Do babies really self wean at 12-18 months? - Page 3

[felix23]

Originally Posted by alegna

straighthaircurly- that's fascinating to me. Truly

Just to set it in my head, your ds who weaned at 12 months-

wasn't spoonfed?
was offered nursing often around the clock?
had no juice?
had no other milk?
had no other sucking? (pacifiers, sippy cups, bottles)
co slept?
was encouraged to nurse often without restrictions?

There's such huge variation, it's always interesting to hear of the cases on the ends of the spectrum.

-Angela

One of my younger sisters weaned at 12 months.

~ Mom hated introducing solid, so she did self-feeding
~ Offered nursing around the clock, she always refused
~ Had no juice
~ Had no other milk until she started losing vast amounts of weight and getting dehydrated because she wasn't nursing
~ No pacifiers, bottles, thumb, or any other kind of sucking
~ co-slept

She was encouraged to nurse for over a month, with her fighting and sceaming if my mom tried to get her to nurse.

[loraxc]

But the fact remains that what you described is weaning due to nursing strike, and not what people should expect from CLW.

Well, what WOULD you call it when a child strikes due to natural circumstances (sickness, injury to the mouth, etc--not mother-caused) but the strike cannot be broken no matter how hard mom tries? I don't think it's accurate to call that mother-led weaning. I emphatically did not want to wean.

Personally I used to think people were sort of fudging it too when they said their baby self-weaned at this age, but now I am less skeptical, for sure. Now, was I nursing in the "perfect" way to enourage SBF? No, but many people can't.

[loraxc]

I guess I also don't see why it matters beyond leading other people to expect similar experiences to yours anyway. I don't want women expecting babies to self wean at young ages. I don't want them hassling me because mine don't wean then or for years thereafter.

It's not a competition. It's not like they give out medals for CLW or tandem nursing or whatever. You do what works for you and your kids. Do it and don't feel guilty. Just don't call it by the wrong name, please. I feel the same way about "natural" births that include epidurals. That's a "vaginal birth," not "natural childbirth." Please label it properly, that's all.

Why does it matter? Because when people claim it's impossible for a child to selfwean before the age of 2 or 3 or whatever, they are denying the lived experiences of MANY women, not all of whom are ignorant of the benefits of EBF or of the possibility of breaking a strike. It's belittling, and it basically equates to "No, you're wrong about your own child, and I know better."

[Drummer's Wife]

Originally Posted by loraxc

Well, what WOULD you call it when a child strikes due to natural circumstances (sickness, injury to the mouth, etc--not mother-caused) but the strike cannot be broken no matter how hard mom tries? I don't think it's accurate to call that mother-led weaning. I emphatically did not want to wean.

that's a good question. sickness/incident/circumstantial-led weaning? Personally, I've said hospital-led weaning before for my own situation. It certainly wasn't child-led, which I had all intentions of doing but it also wasn't mother-led because I didn't have a choice as to whether or not to be drugged up and away from my LO's for 3 weeks.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by loraxc

Well, what WOULD you call it when a child strikes due to natural circumstances (sickness, injury to the mouth, etc--not mother-caused) but the strike cannot be broken no matter how hard mom tries? I don't think it's accurate to call that mother-led weaning. I emphatically did not want to wean.

I usually call it situational weaning. I don't know if I read that or came up with it...

-Angela

[GoBecGo]

But then if it doesn't matter then why even label it? The baby weaned. To me i would say "she's weaned".

It's only really relvant in a situation where help is being sought and even then the label isn't so useful because every situation is different. Most of my mainstream friends think i had a natural birth because i had DD at home, vaginally. BUt i knowi didn't because i used entonox and syntometrine during my 2nd stage and 3rd stage respectively. I have never withheld this info, but i also dn't see what difference their misunderstanding makes to anything...? Surely it is only eally relevant to the mama and the child how the weaning occurs, and it is very unlikely a mama would post here for help with a nursing strike and be told it was BLW.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

But then if it doesn't matter then why even label it? The baby weaned. To me i would say "she's weaned".

IMO it matters because of cultural norms. If people go around saying that 7 mo self weaned, it spreads mis-information. Babies can't self wean. They DO wean for a thousand reasons, but it's not CLW.

Same thing for MOST babies/toddlers between 12 and 18 months.

-Angela

[GoBecGo]

Yes, i get that, but what i mean is, why anyone label? It just seems a shame that people delineate at all i guess. But then, I know someone who says their 4 month old weaned by choice, to me that's impossible, because if she'd offered no aternative it would have come back to the breast, but equally i did give my 18 month old watered down juice and to me breastmilk is the main food for 12-14months, then solids are main food so i would feel strange restricting solids or juice in order to keep BFing.

Given the listed criteria above (no juice, no other pacifiers, no other sucking, etc. etc.) i can say that of over 30 kids i know who BFed until beyond their 2nd birthday, with over half beyond their third, not one was a CLW. There was always another factor, be it juice, pregnancy, whatever. I don't know anyone whose kid weaned independently of other things. Surely those kids are rather rare?

[alegna]

Then you get into philosophy CLW is an idea. Some hold it as an *ideal* idea. Some have it just as an idea.

Personally, I see the benefit, but I think that appropriate-term MLW can be great too. The thing is appropriate term. I feel that 2 yrs is the minimum for breastfeeding as a rule. Even pro-breastfeeding sources in the US tend to say that 12 months is the minimum. I think that's an issue that needs to be changed in our society.

-Angela

[GoBecGo]

See i think people are generally more driven by necessity than philosphy in their actions. In Pakistan the average nursing relationship is 23 months (the longest in the world in the last international collation of such info) and when questioned about it mothers said they all knew babies and children who died without having milk for at least 18-20 months. They know it is a necessity, so it is not questioned. Whereas in literal terms it isn't a necessity to breastfeed in the UK (where i am) because practically no-one knows a baby who died because of being formula fed.

I don't know anyone who would choose not to breastfeed if formula was totally unavailable. If it was the only thing one COULD do they would all do it. Likewise if disease of water-supplies and/or infected/out-of-date-poor quality formulas were al that was available and it was commonplace to see FF babies fail and die people would think harder about it. In the absence of that i think people abandon philosophy so easily. Yes, many people live by their philosophies or morals, but most would or do abandon them if pushed hard enough (i.e. most vegetarians would eat meat if the choice was imminent death, because starvation brings on changes in the brain which allows (or causes, depending on which you think is more important, ideals or life) people to act very out-of-character in order to survive, the Gentlest of mothers would kill to prevent her baby being killed, lots of people abandon or relax their morals just because they had a drink or a joint!).

I basically think humans are needs driven and not philosophy driven, which might be very cynical of me! We (as a species) do what we NEED to do in the main.

[LadyCatherine185]

: