not too happy with this - Page 9

[Roxswood]

Just an aside, if a child is dairy allergic, they can still have breastmilk. Mum is not a cow and doesn't live in a dairy. Some children may react to fragments of dairy proteins in breastmilk and their Mum may have to go dairy free if she wishes to continue breastfeeding. If she can't do this, then allergy free formula is the only other choice but we don't have very much long term safety information about these products, they are life saving in the short term but from the little evidence I have so far seen, the outcomes in terms of child health are worse than with normal cowsmilk based formula which in turn are worse than with breastmilk. Meaning for a child with dairy allergy, accurate information about the risks of not breastfeeding is even more vital. 

There are children with conditions that mean they cannot have breastmilk at all, galactosemia is one of them but these conditions are much rarer than dairy allergies. 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Yes, I sort of wondered if that was part of the decision for LLL (and other advisory organizations). It is certainly a public image issue if in addition to bottle imagery comes a story of breastfeeding intolerance and just one family's way of addressing that. I can certainly understand caution when it comes to putting national focus and a celebrity face on that issue because I can see the value in sending a message that a large percentage of women can successfully breastfeed. 

[erinmattsmom88]

Ok, my next question is, why was LLL consulted on a government anti-smoking ad? It isn't obvious to me after reading some of these links.

[Sustainer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

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. 

Yes, it is a problem.  The question is:  is it the person giving the neutral information and positive support who has the problem and needs to change, or is it the defensive person misinterpreting what is said who needs to try not being so defensive?  I mean, all we said was that most children wean by the age of 4, and someone freaked out and said "My child weaned at the age of 3, so I must not care about my child!"  I mean, what the hell?  What are we supposed to do about that?  Are we seriously supposed to NOT say that most children wean by the age of 4, even though it's true and is a completely neutral piece of information that does NOT in any way imply that children must never wean until they've breastfed until *at least* the age of 4?  How in the world are we supposed to anticipate that someone is going to misinterpret and twist words to that extent?  

I'm telling you -- I've been through this over and over.  There are mothers who are so defensive and so ready to feel guilty and attacked that you can't say ANYTHING.  Other than "you did the right thing."  That's the only thing you can safely say.  But in the lactivism forum we can't just sit around saying "you did the right thing" all day long and never share any information.  That is not the service that the lactivism forum exists to provide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

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 am not an LLL leader.  None of the information I have given has been intended to be representative of LLL.  The fact that EBM is inferior to direct breastfeeding -- that it is not as good as direct breastfeeding -- IS an accurate and neutral piece of information that I am not attaching any emotion to.  I have not said that it is "vastly" inferior or that it is unacceptable or harmful.  And I am not judging pumping mamas.  If they'd otherwise be using formula, it's great that they're going to the effort to provide their child with his or her mother's milk that he or she needs.  However, as the article Watch Your Language explains, it is important not to turn the phrasing around.  We shouldn't say that direct breastfeeding is "superior."  This would imply that something other than direct breastfeeding is the default standard and that direct breastfeeding is "extra."  Direct breastfeeding is the biological norm and it is what a human child's body expects and is meant to receive, and we need to treat it as such.  There are people who won't even *consider* breastfeeding directly as often as possible if they think that *every* need of their child is already being met.  Why would they?  There are people making decisions based on the idea that EBM is *just as good* and that it makes NO difference.  And that isn't true.  There are people who think (and I am by no means suggesting that this is what most pumpers think) "hey I might as well go back to work right away even if it isn't a financial necessity, or leave for the weekend without my baby, because it doesn't matter as long as there's breastmilk in the freezer."

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

Some of what is being discusses on this thread is not what I would categorize as information. 

Can you name something specific that has been intended as information that you would categorize as "not information"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

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. 

All I can do is keep referring you to the article "Watch Your Language" for the reasons we should not refer to breastfeeding as if it is something extra special, and why we should not use terms like "easier," "perfect," et cetera, because the article explains it better than I do.  

