As I say in the video, I’d rather save babies.

Oooh, someone’s feeling threatened.

That would be Allison Dixley, the self-proclaimed “Alpha Parent.”

Those who denounce breastfeeding science are merely the exhaust fumes of the internet. They are an unfortunate and unavoidable result of our information age. Whilst emotionally satisfying for the denouncer, their pseudoskepticism has reckless consequences for the rest of society. Denouncers hold moral and political responsibility for selfishly promulgating misinformation to advance their own interests while knowingly damaging the work of organisations whose main focus is improving all our health. We need to reframe breastfeeding, not as some sort of ideology to be defended; but rather as a universal act of allegiance to our children and to ourselves.

Sorry, Allison, but no matter how much you wish to rub our faces in your “superiority,” you are out of luck. The science simply doesn’t support your self-serving claims.

You’re hardly the first to moralize breastfeeding by brandishing “the science.” Indeed, Charlotte Faircloth refuted your piece before you even wrote it in her paper ‘What Science Says is Best’: Parenting Practices, Scientific Authority and Maternal Identity.

She’s got you pegged:

Faircloth explains the meaning of “the science” to lactivists and the paradoxical invocation of scientific evidence by women who are just as likely to ignore science when they feel like it.

Simply put, lactivists don’t read scientific papers, don’t know what they show and don’t care anyway. “The science” is simply a convenient cudgel which lactivists use to metaphorically hammer away at women who do not follow their example:

The scientific benefits of breastfeeding and attachment parenting serve as a (seemingly) morally neutral cannon about which mothers can defend their mothering choices and ‘spread the word’ about appropriate parenting. I noticed that for some particular women, sharing ‘information’ with other mothers … was a source of great enjoyment – as Felicity in the quote above puts it, she is ‘super empowered’ with the knowledge that she has. Amelia, cited above, also said that she felt ‘like a genius on a planet of idiots.’ Any criticisms she has of other women are de-personalised, because science ‘has no emotional content…’

“A mother describes how she responds to those who criticise her decision to breastfeed her son until his seventh birthday, by saying: ‘I mean, do you want to see studies? Because I can show you studies!’ There are laughs and cheers from the rest of the group.”

But lactivists like Allison, who have basically no idea what the actual scientific evidence shows, use “the science” in another way:

Arguably, ‘science’ here is not about understanding, but belief. The use of ‘evidence’ has reached the level of the quasi-religious; not in the sense that the beliefs are other-worldly (quite the opposite) but that they are held to be beyond the possibility of doubt and revered as truth.

In other words, belief is described as “science” in order to trade on the reputation of science. As Faircloth notes:

In many ways, however, it is ironic that my informants refer to science, since many attachment parenting advocates are openly sceptical about scientific knowledge… What is interesting then, is the selective use (and mis-use) of scientific evidence to support certain (moral) discourses about parenting.

Appeals to “the science” are a rhetorical strategy, and a rather cynical one at that. The very same people who ignore the scientific evidence on the dangers of homebirth, who openly spurn the World Health Organization recommendations on vaccination, and who dismiss the scientific evidence on circumcision by insisting it is only relevant in the developing world choose to misinterpret and misuse the scientific evidence on the limited benefits of breastfeeding.

In Faircloth’s words “sharing ‘information’ with other mothers … was a source of great enjoyment.” That’s because lactivists are not “sharing,” they are browbeating other women as a method of enhancing their own self esteem. As Faircloth notes:

When ‘science’ says something is healthiest for infants, it has the effect, for [lactivists], of shutting down debate; that is, it dictates what parents should do.

Critically, for lactivists, it allows them to “moralize” the choice of infant feeding. In the minds of lactivists, “the science” turns breastfeeding from a choice to an obligation, the classic is-ought confusion.

… [U]nder the assumption that science contains ‘no emotional content’, a wealth of agencies with an interest in parenting – from policy makers and ‘experts’ to groups of parents themselves – now have a language by which to make what might better be termed moral judgements about appropriate childcare practices. [But] ‘Science’ is not a straightforward rationale in the regulation of behaviour, rather, it is one that requires rigorous sociological questioning and debate in delimiting the parameters of this ‘is’ and the ‘ought’.

