not too happy with this - Page 7

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by savithny 

Once again, the linked article "proving" pumping is inferior does not in fact say that. It doesn't rank the options, or provide handy numbered list of holiness. In fact, it talks about global strategies for ensuring that the children of working mothers get breastmilk.
I have repeatedly gone looking for the "evidence" for the numbered ranking of from-the-breast, pumped-in-bottle, donor milk, formula. I chased down citation after citation. None of them say what anti-pumped milk advocates insist they say. I have read just about everything WHO has put out on the subject at this point, and time and again I see them misquoted by people.
Everyone cites WHO. The article they cite most commonly is referring specifically to premature babies born in refugee camps or other tenuous sanitation scenarios. And it does not rank the breastmilk options in order, either!
So if lll is going to tell people that pumped milk is a second best choice? I'd like to actually see the evidence that it is based on?

This is the question that I felt deserved a response and why I went looking for myself. 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Ok, Pickle, I read through them. Based on these studies and ones like them, does LLL and WHO have an official position on expressed milk?  Is it a policy of LLL to promote the benefits specifically of nursing from the breast? Perhaps more so than some mothers realize? Perhaps this is why we see quite a few people on this thread feeling like they were not supported by LLL. I recognize that this is a very tricky bit of activism. 

[ameliabedelia]

I've been a member of LLL for a long time and been involved in different groups in 5 different states.  The very first LLL group I ever joined was an evening meeting (I was pregnant and working at the time) and my experience is that many major cities do offer both daytime and evening meetings (to accommodate working mothers).   I've seen Saturday meetings offered, which are also meant to cater to working moms.   LLL in smaller towns may not be able to offer evening meetings if there aren't enough leaders, but many major cities do offer evening meetings which often attract and cater to working mothers.

LLL does provide information on the benefits of nursing directly from the breast AND on pumping/expressing and combining nursing with work/school.  Clearly expressing milk is double the work as just breastfeeding, so it seems most practical to direct mothers to straight breastfeeding and pumping/expressing only when necessary (ie. when mother is away from baby).   However, in my experience, LLL is extremely supportive of working moms and pumping....but they also encourage those moms to do straight breastfeeding when with their baby and give information about reverse cycling, etc.

I believe the official LLL position is that mothers should do straight breastfeeding when they are with their babies and pump/express when they are separated.

Also, as far as the hierarchy of milk (straight breastfeeding, expressed milk, donor milk, formula)..honestly I think that is just common sense and we don't need a study to tell us that *some* of the benefits of breastfeeding are lost when the milk is pumped and given in a bottle.  These benefits include bonding (although obviously parents who use bottles can still bond but it would the same as formula in the bottle), the ease of breastfeeding (pumping/bottle feeding is double the work since you have to pump and then feed the baby and then deal with the bottles), proper/mouth jaw formation (which comes from actual suckling) and no risk of overfeeding.  Furthermore, it is the actual act of breastfeeding (baby's saliva on mother's nipple) which stimulates specific antibody production to germs that baby has been exposed to (although germ exposure could also happen through kissing hte baby, baby sneezing/coughing on mom, etc.)

Even just the ease factor is enough to promote straight breastfeeding *when possible*  IMO as pumping/expressing is a lot of work and not as enjoyable as actual nursing (since many mothers, once they get past any initial problems in the beginning weeks do find breastfeeding to be relaxing/enjoying, but most mothers do not enjoy pumping).

Also, since we know that a mother's milk changes nutritionally over time as a baby grows and the nutritional content is different at 2 days, vs. 2 weeks, vs. 2 months, vs. 2 years...it makes sense that a baby would be "best" off with milk from his/her own mother which is the exact age, vs. donor milk unless they were able to match the ages up pretty closely.  Not to mention, the immulogically a mother is likely to be exposed to the same germs as her baby...even when the baby is separated from the mother at times which stimulates antibody production, but the same would not hold true for donor milk.
 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia 

I believe the official LLL position is that mothers should do straight breastfeeding when they are with their babies and pump/express when they are separated.

I like this wording. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia 

Also, as far as the hierarchy of milk (straight breastfeeding, expressed milk, donor milk, formula)..honestly I think that is just common sense and we don't need a study to tell us that *some* of the benefits of breastfeeding are lost when the milk is pumped and given in a bottle. 

For me, I think we do need studies if "we" are going to focus on a hierarchy.  Because, there are some obvious benefits of direct BFing but there are also some obvious benefits to EBM. The benefits do not make the heirarchy obvious, not to me. That is my whole point in posting here. Also, if LLL focuses on this hierarchy and quote the WHO as having developed this system (link??), it needs to be linked and explained. The WHO article linked, while wonderful, is a global strategy and some of the issues do not apply well to many of the women  in the US (if that is where most of us are posting from).  In one place they don't distinguish between direct feeding and EBM. In another place they allude to direct BM being better but it's pretty vague. 

I was trying to come up with an analogy and the one I can come up with is childbirth. There are studies that show some benefits to a great number of childbirth choices. Many have to do with the benefit of the child as expressed at LLL. To my knowledge, we are able to discuss the benefits and risks of these things without focusing on a heirarchy. 

With that said, I think I've probably made my point ten times over and do kind of regret getting off on this tangent. I'll leave the rest for another thread. 

[ameliabedelia]

The WHO article linked, while wonderful, is a global strategy and some of the issues do not apply well to many of the women  in the US (if that is where most of us are posting from). 

Certainly they don't apply all the time, but in an emergency situation they could.  For example, after Hurricane Sandy, many people were without power for quite a long time...which would make pumping (if you use an electric breast pump), sterilizing bottles, etc. quite difficult.

