Unfortunately I can’t take credit for the title, a friend came up with it (Hi Coran!). We were discussing what to call ourselves, the (mostly) atheist, vehemently pro-vax and anti-woo parents who were also extended breastfeeding, baby-wearing, co-sleeping, cloth nappying, hippy parents. One of us even home birthed (not me, I like my stay in hospital with other people doing the laundry and cooking). It’s been quietly brewing in the back of my mind, because I think there are a lot of questions here for the skeptical community we should all think about. I would like to state upfront that I am talking to ‘the skeptical community’ as a whole, not individuals. I know a lot of skeptics personally and most of them are very nice people :) These are examples from my personal experience as a science-based hippy, but I think we all fall into these traps at one time or another.
The first and most obvious message: not all ‘crunchies’ are crunchy. Or to generalise, don’t make assumptions. Just because people, skeptical or otherwise, hold one belief doesn’t mean you know what all their other beliefs are. I’m sure I have a few irrational beliefs tucked away somewhere. I know absolutely that my decisions have been made in different circumstances to other people’s. But they are or were the best decisions for me and my family at the time. This is very similar to skeptics feeling they need to ‘come out’ about their religious beliefs – it underscores that there is not one set of ‘skeptical beliefs’ or ‘non-skeptical beliefs,’ and you never know what is important to the person you are talking to.
Getting more specific, anti-vaxxers and ‘crunchies’ in general tend to be white, middle class, well educated parents. That also describes the people most likely to breastfeed successfully. You know what? It also describes most skeptics. So why have I seen on a skeptical group an unchallenged comment about “anti-vaxxers with 8 year olds still hanging off their tits.” Perhaps people were stunned by the rudeness and crudeness and were trying to ignore it? Interesting that the thread continued after that comment but came to a screeching halt when I pointed out that I was extremely pro-vaccination but was also still feeding my four year old. The same sentiment is put forward regularly, if expressed slightly more politely, but we of all people should know that correlation does not equal causation.
Not direct causation, but I think in this case there is a common cause. There is a reason that all us white, well educated, middle class folks can go off on our crusades, whether that be crunchiness or skepticism or a mix of both. It’s because we are the ones with privilege. On a practical level, we have the time, support and resources to learn how to breastfeed. We can take our children to the doctor if there is something wrong (we co-slept with our second because she had reflux). We can hop on the internet and find not only products and information, but communities, support and places to discuss and reflect. That isn’t always available to people struggling to feed and clothe their families and keep a roof over their heads. It certainly isn’t available to people who don’t have electricity and fresh food. Anti-vaxxers are told over and over again how selfish they are because they are impacting on herd immunity, yet some skeptics are quite happy to dismiss lactivism because their own kids, with every privilege, are healthy. The evidence shows clearly formula is risky, even if that is most important to people who have never heard of skepticism. So shouldn’t we be supporting lactivists, not looking down on them? At its most basic lactivism is a way of supporting the underprivileged, whether through race or wealth, and surely skepticism leads to a commitment to social equity?
Which brings us to evidence. I’m the first to admit that there is appallingly little good evidence when it comes to parenting, which allows people to pretty much go with the approach they favour anyway. And parenting is not as simple a decision as vaccinate or not – it depends on so many individual circumstances. But I’ve noticed an interesting pattern in discussions – it is almost always skeptics asking crunchies to prove their point of view. And why not, you may think, skepticism is about using evidence. But where is the evidence that shows kidneys are better than dialysis? What paper shows walking is better than wheelchairs? In other words, surely the natural option should be the starting point, and formula, cots, prams etc represent the intervention that has to prove itself. I’m not into living naturally – I’m very fond of my mattress and will happily believe anecdotes that electricity is a good thing – so I’m not assuming natural is best. But for true skepticism we need to look at the biases of the evidence, and they can be hard to detect if they match your own baggage. Don’t we need to step back and examine our own position, and question whether it is evidence or culture guiding us?
For me, skepticism is about questioning, and the basis of that must be questioning my own position and beliefs. My skepticism must come from a place of humility.
Everyone, for a time, and many, all the time, assume that what they think and feel is what is right, and work from there. Most of us, I think, have a base of assumptions that have worked for us and remain unchallenged. We’re unaware that most of them are even there. And, we are each subject to the lessons from childhood – Jesus loves you, poor people are lazy, breastfeeding is what animals do and so on.
