Breastfeeding protest at Vancouver store
Fri, 2008-08-08 04:42
#1
Breastfeeding protest at Vancouver store
Fri, 2008-08-08 04:42
#2
quote:
But it is sad in our society where breasts are the one thing, or the one asset, that women can show to flaunt to get men. When I'm breastfeeding my child, I'm not trying to get a man."Six years ago, when Yolonda Kozak was on a Vancouver bus, another woman reached over and disconnected her son as she was nursing him.
"I was such a new mother, I didn't have anything to say," she said.
Since then Kozak has been an advocate for public breastfeeding. "Now you can't stop me."
Valle had planned to take her complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
I thought [url=http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/080807/n080771A.html]this protest[/url]was a great way to get the point across about what is a normal and natural thing. The women in the article highlight the sexist dichotomy about breasts that persists in our society. Sexualized ads and images are everywhere with cleaveage, while breastfeeding is looked down upon. It is the most natural of actions and the actual biological purpose of breasts, but it is considered not worthy of display and "obscene" as it is not a breast shown with the intention of arousing a male.
I am glad they are taking this to the human rights commission!
[ 08 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]
Fri, 2008-08-08 07:23
#3
Timebandit
When I was breastfeeding, you saw less boobage than you would if I were wearing a low-cut top.
Honestly, telling women to go hide while feeding is something we should have left behind decades ago. I breastfed in public often when the wild girls were wee and there were very few times that people were visibly uncomfortable, and only once did someone comment (that earned them a snarly response from a suddenly menacing blond guy and they backed off hastily). That was a while back -- my girls are 7 and nearly 11 yrs old now. It's unfortunate everyone hasn't moved past this sort of prudery at this late date.
Fri, 2008-08-08 07:34
#4
Yes, it is sad that such backward outlooks persist, and I'm glad nursing mums are grouping together to challenge them.
That said, nursing is NOT the only biological purpose of breasts and nipples. They are one of the most important erogenous zones - not just to "arouse" men (or women if you are a lesbian), but also for the woman's own pleasure. Some men also have sensitive nipples, but it seems less universal.
Fri, 2008-08-08 08:00
#5
Timebandit
Well, if I saw a woman twiddling her nipples for pleasure in public I might want to suggest she find somewhere private to carry on... But breastfeeding is different. Especially when baby is small. Once baby starts that particular hunger wail and your let down reflex goes (and no amount of reason or self-control has any effect on let-down, believe you me!), sometimes you don't have time to go find somewhere to cloister yourself -- it would be incredibly stressful. Much better off to just latch baby on right there. You'd be surprised, too, how quickly it can be done and how little one actually sees.
Fri, 2008-08-08 09:09
#6
20 years ago when I was breastfeeding (I never did like the euphemism 'nursing' -- get over it folks, have breast, will travel) there were few who took issue with it. I was asked only once to remove myself to a more private area -- in a walk-in clinic at that and requested by a nurse! Fat chance! At the time of my first little love, I sat on a provincial task force, and RCMP and City Police squirmed a bit when she was slurping at the board table, but they had manners enough to be quiet. Back then there was research indicating that breast fed babies measured higher on IQ later in life so we had a running joke -- is it still around? -- that politicians were clearly bottle fed.
Fri, 2008-08-08 09:22
#7
quote:
Originally posted by WendyL:
[b]20 years ago when I was breastfeeding (I never did like the euphemism 'nursing' -- get over it folks, have breast, will travel) there were few who took issue with it. I was asked only once to remove myself to a more private area -- in a walk-in clinic at that and requested by a nurse! Fat chance! At the time of my first little love, I sat on a provincial task force, and RCMP and City Police squirmed a bit when she was slurping at the board table, but they had manners enough to be quiet. Back then there was research indicating that breast fed babies measured higher on IQ later in life so we had a running joke -- is it still around? -- that politicians were clearly bottle fed.[/b]
haha - excellent joke. I cannot believe a nurse would say that at a clinic! You would think she or he of all people would know better.
Fri, 2008-08-08 09:32
#8
quote:
haha - excellent joke. I cannot believe a nurse would say that at a clinic! You would think she or he of all people would know better.
Yeah, really!! Laughable now, but clearly still an issue for women and children. Disheartening that each generation of women deals with the same issues. And now there is more 'medical' support for breastfeeding and even a relatively generous recommendation to breastfeed into the second and third year of life. 20 years ago, my midwive was breastfeeding her 4 year old -- now, [i]that[/i] was not considered OK by most of the rest of the world.
