Why is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

sydthebeat

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is just wrong.

Evolution just happens, it doesn't carry on with some grand design. Evolution is not forward-thinking. Seriously, do some basic googling and then come back to us?

Evolution is reactive, that I agree with.... But there is a purpose to those reactions, which is survival of those that adapt.

If evolution just "happens" then why haven't we got ten ears and one eye???

One simple "Google" will show you that

Lefty Bicek

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

How do you know ?

Because I am acquainted with activist women who do it, not out of the necessity of the moment, but in order to highlight the issue.

Campaigners against the stigmatising of something around which there ought to be no stigma in the first place, in other words.

So, yes, it does happen more than is strictly necessary re the feeding needs of the child at any given moment.

Fact.

One eyed Jack

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you have some evidence for this?

I do

https://www.lesleahlusko.org/the-breastfeeding-instinct/

Here’s the skinny latté version -


The last reason this story bothers me as an example of human evolutionary biology is that it evokes grandmothers as the essential element to successful nursing. In reality, Prof. Scelza demonstrated that the essential element is culture, the transfer of knowledge from an experienced person to a novice. There isn’t anything magical about grandmothers other than that they might be the most proximate person to you. But it could be a lot of other people who transfer knowledge about breastfeeding. As Professor Alma Gottleib notes from her research that is quoted in the text version of the NPR story, “During the first few weeks, a newly delivered woman — especially a first-time mother … has a constant stream of visitors, particularly women… Most have breast-fed many babies themselves, and they spontaneously share their nursing wisdom. Through them, a new mother is quickly socialized into accepting an almost continual round of breast-feeding suggestions dispensed by more experienced women.”

At least the story concludes with the key point: lactation consultants are wonderful. I just wish they could have framed the story a bit differently. How about:

Breast feeding is something all mammals do and it is universally hard. Complications abound. But humans have a special trick that makes it a little easier. No, not formula and bottles, although those are wonderful when you really need them. The special trick is culture. All women around the world, rich and poor, have the same difficulty learning to nurse their babies as do women in Western societies. The one thing that all cultures have in common is that new moms are mentored by people who have a lot of experience nursing babies. In more traditional societies, these mentors are often grandmothers or aunts or sisters or mothers-in-law. But, there are lots of ways to find mentors. In the NPR listeners’ world, one sure bet is to lean on a lactation consultant. A universal human trait is that we use our culture to transfer knowledge about how to breastfeed new babies, from one generation of mothers to the next. Now, we just need to embrace it here.


The infants behaviour in seeking nutrition is instinctive, the mothers behaviour in choosing to nourish the infant with her breast milk, is reactive behaviour.

Plumbthedepths

Lefty Bicek wrote:

Fact.

Bullsh*t. ;-)

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Evolution is reactive, that I agree with.... But there is a purpose to those reactions, which is survival of those that adapt.

If evolution just "happens" then why haven't we got ten ears and one eye???

One simple "Google" will show you that

We haven't got ten ears and one eye because those (if any) born with those defects enjoyed no biological advantage; or at least, not enough to take hold in the evolution of man. The 'design' of man, itself a problematic term, is a trade-off between various expenditures of energy as against practical benefits.

I can't fathom how you think there is a 'purpose' to evolution. What is the supposed nature of this purpose? God?

OPollo

So tits is a topic, you like them or hate them ...
Poor men who are against them. Liberalism at its glory ....

Gwen Cooper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do

https://www.lesleahlusko.org/the-breastfeeding-instinct/

Here’s the skinny latté version -


The last reason this story bothers me as an example of human evolutionary biology is that it evokes grandmothers as the essential element to successful nursing. In reality, Prof. Scelza demonstrated that the essential element is culture, the transfer of knowledge from an experienced person to a novice. There isn’t anything magical about grandmothers other than that they might be the most proximate person to you. But it could be a lot of other people who transfer knowledge about breastfeeding. As Professor Alma Gottleib notes from her research that is quoted in the text version of the NPR story, “During the first few weeks, a newly delivered woman — especially a first-time mother … has a constant stream of visitors, particularly women… Most have breast-fed many babies themselves, and they spontaneously share their nursing wisdom. Through them, a new mother is quickly socialized into accepting an almost continual round of breast-feeding suggestions dispensed by more experienced women.”