I have problems with the phrase "perfectly valid alternatives."  The word "valid" is ambiguous.  "Perfectly valid" implies "just as good."  In situations in which direct breastfeeding is not an option, yes, it is perfectly valid to use EBM.  But to just say that there are "perfectly valid alternatives" implies that these alternatives meet all of the child's needs and that there's no concern that it could lead to anything problematic, and "don't worry, you can be completely content about choosing this option" (the phrasing "perfectly valid" goes too far *the other way* from neutrality), and that direct breastfeeding is just a super-special, above-and-beyond extra for those who particularly want to and that it isn't in any way necessary.  I think this is the message that is usually given to women, and I think it goes a long way toward explaining why so many people choose *not* to breastfeed directly (although I primarily blame economic factors such as lack of maternity leave).

I think the woman who is listening to us also has some responsibility.  If she is hearing something that we are NOT saying, then she needs to take responsibility for that.  If I say "I stay home during my child's breastfeeding years because it's important to me" and "EBM isn't as good as direct breastfeeding" and she hears "I can never work," she needs to take responsibility for that.  If I say that I choose to live in a crappy house because I'm low-income but my priority is to be a stay at home mother anyway and she hears "I have to live in a crappy house," she needs to take responsibility for that.  If I say "EBM is second to direct breastfeeding" and she hears "EBM is a DISTANT second to direct breastfeeding" (that has happened several times in this thread now), then she definitely needs to take responsibility for that!  If I say that the normal range of human breastfeeding is from two and a half to seven years and that the average age of weaning is 4.2 years, and she hears "I can never leave my baby until my child is 7 years old" (by the way, by the time my kids were 4 years old, they were only breastfeeding, like, once every 2 days), then she needs to take responsibility for that.  All I am doing is providing information.  I am not telling her what to do.  She needs to take the information and make her own decisions.  I am not going to judge her if she decides to pump.  As I keep saying, the only thing I hope is that whatever decision she makes will be based on complete and accurate information.  We shouldn't water down the information to make the person feel better if they decide not to breastfeed.  That is doing them a disservice.  Perhaps if we didn't water down the information and say "whatever option you choose is EQUALLY fine," they might not choose not to breastfeed.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

I do think I would take a pause and rethink if that's what she took from something I said. 

I am done trying to figure out what people are going to "take" from what I say.  There are some people who, unless I say exactly what they want to hear, they're going to take something that comes from inside their brain.  If I provide perfectly straightforward, neutral, scientific facts, without attaching any judgment or emotion to them, and the person reacts with "so what you're saying is that I'm a terrible mother," then I am not going to let that become my problem.  (I'm not talking specifically about Kaylabeanie.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

LLL itself has said that there is no signifcant nutrient loss in EBM

I find that fact questionable.  Also, nutrients are not the only things in breastmilk.  It contains antibodies and such things.  Breastmilk is literally a living substance.  Unfortunately, freezing it (possibly even refrigerating it) kills it.  

I'm going to repeat this disclaimer:  I am not telling you not to freeze your EBM!  Definitely do not feed your child milk that has turned sour or gone bad!

Another disclaimer:  EBM is a million times better than formula!

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

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.

That's absolutely true.  

But the more you directly breastfeed, the better.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

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. 

I'm pretty amazed by that too.  What a commitment!  And yet totally worth it if the alternative is formula.  And the second sentence is also absolutely true.  Especially if the baby is held by a person during the feeding, as opposed to bottle propping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

Given that I am friends with the former leader of the meeting I attended and her opinion is that the people there are shaming, dogmatic, and overly aggressive with mothers--and that is her opinion after being a leader for two years and just an attendee for a long time before that--I'm going to continue to be unimpressed by your attitude here.

Feel free.  I admit the possibility that there is a particular individual LLL meeting that is less than wonderful.  In fact I think I already admitted that.  My intention was to defend LLL in general as an overall organization.  And the point I was trying to make was that, in my experience, what usually happens is that defensive mothers can misinterpret neutral or even positive things that are said to them.  I still find it difficult to believe that such extreme things as "you're mothering wrong" are said even by a dogmatic, aggressive group.  And I find it particularly difficult to accept such things when they are presented by a person who has grossly misinterpreted things that have been said in this thread.  I think I have sufficient reasons for being skeptical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I think that strongly implying that people who don't want to live in a trailer forever so they can nurse as long as their child wants is a bit extreme. If you don't agree, well you have different priorities.

