# calling all feminist AP-ers who are eloquent writers!!!



## pixiepunk (Mar 11, 2003)

Please check out this link and the call for submissions: http://www.nwsa.org/mothers.html and submit writing pieces to let women know that you can be a feminist and be an attachment parent!!!

...and since when is it a bad thing to "essentialize the role of motherhood" ?!?!?!?!







:

i've got to get my thinking cap on and come up with something good to submit. i hope others will be inspired to do the same.

peace.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Thank you for the link.

Quote:

*challenges the way that Sears and others have placed most of the burden of childrearing on mothers and essentialized the role of mothers;
I don't think they mean "essential" as in "neccessary."

I think they mean essential as in "the essential nature of women." Or, "the essence of gender." Essence = basic, or biologically determined.

Usually "essentialism" as a philosphy is incongruent with feminism, because essentialism suggests that "nature" intends for men and women to relegated to certain specific roles in life that are not interchaneable. Essentialism emphasizes biological explanations for subjegating women, rather than placing responsibility on social constructs.

Whether or not Sears is actually doing this is open to debate, IMO.

.


----------



## Skim (Jan 2, 2004)

Well, I am disappointed by that call for submissions.

As a WS grad student graduate and feminist mama, I am terribly confused in why the NWSA would take this on as an academic topic. I mean, what could possibly be essentialized about meeting baby's needs? And how could they refer to Sears as a "baby trainer"? Please!!

OK, I don't like Sears for everything. They are homophobic and don't support same sex couples as examples of healthy parents. This is bad bad bad.

But how in the h-e-double hockey sticks can anyone write a criticism of attachment parenting that's feminist?

I can see the cultural appropriation (what the cfp describes as "importing") issue. Let's face it, as my Lakota friend S. says, "When white people do it, it's gotta have a name so someone can make money off it." So true! But, weren't Europeans all living in villages in extended families too, if you go far enough back? Weren't farm wives in the US still nursng their kids into grade school? I just can't imagine what the ruckus is all about!

Anyone have an idea about what NWSA is really mad about? Because I just don't have a clue. This just felt like backlash to me. How ironic...


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Thanks for the link- I have some things to say for certain. I have my own concerns about Sears et al. but not the things they listed. Wow. Baby training? And how can they criticize AP for being white middle class- isn't that one of the primary critiques of feminism? And if they are going to attack parenting- what model would they hold up as correct? How do we raise kids as feminist? 50/50 of course is heterosexist isn't it? And does 50/50 not allow for extended breast feeding? Well now I have a few months to try and put words to what has been making me crazy- how do I really think society should be constructed that would be non-hierarchtical (sp?) would respect the uniqueness of all persons and provide the best support for our babies? Shouldn't be a problem- answer the questions of the universe in less than 6500 words by the new year.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Skim*
...Anyone have an idea about what NWSA is really mad about? ...

Yes, because feminists can't just be questioning something, as other academic groups do, they must be "mad."

Did you even read their Mission Statement? It reads, in part:

_"NWSA has a vision of a world in which all persons can develop to their fullest potential and be free from all the ideologies and structures that consciously and unconsciously oppress and exploit some for the advantage of others.

To this end, this organization is committed to support and promote feminist teaching, research, and professional and community service at the pre-K through post-secondary levels. Integral to this commitment is understanding the political ramifications in our teaching, research and service."_

I'm looking forward to reading this book. In my opinion, Sears or even Attachment Parenting is not above reproach. In fact, there are aspects of Attachment Parenting that I find troubling because I *am* a feminist. Clearly I'm not the only one.


----------



## Skim (Jan 2, 2004)

nak

pugmadmama wrote:
"I'm looking forward to reading this book. In my opinion, Sears or even Attachment Parenting is not above reproach. In fact, there are aspects of Attachment Parenting that I find troubling because I am a feminist. Clearly I'm not the only one."

Well, I'll just chalk up your reply to the heat of the moment. Please re-read my post. I wrote:
"OK, I don't like Sears for everything. They are homophobic and don't support same sex couples as examples of healthy parents. This is bad bad bad."

AND

"I can see the cultural appropriation (what the cfp describes as "importing") issue. "

My criticism is also feminist. I AM one of those feminists who must be "mad". Clearly, I did not say Sears was beyond reproach. My concern with this NWSA topic is deciphering what they feel there is about AP that does not support women; I think "baby trainers" do not include Sears; and it's about time there was some scholarly criticism of the inherent class bias of the investment language used pervasively in ap literature.

pugmadmama, Would you care to share your own feminist criticism of baby trainers and Sears?


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

It blows my mind that people are agitating against papers that haven't even been written yet.

Is AP so weak that it can't stand up to study and criticism?

Are we so defensive and insecure that we can't allow for open discussion and debate.. that we can't even be OPEN to the possibility of using a critical analysis on our parenting philosophies?

Yes, as a feminist there are things about ap that concern me.
I am concerned about the fact that ap too often translates into attachment MOTHERING instead of attachment parenting.

I am concerned about some of the pressure it puts on SAHMS and some of the ramifications of that pressure.

I DO think there are issues of classism and cultural appropriation..
Not in the idea of bonding with/being attached to your baby.. but in what some of the gurus.. including Sears.. preach.

I do not believe in supressing academic debate. I do not believe in getting offended by IDEAS that haven't even been explored yet. My belief in the basics of attachment parenting is strong enough to make room for some critical debate. I look forward to reading more.


