In the good old days, women knew their place: in the home, repeatedly pregnant, breastfeeding, and in continual proximity to their children. They wouldn’t dare compete with men since they didn’t have the time or energy to do so.
In the past century, for the first time in history women in some countries achieved a measure of legal and economic equality. Even that tiny bit is too much for some; a backlash ensued. On the Right, that backlash took the form of religious fundamentalism. If you believe in God, when He supposedly wants “good” mothers to stay home, repeatedly pregnant, breastfeeding, and in continual proximity to their children, it’s hard to refuse.
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Being “empowered” by a philosophy designed to oppress women represents the ultimate in submission to misogyny.[/pullquote]
That was never going to work on the Left, where belief in religion has been waning; so opponents of women’s equality created their own form of fundamentalism — belief in the perfection of the natural order. When Nature supposedly wants “good” mothers to stay home, repeatedly pregnant, breastfeeding, and in continual proximity to their children, it might be difficult to refuse.
Natural mothering — natural childbirth, breastfeeding and attachment parenting — were created explicitly to control women. Grantly Dick-Read (a fundamentalist and eugenicist) made it abundantly clear that his philosophy of natural childbirth was designed to pressure women into having more children. La Leche League was explicit in its purpose on founding (by religious traditionalists); the philosophy of “mothering through breastfeeding” was created to keep mothers of small children from working. William Sears (a religious fundamentalist), the man who created the philosophy of attachment parenting, initially made no secret of the fact that he believed his philosophy was vouchsafed by God as His preferred method for organizing the family.
Which raises the question: can women be empowered by parenting philosophies explicitly designed to oppress them?
Can women be empowered by refusing pain relief in labor on the say-so of a racist, misogynist?
Can women be empowered by exclusive, extended breastfeeding, because a group of women who wanted to force them out of the workforce told them it was the best way to mother?
Can women be empowered by a philosophy of parenting that goes so far as to tell women to “wear” their babies so they can never enjoy a moment’s solitude?
But wait! I hear natural parenting advocates invoking Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.
Sanger was also a eugenicist and was explicit in her belief that birth control could be used in “the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives.”
Her views were every bit as vile as those of Dick-Read:
In reading her papers, it is clear Sanger had bought into the movement. She once wrote that “consequences of breeding from stock lacking human vitality always will give us social problems and perpetuate institutions of charity and crime.”
As appalling as are Sanger’s ugly views, there is a crucial difference. Sanger never viewed birth control as a method of controlling women’s behavior; Dick-Read always viewed natural childbirth as a method of controlling women’s behavior so as to keep them immured in the home.
Of course, women are free to refuse belief in the necessity of natural childbirth, breastfeeding and attachment parenting, aren’t they?
Not exactly. In order to ensure compliance, advocates of natural mothering have taken children hostage. They’ve declared, usually in the absence of scientific evidence, that children benefit from being mothered in the same way our ancient foremothers cared for their children.
Nature “designed” women to give birth vaginally without pain medication; ergo pain relief, interventions and C-sections must be “bad” for babies, at a minimum interfering with their ability to “bond” to mothers.
Nature “designed” women to breastfeed exclusively for extend periods; ergo formula, even “just one bottle,” must be “bad” for babies, at a minimum interfering with their ability to “bond” to mothers.
Nature “designed” women to maintain constant physical proximity to their children; ergo putting a baby down, using a stroller, letting a baby sleep in a crib must be “bad” for babies, at a minimum interfering with their ability to “bond” to mothers.
Are you sensing a theme here?
I am and it amazes me that many otherwise thoughtful women are not.
Don’t midwives like Sheena Byrom and Hannah Dahlen understand that natural childbirth is a method created to oppress women, forcing them to endure excruciating pain for the “benefit” of their babies?
Don’t lactation professionals like Amy Brown and Melissa Bartick understand that “mothering through breastfeeding” is a philosophy dreamt up to oppress women by forcing them out of the workforce?
Don’t attachment parenting advocates understand that it is a worldview promoted by a religious fundamentalist in order to force women to live dependent upon and subservient to men, “as nature intended”?
That doesn’t mean that women can’t make the choice to have unmedicated childbirth, to breastfeed, and to practice attachment parenting if that is what they feel is the best choice for their families. Similarly women are free to choose to wear a burqa or be subservient to their husbands.
Natural mothering is as empowering as wearing a burqa or creating a marriage where the husband rules the wife. Being “empowered” by a philosophy designed to oppress women represents the ultimate in submission to misogyny.