At least the story concludes with the key point: lactation consultants are wonderful. I just wish they could have framed the story a bit differently. How about:

Breast feeding is something all mammals do and it is universally hard. Complications abound. But humans have a special trick that makes it a little easier. No, not formula and bottles, although those are wonderful when you really need them. The special trick is culture. All women around the world, rich and poor, have the same difficulty learning to nurse their babies as do women in Western societies. The one thing that all cultures have in common is that new moms are mentored by people who have a lot of experience nursing babies. In more traditional societies, these mentors are often grandmothers or aunts or sisters or mothers-in-law. But, there are lots of ways to find mentors. In the NPR listeners’ world, one sure bet is to lean on a lactation consultant. A universal human trait is that we use our culture to transfer knowledge about how to breastfeed new babies, from one generation of mothers to the next. Now, we just need to embrace it here.


The infants behaviour in seeking nutrition is instinctive, the mothers behaviour in choosing to nourish the infant with her breast milk, is reactive behaviour.

I read the whole thing. The article is focusing on misinformation given about breastfeeding being extremely easy.

It disputes this myth by saying that all mammals can commonly experience complications when breastfeeding.

It closes with saying that it’s great for women that generations before them breastfed and that they can share experiences and tips about making it easier.

It doesn’t support the nonsense that you’ve been feeding us at all.

One eyed Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

Evolution is reactive, that I agree with.... But there is a purpose to those reactions, which is survival of those that adapt.

If evolution just "happens" then why haven't we got ten ears and one eye???

One simple "Google" will show you that

That’s a bit cart before the horse isn’t it?

Adaptations survive as opposed to the “purpose” of evolution being the continued survival of anything.

We don’t know that at some point in the future, humans may well have ten ears, one eye and three tits :pac:

One eyed Jack

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I read the whole thing. The article is focusing on misinformation given about breastfeeding being extremely easy.

It disputes this myth by saying that all mammals can commonly experience complications when breastfeeding.

It closes with saying that it’s great for women that generations before them breastfed and that they can share experiences and tips about making it easier.

It doesn’t support the nonsense that you’ve been feeding us at all.

You know you’re not forced to be here?

My point was that breastfeeding isn’t an instinctive behaviour, but one that is learned. That you had a different take on the article doesn’t surprise me in the least when you’re willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative about “the sole purpose of breasts” :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do

https://www.lesleahlusko.org/the-breastfeeding-instinct/

Here’s the skinny latté version -


The last reason this story bothers me as an example of human evolutionary biology is that it evokes grandmothers as the essential element to successful nursing. In reality, Prof. Scelza demonstrated that the essential element is culture, the transfer of knowledge from an experienced person to a novice. There isn’t anything magical about grandmothers other than that they might be the most proximate person to you. But it could be a lot of other people who transfer knowledge about breastfeeding. As Professor Alma Gottleib notes from her research that is quoted in the text version of the NPR story, “During the first few weeks, a newly delivered woman — especially a first-time mother … has a constant stream of visitors, particularly women… Most have breast-fed many babies themselves, and they spontaneously share their nursing wisdom. Through them, a new mother is quickly socialized into accepting an almost continual round of breast-feeding suggestions dispensed by more experienced women.”

At least the story concludes with the key point: lactation consultants are wonderful. I just wish they could have framed the story a bit differently. How about:

Breast feeding is something all mammals do and it is universally hard. Complications abound. But humans have a special trick that makes it a little easier. No, not formula and bottles, although those are wonderful when you really need them. The special trick is culture. All women around the world, rich and poor, have the same difficulty learning to nurse their babies as do women in Western societies. The one thing that all cultures have in common is that new moms are mentored by people who have a lot of experience nursing babies. In more traditional societies, these mentors are often grandmothers or aunts or sisters or mothers-in-law. But, there are lots of ways to find mentors. In the NPR listeners’ world, one sure bet is to lean on a lactation consultant. A universal human trait is that we use our culture to transfer knowledge about how to breastfeed new babies, from one generation of mothers to the next. Now, we just need to embrace it here.


The infants behaviour in seeking nutrition is instinctive, the mothers behaviour in choosing to nourish the infant with her breast milk, is reactive behaviour.

That isn't evidence that breastfeeding is non-instinctive.

That's a blog about the (well accepted) fact that breastfeeding isn't without its complications. Neither is childbirth, but that's an evolutionary process, also.

I asked you if you had evidence that breastfeeding is non-instinctive. Do you, or not?

OPollo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You know you’re not forced to be here?

My point was that breastfeeding isn’t an instinctive behaviour, but one that is learned. That you had a different take on the article doesn’t surprise me in the least when you’re willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative about “the sole purpose of breasts” :rolleyes:

All animals do that, you have alternatives for them ?
Believe it or not, but you are also an animal

Lackadaisical

We really need to undo the victorian prudishness and squeamishness. If it weren't for tens of millions of years of boobs and breastfeeding, none of us would be here.

Actually mammals are around for about 200 million years. So, frankly the breastfeeding has existed for a hell of a long time before victorian puritanical nonsense.