----------



## mahdokht (Dec 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah*
I DO think there are issues of classism and cultural appropriation..
Not in the idea of bonding with/being attached to your baby.. but in what some of the gurus.. including Sears.. preach.


I am interested in understanding this, because I really don't see the cultural appropriation aspect. The only thing that I can think of is different kinds of slings, and just about every culture that I've ever seen has some kind of device to help mother's hold their babies close, including European ones. At any rate, I really would like to understand what the issues of classism and cultural appropriation that concern you.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

I am at work.. so I don't have the time or the brain cells for a cogent explanation now. I will try to come back to this thread when I have time to focus.


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah*
Yes, as a feminist there are things about ap that concern me.
I am concerned about the fact that ap too often translates into attachment MOTHERING instead of attachment parenting.

I am concerned about some of the pressure it puts on SAHMS and some of the ramifications of that pressure.

I DO think there are issues of classism and cultural appropriation..
Not in the idea of bonding with/being attached to your baby.. but in what some of the gurus.. including Sears.. preach.

Oh- this I agree with completely. But I found the language inflamitory and extrodinarily slanted. It isn't a request for dialogue, it is a request for attack. We need to be talking about how society supports mothers and children, not blaming mothers for their choices. This is the kind of "dialogue" that splits women. This post kept me up last night (well that and the all night nurser) and I will be working on something to submit but first I plan on responding to the lanquage I have an issue with on their site.


----------



## Skim (Jan 2, 2004)

Hey, the thread is getting interesting!

Madohkt, for me the issue is with the "AP" label, a kind of "brand" that is a kind of shorthand for what I consider to simply be child-centered parenting. This brand, then, as it's used in media and marketing and magazines sells books and slings (indirectly) and other products that support the "AP lifestyle". In my opinion, it's become another consumer product... Sigh. Then, it becomes something that people with education and resources (usually the upper and middle classes) can purchase, with all the right accessories. It gets watered down. Instead of being this potentially revolutionary way of being in the world with our children.

It's like what happened to me at a parenting class when I was pregnant:
A white, middle class couple (two prof. incomes) described their life as a "co-op lifestyle" because they spent their food money at one of the local grocery co-ops. I wasn't even sure what they meant but it made a lasting impression. I see this with AP-style parenting too.

RE: cultural appropriation.
Again, for me it doesn't mean that the basic goals of child-centered parenting aren't valid, but rather that it's being sold as lifestyles perfected and to be modeled by indigenous peoples everywhere except Europe. The most egregious example is the sling made by the "New Native" company.

This issue is so complex for me, because of the trend toward racism there but also the question of how to handle it. I have a lot to say about how the dominant white eye views slinging and child-centered parenting... But not now, because my 2.5 yo dd is being super cranky!!
Agh!!!

And no, I certainly don't give a rat's a** about the reputation or the strength of AP in the world. I don't even like the name and institutionality of AP much and I don't feel child-centered parenting is being threatened by academic feminist inquiry. Like I said before, it feels like backlash against the small foothold child-centered parenting has made. AND it's being thrown together with crazy people like baby trainers! It is important to wonder WHY mainstream academic feminists are NOW interested in baby trainers and AP. Not that the inquiry is not valid, but that their timing is interesting.

OK that's really it. I GOTTA go.

I'll be out of town for two days. I'll check in when I get back.


----------



## mahdokht (Dec 2, 2002)

Thank you so much skim. Ashera, as usual, I look forward to your reply.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah*
It blows my mind that people are agitating against papers that haven't even been written yet.
...I do not believe in supressing academic debate. I do not believe in getting offended by IDEAS that haven't even been explored yet. My belief in the basics of attachment parenting is strong enough to make room for some critical debate. I look forward to reading more.

Thank you. Beautifully said.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsMoMpls*
... It isn't a request for dialogue, it is a request for attack. We need to be talking about how society supports mothers and children, not blaming mothers for their choices. ...

Because feminist analyist is always an attack. Women can't just have strong opinions and express them. It has to be that women are "mad" and "attacking." That they are expressly asking for POVs from both sides doens't matter when it comes to shutting down women's voices (bolds mine):

_*debates *the pros* and cons of breastfeeding and extended breastfeeding *in a feminist context*;
**defends* certain aspects of baby trainers, or of *attachment parenting* more generally, again *within a feminist context*;_

I am simply stunned by the misogynist language in this thread.

Any doubts I might have had about the need for this book have simply evaporated in reading this thread.


----------



## Skim (Jan 2, 2004)

OK, I'm back a little sooner than I expected, and dp is putting dd to sleep... So I have some head space to think seriously about this stuff.

Well, pugmadmama, we agree to disagree. I am sorry we cannot apparently come to a similar place about the timing of the cfp, and the my question about why the NWSA is including Sears with other baby trainers. That's OK, feminist discussion includes room for disagreement.

Because we all feel so passionately about these topics, I went back and reread the link. I remain optimistic that we can all write something that helps everyone better understand the strengths of child-centered parenting, but that also helps us better understand its social contexts. And it does appear, in my further reading, that I don't feel as defensive while reading it. However, I must add that my original questions in my previous posts remain valid to me.