I find it very difficult to either agree or disagree with this statement, because it seems to be missing a few words.  It does not make sense as written.  I'm not just being picky here.  I seriously don't know what you're trying to say.  Maybe you can fill in some key words here, and then I can express an opinion.  "I think that strongly implying that people who don't want to live in a trailer forever so they can nurse as long as their child wants are ____________ _______________ _______________ is a bit extreme."  What is it that you think I am "strongly implying" about such people?

For the time being, all I can do is guess what those missing words might be.

I'm certainly not saying that everyone should have to live in a trailer.  I don't even plan to live in one "forever" myself.  All I said was that, even though I hate trailers, it was more important to me to be a stay at home mother than to live in a nice house.  That's ME.  I'm not saying anyone else has to make that choice.  Everyone has their own priorities.  I just think it's my duty to refute the idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE to be low-income and be a stay at home mother.  All I do is provide information.  Everyone makes their own choice.  I am not telling anyone what to do.  I am not judging.  I just want to make sure that when people make their choices, those choices are based on complete and accurate information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

And I nursed for more than four years straight including through a pregnancy and tandem nursing for almost a year. 

Awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I just don't see the need to treat my own insane priorities like something that someone else has to share or I will judge them negatively. 

I wouldn't call my priorities "insane," but I don't treat them as if everyone else has to share them, and I don't judge them negatively if they don't.  I don't know where you're getting that.

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

 *FOR ME* it was worth doing. I don't look down on other people for not being up to what I did.

 

Ditto.  FOR ME it was worth doing.  I don't look down on other people for not doing what I did, either.  Don't know where you're getting that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

I can't fathom how you can say only a mother is really sufficient.  

It is based on biology.  A father with a bottle cannot replicate the breastfeeding experience that is supposed to occur between the mother and her child.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

Either parent can form the strong bond.  

Anyone can bond with a child, and that's great.  But the mother-child bond is the sacred bond of Nature that is the most powerful and important of all bonds.  It starts with pregnancy, continues with birth, and then is supposed to continue with the breastfeeding relationship between the mother and the child.  It is a physical bond.  It involves natural physiological chemicals and hormones.  It cannot be replicated by a bottle and a non-mother.  I'm sorry.  I'm not trying to be unfair.  Blame Nature.

Some facts that might make you feel better.  EBM is a million times better than formula.  Your child will be loved, and that is so very, very important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

A fathers importance does NOT stop at conception.

Anyone who is going to be a large part of the child's life is important.

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

takes away from how important it is for both parents to be involved.

I'm a single mother.  Considering my ex's character, his involvement with the children is not necessarily the best thing for them.  I was also raised by a single mother, and my father was not terribly involved with me, and I think I was raised very well, and I think that a single-mother household is a perfectly legitimate family, so keep in mind that that's the perspective I'm coming from.  

Originally Posted by pek64 

Being considerate of the mother's feelings has to include those mothers who have made financial sacrifices because they believed those sacrifices were in the best interests of *their* children, and stop assuming that a mom who says "we live in a trailer rather than me getting a job" is *not* saying!"all moms must make similar choices".
And I'm not even sure Nature intended us to have words, so I'm not going to worry if Nature intended us to have the word 'father'.

 

Thank you.  (I'm assuming that you didn't intend to put BOTH the phrase "stop assuming that" AND the word "not" in your first sentence.  ;)

 

As far as your last sentence, yeah, I knew I didn't phrase that quite right, but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it, and I figured people would know what I meant.  Mother Nature did not intend for us even to know that there is such a thing as the CONCEPT of a biological father.  Science is wonderful, but it can lead to some unnatural consequences.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoestoShow 

Because she is severely allergic to dairy.

She can't drink breastmilk. If she can't drink breastmilk, but formula is evil, then what was this baby supposed to eat?

 

Oh for crying out loud.  Formula is not evil.  Obviously if formula is the best thing for THAT CHILD, then formula should be fed to THAT CHILD.  Obviously no one should feel guilty for feeding a child the best thing for that child.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoestoShow 

Why is bottlefeeding a baby ALLERGIC TO DAIRY inconsistent with the message that breastfeeding is the best option overall?