Anyway, I agree that what is useful in other countries isn't necessarily useful in the US, but I do think the hierachy "language" can be useful for feeding method while it isn't so much in childbirth because generally feeding method involves more "choice" than childbirth does. Obviously, sometimes things happen that takes away a mother's choice (she has low milk supply or a baby that can't latch). but public health is meant to focus on the masses and for most mothers there is a choice involved..they can choose to breastfeed or not, they can choose to pump at work or have the caregiver use formula.  Using donor milk isn't always choice (or a practical one for many mothers), but the other choices are.

I also think studies comparing direct nursing to exclusively  feeding expressed breastmilk would be VERY hard (which is why there really aren't any) to do because the number of mothers who exclusively feed pumped milk for any length of time (past a few weeks I'm guessing) is extremely small.  I did know one mother who did it with her first (with her second she was able to breastfeed directly) and I admire her greatly for it. It was A TON of work, and honestly if I had a baby that couldn't latch, I'm not sure if I would be up for that.

Since pumping/bottle feeding is more difficult and more work, it makes sense from a public health standpoint to encourage direct breastfeeding as mothers are more likely to continue directly breastfeeding long-term than they are to continue exclusively pumping.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia 

Anyway, I agree that what is useful in other countries isn't necessarily useful in the US, but I do think the hierachy "language" can be useful for feeding method while it isn't so much in childbirth because generally feeding method involves more "choice" than childbirth does.

But as far as I can tell the hierarchy language is not endorsed by WHO. They are VERY tactful when it comes to working mothers and they do not seem to focus on this hierarchy nearly as much as it has been implied. They don't (as far as I can find) even use the word hierarchy, which is something that is implied all over the web...but never on their site. Perhaps BFing advocates don't see any issue with the language of "hierarchy" but it seems problematic to me. ESPECIALLY, if this focus is not coming from advocacy groups (as is claimed) but from individual leaders interpreting policy. 

[rightkindofme]

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia 

Also, as far as the hierarchy of milk (straight breastfeeding, expressed milk, donor milk, formula)..honestly I think that is just common sense and we don't need a study to tell us that *some* of the benefits of breastfeeding are lost when the milk is pumped and given in a bottle.  

Errr, actually I'm not ok with "just common sense" being what decides the direction for massive propaganda pushes. That never goes well.

[*GreenMama*]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

But as far as I can tell the hierarchy language is not endorsed by WHO. They are VERY tactful when it comes to working mothers and they do not seem to focus on this hierarchy nearly as much as it has been implied. They don't (as far as I can find) even use the word hierarchy, which is something that is implied all over the web...but never on their site. Perhaps BFing advocates don't see any issue with the language of "hierarchy" but it seems problematic to me. ESPECIALLY, if this focus is not coming from advocacy groups (as is claimed) but from individual leaders interpreting policy. 

The hierarchy is NOT endorsed by/discussed at LLL meetings, if that is your worry. I've never been to a meeting in 3 states where it has come up. LLL meets moms where they are to achieve their on personal breastfeeding/pumping goals. I merely pointed out that breastfeeding straight from the breast being the idyllic first choice is not an exclusive thought from LLL, but also by the WHO. I'm sorry if anything I posted sounded otherwise. It was my ill-put wording.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by *GreenMama* 


 I merely pointed out that breastfeeding straight from the breast being the idyllic first choice is not an exclusive thought from LLL, but also by the WHO.  

I'm still not seeing this on the WHO site. It's just not my "read" on the information provided and the additional information I was able to find.

This section seems to imply that expressing milk is considered breastfeeding: 

Quote:

Women in paid employment can be helped to continue breastfeeding

by being provided with minimum enabling conditions, for example

paid maternity leave, part-time work arrangements, on-site crèches,

facilities for expressing and storing breast milk, and breastfeeding

breaks

This section does imply a hierarchy but this is the only thing I could find and it is not a focus of the article: 

Quote:

The vast majority of mothers can and should breastfeed, just as the

vast majority of infants can and should be breastfed. Only under

exceptional circumstances can a mother’s milk be considered unsuitable for her infant. For those few health situations where infants cannot, or should not, be breastfed, the choice of the best

alternative – expressed breast milk from an infant’s own mother,

breast milk from a healthy wet-nurse or a human-milk bank, or a

breast-milk substitute fed with a cup, which is a safer method than

a feeding bottle and teat – depends on individual circumstances.

But nowhere do they imply a "gold standard" or an idyllic way of administering BM. They talk a lot about "appropriate feeding" and their words are carefully chosen (imo) to avoid a hierarchy. 

However...

Quote:

Originally Posted by *GreenMama* 


The hierarchy is NOT endorsed by/discussed at LLL meetings, if that is your worry.

I'm not so sure why I was so personally stressed about the concept of LLL endorsing a hierarchy of BFing but your comment is very much appreciated. And a relief to read. Thank you for your clarity. 

[Roxswood]

In terms of benefits of feeding directly from the breast as opposed to feeding EBM from a bottle, the act of feeding from a bottle rather than a breast can cause mouth formation differences which can cause dental problems, teeth misalignment and sleep apnoea in later life. http://www.brianpalmerdds.com/bfeed_oralcavity.htm 

Its not just about the milk. 

That said, pumping is an incredible thing to do for your child. For some it is the only way they can feed the baby breastmilk at all. EBM is so so far superior to formula, especially if fed fresh and in the order it was expressed. It can be extremely hard work to maintain supply longterm while pumping, and I have nothing but admiration for those who manage it. 