Fri, 2008-08-08 09:53
#9
quote:
Originally posted by WendyL:
[b]Yeah, really!! Laughable now, but clearly still an issue for women and children. Disheartening that each generation of women deals with the same issues. And now there is more 'medical' support for breastfeeding and even a relatively generous recommendation to breastfeed into the second and third year of life. 20 years ago, my midwive was breastfeeding her 4 year old -- now, [i]that[/i] was not considered OK by most of the rest of the world.[/b]
Yeah, I haven't had children yet (hopefully soon!), but I can't imagine doing it past the stage where the child can verbally ask for it. I once babysat for a woman who breastfed her 6 year old, which caused issues as the child was in grade one. Starting off school by describing breastfeeding probably isn't the best way to ward off teasing.
Fri, 2008-08-08 12:02
#10
Timebandit
Once baby is over the age of 2 yrs, there isn't much further advantage in the physical sense -- at least here, where nutrition from other sources is plentiful. I have known mothers who nursed well into the preschool years and only let up just prior to kindergarten and sometimes wondered if it was as much mum not wanting to give up that phase as the kid really wanting or needing it. This was not a popular sentiment among some of the other La Leche League mums I knew, although I don't mean it in a harshly critical way -- I remember how sad I was when my last baby gave it up. She, on the other hand, wasn't negatively affected at all.
Fri, 2008-08-08 16:49
#11
Timbandit, I agree with you about breastfeeding! But I am wary of La Leche types that tend to view women as asexual milk dispensers - I guess that is a reaction against the nutty prudish/prurient stuff they are up against - like nudists who are so rigourously antisexual.
In societies with much more important nutrition and food safety issues, perhaps longer breastfeeding is adviseable - moreover it is socially countenanced - but I find it rather strange for a three or four year old to still be at her or his mummy's teat. Child health is primordial, but so is women's autonomy and sexuality.
In terms of antibodies etc, it is the first months that are most crucial. Probably the first year, ideally.
It just bothers me a lot when women's "biological functions" are restricted to childbearing. I wholeheartedly agree with the right to nurse/breastfeed (I don't think nurse is a euphemism - in French "nourrice" means a wet-nurse, not a trained medical nurse and there are lovely words like nourriciиre - nourishing, but in a sense of loving and caring as much as providing physical nourishment) and think mums should be helped in doing so.
(But mums who are unable to nurse for various reasons should not be seen as lesser mums or lesser women).
Fri, 2008-08-08 17:27
#12
quote:
La Leche types that tend to view women as asexual milk dispensers...
Is there any evidentiary basis for that broadside? Or for your other point, lagatta, that breastfeeding and women's sexuality are mutually exclusive?
quote:
Child health is primordial, but so is women's autonomy and sexuality.
Fri, 2008-08-08 17:42
#13
Oh martin, I'm so glad there are men who fight sexist shitheads, but sometimes you do become a bit reducitonist...
I do not want women to be merely mummies - it should be a part of their lives (if they so desire) along with their own sexuality and relationships, and their own creativity and careers. Some of the La Leche ideology is deeply reactionary.
Fri, 2008-08-08 18:32
#14
Sorry for seeming "reductionist", lagatta, but I haven't seen the evidence on which your barbs against the free breastfeeding movement (by association with the La Leche org) seem to be based, so I was just asking for it.
My own experience in Quebec has led me to support that movement after they shamed a judge who had court-ordered a woman to stop breastfeeding after giving her husband joint custody of a 2-month old infant, against the mother's wishes.
Contrary to current "Hail Any Father" ideology, these activists were anything but reactionary when they organized a public feed-in to confront that judge in the early nineties. (The order was rapidly rescinded.)
Progressives are often quick to label "out" mothers as conservative - or even "mummies" - when in fact... [url=http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/93352]A Powerful Movement Puts Mothers at the Helm of Social Change[/url]
[ 08 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2008-08-08 22:37
#15
I'm forty, and around when I was born a lot of women didnt breast feed at all, having bought the same Victorian/ Nestle horseshit the INFACT boycott put a stop to in the third world. Most guys my age are circumcised. When I was a kid every tenth woman in North America was spaced out on valium.
So there's lots of stupid ideas, from not so very long ago, to get rid of.
quote:
Well, if I saw a woman twiddling her nipples for pleasure in public I might want to suggest she find somewhere private to carry on...
See, that wouldnt bother me..... [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ok, ok, kidding, yes, yes, I'll move along quietly
[ 08 August 2008: Message edited by: minkepants ]
Sat, 2008-08-09 00:49
#16
I think breastfeeding is about much more than its biological substrate of providing food, passing along immunologies, and assisting with uterine health post-birth. The emotional/psychological/spiritual connection between mother and child, the bonding of the two, is intensely experienced during each incident of feeding. (This is not to say that mothers who do not breastfeed do not bond.) So, to suggest that breastfeeding has no benefits when it is continued beyond the period of time when immunology is conveyed and/or digestive systems have matured and/or nourishment from other sources is easily obtained, doesn't rightfully capture the richness of breastfeeding. And, breastfeeding does not deny a woman's existence as a sexual being. She can be both a sexual being and a breastfeeding mother. I don't see a problem here. And, I don't see what puts me in a position to judge any woman for choosing whether or not to breastfeed or for how long a woman breastfeeds her child. It is our lovely penchant for social constructions, particularly with respect to the use of women's bodies, that creates the issues here. Even from the perspective of the breastfed child, the issue still comes back to nonsense around the use by this child of her/his mother's body.