Are you talking about whether or not the image of the father bottlefeeding the baby should be included in the ad that started this discussion?  The words "this particular baby is allergic to human breastmilk" do not flash on the screen.  Rather than having those words appear on the screen, it would be better to use an image of a mother breastfeeding her baby instead of an image of a father bottlefeeding a baby that is allergic to milk.  The ad isn't about milk allergies.  There's no reason to complicate the message.  Overall, the image of breastfeeding is something that needs to be promoted and normalized.  Overall, the image of bottlefeeding is not the image that needs to be promoted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I think it's rather ridiculous to tell a newly breastfeeding mother or one who is pregnant that only the mother can feed her child

No one said that only the mother can feed her child.  What has been said is that breastfeeding is the biological norm and that it's what the child is meant to have, and that it meets all of the child's needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

but limiting choices by excluding help or bonding opportunities from other members of the family, especially to first-time mothers is irresponsible.

Choices are not limited.  They should just be based on complete, accurate information.  No one is saying that other members of the family shouldn't help.  No one is saying that other members of the family shouldn't be given bonding opportunities.  There are lots of different activities that allow bonding.  When possible, the best person to feed a baby is the baby's mother, under almost all circumstances.  That's a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

No one else can feed the baby other than Mom? 

No one said that.  However, other options aren't as good for the baby's health.  I'm not making this up.  I'm not on a mission to make people feel bad.  Facts are facts.

People should take the information and make their own decisions with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I know from my first pregnancy and experience with a newborn, that I was learning on the fly, adjusting to having a baby and everything that goes along with it, was tired, stressed out, and believe me, I accepted any help that I could get. That included having DH feed the baby when I needed to take a nap, shower, brush my teeth, have a cup of coffee... alone... so I could recharge. 

I've said several times now that I support taking a break if you need one.  I was tired and stressed out too.  I loved that my DP changed diapers.  I never let anyone else feed the baby, but that's ME and that's MY priorities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Pumping a few bottles of BM so that someone else can feed the baby so Mama can take a much needed break is perfectly OK to do. I rarely to never got the luxury of that, but some may and that is OK. Giving the perception that it is not is wrong.

I never implied that it was not OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

With my second child, I had no choice and had to exclusively pump in the beginning. He had a medical emergency one minute after birth, and was taken away to the NICU before I got out of my c-section surgery. I saw his little face for a nanosecond. He was tube fed after the first 36 hours after nothing at all, and I had to pump exclusively during this time. 

No one would judge you for this!!  It's what your son needed!  How is this a reason for NOT telling mothers that EBM is second to direct breastfeeding and donor milk comes third and formula is last?  Most mothers are NOT in your situation!  In your situation, there was no reason to focus on whether direct breastfeeding or EBM is GENERALLY better, because direct breastfeeding was not an option!  In situations in which a choice could be made (which is most situations), women should be given accurate information about EBM being second, donor milk being third, etc.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Providing the latest, objective, complete and correct information to someone who seeks it is the best thing. 

They're not going to seek it if they think they've already got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Once opinions and negativity are added to the mix, it sours the experience. 

I believe in providing facts.  Not negativity.  If someone reads negativity into it, that's all them.

Originally Posted by frioct3 

For this particular family it seems like formula is the best (only?) choice. But by just viewing the ad the public doesnt know that. All they see is another image of bottle feeding

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

Although as equality in the work place becomes a reality in more and more parts of the world and in areas of the world with political and cultural issues that require women to work outside of the home, I really do think that organizations like LLL will decide on some advocacy campaigns that specifically target the issue of EBM and perhaps even donor milk.  

As I said, if the ad had shown a mother pumping, I don't think LLL would have objected.  

From the image in the ad, it could have been formula.  There was no reason for people to assume it was EBM.  And, as I said before, most viewers wouldn't even think about what was in the bottle.  The image of bottle feeding would just be imprinted on their brain.  And we don't need more of that from the media.  It's causing serious problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

When you comb through the LLL site they do give me an impression that they are subtly in favor of a woman staying home with her babies. 

I think that's appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

I wonder if in the States the trade off of bottle imagery would have been a good trade off for the very powerful image of a male pro-athlete caring for his child. 

In my opinion it would not have been a good trade off.  But we all know by now how I feel about fathers taking over that particular act of care-giving.  (You wouldn't think it would be a minority opinion in the lactivism forum of mothering.com, but whatever.)

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Ok, my next question is, why was LLL consulted on a government anti-smoking ad? 

 

Probably because it contained an image of bottlefeeding?

