Breastfeeding in swimming pools - what do our reactions say about us?

There have been two reports in recent months of mothers breastfeeding at public swimming pools and being told off for it by staff: you can read them here and here. Both stories provoked a storm of comments, both on the newspaper report pages themselves and across the internet, including on Mumsnet, several breastfeeding pages I follow on Facebook and on the Jeremy Vine show. Most of those commenting on the story seem to have missed the point completely, which is that whatever your personal feelings about the appropriateness or not of breastfeeding in a public swimming pool, women's rights not to be harassed or victimised for doing so are enshrined in law. It is ironic then that the venom of the commentators is almost entirely directed at the women involved, and not the staff who approached them or the management of the respective pools, who may (investigations ongoing) have been acting illegally.

The comments about both incidents have deeply saddened me, as a breastfeeding mother, a breastfeeding supporter and as a human being. Even given what we all know about the accuracy of newspaper stories (the Cambridge story was reported with claims that the mother in question was in a jacuzzi at the time - it transpires that there is no jacuzzi at the pool, and in fact she was seated on the poolside with only her feet in a toddler pool area), nevertheless other women (and men) have been quick to weigh in with the full force of their opinions about what they would have done in the circumstances, what they think about the pool's policy, all sorts of very revealing nonsense about the 'ickiness' of breastmilk, and so on. This deeply unpleasant tendency to attack the actions of others when they act in ways that we ourselves would not does not reflect well on us as human beings - it is closed-minded, divisive and makes our society look downright hostile to some of its more vulnerable groups, including breastfeeding mothers. Regardless of how other individuals might have acted, or chosen to feed, or cover, or not, the law protects us all, whatever we decide to do. A mum who fed out of the pool, or in the changing room, or in the lobby, or under a towel, or at home before bringing the baby in, has just the same right to be respected by staff as the mum who, for whatever reason, fed in the pool itself.

The law on breastfeeding in public in England says that you cannot be 'harassed or victimised' for breastfeeding in a public place, and this specifically includes parks and leisure facilities. (There are no health and safety issues in a public swimming pool to qualify as an exception under the legislation - for a detailed examination of the 'hygiene worries' of Joe Public, see the Analytical Armadillo's excellent post here). So it is the actions of the staff that are important: in both cases, in the newspaper reports of the incidents and in the mothers' further comments online, it seems clear that the staff were rude, uneducated about breastfeeding and the law and upset mothers attending to the needs of their small children, who were paying customers of the leisure centre. The involvement of management (also uninformed about breastfeeding) compounded the problem rather than fixed it. This shows how little understanding there is of breastfeeding within organisations and is symptomatic of how, as a society, we consistently fail to take it seriously enough. Apart from anything else the mothers' treatment is appalling customer service that no one deserves. It seems to me to be part of the same kind of casual disrespect that is shown by those who are racist or sexist in public - it's ill-informed nonsense, which is why as a society we have legislation to protect people from it.

What should have happened
Day 1 of lifeguard induction: 'This is a family pool and we encourage all members of the public to access our facilities. Our policies reflect the welcoming environment we try to create: we run family sessions, women-only sessions, and baby swim classes alongside our programme of school lessons and public swimming sessions. One relevant point of law that you need to be aware of is that breastfeeding mothers have the right to feed their children in any part of our facilities and you should not ask them to move or stop breastfeeding as this is against the law. If another patron raises the issue with you, take that person aside, explain the law and our policy, and refer them to management if they are not satisfied. You can, if you wish, inform mothers that we have a dedicated infant feeding room for their convenience, but they are under no obligation to use it. This is entirely separate from our policy on no food and drink in the pool area, which is there simply to maintain our high standards of cleanliness around the pool.'

Another day: mum is breastfeeding in the pool, lifeguard notices. 'Mum feeding her baby. Oh right. Wonder if she knows about the room? I'll just nip down and tell her.'
Lifeguard: 'Excuse me, madam, [smiling] I'm sorry to interrupt - I just wanted to check that you know we have an infant feeding room next to the changing rooms, which you're welcome to use if you want to.'
Mum: 'Thanks, but I need to stay here because I'm watching my toddler over there.'
Lifeguard: [smiling again] 'No problem at all madam, enjoy your swim.' Walks off.

In my example the general public, observing (if they even notice) sees the interaction as an endorsement of breastfeeding rather than an attack on it. Smiling mum, unconcerned lifeguard - subliminal message: BREASTFEEDING IS NORMAL. No news story.

Full disclosure: I have breastfed in the changing rooms, on the poolside, and actually in the water at public swimming pools. At the time I didn't give it a second thought - I was just responding to the needs of my baby. Never had a comment from anyone, either member of public or member of staff.

Joan Wolf and others, 'Is Breast Best?'

