zeg niet : borstvoeding is natuurlijk.

[Anna List]

http://www.iwf.org/news/2803518/Stud...s-Gender-Roles

Study: Describing Breastfeeding as ‘Natural’ Is Unethical Because It Reinforces Gender Roles

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.

“Coupling nature with motherhood… can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker,” the study says.

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.”

“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.

Unless such public-service announcements “make transparent the ‘values and beliefs that underlie them,’” they should quit describing breastfeeding as “natural.”

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.

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 discussionabout whether conventional views about motherhood exclude transgender people. Or perhaps this is just another example of how the progressive obsession with gender and sexuality has permeated all fields of academic study.

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.

“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.

There’s certainly an assertive worldview woven throughout this paper, though we find it neither powerful nor deeply persuasive.

— Jillian Kay Melchior writes for Heat Street and is a fellow for the Steamboat Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum

beetje doorgeslagen, me dunkt...

discuss pls !

[vlijmscherp]

dat is pas compleet van de pot gerukt.

[Anna List]

Tetten!

[morte-vivante]

*zucht*

seg Anna, het origineel artikel is van april 2016, je link (independent womens forum, wtf??) van april 2017. Het genereerde redelijk weinig animo.

[Anna List]

ja, sorry, had t gewoon in k&k moeten zetten natuurlijk.

[Skobelev]

Tepelkloven voor de mannen !!

Misschien moeten we bij de geboorte van meisjes het borstweefsel maar meteen verwijderen want het is niet genderneutraal. En toenaaien vanonder. Bij de mannen de Willy der meteen van het eerste uur af?

Man, man, man.....kan het nog zotter?

[Waterglas]

Is al oud, en dat was slechts een zijdelingse opmerking, ging er vooral om dat "natural" vaak synoniem is met kwakzalverij. Kanker genezen met een fruitdieet en dat soort onzin. Je wil niet dat mensen denken dat natuurlijk per definitie beter is wanneer 99% van de websites die het woord gebruiken alternatieve geneeswijzen aanprijzen.

[Universalia]

Oei, de tettendraad doe hier ook zijn intrede.

Study: Describing Breastfeeding as ‘Natural’ Is Unethical Because It Reinforces Gender Roles

Dat is wel serieus van de pot gerukt.

[Bach]

Transgenders jaloers omdat er geen melk uit hun fake borsten komt? En dan moet de wereld zich aanpassen aan hun ipv andersom? In poedervoeding voor baby's zijn ze gelijk met zogenden en is dan de promoten genderneutrale manier van omgaan met baby's? Zeggen dat borstvoeding natuurlijk is eraren als een discriminatie gaat voorbij aan het belang van het kind zelf. Misschien een beetje egocentrisch van de genderneutrale strijders.

[Waterglas]

Misschien kan je beter de studie zelf lezen dan wat het "Independent Women’s Forum" ervan maakt. Het IWF is een conservatieve organisatie, ontstaan uit "Women for Judge Thomas", fans van de meest conservatieve rechter bij het hooggerechtshof.

[quercus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Anna List

http://www.iwf.org/news/2803518/Stud...s-Gender-Roles

beetje doorgeslagen, me dunkt...

discuss pls !

Allé vooruit! Nu zullen die militante vrouwen er bij de mannen wellicht op aandringen dat ze massaal oestrogeen-pillen slikken zodat ze flinke melk-producerende tieten ontwikkelen.

Hoelang zullen de normale, rationeel denkende vrouwen de zottigheden van die hysterische feeksen nog slikken?

[Waterglas]

Welgeteld twee zinnen in de voorlaatste paragraaf bespreken het "ethische" aspect. Maar volgens het IWF is dat de kern van het artikel, en de rest is slechts camouflage eromheen...
Oordeel zelf:

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. 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, a view examined in a recent report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 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.

The measles outbreak of 2014–2015 sparked intense, condemnatory discussion of vaccine refusal. This public discussion often emphasized that some in the antivaccine camp believe that vaccines cause autism or contain harmful levels of toxins and impurities. Beneath the concern of many Americans over vaccine safety, a specific and not necessarily illogical worldview is discernable: a rejection of the manufactured, the synthetic and the “unnatural,” and an embrace of the “natural” as healthier and intrinsically better. Vaccines are often seen as “unnatural,” and boosting immunity “naturally” is viewed by some as the healthier and better approach. Online forums and blogs devoted to natural living offer countless examples of this perspective, and the recent book Vaccine Nation by Elena Conis documents the evolution of this worldview in detail. Studies have shown that parents who resist vaccination tend to inhabit networks of like-minded individuals with similar beliefs. These pockets of antivaccination sentiment tend to overlap with reliance on and interest in complementary and alternative medicine, skepticism of institutional authority, and a strong commitment and interest in health knowledge, autonomy, and healthy living practices.