LLL need to give mothers accurate information and sometimes a slightly badly worded sentence can be interpreted by a mother as focusing on the negatives when in fact they meant very much to say be aware of these problems you may have, but massive respect to you for trying. 

Meetings with multiple mothers can be difficult to manage. Only the leaders in a meeting speak for LLL, there will often be mothers at a meeting saying things that are not endorsed by LLL in any way, in all directions. I've been at meetings where some mothers are encouraging everyone to give a bottle of formula at night to help them sleep and the leaders have had to try desperately to find a way to phrase the risks of this to other mothers without offending the one suggesting it, or diminishing her own efforts to feed her baby on breastmilk 90% of the time. Its a tricky job. 

I've also been to other breastfeeding groups here in the UK that were so watered down in terms of support that there was no evidence based information being given, just coffee and a chat and still mothers sometimes went away upset because they came with a certain idea of what they would like to do and someone said something else. We are very vulnerable when we have new babies, thats not our fault, but its also unrealistic to expect that nobody will ever say something that upsets us at that point. 

Within LLL, as in every other area of life, sometimes individuals fall short of their ideals. That is human and normal, but it doesn't mean the ideals are wrong. 

Edited by Roxswood - 12/29/12 at 7:28am

[Sustainer]

I've been away for a while and now there is a lot to respond to...

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

So according to you my friend is lying. Right.

No, I didn't say your friend is lying.  *sigh*

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I said, "Every LLL is defined by the people in that location. LLL very deliberately hunts for very impassioned people." and that turned into people complaining that this is a general bashing LLL thread? Really. Yeah. Ok, I'll move on with my life.

 

No, that is not the comment that made people feel that LLL was being bashed in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alenushka 

Of course bottle and fathers have place in feeding of infants. If it was not for bottles, my husband and dad I would ahve never graduated from college and I would be making $7.50 in hour. How great would that be for my kids? Not so much.

I only make about $15/week from my part-time, out-of-home job, because I decided the best thing for my children was for me to be home whenever they aren't in school.  I decided it was more important than having "stuff."  We live in a little trailer with the food necessary to survive.  I'm not saying everyone has to make the same choices I do.  I'm just challenging the idea that not having much money is always the worst thing for kids.

Originally Posted by Alenushka 

My Medela allowed me to have a life and not feel like a nursing mammal all the time.

 

The few times that I pumped was when I felt like a cow being milked.  When I breastfed, I just felt like a mother.  Again, that's just me.  Nothing wrong with pumping.  So much better than formula.  Definitely worth the effort.

Originally Posted by savithny 

I do regret calling LLL in my area to try to find a meeting, because I was told they didn't have any meetings any other day than weekday mornings, and that helping women figure out working  and breastfeeding was not a goal the organization was interesting in supporting.  Fortunately, I found online help with the issues I was having with pumping, and was able to be successful -- but it was absolutely no thanks to LLL.  I was feeling great about being able to negotiate part-time work with benefits, until I called LLL and was directly told that I was Mothering Wrong

 

Again, are those the exact words that were used?  LLL said "You are mothering wrong"?  It is not true that LLL, as an organization, is not interested in helping women figure out working and breastfeeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emaye 

From a public relation perspective, I think the LLL has a problem.  If its supporters are having to defend it to members of the public (us) who theoretically agree with its basic mission, then I think the organization should check itself, no?  

Not necessarily, because many of the statements that are being made (that "not wanting a bottle in an ad is extremism") are ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emaye 

Hence the apt comparison to PETA.  Not too many people take PETA seriously anymore. 

Again, LLL is NOTHING LIKE peta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emaye 

I feel like there is a backlash building against the LLL. This should concern the organization.  

What should concern them is that there seems to be a growing number of people who don't recognize the importance of breastfeeding, or who think that bottlefeeding is *just as good* as breastfeeding, or who think that the *ideal* baby-feeding situation is for half the baby's feedings to come from a father with a bottle.  This means that LLL needs to *dial up* the rhetoric, not tone it down.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModerateMom 

Some babies don't have mothers.  Some babies don't have biological mothers.  Some babies have mothers who can't produce enough breastmilk.  Some babies have mothers who work.  Some babies have mothers who have psychological reasons that they can't nurse.

Babies need to be fed.  Period. 

No, not period.  The simple fact that a baby is being fed does not mean that all of the baby's needs are being met.  Obviously if a baby doesn't have a mother, then the baby still needs to be fed.  But if the baby is not being breastfed by the baby's mother, then the baby is not getting everything that the baby is supposed to have.  It is rare for a mother not to be able to produce enough milk.  People (including doctors) tell mothers all the time that they are not producing enough milk, and it is usually untrue.  In the cases that it is true, usually there are things that can be tried to increase production.  In the rare cases that the mother still doesn't produce enough, the baby still needs to be fed, but if the baby is not being breastfed by the baby's mother, then the baby is not getting everything that the baby is supposed to have.  Ditto psychological reasons and other reasons.

Originally Posted by philomom 

As I said, these ladies were going to have me quit college, get divorced and get on welfare rather than pump or supplement for my child. 

Again, what do you mean "they were going to HAVE" you do those things?  All they can do is give advice, or say "these are the options I would consider in that situation."  They can't MAKE you do anything.  It is YOUR decision.

 

Originally Posted by ModerateMom 

I'm refuting the statement that "babies need to be fed by their mothers."  That's it.  LLL's job is to support breastfeeding, and that's fine, but to make a blanket statement that babies need to be fed by their mothers is simply incorrect. 

You have not managed to refute that statement.  Babies DO need to be fed by their mothers.  If they are not fed by their mothers, then not all of their needs are met.  They can be kept alive, but it is correct to say that if they are not fed by their mothers, then not all of their needs are met.