Edited by Sustainer - 1/8/13 at 2:59pm

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by Sustainer 

the mother-child bond is the sacred bond of Nature that is the most powerful and important of all bonds.  It starts with pregnancy, continues with birth, and then is supposed to continue with the breastfeeding relationship between the mother and the child.  It is a physical bond.  It involves natural physiological chemicals and hormones.  It cannot be replicated by a bottle and a non-mother.  I'm sorry.  I'm not trying to be unfair.  Blame Nature.

Is there a particular reason you keep capitalizing that word? 

Sorry, but it gives me the mental image of you doing your best Magnus Pyke impersonation, hollering "NATURE!" at the top of your lungs...

[erinmattsmom88]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88

Ok, my next question is, why was LLL consulted on a government anti-smoking ad?

 

Probably because it contained an image of bottlefeeding?

OK, so you don't know for sure. That's ok. If I have time later I will try to find this out myself. I just didn't have time earlier and was hoping someone who knew already could jot it down here.

 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Sustainer, I can see how passionate you are and I made a vow after my last post to really "hear" what you are trying to say. I understand that you may be more in the trenches than I am and that if you are frequently helping women in various places in life learn about breastfeeding, you may not be able to escape offending people. My experience has been vastly different is what I think this is about. I don't offend women from as far as I can tell. I don't think I have ever offended anyone on the choice of birth and breastfeeding and various child-rearing subjects. And, yet, I do think I have advocated well for NFL. Maybe I haven't reached out far enough out of my comfort zone of contacts or something. 

You and I will also have to agree to disagree on the word inferior - this term in particular as well as the hierarchy thing is what I'm talking about as not falling under the category of "information". I will see if I can explain. 

Having read the article you linked (or one like it) years ago, I do relate to the idea of setting direct BFing up as the biological norm. I agree entirely with being careful with language...though I also don't mind tweaking a message for an individual (which is what I was doing in a few posts above). With that said, I would start with biological standard and discuss options for alternatives if that's what a mother needed more information about.  I would talk about the benefits and consequences of deviating from that. So we could talk about some nutrient loss but we would put that in perspective with statements from LLL and WHO and include some stuides that were carefully put in perspective. We could talk about the effects of artificial on breastfeeding andnd etc. We could talk about skin to skin contact an the importance of bottle feeding that closely mimics direct breastfeeding. We can talk about the challenges many women face with pumping. We can talk about success stories. Pitfalls. I could offer to find more informatiofn if she had questions or felt unsure. 

All this information can be put forth without language that even LLL and the WHO avoid (like hierarchy, and inferior).  And the more I think about it the ranking of choices also doesn't seem like information to me because it's so secondary from the REAL information - all the good science...the real information. Give women the original information and them develop their own hierarchy. This may well be what's getting in my crawl (is that the right saying)?  Yes, I think it is. 

But all of that said, this thread had an evolution of its own. I didn't start talking about nutrient loss because that's an interesting topic for me or because I think that's the only issue - I started talking about it because it was brought up and then someone asked for more info and that was responded with 'it's obvious" and I disagree with this way of discussing the issue. I didn't start talking about hierarchy - someone else did and then used the WHO to back it up -- and the WHO does not mention it, not in the way it was suggested, if at all.  

And, yes, from a public health perspective things are bit different - the message needs to be delivered much differently...which gets us back to the OP. 

[pickle18]

If nothing else, this thread has been a huge eye-opener into miscommunication.

A mother states that her priorities led to her staying at home with her kids, in a low income situation, so that she could nurse them from the tap (among other reasons).  She repeatedly and explicitly states that this is her personal situation, and that she supports mothers who make different decisions about what is best for their families (including EBM).

And yet tons of people come out of the woodwork saying she is personally judging and denigrading them, and strongly imply her choices are insane.

I mentioned that breastmilk from the tap is best, followed by EBM, donor milk - and formula is a distant fourth.  I provided multiple scientific studies and other articles to support what I felt was a pretty common sense claim.

My studies are apparently garbage.  This is not a real fact, because of one line on LLL's website.  Nevermind that we are to disregard WHO's hierarchy, because it's simply a line in one of their publications.  What exactly is the standard for information?  Let me know, and I will try to provide it. 

I acknowledged that EBM is an amazing alternative to formula, and could very well be the best choice for mothers in difficult situations, or who need a break.  All I said was, they should know that they are making a trade-off - not that that trade-off is inexcusable or inherently evil.  Just that they deserve more information to make that decision.