Sat, 2008-08-09 08:40
#17
Timebandit
See, here is the point where I find myself walking the fence, unable to totally identify with either side.
I found the La Leche League a very beneficial group to be part of when my babies were small, mainly because I was the first woman in my family to breastfeed for 3 generations. There was nobody for me to go to, family-wise, for advice or support and the first few weeks breastfeeding can be surprisingly challenging. However, there is also a certain faction among Leaguers that advocates extreme attachment parenting and nursing beyond all need not just for nourishment, bonding, etc, but well beyond even the period where nursing fulfills an emotional need for the child and can become both habit and crutch. There is much rhetoric bounced around at LLL meetings about how we are all disconnected from our babies in our culture and how they do it in 3rd world countries and have really got it right... Much of this doesn't make much sense, especially if you talk to any mums who've had kids in 3rd world countries.
I did use some aspects of attachment parenting technique with my daughters, but lagatta has a point here. If you go to the extreme end of the scale, you do cease to have an existence and certainly begin to lose yourself to your role as mother/universe. I've seen relationships falter and some fail in the face of this. Not everything the La Leche League folks promote is balanced or a good idea.
I'd also like to note that every chapter of LLL is a little different, so one group may be far more fanatical about baby-wearing and co-sleeping, for example, than another.
I think, like with most things, you need to have a balance, and I think this is what lagatta's trying to express here. You need to be able to still have a sense of yourself outside your role as mother. And while I'm not denying the wonderfully positive emotional side of nursing your baby (seriously, I can get misty-eyed just thinking about it), there is a point where continued overdependence on nursing for emotional comfort (this refers to both mother's and child's) is not a positive thing for either mum or baby.
Two sides to every coin, and moderation is the key. I think that ought to be my limit of cliche for the day... [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2008-08-09 09:20
#18
TemporalHominid
quote:
Vancouver teacher Erin Tarbuck told CBC News she was nursing her 11-month-old son on a recent [url=http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/08/06/bc-breast-feeding-cover-up-w... Jet[/url] flight as the plane was preparing for takeoff, when a flight attendant asked her to cover up.
Sat, 2008-08-09 09:55
#19
Yes, Timebandit, that is exactly what I meant to say. I support women's right to breastfeed anywhere they want - and anywhere the baby wants - and it is good for babies in many, many ways - but I'm very, very wary of "essentialist" feminism.
Sat, 2008-08-09 09:56
#20
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]Yes, Timebandit, that is exactly what I meant to say. I support women's right to breastfeed anywhere they want - and anywhere the baby wants - and it is good for babies in many, many ways - but I'm very, very wary of "essentialist" feminism.[/b]
Yes.
Sat, 2008-08-09 10:18
#21
Timebandit
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]Vancouver teacher Erin Tarbuck told CBC News she was nursing her 11-month-old son on a recent West Jet flight as the plane was preparing for takeoff, when a flight attendant asked her to cover up.[/b]
This sort of thing really riles me. It's one thing to ask if you can bring a blanket, but quite another to bring it if it is refused.
I breastfed on planes quite a lot after my first baby was born and I can't recall anyone making an issue of it. The only way you can see anything is if you stand directly over the breastfeeding woman, anyway. Personally, feeding under a blanket never worked well for me -- too hot and neither of my babies liked the suffocating feeling of having to breathe under a cover.
I'm surprised at WestJet's handling of the incident. Their service and PR are generally quite good.
Sat, 2008-08-09 10:51
#22
I wonder what the state of the debate is for our mouthbreathing cousins to the south. Considering how they lost their minds over Janet Jackson's nipple...
Sat, 2008-08-09 10:52
#23
remind
Excellently put Timebandit, regarding hyper breast feeding well beyond the point where it is benefical, to either the child, or the mother.
Have 2 ancedotal observations about hyper breasting and co-sleeping.
1. A family of women in my home community breast feed until their children went to kindergarden, the kids who seriously stop playing and run into grab a slurp, they used it as a crutch, and that was evident to us children who were their age. And interestingly all the women, yes all, in the family in later years got breast cancer and died while in their 40's. Which is something, hyper breast feeding I mean, I have often thought should be studied with greater depth.