Although I consider myself a skeptic, I forget to be skeptical within first. However, I am atheist because I studied the Bible while I was in college. Then I looked at other religions. Yeah. …And, I breastfed my son (and we stopped when he was done, just after he turned three years old) because I researched the entire topic. Breastfeeding is the logical choice unless medically prevented. He also escaped being circumcised because his mother researched extensively, then worked to persuade his father.
I do indeed forget just how privileged I am. I am the whitest person you can meet, Caucasian albino American citizen. I’m female, and have a somewhat rare genetic defect which is visually distinctive. But I still only know a couple of things about being discriminated against. And compared to the world, I am rich and pampered. Alas, although I am aware at times that my worldview is terribly skewed, I forget more often than I remember. Thank you for the reminders!
YOu know parenting and even marriage is about what WORKS FOR YOU. I have taught for years at a preschool in Brattleboro Vermont. Hippy central. Sadly 1/3 of the parents do decide not to vaccinate. Also, over half the parents refused to sign a paper saying that if the Vermont Yankee Nuclear power plant has an “accident” we may give their children iodine to protect their thyroids. (honestly, the teachers were “we aren’t checking to see who signed the permission slip, losing our jobs is nothing compared to doing the one thing we know will help protect the children”). But one thing I will say is that parents that CARE are always better than parents that don’t. We have moms that come in to breastfeed the kid during snack time. It’s cool. We have kids with vegan lunches (we do check to make sure the child has a GOOD vegan lunch though, one that gives them what they need to grow…actually breast feeding is a real plus with a 3 year old on a vegan diet). Point is, having worked with children from inner city families living in poverty, give me a middle class hippy anyday. A child that is wanted and loved is lucky indeed.
I’m with you about 90% of the way here. I have a few friends in a similar situation — we’re “too crunchy” for the skeptics, too “mainstream” for the crunchy types.
But part of the problem? I see virtually no evidence-based info from the crunchy camp that will convince any of my mainstream friends. I couldn’t even send this article to any of them, after you state “The evidence shows clearly formula is risky” with no support for that statement.
Especially when the evidence does no such thing — the evidence shows correlation, not causation. And when BF familes are generally white and privileged it’s hard not to think that the correlation between health and BF is really one between health and privilege. The hard evidence just isn’t there, and seeing unsupported statements like that is exactly why lactivists tend to completely turn skeptics off. (That and their tendency to also be part of the natural birth/lamaze groups, where much woo is regularly pitched. That sure doesn’t help.)
There does need to be some middle ground, but as long as the crunchier side is seen over and over buying into non-evidence based info I’m afraid that skeptics will never accept them. (Although, what extended breastfeeding has to do with anything I don’t know — that’s just rudeness in action for you.)
Anyway, great points, and I hope someday a middle ground can develop. I know I’ll be there.
(If you’re interested, the only serious inquiry into the matter I’ve seen is Joan Wolf’s — you can read the original paper online here and there’s a good summary of the resulting book with some followup by the reporters here, as well.)
Wow, it’s good to know I’m not the only one :)
An atheist, rational thinker, pro vaxer, extended bfing, cloth diapering, co-sleeping, home-waterbirthing mom who plans to homeschool.
Thanks for the article.
Hi!
I liked reading your article – it’s thought-provoking and sensitively written.
Have you read The Science of Parenting by Margot Sunderland? It’s a brilliant book, and provides plenty of scientific backing for the sort of parenting decisions/practices you describe, such as bedsharing/co-sleeping, breastfeeding, etc. Highly recommended :)
Kerry
oh yeah and I was bottle feeding both girls from day one. I’m on a medication that says “ummm, you do not want to share this with your baby”. I was off for the pregnancies and risking my life by being so. As soon as possible it was important to start up. Hard part for me was other moms, that did no know my circumstances, commenting about THE BOTTLE!
I once snapped “how do you know this baby isn’t adopted?” and was told “you know adopted babies can also be breast fed” and was told in detail (by this total stranger that I guess thought my baby was adopted) about how adopted moms can develop breast milk.
Part of what this taught me was, do what works for YOU. If you want to bottle feed, the evidence is not there that are you horribly endangering your child. I always felt (no evidence) that the most important thing was the bonding. So I never said “here kid, enjoy the bottle” but instead tried to do the singing, rocking and holding that breast fed kids get for so long. I’ve known working moms horrifically stressed out by trying to make the breast feeding work, and then much happiness when they finally give it up.. go bottle.. and are able to simply ENJOY their child again and lose the guilt. In a way, a baby is to be enjoyed and cherished. Parents make all sorts of choices, and to label one “bad” or “good” based on your own choices is very unfair. I’ve seen a mom with soda in a bottle (the child was 2) and I honestly have to say while I cringed, I know that mom is terrific and the kids adore her and her other kids oddly seem to be normal. Coke drinking baby is now on the University on New Hampshire ski team. Babies can take a lot. Good parenting used to be the Skiners Box method. You know, don’t touch baby! You have germs! Then we had the monkey mommies that showed us that touch was the way to go. Oddly babies have survived both methods!
