=”” size=””]Almost all of history’s greatest tyrants were breastfed … exclusively.[/pullquote]

Of history’s greatest tyrants, men such as Hitler, Torquemada, Henry VIII, Attila the Hun, etc., nearly all were born vaginally. The only potential exception is Julius Caesar, reputedly born by way of the eponymous Caesarean section.

Almost all of history’s greatest tyrants were breastfed … exclusively.

The long term effect of giving birth without pain medication is dreadful. 100% of the children born to women who gave birth before the advent of anesthesia in the mid-nineteenth century are now dead.

Vaginal birth is a risk factor for Communism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin were all born vaginally.

Breastfeeding is a risk factor for plague. Nearly 100% of people who died of the Black Death were breastfed.

Attachment parenting played a major role in imperialist expansion in the US. Fully 100% of the invaders who displaced the Native American population of this continent were born vaginally. Moreover, fully 100% of the Native Americans who were unable to resist the advent of the invaders were breastfed.

Breastfeeding is a risk factor for violent behavior. Almost all Viking marauders were breastfed.

Nearly all slave-holding Americans, plantation owners and the entire Confederate army were born vaginally.

Not a single Crusader was born to a woman who had an epidural in labor.

Vaginal birth is a risk factor for anti-social behavior. Roman emperors Caligula and Nero, as well as Jack the Ripper and Lizzie Borden (who committed patricide AND matricide) were born vaginally.

Breastfeeding leads to transmission of disease. Typhoid Mary was breastfed.

Hospital birth promotes technological progress. Desk top computers, iPhones, Skype and Twitter did not exist until the proportion of US births occurring in hospitals rose above 90%.

What is the cause behind these incontrovertible facts?

First, we’ve known for centuries that deep seated prejudice is “imbibed with mother’s milk.” I’ve never heard of anyone imbibing hatred with Similac, so the obvious solution is to promote formula feeding.

Second, as Dr. Michel Odent has insisted, oxytocin is the love hormone and some women clearly don’t have enough love. The solution is oxytocin supplements. Fortunately, pitocin has the exact same chemical composition of oxytocin, so it seems clear that, to be on the safe side, all labors should be induced or augmented with pitocin.

Finally, epidurals ought to be mandatory in labor. The mothers of the greatest tyrants in history gave birth without pain relief and look what happened as a result.

It’s time to acknowledge that “Peace on Earth begins with Interventions in Birth!”

 

This piece first appeared in August 2012 and is (obviously) satire.

 

The Mother-Whore dichotomy ought to be dead.

It was proposed by Sigmund Freud to explain a tendency for men to characterize women as either asexual, nurturing and worthy of respect or sexually attractive. Unfortunately, the Mother-Whore dichotomy is alive and well and being aggressively promoted by the lactivism community.

If you spend any time reading lactivist books, blogs and webpages, you will be struck by the fact that the issue that appears to generate the most angst is public breastfeeding.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”#999999″ class=”” size=””]The woman who views her breasts as primarily for feeding is a Mother, and a woman who views them as a source of sexual pleasure is a Whore.[/pullquote]

The latest example is the confrontation between actress Alyssa Milano (Mother) and talk show host Wendy Williams (Whore).

This characterization of the face-off appears to be represent the lactivist view:

Alyssa Milano shut down Wendy Williams on the subject of breastfeeding when she appeared on her talk show. Alyssa has been advocate of nursing babies since she began posting photos of herself on Instagram breastfeeding her 1-year-old daughter, Elizabella.

Williams told Milano that breasts are meant to feed babies for a certain amount of time, but other times they’re considered a sexual part of the body. Alyssa Milano shut down Wendy Williams by saying it’s society’s fault for creating that stigma.

Williams called breasts “fun bags” and that she did breastfeed, but did it for a very short amount of time and in private. The talk show host told Milano that she doesn’t want to see breastfeeding in public. 43-year-old Alyssa insisted that it’s that type of attitude that makes this such a hot button issue.

As quoted by People.com, Milano uttered these immortal “Mother” words:

Biologically they’re not made for sexual things, that’s what we’ve done to them.