2. A former friend of mine, breast fed too long, as well as co-slept with her first child. Her, and later his, life became a nightmare because of it. The child absolutely believed as long as he was the room, no one else could interact with anyone else except with him, and he was ALWAYS, in the room. How this translated into Grade 1 was horrific, he would not let the teacher interact with any other children, and would get forecful with both the teacher and the others students, if the teacher did. He did not leave Grade 1 until he was 9 going on 10.
Sat, 2008-08-09 11:35
#24
Personally, I know nothing about Le Leche and did not seek support for breastfeeding my children, or having them sleep in my bed, beyond my partner and midwives. In fact, my family fully believed that breastfeeding was nonsense and having an infant in my bed was "gross and disgusting", as they were fond of telling me. But then, I was also told that giving birth at home was abusive.
Clearly each and every situation is different. I think that is the point to which we are all offering respect. I'm not sure I follow the causative line in remind's anecdotes. Many anecdotes were offered to me during my pregnancy to scare me off home birth -- alarmist in nature, at best, everyone's friend's/sister's/cousin's/neighbour's/etc. baby would have died without hospital intervention. I too might have concerns with overly-extended periods of breastfeeding, though I cannot think of a situation in my experience where this applies and so, at this moment, could not put some timeline on this. Obviously breastfeeding a child changes all your relationships in the world, including the one you have with yourself. But, then, having the baby in the first place has done this. With effort and care and planning I do not think other spheres of our lives have to suffer. I think there are strong social pressures to split ourselves/our lives into distinct functions, and I just don't get that so much. I am a partner, I am sexual and sensual, I am a mother, breastfeeding or not, I am a labourer, I am a solid friend, I am a kickass kettlebell instructor, I am a person who passionately enjoys many pursuits, I am a person with a strong meditation practice. There is a natural waxing and waning, of which I am always mindful, in the many roles and aspects of me (of all women). These are all ANDs in our lives. I work at integrating my paid work and my family life and my pursuits. Not always easy, but I got so tired of these spheres being considered and treated separately. A social milieu which supports breastfeeding women, among many other things, is about that integration as well as about the health of the child, the relationship between the child and parent, and the rights of the woman.
[ 09 August 2008: Message edited by: WendyL ]
Sat, 2008-08-09 11:47
#25
'hyper breastfeeding' -- is this when breastfeeding becomes pathological, like in a DSM IV category? At what point is that? Is there diagnostic criteria? Who gets to decide? Clearly, only a disorder exhibited by women...
Sat, 2008-08-09 12:07
#26
remind
WendyL, this is a definition of "hyper"
quote:
Hyper-: Prefix meaning "high, beyond, excessive, above normal"
Most of the health sciences around this topic suggest children should receive breast milk until about 2 years old. And my personal viewpoint is that normal is anywhere from 6 months to 2 years.
The benefits to children from breastfeeding are too great to stop before 6 months, so if one is going to breastfeed, and can successfully, one really should until at least 6 months.
The are a lot of "hyper" health/body oriented things women have, that men do not, and it is not sexist, nor biased to use the term, nor to understand this is just the way it is because we are women.
[ 09 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Sat, 2008-08-09 12:16
#27
Thanks remind. But its 'hyper breastfeeding' to which you referred and which perplexes me.
Sat, 2008-08-09 12:32
#28
remind
WendyL, I realized after the fact that you would need more, so I was doing the edit, during your last post to clarify, please see edit.
Sun, 2008-08-10 04:00
#29
Yes, the health sciences around breastfeeding does recommend 6-24 months; these recommendations change regularly and are generally based on larger politics more than anything else. Given that the current recommendation agrees with your own point of view, remind, does not make the recommendation any sounder than those of the past or those to come.
So, by this logic, deviation from the 6 - 24 month marker is either hypo or hyper breastfeeding? And, I do mean do use the word deviation as now we are in the territory of pathologizing breastfeeding [and you are correct about so many other aspects of women's bodies/beings being pathologized -- are in you for that?]. So, straying from the 'normal' as indicated in the definition of hyper (and hypo) causes young boys to have adjustment problems in school and women to die of breast cancer? And, I'm sure untold tragedies and dysfunctions.
Now, having a 6 - 24 month time frame, makes it an easy task to predict and trace the over/under breastfed syndrome related problems of individuals and society. This seems to be the drift in this thread.
[ 10 August 2008: Message edited by: WendyL ]
[ 10 August 2008: Message edited by: WendyL ]
Sun, 2008-08-10 06:03
#30
Surely the baby should take the lead in determining the length of breast-feeding. My older daughter breast-fed past three years (just to get to sleep towards the end), while my younger stopped abruptly at eighteen months. I made a couple of attempts to wean the older one sooner, but it was too traumatic for her, and so I just let her make up her own mind, and eventually she told me she was too old to nurse.