Perhaps the NWSA's language linking Sears with "other baby trainers" doesn't seem to others like the attack it does to MsMoMpls or the backlash it does to myself; but it's interesting to me that a group of feminists anywhere would make that connection that none of us mamas here in the land of child-centered parenting would necessarily make. Unless, of course, some of us in this particular discussion are members of the committee??

I want to conclude my opinions here with an aside - I actually feel that outrage and being mad is a necessary part of feminist consciousness. At least early consciousness. I found that when I was teaching a class about single mothers and media representation back in 1996, students who slowly "got it" and then got mad became really vocal about their own feminst analysis, which I encouraged. So I am NOT in the camp that believes if a feminist is asking a hard question it's not because she's smart or curious, but rather that she is just an angry harpy! :LOL I think mad is utterly useful.

pugmadmama, are you willing to share your feminist analysis with us? Anyone else have ideas or disagree with the cultural appropriation thing I mentioned above?

Thanks everyone for caring about women. I mean, even if we disagree it's all important and worth thinking about.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Well, Skim did a great job of expressing some of my concerns.. not so much about AP.. but the marketing of AP.. the institutionalising of AP and the gurus who profit from it.

Perhaps "cultural appropriation" isn't the correct term for what bothers me. But there is a certain patronizing "noble savage" aspect I don't like.. a certain "this is what African women do.. and they have perfect natural lives and raise perfectly adjusted babies." You know.. the whole worship of so-called "primitive" cultures because they are so much closer to the earth.. just the flip side of racisim if you ask me.. it denies people their humanity just as much to turn them into these mystical earth-people.

And yes.. the New Native carrier.. and so many of the slings in very "ethnic-y" patterns.. personally, I'd prefer a goth sling with little skulls on it. LOL.

AP is mostly marketed to middle-class white women... wrapped in this earth-culture worship.
It gets expensive as hell to buy all the proper "AP" accessories.. it becomes a racket, not a parenting philosophy.

Arggh I have been covering the GOP convention all night and I have no words left. I hope this makes a lick of sense.


----------



## jessicaann (Sep 1, 2004)

I was wondering why we were suddenly getting several emails and why the NWSA site was getting so many hits. Thankfully, one of the people communicating with me pointed me to this site. Let me take a minute to answer some of your concerns (I haven't read all the responses yet).

First, this is not an NWSA project. We (my co-editor and I) are members of the NWSA, and the NWSA provides space for members to publicize conferences, calls for papers, etc.

Second, I appreciate the concerns that many of you have. The idea for this book began at the last NWSA conference, on a panel I organized about balancing mothering and academe. We decided we wanted to give other feminists/academics a chance to "talk back" to the baby experts. We put Sears in the title (initially; we have since removed his name from the title) both because he stresses that mothers (and fathers) are the best qualified to make parenting choices for their own children, and because, at the same time, Sears has become the parenting guru of choice for many of us. We used the term "baby trainer" loosely, mostly to suggest a critical distance between all parents and all experts. We've now removed this phrase because it was not in keeping with general usage and has clearly promoted confusion.

We would like the book to critique AP along the lines that many of you have suggested here. BUT WE ALSO want the book to critique those most of us think of as baby trainers -- Ezzo, Ferber, etc. And we hope, too, that people will talk back to pregnancy and childbirth "experts" too -- Iovine, etc.

If you look at the website again, it should already have been modified to express some of this. We will issue a second call for papers in October and that may be further modified. Meanwhile, I hope this addresses some of your concerns. Sorry for causing such an uproar -- that wasn't our intent, though I must say it is heartening to see that so many people care about these issues. I hope you will consider submitting something for the book, critiquing or championing the "expert" of your choosing.

I realize that this is a quick response and that I may not have adequately addressed all of your concerns. I wanted to get this up as soon as possible. I'll try to read through the rest of the comments and respond if necessary.

Jessica


----------



## jessicaann (Sep 1, 2004)

Yes, this is what we meant by "essentialize." However, it's not necessarily incongruent with feminism; there are feminisms that are based on the notion of women as inherently different (not physically, but as in wholly different creatures) than men.
Jessica


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessicaann*
Yes, this is what we meant by "essentialize." However, it's not necessarily incongruent with feminism; there are feminisms that are based on the notion of women as inherently different (not physically, but as in wholly different creatures) than men.
Jessica

Sorry, you are correct -- I was thinking radical feminism.


----------



## jessicaann (Sep 1, 2004)

Skim said:


> nak
> My concern with this NWSA topic is deciphering what they feel there is about AP that does not support women
> 
> I wanted to quickly give one answer to this. Here's what we were thinking: in the various communities that Sears mentions, where AP is practiced regularly, there generally is not a nuclear family model. Baby-wearing is not limited to parents. Breastfeeding is not limited to biological mothers. And so there's a community involvement in AP that offers more support to the mother (and father) than we tend to have here (most of Western society), most of the time. AP advocates don't talk about this (though they do talk about the importance of forming support networks -- wasn't really an option for me, sadly, as I had no family and very few friends here when I gave birth, as we had recently moved across the country). Anyway, I think promoting AP without talking about this can (notice I said *can*, not *does*) put a lot of pressure on two-parent families to do it all. Then, when they can't, or when they find it difficult, they feel guilt and they blame themselves. Or, sometimes, they blame the whole notion of AP out of hand. So, this is some of what we were trying to get at.
> Jessica


----------



## jessicaann (Sep 1, 2004)

pugmadmama said:


> _*debates *the pros* and cons of breastfeeding and extended breastfeeding *in a feminist context*;
> **defends* certain aspects of baby trainers, or of *attachment parenting* more generally, again *within a feminist context*;_
> 
> Thank you for stressing the positives -- I think they get lost sometimes!
> ...