In the interest of an evidence based discussion, here are teo relevant posts to the breast feeding debate from Science Based Medicine (w/o titles as they write very long titles there:
Harriet Hall: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4678
Amy Tuteur: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3096
Both conclude that breast feeding is a good idea, but not breast feeding has no evidence of significant risk in developed countries (where the substitutes are nutritionally complete). The WHO recommendations that were tweeted about take into consideration the undeveloped world population, where breast milk may be the most nutritional food available and where they are very unlikely to have gallons of pasteurized cow’s milk available on every corner.
In terms of parenting, I think a good general rule is that in the absence of strong evidence for harm, we should refrain from critiquing the choices of others or providing ammunition for such critiques.
Research also tends to suggest that children are pretty resilient to normal variation in parental behavior.
Thank you for the comments. I’d first like to point out that there is no critique here, if it’s come across that way I’m sorry. I did try to say that parenting decisions are complex and based on family circumstances. To say lactivists think everyone should breastfeed is as much a strawman as to say that pro-vaxxers think everyone should be vaccinated. Both groups understand there are medical exceptions, both groups tend to forget to point that out.
One of the points I am trying to make is that there is very little research into parenting, and what there is is affected by cultural biases. Crunchies may not be able to show evidence that baby-wearing is good, but have you asked skeptical friends for the evidence in favour of prams? Where is the evidence that cots are good? And why would it even be cots vs bed-sharing – everyone recognises that within ‘cots’ there are a range of practices from safe to unsafe, yet many different co-sleeping practices are all lumped together. This is a cultural bias, not evidence. I agree absolutely that we shouldn’t critique other people’s parenting, yet in the skeptical circles I’ve been in ‘crunchies’ come in for a lot of criticism.
I have read the SBM posts, in fact that’s partly where ‘science-based hippies’ comes from, but you might also want to check out this http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595230_eng.pdf It’s the WHO meta-analysis on the long-term effects of breastfeeding, including many studies from developed nations. You can also compare the CDC infant growth charts with the WHO growth charts, based on breastfed babies from all around the world http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/weight_for_age/en/index.html The two charts are very different, indicating an altered growth pattern in the CDC babies, most of whom were formula fed. As far as I know, there is no research on the implications of this altered growth pattern (unless you count the long-term studies in the meta-analysis). But the onus is not on breastfeeding to show that it is better – the onus is on formula to show that it is safe. And as Kitty so rightly points out – it’s not all about nutrition. So are we even studying the right things? How would we study it? One of the reasons I purposely didn’t cite research in my original post is that I didn’t want to it to be a lactivist post, I wanted to discuss our attitude to evidence and the influence of our own biases. I will write one to explore more fully, I don’t know if the comments thread can do justice to the subject.
But even that is only part of the issue. I’m sure for you and me and everyone else reading this that formula is safe, because of our privilege. Babies are resilient, especially when they have everything else going for them. But not all babies do. Even within developed countries, there are many babies for whom breastfeeding is an essential protection. Lactivism is not about middle class white working mothers, it is a social justice issue. And for me, skepticism should care about social justice, because the evidence shows humans are inherently equal.
Kerry I haven’t read that, I’ll have a look for it. Thanks.
I’m a breastfeeding, natural birther, but I use cloth nappies and wear my baby only about half the time. Every now and then, if I can’t be there and since I have problems expressing, my husband gives my son formula. I guess I’m sort of half crunchie. I’m planning to wean around 18 months. Not because I think there’s anything wrong with breastfeeding beyond that (I was ‘fed till I was 3) it’s just that around that time, my husband will be the primary caregiver as I’ll be working and finishing my degree.
I wrote about my experience with breastfeeding classes and lactivism on my blog:
http://skeptopia.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/breast-a-ganda/
My point is, even though breastfeeding is best, breastfeeding only education, like abstinence only education, doesn’t solve the problem.