I agree with remind about nursing six-year-olds. But I'd say, given the rise in allergies and obesity among children, that not nursing long enough is more of a problem in our culture than nursing too much.
Sun, 2008-08-10 07:40
#31
remind
WendyL you completely blew past my remarks about the norm being up to 2 years old, and reset the end mark both for myself and health sciences, as 1 year.
Please do not shift what I say to what you want to read, or read in. And I have no idea what you are speaking about in regards to your reference to 2-6 months.
There is no pathological, as in DMV, reality attached to the words hypo/hyper. All it it means is less than or more than what is normally done by women who breast feed. The average durations are between 6 months and 2 years, outside of the average duration that most women breastfeed is hyper or hypo. It is simply of way of saying that, with having to create a huge sentence to identify what you are saying, and then put forth other remarks.
And normal/average, in the medical health world, itself has a sliding scale of higher or lower indicies, because all people have their own normal. That is why; let's say 1 pulse, or BP taking is of no diagnostic use unless the rates are hyper, or hypo to scientifically determined normal averages.
I hope that clarifys my use of said term.
Now recent studies have shown that children breast fed past 6 months have higher cognative abilities, than those children fed less than 6 months. (Won't even go into immune benefits as they are well documented.)
Some scientists say it is the floride in tap water that people use to make formula that is causing formula fed children to have lower cognative scores than breast fed, while others scientists say it could be the ammino acids and/or the fats in breast milk that cause higher cognative scores.
It could even be breast babies have higher cognative abilities because of the extra contact bonding with the mother.
The fact remains we do not know.
Studies to determine what is up with breast feeing takes nothing away from the woman, as as far as I am concerned, a woman's breast are her own to do with what she wants, breast feed or not breast feed. I have no judgement call either way. For me it is just another element of self determination, and freedom of conscience and privacy. What happens in the breast feeding scenario is a personal decision on the part of the woman.
I was breast fed, and I breast fed, as did my daughter, however my sister felt her breasts were her own and not the babies and she did not.
Her 2 children are very smart and have extremely good cognative skills, and do not seem to have suffered from no breast feeding. However, there was also no floride in the water she used. Nor did their immune system seem to suffer for not being breast fed.
IMV, further studies are needed in determing what is up with breast feeding, and indeed bottle feeding, so that women can make more informed choices, for themselves, either way, and without judgement from anyone else.
Sun, 2008-08-10 10:50
#32
Timebandit
Hm. I don't think you can tie breast cancer to extended breast feeding. Most of the studies out there indicate that breast feeding in general reduces the chances of contracting breast cancer, but if there is a prevalence for breast cancer in a family, I'd be more inclined to think genetics are at work moreso than breastfeeding. But of course lifestyle and genetics work together, so who knows.
I also think remind's example of the boy who has attention-seeking issues probably has a number of factors besides the extended co-sleeping and nursing. Maybe they are symptoms of a larger problem.
I wouldn't put a specific age limit on breastfeeding, necessarily. Let's just say that remind is correct that between 6 mos and 2 yrs is "usual" rather than "normal".
I do know, however, when a child can't get through a play date at 4 yrs old without stopping for a boob break, there is something else at work, and I do have to question whether other skills in self-soothing should be taught at that point. The question is, is the child developing socially in a "normal" way? Is the continued breastfeeding in this way really beneficial anymore? Again, there are other factors that probably result in the continued dependence on the breast.
Maybe I'm not all that respectful and I guess you couldn't pin me as non-judgemental. On the other hand, I don't think any of us are, entirely. If respect means I don't lecture people on the gospel of childrearing according to Timebandit, I can do that -- but if it means I don't say "Wow, that's weird" to myself on occasion (okay, fairly frequently), that may be too much to ask.
If you bottle feed, I'm not going to comment. It's none of my business. Just don't ask me to express that it's equivalent to breastfeeding, because I won't. If you breastfeed until the age of 5, well, I won't comment there, either. Still none of my beeswax. I will think it's unecessary, odd and something I wouldn't choose to do with my kids, but I would never volunteer that thought. If that's judgemental, so be it.
Sun, 2008-08-10 11:44
#33
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
[b]Hm. I don't think you can tie breast cancer to extended breast feeding. Most of the studies out there indicate that breast feeding in general reduces the chances of contracting breast cancer, but if there is a prevalence for breast cancer in a family, I'd be more inclined to think genetics are at work moreso than breastfeeding. But of course lifestyle and genetics work together, so who knows.[/b]
Over use of anything in the body causes damage to that which is being over used, and that is a fact. I believe studioes need to be done in this area to find out threshholds.
quote:
[b]I also think remind's example of the boy who has attention-seeking issues probably has a number of factors besides the extended co-sleeping and nursing. Maybe they are symptoms of a larger problem. [/b]
No, it wasn't, it actually took him 3 years to realize the world was not about him, as it had been for 5 years of his life, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week.
quote:
[b]If that's judgemental, so be it.[/b]
I do not think it is. It is your own opinion, kept to yourself and not infringed upon others choices.