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Jessica, Thank you for stopping by and explaing this all so well. I am really looking forward to reading this book.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Me too. It sounds very valuable and interesting.


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Skim*
Perhaps the NWSA's language linking Sears with "other baby trainers" doesn't seem to others like the attack it does to MsMoMpls or the backlash it does to myself; but it's interesting to me that a group of feminists anywhere would make that connection that none of us mamas here in the land of child-centered parenting would necessarily make. Unless, of course, some of us in this particular discussion are members of the committee??

I want to conclude my opinions here with an aside - I actually feel that outrage and being mad is a necessary part of feminist consciousness. At least early consciousness. I found that when I was teaching a class about single mothers and media representation back in 1996, students who slowly "got it" and then got mad became really vocal about their own feminst analysis, which I encouraged. So I am NOT in the camp that believes if a feminist is asking a hard question it's not because she's smart or curious, but rather that she is just an angry harpy! :LOL I think mad is utterly useful.

Ok- well I wrote the two women who are requesting pieces and let them know that I was disappointed with their use of language. I told them I felt it was inflamatory and once again split women rather than unified them.

Got a letter back saying that they were taking Dr. Sears out of the title (not that I think that is an issue) and saying they felt I was being inflamatory. They then defended themselves by saying one of the women was very committed to AP and writing a piece to defend it.

The thing that makes me feel bad is that the subject header was Re: Hate mail. I guess they have gotten lots of interest and most of it negative. I certainly think my response, although strong was professional. I am sorry that we struggle so much to have a healthy dialogue about mother and its role in our very sexist society. It does have me thinking and hopefully writing. We will see.


----------



## jessicaann (Sep 1, 2004)

I apologize for that subject header. We received a number of emails, some of which were very strong in tone, and we were frankly taken aback by some of them. That header was on a message I had sent to my co-editor, and it was my attempt at humor at our situation. I'm sure she did not intend for it to appear on her message to you, and I apologize on both our behalfs.
Jessica


----------



## MsMoMpls (Oct 22, 2002)

Wow- sometime between starting my last response and sending it all this other stuff happended. I just got distracted. Jessica, I really appreciate your checking in. More than anything this really has me thinking and for that I appreciate your work enormously.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

I admit I found the link very disturbing, as a feminist and APer myself (though I only learned the "name" for it after starting and have yet to read a book by Sears). Thanks for clarifying.

I really hope that along with those dialogues there follows dialogue on the biggest issue of why mothers are so especially attacked.

The fact that the role of mothers in this society is completely unappreciated fiscally and while huge gains have been made in the freedom to work in whatever capacity a woman desires out of the home, she is still considered useless in her role IN the home.

if our society recognized and allowed for the natural period of intense child-rearing that others do would there even be a need for such a discussion? If we as a society appreciated enough the role of parents (especially the mother-or nursing mother in a same sex relationship- given the biological imperitives such as breastfeeding) during early infancy and paid them to raise the next generation in the best manner possible, would there be so many misogyinstic attacks between women? I really doubt it!

I don't think the ultimate answer is in parenting style. I think the ultimate answer lies in a culture which distances itself from responsibility to the family and women are often made to bear the brunt of that.


----------



## Skim (Jan 2, 2004)

Jessicaann- it's great to have you in the forum to discuss the cfp! Thank you so much for clarifying your position as well as making the changes to the site. I believe this will encourage more women to share their writing about the things we all appear to be concerned about. I reaaly appreciate your taking the time to post.

NatureMamaOR - right on. Without a need for parents to navigate a dominant culture hostile to parenting, I do think so much of the baby training racket would indeed be useless. I appreciate your concise, accurate response.

I still think the timing is interesting. And I'm not referring to the presidential election. Are natural parenting mamas just now gaining strength and/or visibility at work? I don't mean this in a sinister way, either. Seriously, what are the significant factors at this point in the US that 1) have pushed the focus on "correct" parenting styles, and we all know that means correct "mothering".... witness the rise in popularity in the magazine. 2) why DO mothers continue to pick up the slack - not just employed mamas, but unemployed as well. And do all? Or is this a cultural variable?

Maybe I will think about this some more and try my hand at an essay. But I tell you, I have little interest in rereading those awful mainstream baby/parenting/pregnancy books....


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

I just don't even know what people can be thinking when they use a phrase like "debate the pros and cons of breastfeeding in a feminist context." Maybe if we were debating FEMINISM in a BREASTFEEDING context, we'd get someplace for a change. Why can't an infant have unrestricted access to his mother's breast, and that mother also have a respected, satisfying position in society? If a healthy breastfeeding relationship isn't conducive to career success, it's not ok to even hint that maybe breastfeeding is what's got to give. The changes have to happen in the world of work, not in my boobs.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *urklemama*
...Why can't an infant have unrestricted access to his mother's breast, and that mother also have a respected, satisfying position in society? ...

I think there is room for examination of breastfeeding in a feminist context.

