产后同床建议、风险和剥削:女权主义分析

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Anna Melamed
{"title":"产后同床建议、风险和剥削:女权主义分析","authors":"Anna Melamed","doi":"10.1016/j.midw.2025.104612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Problem</h3><div>Breastfeeding is beneficial to babies and mothers. Postnatal bedsharing is evidenced to support breastfeeding and maternal wellbeing. Advice against bedsharing creates a barrier to breastfeeding. It also frames women as an inherent risk to their baby, something statistically untrue in the absence of known risk factors. Women are advised to both breastfeed, and to not bedshare, which sets up a contradiction. Telling mothers they are simultaneously a risk to, and a resource for, the baby, can lead to exhaustion, shame, confusion and difficulties breastfeeding.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>To investigate this seeming contradiction in UK breastfeeding and bedsharing advice I examine the risk discourse and Douglas’ conception of risk and pollution. To explain why women’s bodies are a site of contestation, and why some risks (overlaying) are amplified over others (lower breastfeeding rates or maternal exhaustion) I use radical materialist feminism. I argue that risk discourses and taboos around bedsharing are part of a patriarchal ontology of the sovereign individual which denies the intrinsic interdependence and relationality. Denying the centrality of the mother-baby dyad as a relation is part of the mechanism of exploitation of women. The bedsharing advice reduces the woman’s subjectivity and agency, which is to the detriment of mothers and babies because their wellbeing is interdependent.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The prevalence of bedsharing advice is explained by an ontology in which individuals are imagined as a risk and/or a resource to one another. The driving force is not the wellbeing and support of the dyad, but exploitation of women and re-enforcement of patriarchal logic. Women-centred feminist postnatal advice would better support the dyad.</div></div><div><h3>Tweetable abstract</h3><div>Advice against postnatal bedsharing positions women as a risk and resource, to the detriment of the mother-baby dyad and breastfeeding, and in service of patriarchal exploitation of women as a resource.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":"150 ","pages":"Article 104612"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postnatal bedsharing advice, risk and exploitation: a feminist analysis\",\"authors\":\"Anna Melamed\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.midw.2025.104612\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Problem</h3><div>Breastfeeding is beneficial to babies and mothers. Postnatal bedsharing is evidenced to support breastfeeding and maternal wellbeing. Advice against bedsharing creates a barrier to breastfeeding. It also frames women as an inherent risk to their baby, something statistically untrue in the absence of known risk factors. Women are advised to both breastfeed, and to not bedshare, which sets up a contradiction. Telling mothers they are simultaneously a risk to, and a resource for, the baby, can lead to exhaustion, shame, confusion and difficulties breastfeeding.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>To investigate this seeming contradiction in UK breastfeeding and bedsharing advice I examine the risk discourse and Douglas’ conception of risk and pollution. To explain why women’s bodies are a site of contestation, and why some risks (overlaying) are amplified over others (lower breastfeeding rates or maternal exhaustion) I use radical materialist feminism. I argue that risk discourses and taboos around bedsharing are part of a patriarchal ontology of the sovereign individual which denies the intrinsic interdependence and relationality. Denying the centrality of the mother-baby dyad as a relation is part of the mechanism of exploitation of women. The bedsharing advice reduces the woman’s subjectivity and agency, which is to the detriment of mothers and babies because their wellbeing is interdependent.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The prevalence of bedsharing advice is explained by an ontology in which individuals are imagined as a risk and/or a resource to one another. The driving force is not the wellbeing and support of the dyad, but exploitation of women and re-enforcement of patriarchal logic. Women-centred feminist postnatal advice would better support the dyad.</div></div><div><h3>Tweetable abstract</h3><div>Advice against postnatal bedsharing positions women as a risk and resource, to the detriment of the mother-baby dyad and breastfeeding, and in service of patriarchal exploitation of women as a resource.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18495,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Midwifery\",\"volume\":\"150 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104612\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Midwifery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613825003298\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613825003298","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