Originally Posted by MichelleZB 

But this thread isn't--and shouldn't be--about whether pumping and bottle feeding is ok. That isn't the issue. The LLL is simply trying to promote images of nursing to normalize nursing to the general public.

Once again I must agree with this statement.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18 

I'm just not sure how this devolved into "my area LLL sucks", talk of Nazis (?!), and defending life circumstances that may have led to bottlefeeding breastmilk.  

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18  

We all know that breastmilk from the breast is the best thing you can offer.  Pumped milk second.  Donor pumped milk third.  Formula a distant fourth.  

Correct.  Although I wouldn't phrase it this way.  Saying that breastfeeding is "best" can imply that formula is perfectly fine.  Breastfeeding is the standard.  Formula is sub-standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18  

So many people are shamed or excluded for breastfeeding at the actual breast!  Clearly, we need more imagery around this, and more information. 

Yeah that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emaye 

How could they not have seen that requesting an image of a father feeding his baby be edited would lead to such an uproar? 

Whether they anticipated a backlash or not, it was reasonable for them to recommend that the image of bottle feeding is not the best image to air.  LLL, as a breastfeeding advocacy organization, did the right thing.  It is the people uproaring who need to change, not LLL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emaye 

In this case it was a father (not an actor) feeding his own freaking baby.  To object to that image sent the organization into its own PR mess. 

And you say that as if it's exactly the same thing and just as wrong as if someone had objecting to the image of a mother breastfeeding her own freaking baby.  It is absolutely reasonable for LLL to say that an image of bottle feeding is not the image that needs to be promoted.  It's ridiculous for such a predictable recommendation to lead to a PR mess.  They're a breastfeeding organization.  

That said, LLL does not insist that every feeding always be from the breast.  They support mothers who pump.

Originally Posted by Emaye 

And holy cow!  I certainly don't go around telling pumping women it is better to have the babies feed directly from the breast! 

 

If they truly don't have that information, though, then it should be given to them.  I'm not saying it should be done in an accusatory manner.  I'm not saying we should walk up to mothers who are bottlefeeding breastmilk and say "you shouldn't do that!  You should breastfeed!"  But before the baby is born, when the mother is making the decision of how her baby will be fed, she should have all the information about the fact that breastfeeding is what the child needs and that everything else isn't as good.  (And that formula feeding isn't as good as pumping, etc.)  Then she can make an informed decision based on accurate information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18 

I'm saying, it's true that breastfeeding at the breast is best, followed by pumping and donor milk.  That is just a fact - not a judgment, a fact.  There are many emotional and nutritional benefits to nursing babies at the breast.

That said, what I'm absolutely *NOT* saying is that these gold, silver and bronze feeding choices make those who make them gold, silver or bronze mothers.

Exactly.

I agree.

Originally Posted by pickle18 

I believe that LLL should provide tailored, enlightened, one-on-one support for *all* mothers.  That doesn't mean they should compromise their core message - which is a feeding fact, not a mothering judgment.

Yeah that.

Originally Posted by pickle18 

Basically, I think LLL should meet mothers where they are, and provide support and information that is helpful for their situation.  I don't think LLL should guilt trip mothers who have made difficult choices, but neither do I believe LLL needs to water down the truth or distort reality to make mothers feel better about those choices.  

 

I agree.  

What many mothers do is feel guilty about their decisions and then accuse others of having "guilt tripped" them.

Originally Posted by Sharlla 

normal i guess if it's EBM and the mom is WOH.

And, as a lactivist, you're saying that a parent bottlefeeding should be considered JUST AS standard and JUST AS MUCH the norm as a mother breastfeeding??

Originally Posted by *GreenMama* 

 "breastfeeding first, then expressed milk, then donor milk, then formula" thing, again- not created by LLL, but scientifically evidenced base care. The most pertinent information is on page 17 of the doc, but the whole thing is a good read. It doesn't mean that if you don't follow it you are a bad mom. Not even close. It's just the nutritional facts, the same as reading the label on food and knowing what is a healthier option or not. Knowledge is power

 

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie 

And again, it comes down to the idea that feeding an infant is a bonding experience. Period. As a teenager, my first niece was born. I snuggled her endlessly, changed her diaper, played with her and was in seventh heaven. However, cuddling up on the couch and feeding her a bottle (of EBM, for the record) was, without a doubt, the most special moment we'd shared at that point. And it's not really something that can be properly put out into words, because yes, you can bond in other ways, but it's just not the same. I absolutely cannot imagine spending the first year of my child's life never getting to experience that feeling, of holding my sweet sweet baby and feeding him/her, looking each other in the eyes. All the baths and diaper changes in the world can't replicate it. I wouldn't dream of denying that to my partner

I was with you right up until you said you wouldn't dream of denying that to your partner.  You are absolutely right that the feeding bond is the strongest care-giving bond.  That's why fathers, grandparents, and other people envy it.  And Nature *means* for it to be the strongest care-giving bond.  And Nature means for it to the the bond that the MOTHER shares with the child.  I am a huge feminist (who is going to have an out-of-home career some day when my kids don't need me at home any more) and I am totally against sexism, but we need to let go of this idea that everything has to be made exactly equal between males and females.  The fact of the matter is that WOMEN are the ones who share the bonding experience of pregnancy with the baby, and women are the ones who share the bonding experience of birth with the baby, and women are the ones who are supposed to share the bonding experience of feeding with the baby.  And that's okay!  For you to say "I wouldn't DENY that to my partner" assumes that the default is that males and females share the experience equally.  And that's a bunch of boloney!  I'm sorry, but the truth is that men need to deal with the fact that Nature means for them to be contented with bonding experiences with children that are inferior to the sacred mother-child bonds.  Men get plenty of advantages to compensate, both from nature and from society.  It isn't fair to the BABY (shouldn't the baby be the most important person in the situation?) to try to make this "fair" to the father.  I suspect that it is this misguided male-female "everything should be exactly the same" notion that contributes to a lot of the decision making about feeding.  It isn't just "well I can't afford to stay home."  Finances are certainly a part of it.  I'm not saying they're not.  But in the back of a lot of minds there's this extreme and unnatural form of anti-sexism that plays a part, and it really bothers me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxswood 

