There is no limit to the Tyranny of Political Correctness. The madness just gets worse and worse by the day.
The latest are two female academics who say government and doctors shouldn’t promote “natural breastfeeding” — which is proven to be good for the baby’s health and for baby-mother bonding — or even use the term because:
- Calling it “natural” may embolden those who object to mandatory childhood vaccination;
- Calling it “breastfeeding” endorses and reinforces rigid gender roles — that women should be the primary caretakers of children.
As reported by WND, July 3, 2016, the two academics are:
- Anne Barnhill, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
- Jessica Martucci, a research fellow in the same department who describes herself as a “feminist” historian of “sci/tech/med” and a “twitterstorian.”
In their co-authored paper, “Unintended Consequences of Invoking the ‘Natural’ in Breastfeeding Promotion,” published in the March 2016 issue of Pediatrics, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Barnhill and Martucci recognize that “Medical and public health organizations recommend that mothers exclusively breastfeed for at least 6 months. This recommendation is based on evidence of health benefits for mothers and babies, as well as developmental benefits for babies.”
Despite breastfeeding’s health benefits, Barnhill and Martucci warn against use of the term “natural breastfeeding” by government officials or doctors:
A spate of recent work challenges the extent of these benefits, and ethical criticism of breastfeeding promotion as stigmatizing is also growing. Building on this critical work, we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the “natural” way to feed infants. This messaging plays into a powerful perspective that “natural” approaches to health are better . . . . Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier. This may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination [because] . . . some in the antivaccine camp believe that vaccines cause autism or contain harmful levels of toxins and impurities . . . .
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). 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.
When their paper received a critical response from the public, Martucci invoked the feminist version of the race card, accusing her critics of misogyny — dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. She writes in a Tweet:
Honestly, what I’ve learned from all this is just how misogynistic public discourse really is. Speaking publicly is still a radical act.
Ironically, Martucci had previously written a book that promoted natural breastfeeding, titled, Back to the Breast: Natural Motherhood and Breastfeeding in America.
H/t FOTM‘s maziel.
~Eowyn