Talk:Breastfeeding

“Mothers should be encouraged to breastfeed”

So it stands in the section on breastfeeding shaming. Although I personally believe this to be the case (3 IQ points more, anyone?, see the study I added under benefits), it seems unfit to me start giving blunt advice in this article. A secondary point is that if this article should become an acceptable resource for those who are unsure or already have a negative opinion about breastfeeding, such an encouragement will hinder this aim. --Sophophobe (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the study! It would be great if we could expand or improve the article but could you clarify what you mean? I find it a little difficult to follow. Are you suggesting the sections and/or paragraphs be rearranged? If so...go ahead and rearrange them but please maintain the three points of view in the article (below).

I can't quite figure out what you mean by blunt advice...could you be a little more specific? Do you mean there should be blunt advice or not blunt advice? I wrote the article to be three things at once (and i think it's important)

Pro breast feeding (there are tons of very good reasons to do it and it is optimal for your baby)

Not non-breast feeding shaming (it's ultimately a woman's choice)

Not breast-feeding-shaming. (a woman can bear her breasts and wean her child wherever and whenever she likes...its just a babys mouth on it's mothers nipple). ShabiDOO 21:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By blunt advice I mean every appraisal or discouragement without a direct reference to the science. This is currently the case in the place named above and in section 'Dangers' sentence 3 (Ctrl+F 'encouraged').

Of course the whole article can be seen as the reference, but then we do not need to scatter the advice over several sections. Instead I would suggest to have one paragraph or section for evaluation (perhaps at the end of 'Benefits', or a new section behind 'Dangers').

For every other place, it should suffice to refute the woo and to reference the explained benefits for anything that goes beyond it.

The primary reason for my aversion to this blunt advice is that if the science speaks for itself – as it is the case here – we does not need to call for something (i.e. say, mothers should be encouraged). If we do so, we even run the danger to diminish the trust in the science that has been established before.

I'll start changing some things that I deem necessary. --Sophophobe (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see that as blunt advice. This isn't directly to whether or not a woman should breastfeed...but against those who wish to shame them (which is why it's in the shaming section). Could you give some other examples please? ShabiDOO 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that this sentence addresses shaming and that the encouragement/advice is not its primary aim. Nonetheless it says mothers should be encouraged, so we do give advice (in a subclause). (That may raise the question if blunt is still the right word, but we should not get stuck on that and I'd just drop the word.)

The only other example I see (or saw, see my new talk section below) was the one in the dangers section. I stuck this topic up in a general manner because I think it touches the question of what this article's purpose should be. --Sophophobe (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision of section 'Dangers'

The reasons why I removed these first sentences:

The dangers to the health of a child who isn't breastfed, on the other hand, have been highly exaggerated by some naturo-woo-meisters. Contrary to popular belief amongst breastfeeding warriors, a child who doesn't drink its mother's milk is not more likely to become a depressed psychopath. While mothers ought to be encouraged to do so, not breastfeeding your child should be viewed more as a missed opportunity than something that is damaging to their child.

Firstly they don't belong into this section at all, because this section should treat the dangers of breastfeeding, but these sentences are about the dangers of not doing so. Furthermore, the second sentence has no citation for its scientific claim; and it is indeed questionable since there seem to be some studies that do find a (very weak) corellation. So we should just leave that out. The first sentence can then be dropped, too. The third sentence is actually incorrect, since we say that science shows that breastfeeding is mostly beneficial, so not doing it does have a negative effect. Whether you call that a missed opportunity or a damage depends on the norm that you're comparing with. If any, that norm should be the natural status, thus one would have to say damage; however, I suggest we let the science speak for itself here. --Sophophobe (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

THanks

Cheers, scream and sophobe. The article is much better now. ShabiDOO 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This article kind of a mess

I’m not a Breastmilk Scientist so I can’t really b too sure, but one section says “breastfeeding gives you high IQ and therefore makes you earn more money” whereas another section says “no a lot of the benefits are due to eg socioeconomic factors”. I think there should be more consistency but I don’t really know where to go with it. I will say, however, that saying “the higher income is traced back to the higher IQ” kinda smells like some Bell Curve shit to me, esp. given the studies in the other section that say breastfeeding is correlated with socioeconomic status. 115.64.87.72 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)