Allison responds with anger whenever anyone points out that the benefits of breastfeeding, while real are small, because her own self conception and her ability to feel superior to other women (“alpha parent” just in case you don’t immediately understand that this is about boosting Allison’s fragile self-esteem) rests on presenting “the science” as firm, strong, unequivocal and dispositive. In the case of breastfeeding, it is none of the above.

Allison is a typical Sanctimommy, ignorant, immature, self-absorbed … and wrong when it comes to the benefits of breastfeeding.

Sorry, Allison. You’ll just have to find another way to boost your fragile self-esteem. Have you considered therapy?

Don’t know where to start? Just mention to a therapist that you refer to yourself as the “alpha parent.” He or she can probably take it from there.

Contains excerpts from a piece that first appeared in March 2011.

Orgasmic birth is a big lie.

A Western, white woman, well off woman made it up as part of the ongoing effort by Western, white, well off women to turn motherhood into a piece of performance art.

I’m not the only one who has recognized this. Danish psychologist Helena Vissing starts from the premise that the idea of orgasmic birth is nothing more than a fantasy and then proceeds to analyze why some women cling to this fantasy. Moreover, Vissing points out that the fantasy of orgasmic birth is harmful.

From her recently published paper Triumphing over the Body: Body Fantasies and Their Protective Functions:

I believe attempts to integrate sexuality and passion in childbirth care should be recognised. I acknowledge the motivation for encouraging confidence and embracing the possible pleasure and pride of childbirth in Orgasmic Birth. However, I believe the cultural narratives that arise from Orgasmic Birth may result in the opposite, because terror and ambivalence is denied…

…The idea that a completely wondrous, ecstatic, and fulfilling birth experience is not only possible, but the more “true” nature of the female body’s capacities is the epiphanic message. Less ideal birth experiences are acknowledged, but are largely attributed to the cold-hearted world of hospital obstetrics and lack of a caring and sensually attuning atmosphere for the mother. Birth in and of itself is orgasmic in nature, if only the true nature of birth is invited and accommodated for.

What is the purpose of the orgasmic birth fantasy?

The fantasy of the Orgasmic Birth is the creation an outcome not only free of problems or anxiety, but also victorious. Zeavin states that “[i]dealization helps us through nightmares – personal or societal.” The fantasies offer necessary protection as they help to create a sense of authority and cohesiveness through the control over the body.

There’s a second reason for the fantasy: competitive mothering. Referring to the work of colleagues, Vissing writes:

Balsam addresses competitiveness in relation to reproduction and particularly childbirth. She believes women‘s concerns and disappointments about their birthing capacities are about female-to-female rivalry about body power … Parker … in her examination of maternal ambivalence, suggested that the intensive comparisons, exchanges, and mirroring between mothers is not so much about victory and competitiveness as it is about longing for the deeply-needed reassurance mothers are longing for in their struggles with guilt, anxiety, and ambivalence. In my view, both competitive impulses and needs for reassurance seem equally important in this drama of the female body and its capacities.

Vissing captures what I have been writing about for years: orgasmic birth is entirely fabricated to serve two purposes. First, it is the logical endpoint of the ridiculous fantasy of “natural” childbirth. Second, it is yet another weapon in the war of some mothers against other mothers.

The fantasy of orgasmic birth is ridiculous on its face, but it offers insight into the ongoing war of Sanctimommies against everyone who doesn’t soothe their anxiety by mirroring their own choices back to them.

This has important implications for both women’s health and for public policy.

As I have written many times in the past, the philosophy of natural childbirth hurts women. It is both perverse and dysfunctional. It is also a big business, with an army of midwives, doulas and childbirth educators profiting from making women feel bad about themselves and their births. Second, it is deliberately cruel. Women are vicious and competitive when it comes to mothering. In fact, they are so desperate for validation that they have enlisted government in enforcing compliance with their agenda.

Anyone who thinks that the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative and programs like Mayor Bloomberg’s Latch on NYC are about breastfeeding is mind bogglingly naive. The benefits of breastfeeding, while real, are quite small. The tremendous effort to force women to use their breasts to feed their babies can’t be justified by the benefits to babies. These programs exist because of the benefits to activists who promote them. In the vicious battle of some mothers against other mothers, these programs are nothing more than attempts to rub some women’s faces in their “failure” to mother in accordance with the principles enunciated by activists.