And Williams responded with what lactivists imply are “Whore” words:

Breastfeeding is only a particular amount of time. The rest of your life, your breasts are sexual things.

The truth, as most people will recognize, is that Milano’s claim is absurd and that Williams is far more accurate in acknowledging that breasts ARE sexual, have always been sexual and will continue to be sexual.

Milano not only knows this, but as this photo from the Starpulse piece makes clear, she wields it to her own advantage:

So why did Milano make such a ridiculous statement? I would argue that it reflects that natural parenting desire to neuter women, to see them as either mothers or whores and to flat out refuse to acknowledge that women who are mothers still have sexual needs.

Women who request C-sections to preserve vaginal integrity and reduce the chances of incontinence are derided as giving into pressure to protect a male sexual pleasure. Women who find breastfeeding uncomfortable because they consider their breasts to be exclusively sexual are derided as brain washed. Women who don’t want to share the marital bed with infants as well as husbands/partners are derided as bad mothers obsessed with sexuality.

Apparently the woman who welcomes a vaginal tear is a Mother, and a woman who wants to avoid the tear, the stitches, the pain, the potential loss of sexual pleasure is a Whore.

The woman who views her breasts as primarily for feeding is a Mother, and a woman who views them as a source of sexual pleasure is a Whore.

The woman who kicks her husband/partner out of the marital bed to promote “bonding” is a Mother, and a woman who values sexual intimacy with her partner is a Whore.

The Mother-Whore dichotomy itself is deeply sexist and reflects lactivist discomfort with female sexuality. Mothers must be sexually neutered or else they are whores.

But that’s not the only ugly stereotype at play in this confrontation. Casting Milano, the white woman, as the Mother and Williams, the black woman, as the Whore is a grotesque racist trope. Eugenicists have long portrayed black (“primitive”) women as hypersexual and white women as civilized and demure. Lactivists consciously or unconsciously reinforce those stereotypes in publicizing the confrontation.

Why are natural parenting advocates in general and lactivists in particular so discomfited by and so dismissive of the sexuality of mothers?

I’m afraid it reflects deeply entrenched sexism, rather ironic for a movement that claims to be about what is best for women.

With apologies to John Lennon.

Imagine there’s no new mom guilt
It’s easy if you try
No C-section judgment on us
Or epidurals midwives deny
Imagine all the mothers
Trusting their OBs…

Imagine there’s no pressure
If breastfeeding’s hard to do
No reason to shame yourself or others
And no natural childbirth too
Imagine all the mothers
Living without pain…

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday LCs join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no misuse of science
I wonder if you can
No need to demonize formula
Or make a birth plan
Imagine all the moms and babies
Living life in peace…

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday midwives and doulas join us
And the world will live as one

Last week I received a Facebook message from a reader who had reached out to her local La Leche League in Glendale, CA to find the safest local source for donor breastmilk.

I had breast cancer last year and am now pregnant. I have no breasts to breastfeed with, and am wondering if your organization provides donor milk.

The LLL leader explained that LLL does not provide donor milk and offered suggestions for accessing it elsewhere.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”#EDC9C8″ class=”” size=””]It’s wrong for lactation consultants to treat every woman as a walking pair of breasts who must be browbeaten into breastfeeding.[/pullquote]

Then the leader, a certified lactation educator, offered this bit of unsolicited “advice”:

I’ve worked with a few mothers who still secrete milk… I would suggest seeking the services of an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC) to assist you. I have a list of referrals if you wish. It is sometimes suggested that you consult early so you are prepared … it never hurts.

Really? Really??!!

What’s next, selling shoes to bilateral leg amputees?

Had she bothered to ask, the LLL leader would have learned that my reader has NO NIPPLES. Has the LLL leader confused the prospective mother with a duck billed platypus? The platypus also has no nipples and secretes milk through its skin.

But that’s just the beginning of the LLL leader’s ignorance. A mastectomy involves the removal of ALL the breast tissue, every last bit, because the whole point of a mastectomy is that any remaining breast tissue is vulnerable to a recurrence of the cancer. A properly performed mastectomy will leave a woman without ANY breast tissue, and an improperly done mastectomy is not a reason to breastfeed, but a life threatening mistake. But who cares about the health of the mother? When it comes to the lactation industry, breastmilk is the only thing that counts.