For example, I am troubled by the declaration that "breastfeeding is a baby's birthright." I don't think anyone has a "birthright" to someone elses body, not even a baby to her mother. Some women do not want their infant to have "unrestricted access" to their breasts, for a variety of reasons. It sometimes seems that the AP position would be that those women are bad mothers or, at the very least, selfish. Feminism, on the other hand, seems to support women who feel a need to put up that kind of boudary.

I wish AP and feminism were not in direct conflict sometimes. I think examining these issues can only help bridge that gap.


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

Perhaps examining the issues can bring clarity as to how unbridgeable the gap actually is. If you need to set boundaries with nursing, the culture is full of support for you. If you want to pump at work? Not so much. Bring your baby to work? Not happening. I don't think starting from a vision of the baby and mother as separate, possibly hostile entities is going to get us any place I am interested in going. I am interested in creating a culture where the mother/infant dyad is viewed as a unity that can only be divided at great cost and pain. Sure, sometimes division will be necessary - but it absolutely should not be the norm, and there needs to be more actual, real world support for women to stay WITH their babies.

The ONLY pressure working the other way is ENTIRELY IN PEOPLE'S MINDS. That doesn't mean that women don't really feel it, but I just can't get as upset about women feeling bad because they don't measure up to what they see in magazines or what they read about in Dr. Sears as I can about the real, actual financial pressures forcing women to work and the real, actual complete lack of support for non-academic, non-white collar women who want to pump. No one is forcing anyone to stay home! But people are being actually forced into not staying home.

I don't understand how people still can get behind positioning the concerns of a small number of upper middle class women as central feminist concerns. It's just.... god, use your brains for something REAL. Go after Nestle.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

It is late, but what pugmadmama said. All of it.

Fathering a child is a solitary act. Mothering a child is a lifelong committment that almost no one does to anyone else's satisfaction. Mothering is about more than breastfeeding. When one issue takes on such huge importance it becomes divisive, which I believe breastfeeding is. In addition, breastfeeding is only an issue logistically for a small time of a woman and child's life and relationship together, even if a woman breastfeeds three children for three years each. Let's face it, that rarely happens. Framing discussions about feminism in the context of breastfeeding seems a bit unrealistic.

I see a lot of discussions about feminism and mothering that focus on a narrow, upper-middle class view. That is one of the major problems I have with Naomi Wolfe and her nanny. But I don't think this is really one of them. If you have a child for whom you can supply unlimited breast access, great! Seriously, that is ideal. But for many women, most of them working class and living in poverty, that is not even fathomable. THAT is a feminist issue. First of all, that not all women even have that choice. Second of all, that those who do not are deemed a failure by a standard they aspire to acheive.

I do not think that AP and Dr. Sears are above reproach, either. I think that examining AP and the "alternative" parenting movement from a feminist perspective is not only okay, but crucial. My mother's generation was split into two camps. There were the women like my husband's mother who were on the front lines, leaving their children with their mothers and in daycare while they were out there getting it done. My MIL once told me that they knew they should have been home with their kids, but there was so much work to be done. Then you have my mom, who did the stay-at-home thing unless she and my father absolutely could not afford it. She only worked to keep us off of food stamps, which were not readily available in the Readan era of my childhood. I think that attachment parenting as a parenting philosophy is amazing and has shaped every bit of who I am as a mother. On the flip side, I see it used as a tool to keep women barefoot and pregnant. There is a middle ground, and I hope examining it in this way can help lead to that.


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

Breastfeeding didn't "take on importance - " people realized they could make a lot of money by selling baby formula. So now we live in this ludicrous universe where people actually talk about breastfeeding as if it's a choice.

Unrealistic to bring it all down to breastfeeding? Not at all. Breastfeeding is the battleground. It's the place where we say to the culture - accept me as a woman, doing what only a woman can do, or we let the culture say to us, sorry, if you want to play the important games, if you want to succeed and have influence, you have to act like a man.

And come on, who is using attachment parenting as a tool to make women do anything? You do it to yourself. There's no AP police knocking on your door to see if you're co-sleeping. Quite the other way around.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Well, mothering has been used for thousands of years to oppress women. One of the prevalent arguments for male supremacy has always been that women are not suited for the most important tasks in society because they must be available at all times for childbearing and subsquent childrearing. Dr. Sears and others promote this, inadvertantly, by insisting that mothers be available to their children at all times throughout their childhood. Then as mothers of babies become mothers of older children, teenagers, and adults-- what happens to them? Feminism is about more than our choices at 20 and 25 and even 30. Feminism, to me, is about protecting and promoting equality of all women at all ages. The attachment parenting philosophy is centered around the first five years of a child's life. It does not address what happens to women after they exit the period of their lives when they are caring for small children. I, for one, am interested in the long-term ramifications of this.

I don't "do" anything to myself. Blaming individual women is exactly how this becomes a divisive issue. To say, "This is the way it REALLY is and if you perceive it otherwise, well, that is your own fault" seems really simplistic and unproductive to me. Attachment parenting removes women from "the real world" for years at a time. I'm not saying that our parenting has to change, but we can't expect the world to move for us all at once. We have to meet the world somewhere in the middle.