It’s pretty obvious to almost everyone that orgasmic birth is a self-serving fantasy among women with so little self-esteem that they will say anything to feel superior to other mothers. It is less obvious, but equally true, that lactivism is responsible for the self-serving fantasy that the benefits of breastfeeding are so great that the government must promote it.

It is easy to see the harm in the fantasy of orgasmic birth, which explicitly denies the reality of childbirth. It is less easy to see the harm in government promoted lactivism, which explicitly denies the reality of breastfeeding, preferring to pretend that women who don’t breastfeed are lazy and “uneducated” and that breastfeeding problems are vanishingly rare and should be blamed on the women who experience them.

Natural childbirth and lactivism have no basis in reality. They are both about policing women’s bodies in order to achieve specific specific social outcomes. Grantly Dick-Read created the philosophy of natural childbirth to convince white women of the better classes to have more children. Contemporary natural childbirth activists promote natural childbirth in order to feel better about themselves. The fantasy of orgasmic birth is a cautionary tale about the lengths to which activists will go in order to distinguish themselves as “better” than other mothers.

Anyone who cares about and for women should take the lesson of orgasmic birth to heart. We must ensure that the way we care for women is based on science and that public health initiatives are backed by solid evidence of massive benefits. We should stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated to enforce the agenda of activists who have no greater goal than to feel better about themselves by conjuring self-serving fantasies used to denigrate other mothers.

From Motherwise:

As a birth doula, mother and a woman who has been on a long journey to find a stronger connection to my womb space* and in general, self-love — I feel deeply compelled to discuss the value of positive reframing. The beliefs we hold about ourselves and especially our bodies are very powerful. The words we choose, whether we are conscious of them or not, can shape our ideas and in turn foster strength or fear within us. This applies directly to childbirth outcomes.

Ok. How about this?

Let’s replace the words “birth interventions” with “preventive medicine.”

It’s easy to fear and refuse “birth interventions” but who refuses preventive medicine?

* What is a womb space and why would you want to have a connection to it?

Natural childbirth advocates love mantras. They spread through the community, are quoted over and over, and become received wisdom as though by saying something enough times it might make it true. Classic NCB mantras include “pain is caused by fear” and “animals need privacy to birth successfully; so do humans.” And let us not forget the infinitely inane “trust birth.”

Mantras change with time and in response to cultural values. In an age in which science is greatly respected, the most popular mantra is “obstetricians ignore the scientific evidence.” All the celebrity natural childbirth advocates insists that this is so, and some of them might even believe it. Many midwives consider it among the most important of their marketing techniques.

Professor Barry Beyerstein wrote about the technique of applying a veneer of scientific respectability as a way to improve the status of pseudoscientific beliefs. As Beyerstein explained:

The prestige and influence of science in this century is so great that very few fields outside of religion and the arts wish to be seen as overtly unscientific. As a result, many endeavors that lack the essential characteristics of a science have begun to masquerade as one in order to enhance their economic, social and political status. While these pseudosciences are at pains to resemble genuine sciences on the surface, closer examination of the contents, methods and attitudes reveals them to be mere parodies. The roots of most pseudosciences are traceable to ancient magical beliefs, but their devotees typically play this down as they adopt the outward appearance of scientific rigor. Analysis of the perspectives and practices of these scientific poseurs is likely to expose a mystical worldview that has merely been restated in scientific-sounding jargon.

And that almost perfectly captures the public relations ploy of choice among NCB advocates. What could sound more impressive that shouting from every rooftop that obstetricians ignore the scientific evidence, while NCB advocates are slaves to scientific rigor? The fact that the claim is a lie is beside the point. Many NCB advocates neither know the truth, nor care.