I would guess that part of the reason young people, uneducated people and working class people resort to formula is that they are either unwilling or unable to change their lifestyle when a child comes along. If they want to be able to go out and continue having a social life, if they want to be able to drink and smoke, breastfeeding isn’t an option. If they work somewhere without childcare facilities or have to work two jobs and so have no time to express for bottles, then formula may be their only option. Part of the problem could be solved with better education, changing the cultural model of feeding babies (baby dolls all come with a bottle, except for that Spanish one.) longer paid maternity leave, better access to childcare, allowing breastfeeding mothers more breaks to go breastfeed their child or to pump breastmilk, etc. Some of these exist, but women aren’t necessarily aware of them. But the fact remains, breastfeeding and attachment parenting is time consuming and not all women are willing or able to give up their personal freedom to become attachment parents.
I want to add a cute little preschool teacher story. Often children of parents that are breastfeeding a new baby will breastfeed the baby doll from our “home care” area of the classroom (this area has play kitchen and a baby doll and crib). Teachers really like to see the kids PLAY breastfeed. We don’t have a bottle in the area. Kids learn what they live.
Kitty – my kids breastfeed!
Liz – that’s exactly right. Breast vs bottle is not only damaging, it isn’t the right question to be looking at. Most lactivists I know (and obviously I don’t know them all!) are far more concerned about the social conditions that lead to the loss of choice. Unfortunately that’s a big, tough problem. It’s much easier to talk to individuals, so unfortunately it’s mothers who get caught in the crossfire.
I learned a new word – “crunchies”.
“yet in the skeptical circles I’ve been in ‘crunchies’ come in for a lot of criticism.”
And for good reason too. Like religious moderates they provide cover for alternative medicine ‘extremists.’
“For me, skepticism is about questioning, and the basis of that must be questioning my own position and beliefs”
I suggest you actually start to question your own beliefs and SheThought, it’s editorial policy. This is the type of crap I would expect to see on the Huffington Post, not a website promoting itself as “women. thinking critically.”
Hi Spinoza, your thesis seems to be that some people should be criticised simply because other people hold the same type of views but in a more extreme way? If I’ve misunderstood that, perhaps you could clarify.
And perhaps you could explain what views are dangerous – breastfeeding? co-sleeping? babywearing? The idea that babies should spend a lot of time in physical contact with their parents? the idea that we should be environmentally aware? Maybe we have different understandings of the label ‘crunchy’?
Don’t get me wrong – there are some ‘crunchy-type’ views that are dangerous or go against the evidence, such as anti-vaccinationism, and I state that clearly. But my argument is that there is not a set collection of views that make people ‘crunchies’ or ‘skeptics.’ People can hold some views but not others, and it is important to ask which ones they hold and discuss the evidence for them separately, not attack people for assumptions you have made. And at the same time, it is important to question whether there really is evidence that something is good (or bad) or if it is just a cultural norm.
I’ve been thinking further about your analogy, and it breaks down on the very point I’m talking about.
Both religious moderates and fundamentalists have the same set of beliefs in a supreme being and a dogma. That is both their definition and the issue that needs critical thought and discussion.
But ‘crunchiness’ does not have a list of beliefs that everyone under the label must have. It is a lifestyle that can include many beliefs and people choose which ones they agree with. Some of those beliefs are evidence based, some are a neutral choice because there is no evidence, some have extra dimensions such as ethics, and some go against the evidence. Therefore the label is not useful in skeptical discussions – the important thing is to work out which belief you are talking about and discuss that, not the entire lifestyle.
If you are referring to alt-medders, then I agree they should be reasoned with and their propositions (not them personally) criticised. But not all crunchies are alt-medders, and not all alt-medders are crunchies. Criticising crunchies would be a highly ineffective way of working against alternative medicine extremists.
Spinoza, dissenting opinion is valued. Snark and rudeness is not.
I am currently nursing a two-year-old and also enjoy some of the other crunchy parenting options that privilege allows–like cloth diapering at home, preparing most food at home, etc. I cringe a bit at the word “lactivist” because for me it implies judgement and derision for women who, for any number of reasons, do not breastfeed. Not that you intend to use it in this way, but from my anecdotal exposure to lactivists IRL and in reading the lactivist literature, some claims of the dangers of formula are unnecessarily hyperbolic.
These are tough waters to navigate, and I applaud your effort to find balance and reason. It is easy to pile all kinds of baggage onto crunchy parenting practices and lump everyone who breastfeeds in with the extremists. It’s easy to fall into the fallacy of final consequences… like assuming that all women who breastfeed toddlers also reject vaccines and use “family cloth.” (Not that there’s anything wrong or unscientific about using family cloth, just that it may represent an extreme ideology….) It’s wonderful to know that there are other mothers like me out there in the world!