Now my tone needs to be corrected.  Neutral information isn't "nice" enough - mothers need to be mollycoddled and (falsely) reassured that EBM is absolutely every bit just as good as breastfeeding from the tap, so they feel better about it.  I think mothers are smarter and stronger than that - they deserve better.  I think mothers can handle hearing that breastfeeding from the tap is best, but pumping is the next best thing, and a million times better than formula.  I really DON'T think that is going to "drive a mother away" from breastfeeding altogether.

It is extremely frustrating. I mean, I feel like this is like comparing the nutrient value in an organic, local strawberry [breastmilk from the tap]; an organic strawberry from across the globe [EBM]; a conventionally grown strawberry from across the globe [donor milk] and a fortified strawberry pop tart [formula].  Not a perfect comparison, I know (thought there COULD be unsafe chemicals in donor milk).  Yet would we see such a strong, emotionally charged debate over this simple nutritional hierarchy on mothering.com?  I really doubt it...

To continue this analogy - everybody here is saying strawberries rock, period.  Everybody is saying some families need breaks, or decide they need mom to WOH, or have nutritional issues that require formula, and on and on and on.  I don't get why people who say "breast is best" in a lactivism forum on mothering.com are being caricatured as villains.

[pickle18]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

All this information can be put forth without language that even LLL and the WHO avoid (like hierarchy, and inferior).  And the more I think about it the ranking of choices also doesn't seem like information to me because it's so secondary from the REAL information - all the good science...the real information. Give women the original information and them develop their own hierarchy. This may well be what's getting in my crawl (is that the right saying)?  Yes, I think it is. 

What and where is this "REAL information"????  "Good science" supports nutrient loss.  It supports that babies aren't receiving optimum antibodies.  I'm not really sure where this is coming from, as you haven't provided any original information...

[pickle18]

Lastly, on the original topic - I think it's perfectly reasonable for LLL to tell a public health organization, "Hey - you're trying to promote breastfeeding aren't you?  Might not want to include a picture of bottlefeeding - could be a PR conflict there.  Might look inconsistent."

[pek64]

Originally Posted by pickle18 

Lastly, on the original topic - I think it's perfectly reasonable for LLL to tell a public health organization, "Hey - you're trying to promote breastfeeding aren't you?  Might not want to include a picture of bottlefeeding - could be a PR conflict there.  Might look inconsistent."

YES!!! Perfectly reasonable remark.

[rightkindofme]

I know why you sound judgmental. I noticed in this last post. It's this whole Sacred Bond of Nature stuff.

Uhm, nature isn't sacred. Do you know what is natural? Infanticide.

[erinmattsmom88]

Lastly, on the original topic - I think it's perfectly reasonable for LLL to tell a public health organization, "Hey - you're trying to promote breastfeeding aren't you? Might not want to include a picture of bottlefeeding - could be a PR conflict there. Might look inconsistent."

Originally Posted by pickle18

Lastly, on the original topic - I think it's perfectly reasonable for LLL to tell a public health organization, "Hey - you're trying to promote breastfeeding aren't you? Might not want to include a picture of bottlefeeding - could be a PR conflict there. Might look inconsistent."

YES!!! Perfectly reasonable remark.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

I understand it was an anti-smoking ad, but the health department messages should not conflict with each other. Why spend 10,000 on anti-smoking only to have an increase in formula usage and have to spend 10,000 to try to reverse that. Better to be consistent in the messages. That makes the LLL remark reasonable and helpful.

[KaylaBeanie]

Originally Posted by rightkindofme 

I know why you sound judgmental. I noticed in this last post. It's this whole Sacred Bond of Nature stuff.

Uhm, nature isn't sacred. Do you know what is natural? Infanticide.

I think some of you all are overly romanticizing nature. My bachelors degree is in evolutionary health (anthropology). The best we can tell, cross-nursing was extremely common. Women couldn't stop working to go bond with their baby over a good nursing session, the baby was fed by whoever was around. Oh, and while some kids might not self-wean until age 4, 5, 6, 7...that most certainly wasn't the norm. Sometime in the year between 2 and 3 was overwhelming the norm, across all areas and cultures. That's not to say there's anything wrong with letting kids wean themselves, but it's certainly not the norm in our history as a species.

