Hanna Rosin wrote an article for the Atlantic that is sure to rile up some folks. In it, she lays out the "Case Against Breast-Feeding". Except, she doesn't actually make acase against breast-feeding. Instead, it's a case against the popular literature that preferences breast-feeding. This is fair because, if we believe her, the scientific evidence about the value of breast-feeding shows that...well, it shows that there isn't too much value in it.Reading the article sensitized me about this as a contentious social issue that I had no clue about. Beyond that, I have no position, pro- or con-, on breast-feeding. I do have a problem with the ending of the piece, though:
Breast-feeding does not belong in the realm of facts and hard numbers; it is much too intimate and elemental.
For an insightful article, this conclusion is very disappointing. Look, sex could be described as elemental and its definitely intimate, but to argue that facts like STD rates should be ignored because of that is silly. And the medical comparison is appropriate because people argue that breast-feeding is important because it has health consequences. The point is, discounting evidence because of a hazy, romantic conceptualization is just as anti-intellectual as anything else.
No comments:
Post a Comment