I really am curious what is meant by the statement “Like religious moderates they provide cover for alternative medicine ‘extremists” And I am also curious why questioning one’s beliefs, and making adjustments along the way seems to be a bad thing according to the one commentator.
But enough of that…
As for the whole breastfeeding thing? I did not breastfeed my eldest, but did my other two until they were both one. I used mostly cloth diapers for all three because disposables were a whole lot more expensive then they are now. My budget back then was beyond tiny. I could afford cloth, all the time, disposals every now and then. With my girls I stayed mostly home, and used my “solar-powered” clothes dryer. Amazing how the power of the sun can bleach out the most colorful poop stain.
My daughter has two babies one 2 1/2 and the other 4 months. She breastfed the older until about 14 months, and supplemented with formula because of work and college responsibilities. The little guy is getting to Michelin Man status on mommy’s milk alone right now. She’s disposable all the way, and we all think that Pull Ups are a gift from heaven.
Parenting styles and techniques vary according to the needs, desires, time frames and culture preferences of the parent. There is not necessarily a one right way, and babies seem to thrive because their parents take time to care and love them in those unique ways that they choose.
“yet in the skeptical circles I’ve been in ‘crunchies’ come in for a lot of criticism.”
And for good reason too. Like religious moderates they provide cover for alternative medicine ‘extremists.’
“For me, skepticism is about questioning, and the basis of that must be questioning my own position and beliefs”
I suggest you actually start to question your own beliefs and SheThought, it’s[sic] editorial policy. This is the type of crap I would expect to see on the Huffington Post, not a website promoting itself as “women. thinking critically.”
I emphasised what I see as the problematic parts.
The first statement, the commenter just assumes that we agree that what s/he says is true. It is debatable and even a controversial statement, and the commenter presents it as if it is fact. It is not only begging the question, but making an unclear comparison.
The second part assumes that the author came to her beliefs through something other than reason. It is incredibly presumptuous to suggest this, as it assumes that she has not questioned her beliefs because she came to a conclusion other than the commenter’s.
The third ‘red flag’ is the use of vulgarity and direct insult to the author of the post. Calling her article “crap” takes the discussion away from a polite disagreement and into troll territory.
If s/he had said:
I think the criticism is there for good reason. Just as religious moderates support the same philosophical ideas that allow for extremism, “crunchies” support the same sort of fuzzy feel-goodism that allows alternative medicine to gain a foothold.
It is hard for me to imagine that you have deeply questioned your own beliefs, since I have come to different conclusions. I strongly disagree with you and I’m surprised that SheThought includes your point of view. Considering the blog’s tagline is “Women. Thinking critically” I expected something different.
That would express the exact same thing but more clearly and without begging the question or being a jerk.
I always find it funny when people use name-calling, bad assumptions and logical fallacies when they criticise someone for not being rational enough.
Comments like that don’t do anyone any good.
This was great! Thank you! I’m an AP skeptic. =)
science based hippie!! yea- now I have a name for myself!! I read Scientific American, Discover and Mothering magazines.. Mother Earth News and Hobby Farm are also favorites along with Popular Mechanics, Consumer Reports and Natural Health.. Marie Claire, Men’s Health and People all also make the cut..I homeschooled until we realized it didn’t work with our personality dynamics.. I birthed in a hospital for the first two (second time cuz hubby insisted)but he granted me home birthing rights lol if we ever have a third (not likely) because of how abusive a hospital birth was both times for us.. I breastfed (almost;) exclusively until 15 and 18 months quitting cuz I had to both times.. we supplemented a bit with goat’s milk when I returned to work and pumping was less than successful for me.
As for the skeptic bit- I am a born and raised and adult confirmed atheist- there is no other way for me..
hippie wise- I’ve always been a public trash picker-upper, recycled way before it was popular and am a bonafide medical cannabis patient along with my husband who grew up in a commune and slept in a tree house and chicken coop!! while growing up and eating hand ground grains…
waaay over-sharing.. lol but my point is- I also am a member of Mensa, attended Stanford University and am called a tree hugging hippie by those who know me.. I have spent the last decade plus working and living in/around a famous national park because of my need for nature.. but I also NEED science for things to make sense to me..
“[A]theist, vehemently pro-vax and anti-woo parents who were also extended breastfeeding, baby-wearing, co-sleeping, cloth nappying, hippy parents”
Thank you for this article; I needed it. I am all of those you listed, along with anti-circumcision. It has been hard to find other parents that are, as you so eloquently stated, science-based Hippies. Great article :D
Famous Romantic Poems