If you say “obstetricians ignore the scientific evidence” fast enough, people won’t stop to consider if it makes sense. But if we do stop to consider it, we might amplify it as follows:

We are supposed to believe that obstetricians (with 8 years of higher education, extensive study of science and statistics, and four additional years of hands on experience caring for pregnant women), the people who actually DO the research that represents the corpus of scientific evidence, are ignoring their own findings while NCB advocates and many midwives, the people who rarely, if ever, do quantitative scientific research, are assiduously scouring the scientific literature, reading the main obstetric journals each month, and changing their recommendations and practice based on the latest scientific evidence.

See what I mean? That makes no sense at all.

And what does the scientific evidence on childbirth really show? There is virtually no support for ANY of the central tenets of homebirth advocacy. Let’s start with a favorite NCB claim that “lots of scientific papers show that homebirth is safe.” When it comes to homebirth in the US, ZERO scientific papers show that homebirth is safe. Indeed EVERY paper written on the subject shows that homebirth increases the risk of neonatal or perinatal death, even the Johnson and Daviss BMJ paper that claims to show otherwise. National statistics on homebirth collected by the CDC from 2003-2008 show that homebirth with a non-CNM midwife triples the rate of neonatal death, and homebirth with a CNM doubles the rate of neonatal death.

Consider other, easily verifiable claims:

Proper position speeds labor? No, no evidence for that.

Eating in labor gives women “strength” and improves outcomes? No, no evidence for that.

Babies won’t breathe if delivered under water because of the diving reflex? The diving reflex works in cold water, not warm water.

Epidurals are dangerous? No, no evidence for that, either.

Indeed, I am hard pressed to come up with even a single NCB tenet that is based on scientific evidence. Oh, wait. I can think of one: breastfeeding is beneficial for your baby. But even that scientific evidence is misrepresented by NCB advocates, since the benefits are actually quite small.

The bottom line is that the NCB claim that “obstetricians ignore the scientific evidence” is a big lie. NCB advocates seems to think that if they say it loud enough and long enough everyone will believe. Unfortunately for them, even a cursory investigation demonstrate that obstetricians follow the scientific evidence and NCB advocates don’t even know what the evidence shows.

Adapted from a piece that first appeared in January 2011.

Homebirth advocates often feel a burning need to explain their motivation for giving birth at home. It seems only fair that those who give birth in the hospital should offer an explanation.

5 reasons why I chose hospital birth:

1. I wanted a live baby
2. I had no desire to even take even the tiniest risk to my baby’s brain function
3. I had no need to impress other privileged Western white women with faux “achievements,”
4. I actually read the scientific literature, not some lay blogger’s “interpretation” of it
5. I don’t get my medical advice from washed up talk show hosts

PS: Did I mention I wanted a live baby?

That’s why I chose hospital birth. How about you?

The Alpha Parent Arrogant is at it again.

The Alpha Parent Arrogant is a sanctimommy extraordinaire: obnoxious, self-congratulatory and anxious to make all the other mommies feel bad.

The best part about the Alpha Parent Arrogant is that she is always ready to share her wisdom with the rest of us. She doesn’t hesitate to point out the deficiencies of your parenting practices (in other words, how your parenting choices differ from hers). She doesn’t hesitate to make dire predictions about what the future holds for your children. She never hesitates to bemoan your lack of understanding of the key issues of childrearing, letting you know that you are not as “educated” as she is.

But let’s give credit where credit is due. The Alpha Parent Arrogant has surpassed herself this time.

Her new meme:

Breastfeeding is like Marriage. You can’t cheat on it and expect it to work.

That’s pretty much a work of art. It manages is to be simultaneously offensive, guilt inducing, inaccurate and self-aggrandizing. But I’ve gotten use to expecting nothing less from the Alpha Parent Arrogant.

Here’s a thought, Alpha Parent Arrogant:

Giving advice is like marriage. You can’t shame your partner and expect it to work.

And here’s another:

Blogging is like Marriage. You can’t be a narcissist and expect it to work.

Apparently the Alpha Parent Arrogant is shocked, shocked by the blistering contempt with which her little aphorism was greeted.

And in her typically offensive way, she tries to defend her obnoxiousness.

For anyone that still has their panties up their crack with regard to the “Breastfeeding is like Marriage” meme I posted yesterday, here is my defense posted on The Leaky Boob

Charming, no?

It motivates mothers to trust their bodies, to re-evaluate any urge to supplement.