Professor Joan B. Wolf, of Texas A & M University, is giving a lecture entitled  'Is Breast Really Best? Breastfeeding, Motherhood, and the Politics of Careʼ at the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies (CPCS) at the University of Kent, where she is a Visiting Fellow, on 13 February. Several articles have been published on the subject: Viv Groskop in the Guardian outlined Wolf's academic position, as an 'American critic of research into the health benefits of breastfeeding', characterising her as 'a leading figure in a backlash against breastfeeding'. Prof Wolf herself has an opinion piece in the Independent. New Statesman published this piece by Glosswitch with the heated headline 'Our regressive, insensitive and cultish attitude to breastfeeding'.

Wolf's book, Is Breast Best? Taking on the Breastfeeding Experts and the New High Stakes of Motherhood was published in 2011; her lecture, according to the literature from the CPCS, reviews the central arguments of the book and discusses the book's reception, which has been, according to Groskop's article, 'mostly negative'. Other bloggers have already taken both Prof Wolf and the writers of these articles to task, including mummyisagadgetgeek, Michelle Atkin, and the Analytical Armadillo (who didn't have to write a new post; she'd said it all already). You might well wonder whether I've got anything left to add.

I've come across the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent before - last year, when I was blogging about media reaction to UNICEF's report about the cost-effectiveness of implementing programmes of breastfeeding support. Two members of the CPCS, Dr Charlotte Faircloth and Dr Ellie Lee, were drafted in to comment on the 'other side' when the Unicef report was discussed on television, taking up positions similar to Wolf's, which rests on three main points (or, as Wolf describes them):

'fundamentally false beliefs: that every time scientific research finds a relationship between two phenomena, one necessarily causes the other; that people who behave responsibly and are willing to make difficult choices can prevent virtually all risk, including health risks; and that breastfeeding is free.'

It may not be apparent to readers or viewers in general that part of what is happening here is academic position-taking. Those engaged in research - in all disciplines - explore ideas by taking a stance on a question and investigating it further: doing research, writing it up, presenting it to colleagues, publishing it in academic journals. And in academia, as elsewhere, there are careers and names to be made and research funding to be secured, books to be commissioned and TV appearances to be lined up. So I'm not really surprised to find some academics taking a stance against breastfeeding; they've found themselves a niche. And I'm not offended by the academic debate about breastfeeding in itself - particularly in how it relates to questions of feminism and economics - although I find it hard to find any common ground at all with Wolf's view and disagree strongly with all three of her points above.

I do, however, have a problem with the language that is being used - by both Wolf herself and those reporting her work. This article by Diane Wiessinger, IBCLC - from 1996! - deals comprehensively with how, in terms of breastfeeding, elevating it to something 'special', with 'benefits', actually undermines it. Breastfeeding is normal. This idea has become mainstream in breastfeeding support (it's specifically covered in peer supporter training, for example), and it should be becoming rare now to hear someone involved in breastfeeding talking about the 'benefits'. Yet the headlines of all three articles mentioned above, and the title of Wolf's book, deliberately use the outdated phrase 'Breast is best' or its inverse, 'Breast isn't always best'. You might think I'm attaching too much significance to this; I think that the newspapers, and Wolf herself, have no interest in the realities of breastfeeding culture and support and every interest in creating a media storm where the debate is artificially polarised.

I also find it surprising, as someone who's on the front line of breastfeeding support, that Viv Groskop can say in her article, after reporting figures that show that by six weeks more than half of parents have introduced formula 'This is contrary to the cultural messages we receive about breastfeeding: that we should be doing it and we should feel bad if we don't.' What cultural messages do we really receive about breastfeeding? It seems to me the total opposite - with the exception of the NHS and a relatively small community of pro-breastfeeding individuals, our prevailing culture is downright hostile to breastfeeding and breastfeeding supporters. Breasts are sexualised, mothers are harrassed for feeding in public, the bottle is the universal symbol for infant feeding, formula and baby feeding companies flout the WHO marketing code left, right and centre (as a topical example, check out this blog about  Mothercare's current Innosense ad campaign). The women I see who are struggling with breastfeeding don't, in general, want to carry on because they feel they should - they want to carry on in spite of pressure to the contrary because it's important to them (for any number of valid reasons: they don't agree with Wolf's view of the scientific research, they feel instinctively that it's right for them, their own mother breastfed them).

There's clearly a discord between academic (political, social, economic) discussion of breastfeeding and the reality of it for new mothers. Where this is most problematic is where theory and practice intersect; that's one reason why we value research into breastfeeding to give us a clearer picture, why different types of report (such as the UNICEF one mentioned above, and the Infant Feeding Survey) are important, and why the NHS and other bodies have clear policies about breastfeeding. It's the more abstract dialogue about breastfeeding that muddies the waters and turns the interested parties against each other - often unnecessarily, because questioning and debate are important (although dogmatic position-taking and scoring cheap points aren't) and in the end, that's the problem I have with the latest reports of Wolf's work.