[erinmattsmom88]

I understand it was an anti-smoking ad, but the health department messages should not conflict with each other. Why spend 10,000 on anti-smoking only to have an increase in formula usage and have to spend 10,000 to try to reverse that. Better to be consistent in the messages. That makes the LLL remark reasonable and helpful.

From what I have read so far, from what I have been able to find, LLL didn't just remark on the subject, they put pressure on the health department to remove the image. Assuming that's what happened, isn't that overreaching by LLL? Making a remark that an image of bottlefeeding undermines LLLs message that breastfeeding is best IS reasonable and helpful... for an ad about what's the best way to feed a baby. But, it was a government agency in New Zealand that created an ad for their anti-smoking campaign. It seems that LLL turned it into an anti-breastfeeding issue and created a lot of bad press for themselves. From your statement above, "but the health department messages should not conflict with each other", am I to believe that the same health department with the anti-smoking message has also created a pro-breastfeeding ad? If that's the case, then yes, that picture should have been removed because that IS an inconsistent message.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

This is an emotional issue on both sides, I can see that. If we are going to prove that one mother is guilt trippy because she exaggerates and reads into things, we will have to apply that to both sides. 

Pickle, your studies are some of the few bits of what I would call "real" information. They are valuable to me. I don't think they are garbage and I'm sorry if that's how I came across. The reason I quoted LLL on nutrient loss is because I do not have access to the whole picture. But the studies you linked are a part of that. I'm sorry if you felt like I was disregarding the information you provided - that's not the case. But, for me, that information needs to be fitted into the greater scheme of  things. 

Is EBM compared to direct BFing the equivalent to comparing an locally grown organic strawberry to an organic strawberry from across the globe? Or is it more like a organic strawberry eaten right off the vine compared to one from the farmers market picked that morning? This is what I would like to know. It seems like some people (maybe you?) feel like you know this information and are phrasing things based on that knowledge. 

As far as the WHO, we will have to agree to disagree as to whether they endorse a hierarchy. It is implied on one line that is talking about a specific issue with breastfeeding.  Not the focus, not what I would consider a reference. 

As far as mothers being strong enough - I DO agree with you there. I have thought a lot about your (and other's) perspective in the last few days and that is the conclusion I came to. That "telling it like it is" in a frank way is something that can be expected from a woman raising a child. A big part of me can get down with that way of thinking. Really. 

But, for me, this is not about not telling women the facts, sharing information. It's when it gets mixed with our world view. Folks say they are just giving information...but can we honestly say that? We're complicated creatures. If we're reading the WHO article linked and creating a hiearchy -- I think that's "proof" that we're not just giving information. We're interpretinrg it, filtering it and putting our own spin on it.  I honestly think that if folks are reacting poorly to the information you are providing that they are most likely reacting to the spin. 

[erinmattsmom88]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

But, for me, this is not about not telling women the facts, sharing information. It's when it gets mixed with our work view. Folks say they are just giving information...but can we honestly say that? We're complicated creatures. If we're reading the WHO article linked and creating a hiearchy -- I think that's "proof" that we're not just giving information. We're interpretinrg it, filtering it and putting our own spin on it.  I honestly think that if folks are reacting poorly to the information you are providing that they are most likely reacting to the spin. 

I totally agree with this.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

In case it wan't linked or in case I am incorrect in my reading, this the place that I can find where WHO implies some hierarchy: 

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.

Or, "the choice of the best alternative depends on individual circumstances", though I will give you that you can imply a preference in the wording of the list for sure. 

But here they imply that EBM is part of the act of 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

[IdentityCrisisMama]

I also wanted to say (and so that I remind myself too) that I know that we have focused on how to discuss the issues of EBM and we haven't talked too much about the pressures a mother who chooses to only direct breastfeed. I do acknowledge that there have been some comments about living frugally that feel denigrating and that some moms who choose to only direct breasfeed have their own set of challenges. I am one of those. I know the pressure from folks who don't understand why you can't (or choose not to) go to this or that event. I can imagine fielding insensitive remarks over finance from someone who doesn't understand that choice. I feel like I get giving up career opportunities to stay home and how complicated and frustrating that is. I think the sensitivity we extend to mothers who choose to pump should apply to those who choose not to. I'm sorry if that didn't come across or got lost in the shuffle.