We know that images of bottlefeeding in the media act to promote bottlefeeding. This has been studied for many years. In a discussion of breastfeeding and how it fits into family life bottles can have their place, but in a health promoting advertisement there was no need to normalise that image at all.

Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxswood 

In an ideal world breastfeeding would be the only images we would see in the media, while accurate information about how (and the reasons why) to bottlefeed safely should come from healthcare providers on a one to one basis as needed.

Yes.

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I reiterate that I think LLL does great and wonderful things. It is a very passionate and worthy organization. I don't feel that disbanding it is the right direction and I'm not upset about them promoting breastfeeding.

I also don't feel bad about referring to them as a zealous organization. I don't think they are fascists or Nazis--I think they are passionate. Sometimes passionate people have a hard time seeing the person they are interacting with and that means that sometimes individual leaders are overly intense. 

I don't think that means that any of them are bad or terrible. I think that it means that when a mom heads off to LLL she should keep in mind that leaders are just people and people vary in how wonderful they are. Keep in mind that you have to be your own advocate because LLL will not understand the full constellation of issues in your life.

I'm not *upset* about LLL asking for a bottle feeding image to be removed in the anti-smoking ad. But I don't think it is as necessary as they do. That's ok. I am not the public face for breast feeding. :)

Which is to say... I think the ability to criticize organizations is one of the most important things we can do. 

 

I don't disagree with any of this.  Thank you for providing one of the more reasonable posts on this thread.  :)

Originally Posted by MichelleZB 

Second grade? Aren't most kids in second grade six or seven? I doubt most LLL groups advocate that. Let's stop being silly.

 

It is perfectly fine for a child not to wean until age 6 or 7.  But LLL certainly doesn't insist that everyone breastfeed for this long.  I think the person who implied that LLL expects everyone to breastfeed that long was exaggerating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by savithny 

I would like to be able to support other working moms who want to feed breastmilk, and denigrating their choices isn't going to win any converts to the pumping cause.

Sigh.  Again, it isn't about denigration or judgment.  It's just facts.  Breastfeeding is the biological standard.  Bottlefeeding expressed milk isn't as good as breastfeeding.  Fact.  Bottlefeeding milk from a mother that is not the child's mother is not as good as feeding the child milk from the child's mother.  Fact.  Formula is greatly inferior to any of the above.  Fact.  No one in this thread is saying "if you can't directly breastfeed, it doesn't matter what you do."  If someone decides not to even bother pumping because she feels bad about not directly breastfeeding, she needs to own that choice.  She can't blame it on lactivists who provide facts.  For crying out loud, one of the facts we provide over and over is that formula is greatly inferior to pumping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

 Given how few women I know who make it to one year you just made her point for her.

 

What??  Whoa.  See, this is what I'm talking about.  This is the problem.  She just made her point for her?  This is how the conversation went:

(these are not direct quotes -- I'm paraphrasing:)

Poster 1:  LLL expects everyone to breastfeed until age 7

Poster 2:  Most children wean by age 4.

Poster 3 (You):  (wide eyed) Given how few women I know who make it to one year you just made her point for her.

The biological norm for a human to breastfeed ranges from two and a half to seven years.  It's fine for a child to breastfeed for 7 years, but LLL certainly doesn't expect everyone to do that.  The world-wide average age of weaning is 4.2 years.  Each of my children self-weaned at the age of four and a half years.  It is true that most American women do not breastfeed for more than a year.  HOW DOES THIS MAKE POSTER NUMBER ONE'S POINT??  And why should you respond with wide eyes to the fact that most children wean by age 4?  The mothers being judged here are the mothers who breastfeed for a natural amount of time.

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

My kids only nursed till 3 and 2. I'm obviously a slacker who doesn't care about them.

What??  Where on earth are you getting this?  Just because some children breastfeed longer than yours and LLL is okay with it, that means you've been accused of being a slacker who doesn't care about your kids??  WTH??

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I have friends who have bottle fed formula from day one.

I care that they are nice to their kids. That is what I want from LLL. 

 

You want a breastfeeding organization to only care that people are nice, and not care whether they breastfeed or feed formula from day one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I went twice and then didn't go back. When someone actively suggests that I don't care about my children because I need to wean well then I have no patience. 

It's hard for me to believe that they actually said this to you after you twisted the words of the people in this thread.

You read "most children wean by age 4" and then you basically said "so what you're saying is if I didn't breastfeed for at least 4 years I'm a slacker."  No.  That's not what we were saying at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

LLL is perfect and full of saints. 

Nobody said that.  You're getting defensive.

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

There ARE some foods that we consume that are improved nutritionally by the cooking process. 

It's true that some things -- like grains -- are more digestible to humans when cooked, but breastmilk is meant to be consumed right away and in its original form, so, yeah, it's more like apples.  This should be patently obvious to anyone as intelligent as you obviously are.  We mustn't allow emotion to cloud the issue.  Just because mothers might be upset by the fact that pumped milk is inferior to breastfeeding doesn't mean the fact should be held to a higher standard than other facts before it is accepted as accurate.