Sun, 2008-08-10 12:55
#34
remind
I apologize for my mix up in numbers -- morning postings after a late night out. I intended to reflect [i]your[/i] numbers: 6 months to two years. In all instances in my post, this is what I meant. I will edit the post to reflect that.
My point remains, regardless of these numbers. Sineed breastfed one child until three years of age -- was she hyper breastfeeding and putting her child at risk? According to remind, yes. But then Sineed finds age 6 to be the (or beyond the) acceptable cutoff. Therein lies the problem. (I agree with Sineed that the child should decide, as I allowed mine to do. What if your child wanted to still breastfeed at age 4, 5, or 6?)
I don't think I, or anyone on this board, is in a position to [b]judge[/b] women who breast feed less than 6 months or more than 2 years, and [b]that[/b] is precisely what was being expressed in the posts. My comments about DSM were facetious, obviously. DSM has not yet had the perverse wisdom to pathologize our breastfeeding, and I find it disconcerting to find such sentiments here.
Sun, 2008-08-10 14:16
#35
Timebandit
quote:
Originally posted by WendyL:
[b]My point remains, regardless of these numbers. Sineed breastfed one child until three years of age -- was she hyper breastfeeding and putting her child at risk? According to remind, yes. But then Sineed finds age 6 to be the (or beyond the) acceptable cutoff. Therein lies the problem. (I agree with Sineed that the child should decide, as I allowed mine to do. What if your child wanted to still breastfeed at age 4, 5, or 6?) [/b]
I don't think one necessarily has to stretch it out to "putting her child at risk", exactly. It's overly dramatic -- it makes it sound as though remind and I are saying that breastfeeding beyond 2 yrs old is going to cause irreparable physical or psychological harm, and I don't think either of us has expressed that.
I think allowing the child to decide is a nice idea, but come on! We guide our children in so many ways, some of them unconscious to both mother and child. Nursing is no different. Because kids take their cues from us, if you have a mum who is very attached to nursing as a part of her own identity, you're going to have subtle indicators to the child that this is something that pleases mum, an encouragement to continue. Hell, we do it in other ways than nursing when we're not ready to let go, even if kidlet is ready to move into a new phase. Can she walk to school on her own? Sure. But until we're both ready for her to do that, she won't. We slowed down on nursing with both of mine when it was more about playing around than going to sleep or eating. We just played around while mummy kept her bra on, and it wasn't a problem for anybody. Not that I didn't, deep down, wish we could stay in that baby phase a little longer, but that was about me, not them.
So what if your child is still wanting the boob at 4, 5 or 6 years of age? Let's take the context of nursing periodically during the day at that age, because it does depend somewhat on context. Here's my take: If they are still dependent on the breast as a form of comfort, it is an indicator of two possible things. One, the child is extremely anxious about something and we need to figure out what it is and deal with it; or two, that my child hasn't learned enough age-appropriate ways of dealing with stresses and anxieties that are common in everyday life. Or maybe it's a combination of the two. Either way, there is a social/psychological development issue that needs addressing. Are you a good parent if you don't? I wouldn't feel that I was.
[ 10 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
Sun, 2008-08-10 14:29
#36
Timebandit
quote:
I don't think I, or anyone on this board, is in a position to judge women who breast feed less than 6 months or more than 2 years, and that is precisely what was being expressed in the posts.
I'm not sure why not. We judge parents who discipline by spanking, don't we? We judge parents who feed their kids junk food. We judge parents who don't teach their kids manners. We judge people on their political choices. We judge people on all sorts of bases all the time.
Personally, I think this non-judgemental schtick is fairly disingenuous. I mean, you're judging remind on her views in this thread, aren't you?
Sun, 2008-08-10 14:44
#37
I tend to agree with Timebandit. Breast-feeding is demonstrably superior.
Bottle-feeding is not an emancipating choice but has been sold to women as such by the people who make formula. In fact, it's more complicated, more expensive, requires a clean water supply, and ties the woman down more.
Sun, 2008-08-10 15:26
#38
remind
quote:
Originally posted by WendyL:
[b]I apologize for my mix up in numbers -- I intended to reflect [i]your[/i] numbers: 6 months to two years. [/b]
Thank you.
quote:
[b]What if your child wanted to still breastfeed at age 4, 5, or 6?) [/b]
Our children want to do a lot of things at those ages, do we let them just because they want to? In many, many instances if we did allow them to do whatever they wished, we would be being negligent of what is best for them, at the very least.