Gwen Cooper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You know you’re not forced to be here, right?

My point was that breastfeeding isn’t an instinctive behaviour, but one that is learned. That you had a different take on the article doesn’t surprise me in the least when you’re willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative about the sole purpose of breasts :rolleyes:

I never said that breastfeeding is the sole purpose of the breasts, I said it’s the primary one. If you don’t understand the difference, I can’t help you.

Also, can you please show me where exactly in that article it says that breastfeeding is not instinctive? Because I don’t see it there. What it says there is that all mammals can experience difficulties during breastfeeding, but humans have the advantage of sharing experiences to prevent or lessen the complications. That’s the cultural bit there, humans share and pass their knowledge to future generations. That’s all it says.

paleoperson

Breastfeeding is of course instinctive.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You know you’re not forced to be here?

My point was that breastfeeding isn’t an instinctive behaviour, but one that is learned. That you had a different take on the article doesn’t surprise me in the least when you’re willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative about “the sole purpose of breasts” :rolleyes:

Yeah you also said people fed their babies with plant milk before breastfeeding was invented, and completely ignored the fact that the normal alternative to breast feeding traditionally when a woman couldn't feed (or had died) was not plants or formula milk or even cow's milk but was another woman, so, you know...

Plumbthedepths

One eyed Jack wrote:

My point was that breastfeeding isn’t an instinctive behaviour, but one that is learned. That you had a different take on the article doesn’t surprise me in the least when you’re willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative about the sole purpose of breasts

You do realise as a man you are not going to convince a woman that really her breasts are not for what she thinks they're for?

One eyed Jack

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That isn't evidence that breastfeeding is non-instinctive.

That's a blog about the (well accepted) fact that breastfeeding isn't without its complications. Neither is childbirth, but that's an evolutionary process, also.

I asked you if you had evidence that breastfeeding is non-instinctive. Do you, or not?

When I say that breastfeeding is not instinctive, but that it’s a learned behaviour, I mean that breastfeeding isn’t something that either humans do instinctively. Unless they’ve been taught how to do it, they’re unlikely to succeed at it, and we know that in Western society, women haven’t lost the instinct that the article is making the point was never there in the first place from a purely biological evolutionary perspective.

jam_mac_jam

If breastfeeding needed to be learnt we would all be dead.

Yes there are some problems for some people that doesn't mean it's not instinctive.

How long do people think formula has been around for.

Breasts may be also attractive to men which is nice but thier primary purpose is to feed babies. I can't even believe this needs to be argued

volchitsa

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You do realise as a man you are not going to convince a woman that really her breasts are not for what she thinks they're for?

I know. Stupid women eh? They just won't be told! 😂

Plumbthedepths

volchitsa wrote:

I know. Stupid women eh? They just won't be told! 😂

Bless him he is trying though, but I suspect he's beginning to tie himself up in knots but the tenacity is strangely admirable . You have to admire even when so wrong they keep ploughing ahead. ;-)

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say that breastfeeding is not instinctive, but that it’s a learned behaviour, I mean that breastfeeding isn’t something that either humans do instinctively. Unless they’ve been taught how to do it, they’re unlikely to succeed at it, and we know that in Western society, women haven’t lost the instinct that the article is making the point was never there in the first place from a purely biological evolutionary perspective.

Along the same lines, then, why do you think we have preparation for childbirth classes? Without them, women wouldn't work out how to give birth, right?

Or, since we are mammals that can talk, we can help inexperienced mothers do these things more effectively and with less trauma by just explaining stuff to them? Giving them tips that experienced mothers have discovered by trial and error?

Yeah. Crazy, I know. Obviously it's actually because women don't know and wouldn't work out how to do this sort of thing if someone (preferably a man, eh Jack?) wasn't around to explain to them. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You do realise as a man you are not going to convince a woman that really her breasts are not for what she thinks they're for?

I wouldn’t ever try and convince a woman that really her breasts are not what she thinks they’re for, and Gwen is absolutely entitled to think that and express that opinion. But when she starts making claims that have no scientific basis and only supposition on her part, that kind of circular logic is doomed to failure-

Gwen: “I say what my breasts are for, not you”

Me: “Fair enough”

Gwen: “I say what the primary function of human breasts are”

Me: “I don’t think it quite works like that”


Is essentially how this thread has gone.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t ever try and convince a woman that really her breasts are not what she thinks they’re for, and Gwen is absolutely entitled to think that and express that opinion. But when she starts making claims that have no scientific basis and only supposition on her part, that kind of circular logic is doomed to failure-

Gwen: “I say what my breasts are for, not you”

Me: “Fair enough”

Gwen: “I say what the primary function of human breasts are”

Me: “I don’t think it quite works like that”


Is essentially how this thread has gone.