For most of us it is not all about breastfeeding. I'm sorry that you can't respect that. It actually makes me quite sad. in a society where women are raped by men who have no fear of prosecution, in which motherhood is the number one risk factor for poverty, in a so-called world superpower that lies 17th in ranks of woman and infant mortality breastfeeding is not the battleground in my eyes. Promoting a parenting philosophy based on that used in hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies in a technological, capitalistic society is not without faults. We have to examine those faults in order to move toward correcting them. Lack of support for breastfeeding is a symptom, it is not the disease.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

I'm sorry but just because society (a highly paternalistic one at that) dictates that women supposedly "can't" do something because they need to be available for their children, does NOT meant the feminist quadrant should just lie back and go "ok we won't nurse anymore".

Society needs to learn that we damn well CAN do those jobs AND care for our kids. We are the multitaskers, we CAN do the same things AND nurse. All we need is support (from each other, from society at large and from our families).

I patently reject the notion that we DO have to act like men to do the same jobs.

Yea, breastfeeding is probably one of the foremost issues. It's the epitome of the choice we're asked to make every day. Family or career. It doesn't HAVE to be that way. Society CAN change. It's NOT all about the almighty dollar.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

_I'm sorry but just because society (a highly paternalistic one at that) dictates that women supposedly "can't" do something because they need to be available for their children, does NOT meant the feminist quadrant should just lie back and go "ok we won't nurse anymore"._

Would you like to point out where you saw someone say that before we go any further?


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mothra*
Well, *mothering has been used for thousands of years to oppress women*. One of the prevalent arguments for male supremacy has always been that *women are not suited for the most important tasks in society because they must be available at all times for childbearing and subsquent childrearing*. Dr. Sears and others promote this, inadvertantly, by insisting that mothers be available to their children at all times throughout their childhood. Then as mothers of babies become mothers of older children, teenagers, and adults-- what happens to them? Feminism is about more than our choices at 20 and 25 and even 30. Feminism, to me, is about protecting and promoting equality of all women at all ages. The attachment parenting philosophy is centered around the first five years of a child's life. It does not address what happens to women after they exit the period of their lives when they are caring for small children. I, for one, am interested in the long-term ramifications of this.

This right here.

Do you really think that attachment parenting is ONLY about the first FIVE years of life? Even the official "ap" site has sections on later childhood to teens. "ap" is a way of LIFE, not a manner of early childhood parenting.

The problem is not with mothering, mothering advocates or children. The problem is with the society that insists that is still true and US for accepting their denial. It's NOT true. Many other societies have shown so (Sweden isn't hunter/gatherer is it?). Getting distracted from the goal of changing society by attacking people who desire family cohesiveness isn't going to fix the base problem. It will still be a paternalistic society that tells us what we can and can't do based on what they think is most fiscally expedient. THAT needs to change. We need to demand and prove that we CAN be available to our kids when THEY need AND still do the job as well or better.

How exactly is it that children's birthright ISN'T to be breastfed? Has our biology magically changed in the last 100 years? Yes, it IS their birthright. Every other animal on earth does what is necessary to care for their young, why should we reject that just because society says to? Wouldn't that be the ultimate misogyny? To reject what we all feel at the core of our being, to be untrue to ourselves and our children, because some men tell us it's that or be left behind?


----------



## Elikapika (Sep 2, 2004)

The ultimate misogyny is to say that for women to be equal stakeholders in society that they have to become men, that their role in the lives of their children has to be proximate to men's roles in the lives of their children (and the most detached fathers at that.)

Society *OWES* women for their unique role in the perpetuation and healthy realization of the species. The equity that it owes them is for their investment in the human capital of the society. We should DEMAND that equity in the form of money and opportunities after we have finished with the primary child-nurturing segment of our lives, if that is what we choose. To do any less is to create a society full of Medeas who destroy their own children to avenge their own experience of being discarded by the value-conferring segment of society, whether it is husbands or employers or society at large.

Pretending children do not have the need to be nurtured will not make it the case that they will not have the need. All that pretense will do is create generations of mentally ill people.

I do not think that mothering has been used to oppress women, personally. I think that traditional Western sex roles and misogynism have oppressed women, not motherhood. I also don't think the true spirit of feminism would destroy the essential characteristics of motherhood. To me, that's a perversion of what feminism is.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Excuse me for going OT.. but I DESPISE hearing that I am "acting like a man" because I work outside the home.

Women have ALWAYS worked outside the home.

It is the paradigm of woman ONLY at home/man outside home that is relatively new.. and often reserved for the upper economic levels. Which is why many people DO think ap is CLASSIST.

And the paradigm of woman at home ISOLATED with her child/ren is VERY new.. economies simply couldn't sustain that model until recently. And as much as I respect the choice to SAHM, I think the isolation is terribly debilitating. And the difficulty re-entering the work force afterwords is an IMMENSE problem. Women need more choices, more flexibility and more support, whether they choose to work or to stay home.

But don't you dare tell me I am behaving like a MAN because of MY choices.
I am a woman, therefore I work LIKE A WOMAN.
Everything I do, I do LIKE A WOMAN.

And by the way.. I am working fulltime outside the home.. and STILL nursing a 2 1/2 year old. How many MEN do you know are doing that?


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

Did anyone say you are acting like a man for simply _working outside the home_?????

"Acting like a man" in regards to mothering would for instance be the choice to NOT breastfeed due to work issues. To choose work over breastfeeding. If you're nursing and working (I know many Mamas who do) then you're clearly NOT "acting like a man". You're clearly rejecting that societal demand.

another way one could "act like a man" is by deciding to not meet their children's non-nursing needs in favor of work (such as missing big events, etc), since unfortunately many men choose that and it is societally expected of them to do so.