I wish I could tell you that this is the first time I have heard such a story of mind boggling ignorance and cruelty at the hands of lactation educators, but it’s not. Journalist Emily Wax-Thibodeaux, also a breast cancer survivor post bilateral mastectomy, wrote in the Washington Post about her experience of feeding her newborn:

“Just try,” they advised. “Let’s hope you get some milk.”

“It may come out anyway, or through your armpits,” another advised later …

Such extraordinary ignorance and clueless cruelty has its origin in the mindless glorification of breastfeeding promoted by the lactation industry. The benefits of breastfeeding to term babies in first world countries are trivial, a few less colds and episodes of diarrhea across an entire population. The benefits of breastfeeding to lactation consultants are enormous. It represents literally 100% of their income. Unwittingly, they have become just like the formula manufacturers they vilify. Companies like Nestle promoted formula to women who didn’t have access to clean water with which to prepare it, simply to increase market share. Lactation consultants and the breastfeeding lobby promote breastmilk to women who don’t have access to BREASTS, simply to increase market share. It’s not coincidental that the “solution” to every infant feeding question is hiring a lactation consultant.

Just as ironic as their imitation of everything they hate about the formula industry is their imitation of the worst of patriarchal medical practice: stripping women of their humanity by reducing them to their organ systems. When I was in training I became inured to referring to people as “the gallbladder in 505” or “the hysterectomy in 767.” That was wrong. And it’s just as wrong when lactation consultants treat every woman as a walking pair of breasts who must be browbeaten into breastfeeding.

When no breasts is no longer an excuse not to breastfeed, the lactivist lobby has become everything it claimed to despise. The recommendation to breastfeed in the absence of breasts is ignorant; it’s unspeakably cruel; and it’s got to stop.

There’s a vile sanctimommy screed currently making the rounds. If You Don’t Breastfeed, I’m Judging the Hell Out of You by Alex Alexander is a perfect example of hatefulness masquerading as concern for babies.

But if you never even tried — if your baby’s mouth never met nipple, for reasons of personal choice that have nothing to do with health — I’m judging you. That’s right. You should’ve at least given breastfeeding a chance. And if you didn’t, you made a big parenting mistake and we all have the right to judge you for it.

There’s a dark part of the human psyche that glories in social sanctioned bullying. It’s ugly when religious fundamentalists do it; it’s ugly when sexual prudes do it; and it’s equally ugly when Sanctimommies do it.

Of course, the bullies have self-justification at the ready.

You’re a mammal. You’re built to lactate. When it fails, that’s sad. When it’s ignored, that’s a travesty defying nature and human biology. Why do you think your breasts became engorged? It wasn’t for kicks. Your doctor had to drug you to dry you up. That’s because you should be nursing your newborn.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Ms. Alexander, I’m judging YOU. For your monstrous ego, for your ugly sanctimony, and for your vicious sexism.[/pullquote]

That’s the battle cry of biological essentialists everywhere.

What are biological essentialists? They are people who believe that women should be defined by and restricted to their biological functions.

They hate and fear powerful women and say things like:

You’re a woman. You’re built to have babies. When you fail to do so, that’s sad. When you ignore your biological destiny to get an education, demand economic rights or political equality, that’s a travesty denying nature and human biology. Why do you think you menstruate? It isn’t for kicks. It’s because you are supposed to be pregnant, nursing or nurturing children.

Or:

You’re a woman. You’re built to get pregnant. When you fail to do so, that’s sad. When you circumvent your biological destiny by using birth control or terminating a pregnancy, that’s a travesty denying nature and human biology. Why do you think you have ovaries? It isn’t for kicks. It’s because you are supposed to get pregnant each and every month you have sex.

Homophobes are also biological essentialists. They hate lesbians and they say things like:

You’re a woman. You’re built to have penetrative intercourse with a man. When you have sex with another woman instead, that’s sad. When it’s ignored, that’s a travesty defying nature and human biology. Why do you think you have a vagina? It isn’t for kicks. It’s supposed to be for male sexual pleasure.