Formula feeding≠infidelity. (DO I SERIOUSLY NEED TO SAY THAT?)

You’re missing the point. This meme has nothing whatsoever to do with formula feeders in the main. It’s about mothers who are trying to breastfeed. Cheating= harms marriage as supplementing= harms supply. The meme is a simple cause and effect comparison. It says nothing of shame or morality. It compares the stress of cheating on a relationship to the stress of supplementing on your supply.

Here’s the technical term for this “explanation.” It’s bullshit!

C’mon, Alpha Parent Arrogant. Surely you can do better than the classic defense of the passive-aggressive narcissist: “Who me? I didn’t intend to hurt you. You just took my obnoxious, self aggrandizing attempt to denigrate you the wrong way!!

I can understand why this picture enraged so many people. Most women supplement, so the majority of women looking at this will have been triggered in some way, great or small. In the MAJORITY of cases, supplementation leads to a complete switch to formula. These are FACTS and I hasten to add, their truth is what frustrates people most. But if you’re offended because you’ve supplemented, that’s your beef. The meme isn’t aimed at you. It is aimed at the pregnant mother or the new mother getting to grips with breastfeeding who can heed the warning.

In other words, if you’re insulted, it’s because you deserve to be insulted.

No, Alpha Parent Arrogant, no one is frustrated by the truth. They are simply appalled by your viciousness.

Here’s the way I see it, Alpha Parent Arrogant:

You are nothing but a garden variety jerk.

Today we appeared in Federal Court in Boston, to hear oral argument on motions in my case against Gina Crosley-Corcoran. It was an amazing experience.

For over two hours I listened to a series of excellent lawyers explain and argue the various aspects of the case.

I was extremely pleased with my lawyers’ presentations and gratified that the judge took such a keen interest, and questioned all the lawyers quite closely.

This was not a trial; we are nowhere near a trial yet. In a typical case, a complaint is filed, the defendant files a response, both side take discovery (examine documents and take depositions), and only then does a trial occur. I filed my complaint, but Gina has yet to file a response because her first act was to ask for the case to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The judge also chose to review the merits of the case. Today we argued about both jurisdiction and the merits.

Fundamentally, the case is about censorship. Gina, by her own admission in print, was trying to get my blog thrown off the web. The weapon she used/abused was the DMCA takedown notice, a procedure governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

This case is not, and never was, about Gina’s picture of herself giving me the finger. Copyright is not absolute. It is subject to the doctrine of Fair Use. Fair Use defines the situations in which an otherwise copyrighted quote or image can be used in another work. Editorial criticism is one of clearest examples of Fair Use. For example, when a book reviewer quotes a passage from a book to illustrate its flaws, the author is not entitled to claim copyright infringement, even though he or she owns the copyright for those words. When the quotation is being used as part of commentary, its use is protected.

The DMCA requires that the person who files a DMCA notice “must have a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of.” If the material in question is covered by Fair Use, there is no legal basis for a DMCA complaint. We allege that Gina filed the DMCA takedown notices even though she was aware that my use of her image was not a copyright violation.

The DMCA requires that when anyone files a DMCA takedown notice with a webhost, the content in question must be removed for 10-14 days, pending a lawsuit, and then can be put back up if no legal action is taken. In some circumstances, a webhost will take an entire site down until the relevant content is removed. When Gina filed her DMCA takedown notices, she did it to harass me, in the hope that my site would be taken down, as it was intermittently. When Gina solicited others to file DMCA notices, and volunteered to act as the legal agent of others in filing DMCA notices, she did it with the intent to silence me, as she has acknowledged on her own Facebook page.

I filed suit to stop the harassment, to stop the attempt to force my blog off the web, and to stop the knowing abuse of the DMCA notice process by filing a notice of a copyright violation after Gina already knew that her copyright was not violated. Congress, in writing the DMCA legislation recognized the possibility that copyright holders might file frivolous DMCA notices, and set up a penalty for those who abuse the process.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Digital Media Law Project of Harvard Law School filed a brief explaining why they agreed with me that I had stated a legally sufficient claim that Gina’s conduct constituted an abuse of the DMCA process. The Motion Picture Association of America filed a brief explaining why the DMCA process should not require that copyright holders make an effort to determine if the purported copyright violation was actually covered by the doctrine of Fair Use.

