From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Breast is best!
Potentially edible!
Food woo
Fabulous food!
Delectable diets!
Bodacious bods!

Breastfeeding is part of the wondrous, natural, healing, nurturing world of mother Earth exclusive to the God-blessed humans and other inferior mammals. If you don't exert your God-given responsibility to breastfeed your baby, you are an evil child-abusing devil monster. However if you do breast feed in public, you are a pervert creating trouble-maker. In reality, breast feeding is mostly a very positive thing which is simply mothers lactating and babies drinking milk from their mother. It is a praiseworthy practice but not obligatory. In some very specific cases for medical or psychological reasons it is not advised to breastfeed and shaming mothers who don't is a pretty bad way to deal with the issue.



The benefits of breastfeeding are well established and for the most part it is rather beneficial for children to drink their mother's milk. Thanks to the history of natural selection, babies are known to instinctively crawl and reach for their mother's breasts if laid on the mother's stomach after birth. One of the most commonly cited benefits of breastfeeding is that it helps connect mothers and their children; the baby feels its mother's body warmth and heartbeat (reminiscent of the womb it has left) and can become familiar with its mother's smell. Studies have shown that babies who are breastfed are more likely to reach adulthood.[1]

There have been more demonstrated benefits due to breastfeeding for the mother (though literature often focuses on the benefits for the child, of which few have been empirically proven). Mothers who breastfeed are less likely to develop certain forms of cancer and diabetes,[2] and it makes post-partum problems and complications less likely and makes part of the post-partum recovery process easier.

One long-term study on about 3500 subjects showed on average a significantly higher IQ score (3.76 points) and length of education (almost a year) at the age of 30 for those who had been breastfed for more than twelve months compared to those with less than one month, whereas confounders have been accounted for. The monthly income showed also higher, though this is attributed mostly to the higher IQ score.[3]


The breastmilk may contain certain substances that the mother ingests; in certain quantities these may harm the child. For instance caffeine, alcohol and mercury are known to pass through. Likewise, certain medication or illnesses of the mother can harm the child through the breastmilk. It is recommended mothers seek medical advice in these cases before they breastfeed.

For HIV-positive mothers there is conflicting indications as to how dangerous breastfeeding may be to their child. In general it is recommended to use alternative breastfeeding or formula, if they can be used.

Breastmilk that is purchased over the internet may contain high levels of microbial contamination, reflecting "poor collection, storage, or shipping practices", and putting the exposed infants at risk.[4] Another study by the same authors found that 10% of internet breastmilk was contaminated with cows' milk.[5]


Not to be confused with slacktivism.

"Lactivism" is an apparent portmanteau of "lactate" and "activism" used to describe the (often sensible) advocacy of breastfeeding in contrast to bottle feeding. Its main focus is on promoting the health benefits associated with breast milk and with attempting to counteract discrimination nursing mothers can face at work. Pretty much every medical organisation, doctor, and nurse on the face of the planet agrees with the old axiom "breast is best."[6] Studies prove that breast milk offers immunological and other benefits which cannot be found in infant formula.[6] However, more doctrinaire breast-feeding advocates imbue this simple biological process with a quasi-religious significance, and then use this to make mothers who can't (or, Heaven forbid, won't) breast-feed feel like child abusers.

Research suggests that breastfeeding does not play much of a factor in a child's intelligence, finding instead that it is much more strongly correlated to maternal intelligence.[7] Critics point out that this study did not account for the length of time breastfeeding took place, potential contaminants in the milk, the number of times breastfeeding took place per day, and that the median duration of breastfeeding in the study is three months, which is too short to see effects on IQ.[8] The correlation with intelligence might be a result of confounding factors: people who are more intelligent also tend to be more educated, and folks with more intelligence tend to be more aware of the benefits of breastfeeding. Also, more intelligent people tend to be better off financially, and (at least in the US) while the government offers some financial assistance to needy mothers for bottlefeeding, it does not offer assistance for breastfeeding (pumps, nipple shields, etc.).

Breastfeeding shaming[edit]

Breastfeeding shaming is a two-sided problem. On the one hand some mothers are made to feel inadequate by the "all natural super moms" if they choose not to breastfeed or cannot do so. After all, no synthetic substance can improve on God's perfect natural design.[9] The argument goes that such mothers are selfish, anti-mother-nature or are even unfit to raise their children. While encouraging mothers to breastfeed is admirable, before you go overboard and start insisting or shaming those who don't, you should keep in mind that there are many reasons some women cannot breastfeed or choose not to. These include: serious discomfort or even pain, a sense of alienation from others and issues involving bodily autonomy.

On the other hand, some women are shamed into not breastfeeding in public. While laws have changed in many countries to allow mothers to openly breastfeed almost anywhere, some conservative men[Who?] have thrown all sorts of moronic arguments against it. According to them and other arguments from the depths of lunacy, women who openly breastfeed are sluts who wish to frustrate other men, they care more about their tender nipples than social decency, and exposing their breasts will turn children who witness this into perverts. Never mind that most breastfeeding mothers cover themselves modestly while giving junior a meal.


Rush Limbaugh opposes breastfeeding[10], though likely not out of informed decision-making, but as a knee-jerk to Michelle Obama's Health Forums, or perhaps as a way to curry favor with patriarchal conservatives who freak out at the idea of a woman's breast being exposed to view. Juicy speculation has also revolved around Freudian and Oedipal explanations.


Historically (and still in parts of the developing world) substitute breastfeeders (wetnurses) were used to nurse children. These days, it is uncommon and some[Who?] claim that the only milk a baby should take is that of their own mother. It has not been demonstrated that taking the milk of one's own mother is likely to create a stronger bond between mother and child nor are any of the benefits shown to be more effective when the milk ingested is from the baby's biological mother.[citation needed] Some mothers and woo-meisters claim that babies should be directly nursed and that many of the benefits of breast milk are lost when pumps are used and breast milk has been stored. After all, breastfeeding is essential for bio-psycho-spiritual-health.[11] This has not been substantiated by research.[citation NOT needed]

External links[edit]