Ms. Alexander, you judge women who don’t breastfeed; you are a biological essentialist and therefore, I’m judging the hell out of YOU.

Who are you to declare that biology is destiny? Do you use birth control? If so, you’re a hypocrite.

According to Alexander:

You made a choice to carry a baby for nine months. You made a choice to birth a human infant. With choice come responsibility. Your responsibilities don’t end when you squirt out that watermelon-sized, wailing baby. You have an obligation to provide that baby with at least some breast milk.

An obligation? Why? It can’t be because breastfeeding provides extraordinary benefits. In countries with clean water supplies, like the US, the benefits of breastfeeding for term babies are trivial, a few less colds and episodes of diarrhea each year for the entire population of babies under 1 year of age.

Nursing involves more than just milk; it’s also about bonding and skin-to-skin contact and all those lovely hormones you release. You and your baby deserve those things.

Bullshit. There is no scientific evidence of any kind that breastfeeding or skin to skin contact is required for mother infant bonding.

When mom is exposed to a germ, she starts making antibodies against it. There’s evidence that a mother’s immunities to, for example, the flu, protect her baby for a certain amount of time.

Bullshit. Most antibodies are Immunoglobin G antibodies (IgG); they pass through the placenta, but DON’T pass through breastmilk. Only IgA passes through breastmilk; that’s what’s responsible for the fewer colds and episodes of diarrhea. It doesn’t protect against other illnesses.

Ms. Alexander, your “philosophy” is vile and the way you express it is repugnant:

But maybe you just think breastfeeding is icky. Maybe you don’t want a baby touching what you think is just for your partner. Maybe you think it’s primitive and disgusting.

In that case, you need to check your body image. Women’s breasts were made not as fun bags, but as baby-feeders. If you think breastfeeding is nasty, you’re denigrating an important function of your own body and turning your misaligned sense of female sexuality onto your own body. You need therapy, not baby formula.

No, Ms. Alexander. You need to check your self-righteousness. Women’s bodies were not made for others to control them. Women’s right to bodily autonomy does not get expelled with the placenta. If you think you have the right to impose your values on other women YOU are the one who needs help and education.

So yes, mom who never put her baby to her breast, I’m judging you. Sent your baby to the nursery instead of nursing? You made a poor parenting choice…

So, yes, Ms. Alexander, I’m judging YOU. For your monstrous ego, for your ugly sanctimony, and for your vicious sexism. You are no different from misogynists, religious extremists and homophobes who believe they have a right to control women’s bodies.

You’re just another judgmental, self-satisfied prig glorying in hatred of anyone who does live her life mirroring your own choices back to you.

You should be ashamed … but you appear to lack the insight to understand that in your desperation to glorify yourself you are trampling on other women and their rights.

Oh, the irony!

Yesterday I wrote about the fact that the Childbirth Connection is angered that estimated fetal weights are … gasp! … merely estimates. I cited a recent piece in the NYTimes, When a Big Baby Isn’t So Big. In the comment section, multiple people bewail the loss of trust in obstetricians, apparently without recognizing that it is articles such as the one they are commenting upon that are directly responsible for that loss of trust.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”#540002″ class=”” size=””]Childbirth lobbying organizations like the Childbirth Connection are front and center in the effort to destroy trust between women and obstetricians.[/pullquote]

They fail to see that the premier marketing strategy of the natural childbirth industry (encompassing midwives, doulas, and lobbying organizations like the Childbirth Connection) is the tireless effort to undermine trust in obstetricians. Why? Because the natural childbirth industry is desperate to increase their market share and touting the “experience” of birth only gets them so far. The primary “product” of obstetricians is birth safety and most women want that more than anything else. It is absolutely essential to the natural childbirth industry to inculcate fear and distrust of obstetricians, especially around the issue of safety.