This issue is so important to the EFF and the MPAA that they took the unusual step of petitioning the Court to be allowed to argue alongside the lawyers for myself and for Gina. They were each granted 15 minutes to argue the specifics of their views of the DMCA and the abuse of the process, and I was fascinated to hear a detailed and extended analysis of the meaning of various parts of the DMCA.

There have been lots of side issues that have been briefed and were discussed. Most prominent among them is the jurisdiction issue. In Gina’s original motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, she argued that she had no connection with Massachusetts and did not know that I lived in Massachusetts. However, she is on record directly on her Facebook page, proclaiming that she knew my address on the very day that she filed the second DMCA notice.

In addition, Gina argued that it would be too burdensome to litigate a case in Massachusetts. But the blizzard of paper that she has sent to the Court indicates otherwise. Gina has filed six separate briefs already, and hasn’t even responded to the original complaint yet! Clearly, she has no trouble litigating in Massachusetts.

But no one should forget that at the heart, this is about an attempt at silencing me. The abuse of the DMCA was just the means, and Gina’s photo was just the pretext.

The tech community has expressed deep interest in the case because they are concerned that the DMCA can be wielded to silence speech. If the standard for abuse is set too low, it will be difficult to show that anyone ever knowingly and deliberately abused the DMCA process. They are following the case closely because it is the only one in which the defendant has publicly acknowledged that she was using the DMCA, not to protect copyright, but to silence someone with whom she disagreed. As a number of tech bloggers have noted, if this isn’t a violation of the DMCA process, there is no such thing as a violation of the DMCA process. That cannot be what Congress intended.

At this point, all I am arguing for is the right to go forward, to have Gina answer the complaint, turn over her documents for review and submit to a deposition to determine what she knew when. We haven’t even gotten to the actual case yet. It is up to the judge to decide if we will ever get to it.

OMG! OMG! OMG!

Did you see what Similac did??!!

They’ve created the a product specifically designed to destroy the motherbabybreast relationship! And if that’s not bad enough, they created an irresistible marketing campaign that converts breastfeeding mothers into supplementing mothers AGAINST THEIR WILL!!

But don’t worry …

Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird; it’s a plane; …. no it’s Lacti-Shrew come to rescue other mothers who are so stupid that they will buy anything they see in an advertisement.

Because we all know that there is nothing that women of America want more than to emulate the self-proclaimed awesome sanctimommies whose biggest claim to fame is that they EXCLUSIVELY breastfeed their vaginally born (WITHOUT PAIN MEDICATION, and don’t you forget it) babies.

Lacti-Shrew knows that the only thing keeping all those other inferior mothers from emulating their privileged, Western, white, well off selves is lack of education. Those poor women have no idea of the benefits of breastfeeding!! That’s why Lacti-Shrews everywhere must create lots and lots of rules to force educate women to breastfeed.

All the good Lacti-Shrews are OUTRAGED.

Lactating Girl:

I was livid. I couldn’t even explain why after sitting and pondering it to myself for a while. Now though, I think that I’ve nailed down what’s so wrong with this new formula.

First off, it’s implying that not all formulas are good enough for supplementing breast milk. Well, I’ll definitely agree that formulas are not the best way to supplement (can you say donated milk?), but sometimes it just has to happen. Just because I’m a breastfeeding advocate doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the benefits of formula being readily available… So I’m not doing the best for my baby when supplementing if I don’t do it with this formula? Like we don’t already have enough mama guilt in this world.

Lactating Girl clearly has a problem understanding irony.

Lacti-Shrew knows that there is no such thing as low breastmilk supply. Those women who insists they aren’t making enough milk for their babies are lazy liars looking for the easy way out. And their screaming babies are liars, too!!

Don’t you know that breastfeeding women have a target on their breasts.

