Just when I think there is nothing in this world that is ridiculous enough to leave me feeling dumbfounded anymore, a story like this comes out and manages to prove me wrong.
It’s “ethically inappropriate” for government and medical organizations to describe breastfeeding as “natural” because the term enforces rigid notions about gender roles, claims a new study in Pediatrics.
I just… I can’t even… just what the fuck have I just read here?
The study notes that in recent years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and several state departments of health have all promoted breastfeeding over bottle-feeding, using the term “natural.”
BECAUSE IT IS FUCKING NATURAL!!!!
“Referencing the ‘natural’ in breastfeeding promotion… may inadvertently endorse a set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate,” the study says.
Yeah, could you imagine? It might offend certain people to make statements like this.
Unless such public-service announcements “make transparent the ‘values and beliefs that underlie them,’” they should quit describing breastfeeding as “natural.”
“You should do this thing because WE say so. If you don’t do as we say, we will call you names like ‘sexist’ or ‘transphobic’, or whatever other word we think of, until we get our way. Then when you prove your weakness and cowardice by giving in to our initial demands, we’ll start making even more outrageous demands, and force you to do as we say again.”
But the study’s authors, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, clearly have in mind an alternative set of “values and beliefs,” about which which they are not transparent.
According to this article, they actually first published this lunacy over a year ago. When called out on it, they just screeched about “misogyny”, claiming people were just attacking them for being outspoken women, rather than the fact that their ideas were being ridiculed for their obvious stupidity.
It’s unclear whether they’re worried about how traditional female gender roles may limit women’s progress in the workforce, or whether this is part of the discussion about whether conventional views about motherhood exclude transgender people.
Who cares what their motivation was? Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that breastfeeding IS natural. There’s no justification for what they are claiming.
Or perhaps this is just another example of how the progressive obsession with gender and sexuality has permeated all fields of academic study.
Yeah that’s probably the most likely explanation.
Regardless, Martucci and Barnhill mask their agenda by also making the unconvincing secondary argument that describing breastfeeding as “natural” fuels the anti-vaccine movement.
When public-service announcements praise breastfeeding as “natural,” Martucci and Barnhill argue, the implication is that manufactured or mass-produced products are questionable or dangerous—so these promotions may unintentionally encourage parents to reject scientific progress elsewhere.
*Claims breastfeeding shouldn’t be described as “natural”*
*Accuses others of rejecting scientific progress*
“If doing what is ‘natural’ is ‘best’ in the case of breastfeeding, how can we expect mothers to ignore that powerful and deeply persuasive worldview when making choices about vaccination?” they write.
Because they are two different things and have absolutely no connection, you idiot. Doing one, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they’ll do the other.
There’s certainly an assertive worldview woven throughout this paper, though we find it neither powerful nor deeply persuasive.
Yeah, I doubt most sane people would.