I'm confused. How does people choosing not to breastfeed relate to the sort of empowerment that requires us to redistribute power?

John

Thanks for this article. I was particularly interested in your final paragraphs begining with: "The elephant in the room, however, is that to empower some means disempowering others. That is, it involves a redistribution of power."

Another version is that to address poverty you have to address wealth. It seems much easier to study and analyse poverty than wealth. No-one wants to apply band-aid solutions to the problem of wealth. The wealthy don't tolerate scrutiny.

You're right to say: "Power is usually not given away without a fight. It is much easier to continue to provide charity and wring our hands when the problem doesn’t go away."

The rich may give some of their petty cash to the poor, but they sure look after their own a lot more generously. Today a 'dud' corporate CEO was sacked in Melbourne, but he was handed a 'separation' payment equivalent to a seven-figure year's salary - well in excess of what many people would earn in a lifetime. Such is the value of failure!

Grey,
I think you miss the point, namely, that powerful corporates use their power to promote an unhealthy product that reinforces the poverty of its consumers. Regulations to "redistribute power" in this situation were opposed by the powerful corporates.

You use the words "choosing to breastfeed". We need to consider how this "choice" was impacted by the marketing of these products and the role of corporate power in shaping this choice.