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

But doesn't volunteering to be a LLL and joining this group kind of obligate someone to be supportive to all mothers?  

 

Supportive of all *mothers,* yes -- but that doesn't mean LLL should convey the idea that *all choices* are equal -- that breastmilk and formula are equal -- that it doesn't matter whether you wean at 3 months or 18 months.  What would be the point of LLL if all they did was say "do whatever you want -- it makes no difference."

Sometimes I get the feeling that what some mothers want isn't an organization that provides breastfeeding support or accurate information.  What they want is an electric monk.  I apologize for the fact that only Douglas Adams fans will get that reference.  [Edited because I decided I should add a brief explanation.  An electric monk is an android that tells you that whatever you decided to do was/is right.  It makes people feel confident, comforted, and reassured.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

I think that when we post to an online discussion board we are basically agreeing to believe what the other person has to day.

I think that's an unreasonable standard that can lead to inaccuracy.  I tend to accept what people say at face value unless I have some reason to doubt their interpretation.  In some cases I have had reason to doubt the poster's interpretation.  That doesn't mean I think the poster is lying.  It's possible that they believe something that isn't necessarily true to the extent that they think it is.

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

I can see why a breastmilk bottle feeding family could wish to see some change in the policy against bottle imagery.

 

I see why they might *feel* that way emotionally.  Initially.  They hear that someone has objected to the image of a baby feeding from a bottle and their knee-jerk reaction is to feel attacked.  But if they think about it, they should realize that it's better not to promote images of bottle feeding and that refraining from promoting images of bottle feeding does not mean attacking people who sometimes use a bottle.  

I cannot truthfully say that I never stuck an artificial nipple in my child's mouth.  But I am definitely against supporting the practice as a norm by broadcasting images of it.

Sorry for the long post, and for breathing new life into issues that some may have hoped had been laid to rest.  :)

Edited by Sustainer - 1/25/13 at 1:36pm

[rightkindofme]

Actually I'm ok with saying: 

It's always refreshing to see what the uhm extremists think. That allows me to feel like a reasonable moderate. It is not an experience I am used to. On most topics I am the most extreme person in the room. 

Wow. It feels really interesting to watch extremists in action. Fascinating. 

I'll keep in mind that you don't believe me. I'll try to care but I'm pretty sure I'm out of care right now. Sorry.

[pickle18]

Thank you for looking through the links, IdentityCrisisMama!   I'm not sure anyone else did, but in summary, they listed many benefits over bottlefeeding breastmilk, including: proper oral development (diminished by bottlefeeding), improved immunology (resistance to diseases the child was very recently exposed to, instead of milk from a previous day), decreased risk of overfeeding (which can lead to lifelong issues with recognizing satiety), easy opportunity for extra skin-to-skin contact, and increased vitamin and antioxidant content (which diminishes based on storage method and duration).  This list doesn't even touch on many other emotional/psychological points, such as non-nutritive sucking, comforting a tantruming toddler, bonding and hormonal changes in the mother, etc. 

I am kind of surprised that in the lactivism forum we are debating whether breastmilk from the tap is better for babies than EBM in a bottle.    If we DON'T all know this, then mothers certainly should - so I agree with sustainer - this tells me LLL needs to step UP the info, not dial it down.  I think it's awesome most people around here know breastmilk is better than formula, which is surely a better average than the general public - but if you are making the decision to pump vs. breastfeed at the actual breast, you need accurate info to weigh the pros and cons of that trade-off for your family.

I am inclined to believe guilt is heavily at play in this denial - if you are confident in your decision to pump being the best thing for your family, why the angst over a breastfeeding organization (AND a public health program, remember) promoting breastfeeding at, oh I don't know, an actual breast?  THIS is the imagery we are lacking - there are TONS of feel-good bottlefeeding images flooding the market.

I think the huge jump from "it's a fact that breastmilk from the tap is best" to "if I'm not breastfeeding I'm OBVIOUSLY a slacker/horrible person/bad mother" is a little telling...and not at all what I (or many others) have tried to say. 

[pek64]

Dads have their own unique bond, being generally stronger. They are the defenders and the roughhousers and usually the one to encourage a timid child to take a risk with his supervision.

And no single group can provide the exact same level of support for every breastfeeding issue. That needs to be accepted, or more mothers are going to feel inferior or wrong. If a support group is not meeting your needs, find a different group. There's no need to say anything bad about the group that wasn't for you. Simply tell other mothers that the group "seemed to give better support for stay-at-hime moms than working moms" (or visa versa. Then let the other mom decide.

[KaylaBeanie]

When I'm in the position of not being able to leave my baby for more than 2 hours at a time for a year or more and my DP wishes for nothing more than to give me a day off and bond with his child one-on-one (the supposed privilege I'll get to experience day in and day out), I'll make sure to tell him that his employment totally makes up for missing out on that. 

I honestly feel this is the danger of activism, people not being able to empathize with others outside of their limited experience. If the average working American woman stumbled upon this conversation while pregnant with her first child, I feel confident that she would be driven to wash her hands entirely of the idea of breastfeeding. I know, because I'm someone who isn't a mother yet so I obviously haven't breastfed yet. Reading account after account of how everything but straight from the tap nursing is less than and should never be seen in the media is immensely intimidating. This is where it's important to take caution with delivering the message. 

Which do you think is most likely to encourage a mainstream woman who is relatively unacknowledgeable on breastfeeding?