Look at the drinking of juice for example, kids at those ages, or at least many of them, would have juice constantly, do we let them and have their teeth rot out of their heads, and indeed cause damage to their permanent teeth? No!
quote:
[b]I don't think I, or anyone on this board, is in a position to [b]judge[/b] women who breast feed less than 6 months or more than 2 years, and [b]that[/b] is precisely what was being expressed in the posts. [/b]
No in fact it wasn't, what was being expressed was quite the opposite. What was being expressed was that it is individual choice.
It appears you have an emotional investment in this that is not affording you, your normal thoughful perspective on what others are saying.
quote:
[b]DSM has not yet had the perverse wisdom to pathologize our breastfeeding, and I find it disconcerting to find such sentiments here.[/b]
You did not find them. Again the DSM has nothing to do with the use of hyper/hypo, just as it doesn't with hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism, or hyperglycemic/hypoglycemic
[ 10 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Sun, 2008-08-10 23:50
#39
I don't think I have a "normal thoughtful perspective" any of the time, but thank you very much for offering me that benefit of your doubt remind.
And, of course we all judge, all the time, every day. We are, after all subjective beings. I didn't claim to be exempt from this at all, but I do appreciate that remark about being disingenuous.
And, as for my personal investment. Well, it seems it is not less or more than anyone else who continues to post on this topic. Do you need to know my breastfeeding history here? I don't think so but will say that my first child weaned herself at about 8 months of age and I weaned the second at about 14 months. Both experiences were positive for us all though for me there was a bittersweetness to cessation. So, I guess I am right there in that good ol' normal range according to the gospel of today (these were not the "norms" when I was breastfeeding, however).
Though becoming tedious, I'll state it one more time: who gets to decide what is normal and how is that applied? The ground is slippery.
'Nuff said.
Mon, 2008-08-11 06:16
#40
remind
quote:
Originally posted by WendyL:
[b]I don't think I have a "normal thoughtful perspective" any of the time, but thank you very much for offering me that benefit of your doubt remind.[/b]
Everyone has their [b]own[/b]individual "norm", as I said above.
quote:
[b]And, as for my personal investment. Well, it seems it is not less or more than anyone else who continues to post on this topic. [/b]
I do not really have a "personal" investment, I have personal interest in the health of it all. I.e. floride in water, corn syrup, and other additional sugars/fats in formula, impacts upon women who breastfeed, or who do not. What is benefical for the child and/or what isn't.
quote:
[b] Do you need to know my breastfeeding history here? I don't think so [/b]
Me either, I was thinking about your insistence that the DSM was behind the use of hypo/hyper, in health discussion terminology, when it isn't.
quote:
[b] So, I guess I am right there in that good ol' normal range according to the gospel of today (these were not the "norms" when I was breastfeeding, however). [/b]
There is no actual "gospel" of today, your stated age gradients, would/could have become part of the stats that indicates what, or how long women "usually" breast feed for. I will use usually as it seems you have a issue with the use of the word "normal".
quote:
[b]Though becoming tedious, I'll state it one more time: who gets to decide what is normal and how is that applied? The ground is slippery. [/b]
Again, at the risk of becoming tedious, I will say women who breast feed do. The "usual" range currently in use today is simply a number garnered from women who report to their Drs, or their children's Dr, how long they breast fed for.
Sat, 2014-10-04 14:55
#41
Probably the best place to look for a good first estimate of what is a healthy time to stop breast feeding would be ancient cultures like first nations that have had thousands of years of trial and error on the subject.
Sat, 2014-10-04 16:26
#42
Timebandit
Stephen, we all have thousands of years of trial and error in breastfeeding. Bottles are a relatively recent invention, and I think many First Nations women, like other North Americans, often choose bottle over breast.
Sat, 2014-10-04 16:26
#43
Timebandit
Whoops, double post.
Sun, 2014-10-05 13:34
#44
I always thought picking up a dialogue after a six year break like there had been no pause at all is kind of cool. My own far from expert as a male, thus observing from the sidelines feeling is that the huge majority of the time, this is successfully negotiated between mother and child depending on comfort level. Where a mother deems that it may be helpful there are supports out there from experienced older friends and relatives to formal supports.
Sun, 2014-10-05 13:58
#45
And the notion that one is the more natural way and therefore better doesn't help. The more important determinant is personal preference, and the pressures of real life. When our first was born the nurse was really heavy-handed and said "it's easy" even though her job was to help those mothers whose babies were not latching on. As the result of a number of factors, our eldest wound up being mainly bottle-fed.
Our second? Breast-fed. The only difference: a lighter pocket book and a chubbier baby in the first case.
