User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

  1. #1
    Pubic Enemy #1 Crabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,519

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

    Political correctness has conquered science once again.


    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 discussion about 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.

  2. #2
    Liberator Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    19,912

    Default

    I see the OP has still not learned to distinguish observations from conclusions or prescriptions.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  3. #3
    Senior Member anticlimatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,781

    Default

    Anyone else see the irony in throwing so much weight behind the word "natural" while at the same time completely throwing out the "nature" on which it is predicated?
    Likes asynartetic, SearchingforPeace liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,311

    Default

    Seems entirely trivial when you read just the title of the actual essay: "Unintended Consequences of Invoking the “Natural” in Breastfeeding Promotion".

  5. #5
    Senior Member anticlimatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Seems entirely trivial when you read just the title of the actualy essay: "Unintended Consequences of Invoking the "Natural" in Breastfeeding Promotion".
    I don't know, if you distill that it actually sounds worse:

    "Consequences of invoking the natural."

    Heres some synonyms:

    "Bad things about focusing on facts."
    "The problematic side effects of concrete research."
    "Unwanted side effects of living in reality."

    What they hell happened here? Did the left feel outdone by the 'bible says the world is 12000 years old science is BS' religious right so much that they had to one up them or something?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anticlimatic View Post
    I don't know, if you distill that it actually sounds worse:

    "Consequences of invoking the natural."

    Heres some synonyms:

    "Bad things about focusing on facts."
    "The problematic side effects of concrete research."
    "Unwanted side effects of living in reality."

    What the hell happened here?
    You suck at distilling, that's all.

    I can't be bothered to read the entire essay, but from what I glimpsed it seems to do little more than point out that natural != good, something so widely accepted in ethics that it even has a name.
    Likes ceecee liked this post

  7. #7
    Problem? Grand Admiral Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/so
    Posts
    1,740

    Default

    The scientist wishes to transcend nature through science. Science, however, tells him that, in some aspects of reproduction, mother nature provides the best outcomes. After all, a few hundred years of human tinkering can't compete with thousands of years of evolution. Confronted with this fact, the scientist declares war on the language which reminds him that he is not a god. In doing so, the humanity he sought to liberate becomes degraded.

Similar Threads

  1. [Fe] FJs, describe Fe as you understand it
    By Yama in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 244
    Last Post: 10-29-2016, 08:09 AM
  2. [Te] TJs: Describe Te as You Understand It
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 10-27-2016, 10:35 AM
  3. [Ni] xNxJs: describe Ni as you understand it
    By Virtual ghost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-28-2016, 03:10 AM
  4. FPs, describe Fi as you understand it
    By PeaceBaby in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 01:22 PM
  5. Do we perceive it because it is meaningful? Yes!
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2009, 05:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO