Reassuring fathers and mothers is the objective of Mammalian Mothers (Plataforma Editorial), a book that dismantles, with data and a large bibliography, the bases of so-called natural or attachment parenting. It has been written by the journalist expert in education Eva Millet, a regular contributor to La Vanguardia, and it is presented as a reflection to experience motherhood in a more relaxed way.
As other specialists also explain (such as the psychologist Paola Roig), breastfeeding, natural childbirth or attachment parenting, in addition to co-sleeping, have become laws to be good mothers and fathers. What do your studies say? Where do these currents come from? According to Millet in this interview for RAC1, they are absolute truths, misunderstood, which lead many mothers to anguish and disappointment.
You say that some reports in the press on breastfeeding and natural parenting have even generated death threats towards some journalist. You are not afraid?
No. A lot of people tell me that I don't know what garden I'm getting myself into. She was restless, but the desire to write about it and explain all these movements well, which can give mothers a lot of happiness, but also a lot of anguish, is greater than fear.
You question what parenting 'influencers' say, with names and surnames, and names of specific profiles. Do you want to impose a speech?
This form of parenting, which is a lifestyle, is becoming ubiquitous on social networks, there is a dominant discourse, you have to 'collect', breastfeeding, having intense contact with the baby, not letting him cry... All this imposes a lifestyle as appropriate for raising children with attachment. One thing is John Bowlby's theory of attachment (attachment), which is scientifically proven, and the other is attachment parenting, which is a lifestyle.
Do you think there are many mothers affected by the psychological pressure of these parenting theories?
Yes, and it has skyrocketed in recent years, there is a lot of pressure on mothers and it has to do with the dominant discourse that sets expectations for being the perfect mother, which implies dedication and sacrifices that few can afford. It is a parenting style for mothers of middle or upper social class. There are already studies that show that with this intensive parenting model there are many mothers who are not well, they have many psychological problems.
You speak of an "unnamed malaise" of mothers. There are sources that speak of a "new form of slavery"...
It was defined by the feminist Betty Friedan, in the 50s, about the perfect American housewife, locked up at home. The 'influencer' of the time was Doris Day. In fact, they were awful, they had been locked up at home after working abroad in World War II. What equality feminism denounces is that the intensive parenting model that puts the weight on mothers is a regression, and returns women to the home. Elisabeth Badinter, one of the first to write about natural parenting, says it is a new form of slavery. I believe that unnecessary pressure is put on mothers and that it goes against equality.
Natural parenting is seen as an alternative and progressive movement. But you say that white, conservative and religious men are behind it. What are the referents?
William Sears is an American pediatrician, father of attachment parenting in the United States. He and the woman were evangelical Christians, and they considered attachment to be a divine design. At the origins of the La Leche League, very influential in all theories of breastfeeding, there were seven housewives who had more than 50 children between them and belonged to an ultra-conservative organization in Illinois. Grantly Dick-Read, father of the natural childbirth theory, considered childbirth to be a spiritual mission. Many women who practice natural parenting and believe that it is a rebellious movement, ignore the ultra-conservative origin of all this.
Natural childbirth is evoked as childbirth without anesthesia, that of animals. There are women who feel guilty about needing an epidural. Is it like a competition?
Completely. It is true that we come from a paternalistic model and in Spain childbirth is perhaps too medicalized, but this was chosen to reduce complications, because it is a vital moment that is still delicate for the mother and the baby. It is very good that it is claimed that women are listened to during childbirth, but from here to the pressure to give birth without analgesia and that any medical intervention is called obstetric violence, we have gone too far.
In fact, the term natural childbirth has fallen out of use in some settings, from what you explain.
The New York Times decided years ago that they would not talk about natural childbirth, but about a good delivery, which can be with or without an epidural, with forceps or with a cesarean section. There is an appropriation of precious terms, such as natural, attachment, respect, conscious. "I am a connected mother, I raised with attachment", that is not fair, it is an appropriation of words.
Breastfeeding is strongly recommended by the WHO. There are sources that say that perhaps its benefits have been exaggerated…
It is the theme with a capital letter, the central axis of that parenting style. Breastfeeding is a magnificent option, but we must question the obligation to breastfeed and the demonization of the bottle, which blames mothers in an unhealthy way. There is a huge disconnect between the scientific data and what mothers are saying. A mother told me that she had to give her four-month-old girl a bottle, and she had the feeling that she was giving him bleach. She was convinced that the daughters would come out obese, and what happens is that breastfeeding is practiced by middle- and upper-class women, and in this environment, children are logically healthier and have better academic performance. Many studies on breastfeeding have a problem of bias.
The Spanish Association of Pediatrics strongly defends breastfeeding...
It continues with the general harmony of all the associations, of making increasingly aggressive breastfeeding recommendations. A few years ago there was talk of the benefits of breastfeeding, now it is compared to children who are bottle-fed, and the dangers that this entails. It is even said that children who take a bottle are at greater risk of child abuse and anxiety. Such aggressive recommendations are counterproductive.
You talk about activism that, according to accounts, has a very fiery discourse. What is it?
It is a current that promotes breastfeeding and sets itself up as a moral authority, full of guilt towards mothers, those who bottle-feed feel like bad mothers, and here is a red line. You can bottle-feed fantastically, because you don't want to or can't breastfeed. There cannot be mothers who hide to give a bottle, think they are giving bleach, or feel like bad mothers when they are in a moment of great vulnerability.
Co-sleeping, sleeping with babies, is questioned by scientific studies. What do they say?
The movement uses science to defend breastfeeding, but when science says that the safest place for a baby up to six months is in his crib, next to his parents' bed, that is hidden. The movement has demonized the methods of what they call "sleep trainers", who say that the child must decide when and where to sleep. And meanwhile the naturalistic intervention is chest, co-sleeping and patience. Here I think there is another red line, because sleep is essential. There are witnesses of mothers who have not slept for five or six years, and that is torture. I don't understand the effort with co-sleeping, and with the fact that the children will decide when they are ready to sleep. But of course, if they tell you that you are a bad mother, then you can endure without sleep, despite the cost it has for the health of the family.
You talk about intensive parenting or hypermaternity. What characterizes it, or what does it consist of?
All motherhood is very intense, but intensive mothering is a concept of sociologist Sharon Hays, which involves a lot of time and energy invested in nurturing, and in this theory the child is a sacred being, and the mother follows the child's will He decides when he eats, when he sleeps... It is true that when a baby is born you must attend to their needs and you have to attend to them, but when they grow up, sometimes you have to make them wait. Donald Winnicott explained that the mother may allow the child to get frustrated so that it begins to deal with frustration, which is very common in life.
You say that parenting, now, denies how mothers and grandmothers did it... In what sense?
There is talk of cruel grandmothers who say "don't take him, he's going to get used to it" or "give him a bottle, he's hungry", who raised in a detached way... Now the previous upbringings are not looked at, the experience is not heard.
In all this, social networks have a lot of weight. There are very powerful parenting influencers...
Although there are expert references such as Carlos González or Rosa Jové, now the discourse is totally dominated by influencers of attachment or natural parenting. Everything is wonderful, there is a constant exaltation, it is a language that infantilizes mothers. And the appropriation of the terms screams a lot: "I am an attached mother"... And what am I? There is a misuse of words.
In all this, where is the father?
The role of the father is diverse. A part of the men are delighted that the woman is coming home, others are very confused and do not know how to act as parents. But this I have not studied.
This article was originally published on RAC1