That IS an expectation of women in the working world, and one that badly needs to change! Not only for women but for all working parents. My husband has taken a LOT of heat for not going to training seminars on kids birthdays and not taking overtime projects because it would seriously cut into his time with the family. It's not just women facing those issues, it's just more prominent a problem for women because of the biological impetus that early childhood has. Men don't have to worry about how to get enough time off (paid or unpaid) in order to establish a good nursing relationship. Women do.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Right, and Sweden has addressed these issues on a BROAD level, not just in terms of breastfeeding. And I REALLY don't need you to tell me what attachment parenting is. I walk the walk the walk every single day.

Show me the voluminous literature on attachment parenting to older children and teenagers. I'm not stupid. I know that attachment parenting extends beyond infancy. Part of what we are talking about here is a critique of the literature, which does not extend into older childhood. We're also talking about what the effects of attachment parenting is on women long term. When a woman's worth is measured in who she is to her children, what happens when the children no longer need her 24/7, and when the children grow up to have families of their own?

And you still haven't pointed out where anyone said that women should not breastfeed. I believe strongly that breastfeeding is a feminist issue and that promoting healthy mothers and children, as breastfeeding does, is important. However, what good does it do to promote breastfeeding, only breastfeeding, anything else makes you a horrible MOTHER (not parent) in a society that does not support that. More women will breastfeed when it is practical to do so, as in Sweden.

I truly want to vomit when I see people talking about how selfish, ignorant, lazy, and stupid women who do not breastfeed are. The problem is not that women are stupid, the problem is that we do not live in a society that makes breastfeeding a viable option for everyone who chooses it. All of this demonizing of women of women who do not breastfeed is yet ANOTHER example of the internalized sexism that is so ingrained in women in this society and reflective of the institutionalized sexism at large.

Ultimately, your comparison of Sweden to the US proves my point. Public policy at the highest level supports mothers, babies, and breastfeeding. You can't have the same thing here without implementing similary changes.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Also, it occurs to me that not everyone has a clear understanding of what it means to "critique" something. It does not mean attack or dismantle, it means "evaluate".


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

Quote:

More women will breastfeed when it is practical to do so, as in Sweden.
No they won't, because it's not cultural to do so!

We the people make up the culture, not government. Government is simply a reflection. We the people must demand the change and we the people won't unless there is a bellweather issue that most people can relate to.

Tell me one other issue that is as polarizing in the parenting realm?

I completely understand the idealistic dream of laws and practices changing for the better so that women CAN choose breastfeeding, but I also realize it's not realistic in THIS society. THIS society has proven the ways it takes to change and logic/reason are NOT among them. Women won't necessarily start breastfeeding just because it's easier. It's STILL culturally unacceptable (as are many other healthy parenting choices).

Have you ever read this? it has some very interesting perspectives on why breastfeeding is the issue it is and how it might be changeable.

http://www.lalecheleague.org/llleade...tNov00p87.html

Society is the main problem. We the people make up society. When enough people demand change it WILL happen. Government doesn't make change, we do. It's NOT just breastfeeding, most everything that has to do with raising the next generation physically and mentally healthy are considered uncouth, ineffective or dangerous.

FWIW, after it was clarified what NWSA was asking about *I* had no problem with it. I think it does need dialogue. That's what we're doing here right?

Why so defensive about your knowledge and choices? I'm not criticizing YOU in any way shape or form. I'm certainly sorry if it seems that way. Since you "walk the walk" you must know that there's no volumes of literature on older AP practices because there must be a demand for such. As people begin more and more to reject the previously pushed way of parenting there WILL be more and more a demand (and even now there's far more than when I was growing up and all that abounded was Dobson). Those volumes are based on money (whether for funding or by selling books), not on need. Once a parent is on the journey in living attached, do they NEED books to tell them how to do it? How many parents learn new methods when their children are already older? not many. Why should we mothers, who KNOW what our babies need better than any "expert", wait for society to validate what we already know? Why shouldn't we demand the change NOW rather than waiting?

Quote:

And you still haven't pointed out where anyone said that women should not breastfeed.
that's not what you asked before, but here's what says that to me at least:

Quote:

For example, I am troubled by the declaration that "breastfeeding is a baby's birthright." I don't think anyone has a "birthright" to someone elses body, not even a baby to her mother
If a human baby which will DIE without its mother's nourishment (formula aside, since that is not the biological norm), how is breastfeeding NOT a birthright? What function of a mother is MORE basic and biological than that?

Does it being a birthright mean that women are NOTHING more than a pair of breasts? NO! Does it mean that the child biologically has the "right" to that? yes.

If it's not a birthright does that mean that feminism could ONLY survive in modern times? I'd like to think not! I'd like to think that feminism promotes how things always should be and should have been. That every society should reward mothers for the enormous job they do and especially so if they also choose to contribute in other ways (such as WOHM).


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NatureMamaOR*
...How exactly is it that children's birthright ISN'T to be breastfed? Has our biology magically changed in the last 100 years? Yes, it IS their birthright. Every other animal on earth does what is necessary to care for their young, why should we reject that just because society says to? Wouldn't that be the ultimate misogyny? To reject what we all feel at the core of our being, to be untrue to ourselves and our children, because some men tell us it's that or be left behind?