Are all opinions equal though? Does the opinion of someone who thinks "plant milk" is a traditional alternative to breast milk really count as much as someone who has given birth and breast fed children?

Plumbthedepths

One eyed Jack wrote:

I wouldn’t ever try and convince a woman that really her breasts are not what she thinks they’re for, and Gwen is absolutely entitled to think that and express that opinion. But when she starts making claims that have no scientific basis and only supposition on her part, that kind of circular logic is doomed to failure-

Dude I'm not going to keep quoting your posts, but you tried to deny that the primary function of a breast is to suckle a child. You basically claimed breast feeding was invented, this seeks to deny the instinctive behaviour of newborn mammals of multiple species.
You suggested there was multiple options to feed a baby yet failed to provide any that meets the needs of a new born other than formula. I'm really trying to understand what your agenda is here, other than trolling . If you are trolling you need to be more subtle .

Gwen Cooper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t ever try and convince a woman that really her breasts are not what she thinks they’re for, and Gwen is absolutely entitled to think that and express that opinion. But when she starts making claims that have no scientific basis and only supposition on her part, that kind of circular logic is doomed to failure-

Gwen: “I say what my breasts are for, not you”

Me: “Fair enough”

Gwen: “I say what the primary function of human breasts are”

Me: “I don’t think it quite works like that”


Is essentially how this thread has gone.

Thank you, Jack. I’m having a particularly bad day today, but you just made me laugh.

I’ll ask you differently, and I’m really curious about your response to it: Why do mammals have mammary glands and nipples?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I say that breastfeeding is not instinctive, but that it’s a learned behaviour, I mean that breastfeeding isn’t something that either humans do instinctively. Unless they’ve been taught how to do it, they’re unlikely to succeed at it, and we know that in Western society, women haven’t lost the instinct that the article is making the point was never there in the first place from a purely biological evolutionary perspective.

What are you basing this on?

Facts, like. Unless you're asserting this as some kind of original discovery, I assume you have facts to hand that can substantiate this?

The fact that people often need help in breastfeeding is evidence of nothing. The same applies to childbirth.

jaxxx

Either the heat's getting to some people on this thread, or they've been smoking some dodgy stuff. Jesus, yer logic is as flawed as Trump's hair.

Plumbthedepths

Jack " I've got nipples, can you milk me Greg''.
Meet the Fockers.

Martina1991

One eyed Jack wrote:

My point was that breastfeeding isn’t an instinctive behaviour, but one that is learned. That you had a different take on the article doesn’t surprise me in the least when you’re willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative about “the sole purpose of breastsâ€

A pregnant woman instinctively produces the hormone prolactin to prepare her breasts for milk production.
If the milk isn't expressed it would leak out of her nipples.
Its not turned on like a tap when the baby latches on.

One eyed Jack

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Dude I'm not going to keep quoting your posts, but you tried to deny that the primary function of a breast is to suckle a child. You basically claimed breast feeding was invented, this seeks to deny the instinctive behaviour of newborn mammals of multiple species.
You suggested there was multiple options to feed a baby yet failed to provide any that meets the needs of a new born other than formula. I'm really trying to understand what your agenda is here, other than trolling . If you are trolling you need to be more subtle .

It’s not to seek to deny the instinctive behaviour of newborn mammals at all, I already explained that their instinct is to seek nourishment.

This imagined instinct that mammals must provide breast milk because their mammary glands produce milk that can be consumed as a source of nutrition by an infant, provides a convenient and circular explanation as to why mammals must produce milk in the first place - because it’s to nourish infants, there can be no substitutes.

I don’t have any agenda other than to question why some people want to believe that the reason more women don’t breastfeed must be because of some imaginary stigma in Western society that they must rally against. There are undoubtedly political motivations behind the newest wave of “women’s breasts are only for feeding babies, they’re not for you”, which ignores numerous contradictions in modern society to their beliefs.

They have to try and appeal to nature and evolution and biology and anthropology and all sorts of grasping at straws to drive home an ideological point of view that just isn’t in any way based upon reality in modern Western society. It’s like when another poster suggested earlier that breastfeeding is common in other European countries and we don’t want to be like those “backward” states in the US... until it was shown that breastfeeding rates are much higher and they breastfeed for much longer in those backward states than women in Europe!

I’m not trolling anyone here at all, I’m interested in the discussion of the phenomenon of what are a small group of women who appear to need validation for their lifestyle choices which they appear to be desperate to shove in people’s faces, and then cry foul when those people say they have a problem with it. It doesn’t take Sherlock to work out that shìt.