There is a feminist professor who wants doctors and medical professionals to stop calling breastfeeding “natural” because, among other ridiculous reasons, it enforces traditional gender roles. You know, traditional gender roles like biology and science. She finds those problematic. Boobs: they’re hate speech.
Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I cannot let that one go. First of all, this idiot puts “natural” in scare quotes. While applying it to breastfeeding. I’m not a doctor or anything, but isn’t the main purpose of bewbs to provide nourishment to babies? Wouldn’t it therefore stand to reason that because women have bewbs and also coincidentally have the ability to conceive and carry children, that maybe, just maybe, it is presumptively healthier to breastfeed said child? I mean in most cases? Like 90% barring some health issue?
But by all means, let’s start branding breasts as hateful. I eagerly await the booblash on that one…
This may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination…. Coupling nature with motherhood, however, can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretakers of children).
Because, once again, women have bewbs. The biological equivalence of meals on wheels. I can say that, I’m a woman (this is Courtney, not Crowder). Because yes, women having the natural ability to feed children with their bodies? That sounds pretty “biologically deterministic” to me. Men’s bewbs do not lactate, you twit.
Referencing the “natural” in breastfeeding promotion, then, may inadvertently endorse a controversial set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate…. Whatever the ethics of appealing to the natural in breastfeeding promotion, it raises practical concerns. The “natural” option does not align consistently with public health goals.
Let’s also gloss over how she glossed over what these “ethical concerns” are. We’ll get to that later. Because yes, she compared calling breastfeeding natural to being an anti-vaxxer, because…what is that, Alinsky Rule #7?
This sums the actual thesis of her argument…
It’s totally fine to say that breastfeeding is “natural,” as long as your audience is “historians” and “officials.” But the word must not be used when dealing with patients and the public. She understands that breastfeeding is “natural,” but she is asking doctors and public health officials to stop saying so in the presence of their patients, in order to promote an ideological agenda she deems more important than a factual dialogue between doctor and patient. Doctors have to stop speaking a truth so that patients will stop knowing a truth, and if that sits poorly with you, you’re a misogynist.
Ah, there it is. Disagree with her, you’re a misogynist. Except no. Believing breasts are for breastfeeding babies isn’t sexism. It’s naturalism. It’s biologism. It’s called real life. We may have a number of names for the breasts, including bewbs, knockers, ta-tas, and whatever your favorite term might be, but they serve more of a purpose than filling out a bra, or transfixing men in a humanuh humanuh hypnosis. They’re for the babies. They’re for feeding the babies. That is if one hasn’t vacuumed it out of the womb for the sake of “choice.”
This idiot saying stop calling breastfeeding “natural” is why modern, SJW feminism is dying. Methinks even the feminists know it. But like an abusive partner, rather than letting it go gracefully, they’re doubling down, sinking their probably-unmanicured claws in it, in desperation to keep control.
Which says nothing of the fact that “non” traditional gender roles are unhealthy…