The idea of the “natural” evokes a sense of purity, goodness, and harmlessness. Meanwhile, synthetic substances, products, and technologies mass produced by industry (notably, vaccines) are seen as “unnatural” and often arouse suspicion and distrust. Part of this value system is the perception that what’s natural is safer, healthier and less risky. This embrace of the “natural” over the “unnatural” appears in a variety of contemporary scientific and medical issues beyond vaccination, including rejection of genetically modified foods, a preference for organic over conventionally grown foods, and rejection of assisted reproductive technologies, as well as concerns over environmental toxins and water fluoridation. Much of the interest in complementary and alternative medicines also hinges on “ideas of natural techniques as safer, gentler and benign.” In some cases, however, this view that “natural” is synonymous with “better” may work against specific public health goals.

The recent Nuffield Council report documents these overlapping ideas in detail and suggests that although some individuals may understand “natural/unnatural” as value neutral, there are other perspectives, for example, the fear that scientific innovations may be wrong because they move living things away from their fundamental nature and that nature offers the best way of doing things. This latter view is clearly and commonly invoked in breastfeeding promotion. For example, the US Department of Health and Human Services’ “It’s only natural” breastfeeding promotion campaign is an explicit attempt to persuade women to breastfeed by framing breastfeeding as better than formula because it is natural. Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics has referred to breast milk as “the best and most natural food for infants.” A breastfeeding promotion poster produced by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene describes breastfeeding as “Mom-made” as compared with formula feeding, labeled with a red circle that reads “Factory-made.” The intended message to parents presumably is that, in this one particular case, factory-made, unnatural substances are unhealthy and should be avoided, whereas the “Mom-made” and natural option is safer and better. Breastfeeding has also been referred to as “natural” by the World Health Organization, the California Department of Public Health, and the Vermont Department of Health, to give just a few examples, and numerous other instances of this approach have been documented in a report put out by the Berkeley Media Studies Group in 2010.

It makes sense that breastfeeding promotion would make appeals to the “natural.” The resurgence in breastfeeding rates over roughly the past 4 decades is rooted in a history of women’s organized efforts during the 1950s and 1960s to redeem the value of feeding babies “naturally” in the face of widespread medical support for formula feeding. 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. Invoking the “natural” is also imprecise because it lacks a clear definition. For similar reasons, the recent Nuffield report states that public agencies, governments and organizations contributing to public and political debates about science, technology, and medicine “should avoid using the terms natural, unnatural and nature” unless they make transparent the “values or beliefs that underlie them.”

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. 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? If breastfeeding promotion frames the “factory-made” option as risky or unhealthy, what should parents conclude when choosing between factory-made vaccines and boosting immunity “naturally”? We should think twice before referencing the “natural” in breastfeeding promotion, even if it motivates women to breastfeed.

De paper was controversieel, leverde de auteurs zelfs doodsbedreigingen op, maar in een artikel over de controverse komt het gender role gedoe zelfs niet ter sprake.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/breas...h-threats.html
Enkel het IWF denkt dat dat de essentie van het artikel was. Misschien omdat zij zo'n aanhangers zijn van het traditionele gezin: vader verdient de kost, moeder blijft thuis om voor de kinderen te zorgen...

[praha]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Anna List

http://www.iwf.org/news/2803518/Stud...s-Gender-Roles





beetje doorgeslagen, me dunkt...

discuss pls !

Bah.. toch niet daar ouderschap nu eenmaal niet veel meer met natuur te maken heeft...dus als argumentatie om genderrollen te promoten is het zever
Maar om het nu 'onethisch' te gaan noemen is er misschien wat over

[praha]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Skobelev

Tepelkloven voor de mannen !!

Misschien moeten we bij de geboorte van meisjes het borstweefsel maar meteen verwijderen want het is niet genderneutraal. En toenaaien vanonder. Bij de mannen de Willy der meteen van het eerste uur af?

Man, man, man.....kan het nog zotter?

...maar ge gebruikt even tussen de regels door als 'argument' om die genderrollen te blijven bestendigen
Dus het artikel is niet zo zot