母乳喂养对婴儿和母亲都有益。事实证明,产后同床共枕有助于母乳喂养和孕产妇健康。反对同床共枕的建议会阻碍母乳喂养。它还将女性定义为婴儿的内在风险,在缺乏已知风险因素的情况下,这在统计上是不正确的。建议女性既要母乳喂养,又不要同床,这就形成了矛盾。告诉母亲,她们既是婴儿的风险,也是婴儿的资源,可能会导致精疲力竭、羞耻、困惑和母乳喂养困难。为了调查英国母乳喂养和同床建议之间的矛盾,我研究了风险话语和道格拉斯关于风险和污染的概念。为了解释为什么女性的身体是争论的焦点,以及为什么一些风险(叠加)比其他风险(低母乳喂养率或母亲疲惫)被放大,我使用了激进的唯物主义女权主义。我认为,关于共床的风险话语和禁忌是主权个人的父权本体论的一部分,它否认了内在的相互依存和关系。否认母子关系的中心地位是剥削妇女机制的一部分。同床共枕的建议降低了女性的主观性和能动性,这对母亲和婴儿都是有害的,因为她们的幸福是相互依存的。结论共用床建议的流行可以用一种本体论来解释,在这种本体论中,个体被想象成彼此的风险和/或资源。其驱动力并不是对两分制的幸福和支持,而是对女性的剥削和父权逻辑的重新实施。以女性为中心的女权主义产后建议会更好地支持两分制。反对产后同床共枕的建议将女性视为一种风险和资源,不利于母婴和母乳喂养,并为父权制对女性的剥削服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Postnatal bedsharing advice, risk and exploitation: a feminist analysis

Problem

Breastfeeding is beneficial to babies and mothers. Postnatal bedsharing is evidenced to support breastfeeding and maternal wellbeing. Advice against bedsharing creates a barrier to breastfeeding. It also frames women as an inherent risk to their baby, something statistically untrue in the absence of known risk factors. Women are advised to both breastfeed, and to not bedshare, which sets up a contradiction. Telling mothers they are simultaneously a risk to, and a resource for, the baby, can lead to exhaustion, shame, confusion and difficulties breastfeeding.

Discussion

To investigate this seeming contradiction in UK breastfeeding and bedsharing advice I examine the risk discourse and Douglas’ conception of risk and pollution. To explain why women’s bodies are a site of contestation, and why some risks (overlaying) are amplified over others (lower breastfeeding rates or maternal exhaustion) I use radical materialist feminism. I argue that risk discourses and taboos around bedsharing are part of a patriarchal ontology of the sovereign individual which denies the intrinsic interdependence and relationality. Denying the centrality of the mother-baby dyad as a relation is part of the mechanism of exploitation of women. The bedsharing advice reduces the woman’s subjectivity and agency, which is to the detriment of mothers and babies because their wellbeing is interdependent.

Conclusion

The prevalence of bedsharing advice is explained by an ontology in which individuals are imagined as a risk and/or a resource to one another. The driving force is not the wellbeing and support of the dyad, but exploitation of women and re-enforcement of patriarchal logic. Women-centred feminist postnatal advice would better support the dyad.

Tweetable abstract

Advice against postnatal bedsharing positions women as a risk and resource, to the detriment of the mother-baby dyad and breastfeeding, and in service of patriarchal exploitation of women as a resource.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Midwifery
Midwifery 医学-护理
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
221
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Midwifery publishes the latest peer reviewed international research to inform the safety, quality, outcomes and experiences of pregnancy, birth and maternity care for childbearing women, their babies and families. The journal’s publications support midwives and maternity care providers to explore and develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes informed by best available evidence. Midwifery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other scholarly reviews and updates. Midwifery articles cover the cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception, maternal and infant care. The journal welcomes the highest quality scholarly research that employs rigorous methodology. Midwifery is a leading international journal in midwifery and maternal health with a current impact factor of 1.861 (© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2016) and employs a double-blind peer review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信