Craig Thompson, professor of marketing at University of Wisconsin wrote about this tactic in Consumer Risk Perceptions in a Community of Reflexive Doubt in the September 2005 Journal of Consumer Research. Thompson marveled at the ability of homebirth advocates to market a “product” by directly defying common sense:

Advocates of natural childbirth seek to inculcate reflexive doubt by countering two commonsense objections to their unorthodox construction of risk: (1) medicalized births would have never gained a cultural foothold if they were so risk laden and (2) the medical profession would not support obstetric practices that place laboring women at risk.

In other words, it is absolutely critical to the natural childbirth industry to convince women that doctors don’t know what they are doing, and willfully and cheerfully risk the lives of women and babies to promote a secret agenda.

It’s difficult to think of a single prominent natural childbirth advocate or organization that does not work assiduously to undermine trust in obstetricians.

Individual tactics may differ of course:

Ina May Gaskin resorts to new-agey nonsense, and animal birth, which she believes, in her absolute cluelessness, to be perfect. Whereas Henci Goer favors cherry picking data, selective interpretation of scientific papers and pandering to privileged Western, white women’s desire to see themselves as “educated.”

Feminist anti-rationalists like Robbie Davis-Floyd deride rationality and insist that women have “other ways of knowing.” Clowns like Jennifer Margulis point to diseases they don’t understand and pretend they are caused by “technology.”

Every homebirth and NCB book, blog and website is predicated on the belief that obstetricians are “surgeons” “untrained in normal birth” who make millions performing unnecessary C-sections in the few moments they have each day between endless rounds of golf. The tremendous successes of modern obstetrics and the fact that nearly 99% of women give birth in hospitals is dismissed as the result of an economic war perpetrated by obstetricians on midwives.

Childbirth lobbying organizations like the Childbirth Connection are front and center in the effort to destroy trust between women and obstetricians. How else to explain the endless iterations of the “Listening to Mothers Survey,” a giant push polling project that desperately seeks evidence that obstetricians are not “listening to mothers” and repeatedly finds that the vast majority of American mothers are very pleased with obstetric care?

The natural childbirth industry eagerly grabs on to new methods for demonizing obstetric care, such as the unproven claims that modern obstetrics causes “traumatic birth,” and the hope that C-section cause long term health problems which have heretofore escaped detection despite the fact that there are tens of millions of adults walking around who were born by C-section and appear no different than those born by vaginal delivery.

NCB and homebirth bloggers pile on with inane accusations like “every day 12 babies are given to the wrong mother.” That makes it sound like there’s an epidemic of women leaving the hospital with the wrong baby, when what it really means (if it is true at all), is that an attendant (and that includes midwives) may bring a baby into the room of the wrong mother and discover her mistake when she checks the ID tags on mother and baby.

What about the spectacular advances in modern obstetrics, dropping the neonatal mortality rate by 90% and the maternal mortality rate by nearly 99% in just 100 years?

That is simply dismissed out of hand, with claims that hospitals actually kill babies, or deliberately cause the medical disasters from which obstetricians thereby appear to rescue babies.

The natural childbirth industry has an “answer” for just about every objection you can name and those “answers” often involve misinformation, and always involve undermining women’s trust in obstetricians.

Of course, the irony of the natural childbirth industry bewailing the very loss of trust between women and obstetricians that they themselves promoted is exceeded by another irony. That irony is the reflexive and unstated reliance of the natural childbirth industry on obstetricians to save the lives of babies and mothers after they’ve taken the advice of the natural childbirth industry and made dangerous decisions.

The backup plan always involves the hospital with the expectation of immediate access to the care of …. you guessed it … obstetricians. Apparently those evil doctors, who should never be trusted, can always be trusted in an emergency.

The next time you read an article based on a press release from the natural childbirth industry, treat it with the same wariness that you would treat an article about solar power based on a press release from Big Oil. Just like it’s always possible that Big Oil is accurately relating derogatory claims about solar power because of a deep and abiding commitment to scientific accuracy, it’s always possible that the natural childbirth industry is accurately relating derogatory claims about obstetricians because of a similar commitment to scientific accuracy.

On the other hand, it could simply be a brazen effort to blacken the reputation of the competition in order to increase market share.

 

Adapted from a piece that first appeared in June 2013.