"Breastfeeding is the best thing you can give your baby! Nurse directly from the breast whenever possible due to the ease and to keep your supply up. Pump for cases when you'll be away from baby. If you can't pump enough, supplementing with formula or donor milk is fine but know that nursing in addition is possible and the healthiest. Every day of milk is great, but the AAP recommends aiming for a year, the WHO recommends two years."

or...

"Do everything possible to stay home full time with your baby, up to and including quitting your job, selling your house and moving into an apartment or trailer. Pumped milk is a distant second in terms of food quality, followed by donor milk and formula. Therefore, do everything possible to never be gone more than two hours. Do this for one to two years minimum, but the ideal is to let your child self-wean which may occur as late as age 7."

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Edited because I don't want to get back into it. 

Sustainer, some of my comments you quoted were in direct response to what others said so they now appear to be out of context. 

I feel that emotional thinking is strong on both sides of this issue. I will say that my perspective is not coming from a place of guilt. I don't personally care for that assumption and caution folks against it. 

For me the main thing is: 

• If you are a lactivist and/or a LLL leader, don't reference the WHO in terms of this "hierarchy of breastfeeding" because it doesn't come from them. 
• Consider why and how you want to deliver the message of the benefits of direct BFing. Look to the organizations you admire like LLL or the WHO for the language the choose. Realize that this language is carefully chosen for a reason. 
• Know that for some mothers, "It's obvious," "It's a fact," and etc. is not the way they make choices for their family.  "It's a fact," is not and "end of story" phrase - it opens you up for the very reasonable request for you to back it up within the context that you made the statement. 

[Roxswood]

In every respect other than the bit where you said supplementing with formula is fine your top message is exactly the one that is in LLL philosophy.

We can't honestly tell mothers that supplementing with formula is fine. Many babies will appear fine, but even small amounts of formula change gut flora for the worse, raise the risk of eczema, gastroenteritis and ear infections and SIDS among other things. Some babies even have dramatic allergic reactions to formula.

How would it be helpful to a mother to hide this information from her when she is making her choice?

[Sustainer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

It's always refreshing to see what the uhm extremists think. That allows me to feel like a reasonable moderate. It is not an experience I am used to. On most topics I am the most extreme person in the room. 

Wow. It feels really interesting to watch extremists in action. Fascinating. 

I don't even know what you're referring to.  You're being very non-specific.

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I'll keep in mind that you don't believe me. 

I'm not saying you didn't have an experience at a meeting that upset you.  But, again, it's just difficult for me to accept that they actually implied that you don't care about your children, after you accused us of implying practically the same thing, even though we didn't imply anything of the sort.  Do you see where I'm coming from here?  I am NOT saying that you are deliberately lying.  I am suggesting that you might be mistaken about what those ladies meant.  I am basing this on many experiences I have had in which defensive mothers with guilt complexes are given neutral information or even positive support, and the mother has misinterpreted it as judgment.  It has happened right in this thread.  With you.

I notice you haven't tried to defend your wide-eyed reaction to some mothers who breastfeed into the higher range of normal.  It isn't the fact that some children breastfeed until age 7 that you think is "extreme," is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18 

I am inclined to believe guilt is heavily at play in this denial - if you are confident in your decision to pump being the best thing for your family, why the angst over a breastfeeding organization (AND a public health program, remember) promoting breastfeeding at, oh I don't know, an actual breast?  THIS is the imagery we are lacking - there are TONS of feel-good bottlefeeding images flooding the market.

I think the huge jump from "it's a fact that breastmilk from the tap is best" to "if I'm not breastfeeding I'm OBVIOUSLY a slacker/horrible person/bad mother" is a little telling...and not at all what I (or many others) have tried to say. 

EXACTLY!

 

Originally Posted by pek64 

Dads have their own unique bond, being generally stronger. 

The father-child bond doesn't even come close to being as strong as the mother-child bond.  And Nature designed it that way.  In fact, Nature designed it so that we wouldn't even know who the father of the child IS (or that there is even such a word as "father" for that matter).  It is only through modern technology (and sometimes monogamy - which only gives the mother scientific certainty) that we can determine who the father is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie 

When I'm in the position of not being able to leave my baby for more than 2 hours at a time for a year or more and my DP wishes for nothing more than to give me a day off and bond with his child one-on-one (the supposed privilege I'll get to experience day in and day out), I'll make sure to tell him that his employment totally makes up for missing out on that. 

 

I said before that it is okay to take time off if you need it.  A whole day, when the baby is under a year old?  I wouldn't, but I am not the one to make that choice for other people.  I only hope that when they make that choice they do it with complete & accurate information.  And, again, the phrasing "missing out" implies that someone other than the mother is *entitled* to be the care-giver for the child in the mother's stead for a whole day by default.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie 

I honestly feel this is the danger of activism, people not being able to empathize with others outside of their limited experience.

I do empathize with mothers outside of my experience.  

During this discussion, I have mentioned some of the choices I have made in my life as a result of the importance I place on breastfeeding.  I never once said that everyone else has to make the same choices.  Sometimes I just want people to know that there are low-income individuals who choose to be SAHMs because of our values and priorities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie 

If the average working American woman stumbled upon this conversation while pregnant with her first child, I feel confident that she would be driven to wash her hands entirely of the idea of breastfeeding.

Driven?  No.  As I said, she would need to own that decision.  She is responsible for her own actions.  If someone reads that breastfeeding is what children need and then uses that information to decide to NOT breastfeed, there is nothing I can do about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie 

Reading account after account of how everything but straight from the tap nursing is less than and should never be seen in the media is immensely intimidating.

The fact that anything other than direct breastfeeding isn't as good is a straightforward fact.  We can't change it. People need accurate information.  There are very good reasons to promote the image of direct breastfeeding in the media and to not promote the image of bottlefeeding in the media.

Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie 

Which do you think is most likely to encourage a mainstream woman who is relatively unacknowledgeable on breastfeeding?

"Breastfeeding is the best thing you can give your baby! Nurse directly from the breast whenever possible due to the ease and to keep your supply up. Pump for cases when you'll be away from baby. If you can't pump enough, supplementing with formula or donor milk is fine but know that nursing in addition is possible and the healthiest. Every day of milk is great, but the AAP recommends aiming for a year, the WHO recommends two years."

or...

"Do everything possible to stay home full time with your baby, up to and including quitting your job, selling your house and moving into an apartment or trailer. Pumped milk is a distant second in terms of food quality, followed by donor milk and formula. Therefore, do everything possible to never be gone more than two hours. Do this for one to two years minimum, but the ideal is to let your child self-wean which may occur as late as age 7."

NEITHER of those things should be said to a woman.  Women should not be TOLD WHAT TO DO.  They should be given complete, accurate information and then they should make their own decisions.  We should not apologize for accurate information.  We sure as heck should not withhold accurate information that we think might make someone feel bad or might conflict with a decision she's already made (but has not yet necessarily put into practice).  The following is all accurate information, and it is important to provide this information to all future mothers:

Breastfeeding is what children are biologically meant to have.  Pumped milk from the child's own mother takes second place and is vastly superior to formula.  (Nobody in this thread said pumped milk is a "distant" second.  We said formula is a distant fourth.)  Donor milk is third.  The normal duration of breastfeeding ranges from two and a half to seven years.  The average age of weaning is 4.2 years.  The longer a child is breastfed the better, up to the point at which the child would wean himself (which each child would do at the age that he is ready, if left to his own devises).  A year is better than a month.  A month is better than nothing.  

Women often change their breastfeeding goals as they go along, and that's fine.  They'll start off planning a year, and then when they get to a year they decide to keep going.  And that's great.  It doesn't have to be such a high-pressure situation that they think "my god, if I decide to breastfeed, I have to be committed for 7 years!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

Sustainer, some of my comments you quoted were in direct response to what others said so they now appear to be out of context. 

I feel that emotional thinking is strong on both sides of this issue. I will say that my perspective is not coming from a place of guilt. I don't personally care for that assumption and caution folks against it. 

I didn't know if your second paragraph was referring to me, but just in case, I went back and checked my post.  I never accused you personally of speaking from guilt.

Regarding the way information is phrased, I'm not sure if I have yet linked this article in this thread, but I'll post it here anyway:

http://www.motherchronicle.com/watchyourlanguage.html

Originally Posted by Roxswood 

We can't honestly tell mothers that supplementing with formula is fine. Many babies will appear fine, but even small amounts of formula change gut flora for the worse, raise the risk of eczema, gastroenteritis and ear infections and SIDS among other things. Some babies even have dramatic allergic reactions to formula.
How would it be helpful to a mother to hide this information from her when she is making her choice?

Yeah that.

Edited by Sustainer - 1/7/13 at 3:27pm

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by Sustainer 
 I am suggesting that you might be mistaken about what those ladies meant.  I am basing this on many experiences I have had in which defensive mothers with guilt complexes are given neutral information or even positive support, and the mother has misinterpreted it as judgment.

Part of what I am saying (in addition to the WHO issue and the valid questions of scientific back-up for the nutritional inferiority of EBM - neither of which has been adequately answered imo) is that if you (or other lactivists) are giving what you see as neutral info and "many" women are reacting in a way that you view as a guilt complex this is a problem. 

After my last post I went to the LLL site and searched "inferior" because I had a feeling they would not use that word to refer to EBM. And they don't. Not that I can find. 

So, you (I'm don't know if you're a LLL leader or not) have chosen a word "inferior" and labeled that word "neutral", a word that many women have reacted negatively towards and one that is not used by LLL to refer to EBM...and in my mind you are blaming the women for having a guild complex. I don't know. It just doesn't sit well with me. 

I'm not against information. I think women should have access to the most current, evidence based information they can find. Some of what is being discusses on this thread is not what I would categorize as information. 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

I also wanted to say that Kaylabeanie is our perfect test subject here. She is a self identified uber-crunchy hopeful mother. If she says that she hears "blank" after a lactvists talks to her...that needs to be heard. If she hears that breastfeeding is a bond like no other, that it's often times 100x easier than any other form of infant feeding, that is the food that has evolved to be perfect for our little ones that exclusive, direct breastfeeding can be a beautiful, fulfilling experience but there are perfectly valid alternatives...and all the other good stuff -- we've done well by her. If we say the same thing and she hears, "I can never work, will have to live in a crappy home, all other options are a distant second to direct breastfeeding so I'll never be able to leave my baby for more than two hours for up to 7 years" we have not communicated well with her. 

I know this is not the forum for being an advocate for just Kaylabeanie but I do think I would take a pause and rethink if that's what she took from something I said. 

Because, you know what, Kaylabeanie -- it's not like that. Breastfeeding is a beautiful thing and just as individual as you are and your baby is will be your breastfeeding relationship. LLL itself has said that there is no signifcant nutrient loss in EBM, many of the benefits of direct breasfeeding your child will get if you choose to combine EBM with direct feeding, as most women choose to do if they do pump. If you find yourself in the position of needing to excusively pump, you will be my hero because those women are amazing to me. And many of the benefits of direct feeding can be replicated with EBM. But you may not. You may find that breastfeeding for that first year is fulfilling like you never imagined and that your baby slowly starts eating solid food before you even realized what happened. Then one day two years will have flown by...or something like that.