A bit of a tangent: there was a piece on some CBC show this week about the fact that breast pump technology has changed little in the last 100 years
Sun, 2014-10-05 22:57
#46
Dr. Amy Tuteur, the Skeptical OB has some strong views. I don't quite agree with her, but put it here for the sake of the discussion.
Lactivism, like natural childbirth and attachment parenting, is a philosophy of privilege.
Specifically, privileged women shame the less privileged — women of lower socio-economic class and women of color — by insisting that their personal preferences are not merely normative, but actually morally superior.
Lactivism, in other words, is like driving a Volvo.
http://www.skepticalob.com/2014/09/breastfeeding-how-privileged-women-ma...
Dr. Tuteur is an anti-homebirth activist with whom I generally agree. But I think she's got it backwards here. The choice whether to breastfeed or formula feed is possible in countries where we have consistent access to clean water and the funds to buy formula.
It's formula-feeding that's privileged, not breastfeeding.
Sun, 2014-10-05 23:04
#47
Timebandit
Well. I don't like Tuteur at the best of times, but between the snottiness about breastfeeding and the shot about Volvos ( I'm on my second Volvo, both of which have been elderly and inexpensive), she can pretty much go fly a kite.
Sun, 2014-10-05 23:37
#48
Seriously. A Cadillac Escalade would be a more apt comparison, if she feels compelled to make some sort of automotive comparison, for some reason.
This thread seems to have evolved into an "agree to disagree" kind of place, where we have various views on the importance of breast feeding, but I think we all agree that shaming women into one choice or another is not on. Breast-feeding is pretty non-controversial anymore. My kids are now 16 and 19, and I breast-fed both of them quite flagrantly, daring anyone to challenge me. I was prepared to be an aggressive activist about my right to breast-feed wherever I chose and whenever my babies were hungry. But the only time anybody ever said anything was a lactation consultant who came up to me when I was in a restaurant, strugging to feed my squirming 5 month old and eat something myself at the same time. She said, "Thank you for breast-feeding in public. So many of my clients are too shy and won't do it. People like you make my job easier."
With regard to breast-feeding, our culture is in a good place.
Mon, 2014-10-06 03:44
#49
With regard to breast-feeding, our culture is in a good place.
Better, I am sure, and good to hear that. I think it may depend on the circles one moves in. And of course, it has only just been allowed on facebook, after how much complaint and well-deserved ridicule?
As for our culture generally I'd say - from my partner who works in the field of breast health - there is a way to go yet (though it's not as if that needs a professional opinion).
Mon, 2014-10-06 11:26
#50
Timebandit
Sineed, the Volvo shot was all about the crunchy-granola types who give birth at home. I think she's conflating breastfeeding with attachment parenting and homebirth, and pretty much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. [Disclosure - I've done both the breastfeeding and home birth, but probably not for the reasons Tuteur would assume.] And while there are some cases where all three occur, that's not the totality of people who breastfeed. I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in embracing some parts of attachment parenting and rejecting others - co-sleeping as a matter of course? Um, no - but the sling fricking saved my life and sanity (and possibly my second child) because I had four months of colicky baby who didn't ever want to be put down. And who wouldn't take a bottle, no matter how much we tried so that I could go out a few hours on my own, even after she got past the colic. Sometimes there are techniques that can be used - what I most disapprove of is anyone being pressured into adopting the techniques against their better judgment.
I suppose it's the derision and disdain that Tuteur has for people who have a different approach than she does that puts me off. She sure doesn't waste any energy attempting to understand where people who disagree with her are coming from, then she creates a straw attachment parent and attacks that - Volvo and all.
Mon, 2014-10-06 13:17
#51
co-sleeping as a matter of course?
Interesting. I think it is an individual matter (and I get that you are saying this), because I was locked in a crib and I don't think it hurt me, but I can't imagine how anyone would get any sleep with a newborn off in a crib. Our eldest spent his first three months sleeping in the crook of my arm. Both of ours were in our room - in the big bed, then in their own floor mat until they wound up in their own rooms.
This was around the time when one of the pediatric associations came out against co-sleeping. We found a wide range of opinion, including that some of the negative findings were based on parents who had sleep disorders, were overly medicated, or smoked or drank. Really, it came down to the fact that it worked for us. I know there was never any situation where kids woke up and we weren't immediately there, or that we were in any danger of rolling over on them. For one thing, when they were old enough we put them at the head, not anywhere they would wind up under covers.
Besides, not everyone can afford a safe crib,and this ain't Finland, where everyone gets a maternity kit that can be turned into one.
I get that there are different opinions, but does it warrant this?
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/11/is-it-time-to-rethink-co-sleeping
Like breastfeeding, to each their own, and the dictates of real life - not some unworkable ideal, or worse, terrorizing women.