Perhaps the most disturbing trend in formula marketing occurred this month with the release of a new product directly targeting and undermining breastfeeding moms. The May 11, 2013, release of a Similac for Supplementation confirms the company is desperately trying to increase its customer base. This blatant attempt to sabotage the breastfeeding relationship is outrageous… This is a pathetic bid for the breastfeeding audience. Unfortunately, it could just work, especially since this message is being perpetuated by a new study released two days later in Pediatrics. The article’s release date (occurring the same week this formula hit the shelves) is highly suspect. It may seem like a conspiracy theory, but as well-equipped as the strategists are, the timing is not a coincidence and neither is the correlation between Abbott and the co-author of the study, who was previously employed by the maker of Similac.

See how big the conspiracy to undermine breastfeeding is? Even the pediatricians are in on it!

You might be wondering why women who would never use formula of any kind would care about whether other breastfeeding women might use formula. If so, you are missing the point!! Lacti-Shrew has low self-esteem and is desperate for adulation. She needs other women to mirror her own choices in order to feel good about herself. Moreover, if supplementing with formula is okay, then Lacti-Shrew isn’t the super-special mama that you are supposed to believe she is.

Therefore, Lacti-Shrew must cleanse the world of anything and everything that does not boost her self-esteem. Hospital offers formula gifts to new mothers? Take them away! Hospitals allow women to choose formula feeding without shaming them? Lock that formula up and make her beg for it!! Create a special formula designed specifically to make up for whatever breastfeeding babies may lack? Vilify women who choose it, and make it clear that they are too stupid to resist marketing.

Point out that it is grossly inappropriate for privileged Western, white, well off women to act like they are superior to other women, smarter and more able to resist the claims of advertisers and get an ear full of irony: You think women aren’t vulnerable to marketing? Check your privilege.

Now that’s funny! Privileged Western, white, well off women accusing those who don’t subscribe to their theory that everyone else is stupid and more vulnerable to marketing than themselves are accusing women who don’t agree with them for being privileged.

Lacti-Shrew is nothing if not blind to her own withering contempt for anyone who doesn’t emulate her.

To those who think that the outrage about Similac for Supplementation is about formula, think again. Lacti-Shrews everywhere are “livid” because the mere existence of a formula for supplementation is a threat to their self-esteem. Their “achievement” of using their breasts exclusively to feed their babies isn’t much of an achievement if it’s equally acceptable to to do anything else.

Yes, you read that right.

No, I’m not talking about sexual assault in the tub.

I’m talking about the latest in an endless parade of reasons that natural childbirth advocates can feel victimized.

You may recall the horror of hatting, wherein the act of putting a knit hat on a newborn baby purportedly can precipitate a maternal hemorrhage or affect a baby’s health for the rest of his life.

But whining about your baby’s hat is so 2012. Today’s NCB advocates are modeling the latest in victimology, as explained on CafeMom:

Almost to years after i gave birth, I still find myself upset at the hospital we were at…

They gave my twins their first bath without even telling me. It was the day after they were born, the nurse told me to get up and walk and the babies would sleep in the nursery. I was gone for about 20 minutes and when I came back, they brought the babies back and said they had their first bath… I feel like they took something away from me.

I never got a warning. At the time i kept it in and now I’m sorry I did because to this day, it still hurts. ;(

Despite all the talk of empowerment, the role of victim is hallowed in natural childbirth advocacy, and it is inextricable from the NCB penchant for finding new reasons to whine. Just like Bridezillas, Birthzillas are continually searching for ever more trivial reasons to be outraged that their “special day” was ruined.

Indeed, there is an entire NCB website devoted to whining about victimization. It’s called My OB Said What??!! and it is seemingly endless parade of whining from women whose had their feelings hurt when their providers told them things they didn’t want to hear, on the false presumption that these were adults mature enough to deal with disappointment. The providers didn’t understand that in NCB world disappointment=victimization, being forced to address reality=victimization, getting only a healthy baby but having diminished bragging rights=victimization.

For a movement that claims to be about empowering women, there are an amazing amount of women so fragile that two years later they are complaining that they didn’t get to give the baby his or her first bath.

But then natural childbirth advocacy was never about birth, and certainly never about the baby. It’s about the way that women want to see themselves, and apparently a lot of NCB advocates want to see themselves as victims.

The phrase “bath rape” was coined by a member of the Fed Up With Natural Childbirth Facebook group.