On Friday I asked if natural mothering is really a religion, albeit one that replaces God with Nature.
I wrote about two features common to the stories natural mothering advocates tell about themselves, conversion experiences and submission to a higher power.
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]For natural mothering advocates, belief in the perfection of Nature is a matter of faith, not reason.[/pullquote]
How to they know that what they believe is true? The same way religious believers know: they “feel it.”
As Chris Bobel notes in The Paradox of Natural Mothering:
It is clear that the reasons for natural mothering are often literally beyond reason. Rather than being rooted in an epistemology derived from the intellect, this type of “knowing” is intuitive, even instinctual and therefore defies explanation, the natural mothers imply. Decisions are not ultimately based on thinking, but on feeling.
Scholars of religion might refer to the distinction as “belief in” vs. “belief that.”
Epistemologists have not usually had much to say about believing ‘in’, though ever since Plato’s time they have been interested in believing ‘that’. Students of religion, on the other hand, have been greatly concerned with belief ‘in’, and many of them, I think, would maintain that it is something quite different from belief ‘that’… On this view belief ‘in’ is not a propositional attitude at all.
To put it simply, “belief in” is a matter of faith; “belief that” is a matter of intellect.
This distinction is critical when attempting to understand the behavior of advocates, professional and lay, of natural childbirth and breastfeeding.
Consider midwives like Sheena Byrom and Hannah Dahlen. They “believe in” the superiority of unmedicated vaginal birth. They — like creationists — might marshal what sound like scientific facts to justify their belief and to try to convert others, but the “belief in” the power and perfection of natural childbirth exists prior to and independent of scientific fact. And, like belief in creationism, it is both immutable and non falsifiable.
Why? Because they “feel” it to be true. It is a matter of faith, not reason.
Consider professional lactivists like Amy Brown, PhD and Melissa Bartick, MD. They “believe in” the superiority of breastfeeding. They — like creationists — might marshal what sound like scientific facts to justify their belief and to try to convert others, but the “belief in” the power and perfection of breastfeeding exists prior to and independent of scientific fact. And, like belief in creationism, it is both immutable and non-falsifiable.
Why? Because they “feel” it to be true. It is a matter of faith, not reason.
Both natural childbirth and breastfeeding advocates recognize the distinction; hence the veneration of “intuition” over reason. What is intuition except a form of belief that is independent of reason?
The similarities with religion don’t end there. Like many faith based believers, natural childbirth and breastfeeding advocates feel compelled to proselytize. They’ve heard the “good news” and want to share it with everyone else.
They don’t call it proselytizing, though, they call it “normalizing.”
The natural childbirth advocates who want to “normalize” unmedicated vaginal birth don’t merely want to make it acceptable or even common; they want to make it normative. Lactivists who want to “normalize” breastfeeding don’t merely want to make it acceptable or even common; they want to make it normative. Like supporters of theocracies, ideally they want to forge true believers, but they will settle for forcing others to behave like true believers.
Why? Because unbelievers are headed for Hell.
Not the literal afterlife Hell of religious believers, although quite a few natural childbirth and breastfeeding advocates seem convinced that those who choose C-section on maternal request or formula feeding are destined for Hell. Natural mothering hell is a hell on earth made manifest by a baby that doesn’t bond, is stupid, obese, and suffers from immune disorders or — worst of all — autism, the natural mothering equivalent of leprosy.
The world is divided into communities of believers and unbelievers and unbelievers do not merit even basic human kindness. There is no limit to the mental cruelty believers feel entitle to inflict on those who refuse to mirror their beliefs.
I came across this gem yesterday, on Mother’s Day:
If you didn’t breastfeed you don’t deserve to celebrate Mother’s Day.
In what lactivists probably imagine as benevolence, they’ve appended an asterisk.
*Legitimate medical reasons excluded.
No doubt they’ll decide whether your reasons are legitimate reasons.
It’s a powerful illustration that natural mothering is not science; it’s religious faith.
That’s fine! Natural childbirth and breastfeeding proponents are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe.
And the rest of us are entitled to raise our children based on what the scientific evidence shows, not the self-serving, quasi-religious beliefs of natural mothering advocates.