Every other animal on earth does not do what is nessicary to care for their young. They reject sick or wounded young, they allow new partners to kill their young, they abandon their young and so on. The animal kingdom is not a Disney movie, it is often brutal.

Women often reject breastfeeding not because of "career" (whatever that means), but because of having been a victim of incest or sexual assault. They reject breastfeeding because of bad advice and worse support. They reject breastfeeding because the diet industry, the birth & parenting industries and most women's magazines have convinced them there is something deeply wrong with a woman's body.

I think that promoting breastfeeding as a baby's _right_ to it's mothers body is not feminist (Other feminists disagree with me on that.) I think it shifts the blame from the society that discourages breastfeeding at every turn and lays the burden (yet again) directly on women's backs. Until it is every woman's birthright to arrive at her childbearing years with her dignity, bodily intergrity and self-confidence intact, then I cannot even entertain the idea that anyone has a "birthright" to women's bodies. I believe that women have a birthright to their bodies.

In my opinion, promoting breastfeeding as being best for baby, having many health benefits for mother, providing knowledgable lactation consultants, forcing businesses to be breastfeeding-friendly and so on *is* feminist. I don't understand promoting it as yet another absolute claim on women's bodies.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Sorry, double post.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

Quote:

I think it shifts the blame from the society that discourages breastfeeding at every turn and lays the burden (yet again) directly on women's backs.
absolutely agree with you there! I don't think that the message that breastfeeding is a baby's birthright SHOULD be aimed at the mothers only or even mainly. It needs to be aimed at lawmakers, employers and business. They need to understand that we're standing up for OUR rights and our BABIES rights and we're not going to let them interfere!

I also agree that it shouldn't be touted as a claim to a woman's body. I don't think anything should be touted as that. I don't see the woman as a passive vessel in breastfeeding, I see her as the master choreographer. If one is passive in breastfeeding the relationship ends quickly. It takes hard WORK for it to succeed, especially given that there are SO many hurdles in this society (pressure not to NIP, work which tries to disallow pumping, etc).

I guess that's where we differ. I don't see breastfeeding being a demand on the woman. I see it as her right to FINALLY do something that SHE knows is right no matter WHAT society says about it (which in this society is nearly nothing but negative).

I am a survivor of both child sexual abuse AND rape and to ME the experience of healthy intimacy and surrender in breastfeeding has been one of THE most healing experiences. I have learned how to healthily give of myself without it being abuse.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

So, why the comparison to Sweden if you are saying that can't happen here?

It can happen here. We CAN demand policy change, and that is the only way it can happen. I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your logic. This thread is about critique of literature regarding parenting techniques. The fact that there IS no literature is worthy of critique as well.


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

Sweden because it was mentioned that only hunter/gatherer societies practice what is "ap". Sweden is only one country, many more do, but they're plenty modern. Not hunter/gatherer.

Yes, those changes CAN happen here, but they WON'T happen like they did in sweden. The culture here is antagonistic toward government and people won't react to government dictates here like they do there. Change here has to start in culture first, THEN move to government.

I agree that it's disconcerting that there's so little literature on attached parenting to critique! I'd LOVE to see a request from NWSA or another organization for more literature on that! I truly think that one of the best ways to create a more equal society is BY attached parenting. Children who are raised being valued won't have the internal need to devalue others. (as a feminist and mother of 3 boys it is one of the potentials that I so love about AP!)

What was initially so upsetting to me was that feminists would even consider what I percieved as "throwing out" healthy parenting because it didn't match their idea of feminism. Once the author of the request clarified her intent I wasn't concerned about that aspect anymore, but others still expressed THAT idea (or at least that's how I percieved some comments).

I'm discussing other topics than the critique of the literature because it has spread to other topics in this thread.







if that's not an acceptable practice here at mdc (I'm relatively new) I'm fine with starting a new thread to do so.







:


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

hmmmm.. I was thinking more about the birthright thing and I think you're right in a way.

it's not JUST a child's birthright. It is MY birthright as a woman to breastfeed my children. Do I have a right to not accept my birthright? yes. Sometimes it's even forcibly taken (such as if a woman has to have a mastectomy prior to childbearing). but it's still my birthright.


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

I have to mull over the breastfeeding as birthright issue. That's really intense stuff to consider. I want to thank everyone sincerly for giving me this to chew on. I believe every baby has the right to bm, but I am also against forcing women to nurse. I don't know what happens in anyone's life to make them decide one way or another: is it lack of support, education, feelings related to abuse, etc.

I know several women who have stopped nursing because they have to work, and were not given the support to pump. I'm lucky in that I have always managed to find a way to pump, but for those mommas who work low wage jobs ( like wal mart, housekeeping, etc), it's not always possible to do so. I have knwn women who were provided so much bad information that they were afraid to nurse because of pain, weight and embarrassment.

AP parenting is not above reproach however. I agree with other posters who have noticed the burnden placed on women to carry alone, with insufficent support from extended community bonds. The condensending tone towards the working mother in many ap books is unfair. Women have always worked. And yes, there are classists assumptions made in many ap books about "sacrificing to stay home". What about survival? NOt just financial, but emotional, mental, and spiritual?

If we can't have an open an honest critique of ap parenting, how can we expect to grow as a movement and as individuals. Facing those flaws and weaknesses in any philosophy can only help to strenghten in the long term.


----------

