or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › not too happy with this
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

not too happy with this - Page 10

post #181 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie View Post

lol.gif

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.

This is kind of a broad statement. At what point in history are you discussing? Close to our primate roots, midway in our evolution? It's muddying an already muddy thread, in my opinion. Great topic for another thread, though!
post #182 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

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.

From what I've read LLL and other groups were *asked* for their input of the ad. That is a far cry from putting pressure on the health department. And, yes, New Zealand's official position is pro-breastfeeding, from what I understand, which is why they consulted with LLL on the ad -- to make sure the pro-breastfeeding stance was not harmed. LLL, or their representative said the image of a baby being given a bottle *might* be interpreted as being pro-formula or anti-breastfeeding, whichever way you want to word it. Therefore, they *recommended* that image be removed from the ad. The health department decided to remove it. No pressure. All the flack and uproar came after *someone*, not known, leaked the story to the press in a way that made LLL look like a villain.
post #183 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

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. 

Thank you! joy.gif
post #184 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by philomom View Post


Thanks for your post. Every time I say something anti- LLL on MDC ... I get slammed. Even though I have friends in other parts of the country who also had run ins similar to mine with the LLL groups in their areas.

I wasn't trying to slam you, I just hate the term Nazis used like that, and I comment on things like that all the time, not just in relation to LLL.  Feel free to ignore, someone else might be tempted to keep using the term and might think twice, that's all I'm going for. smile.gif

post #185 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightkindofme View Post

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

 

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


Is that how you feel?  Or how you think others feel about you?  When you create ideas and ascribe them to others, you are creating contention.  It would be comparable to say that to you, all people who breastfeed to 4 or more are morally wrong, abusive, etc.  If someone has made it known they think weaning a child at 2 or 3 is problematic, then by all means call them out.  But, honestly, the LLL Leaders I met at my first meeting did wean their children at 2 or 3 and were not apologetic about it.  Why would they have been? 

I guess what is confusing about this is that it feels very much like you are replying to people on this thread, not having a fight with the LLL people you knew.  So when someone says that most women she knew weaned by 4 and then you make your comment, it seems like you are very specifically saying that she thinks you are a slacker, not that you were told you were a slacker by other people not on this thread.

post #186 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post


This is kind of a broad statement. At what point in history are you discussing? Close to our primate roots, midway in our evolution? It's muddying an already muddy thread, in my opinion. Great topic for another thread, though!

Our history as homo sapiens, to be specific (so roughly 200,000 years). Obviously we can't tell much in terms of cross-nursing through the fossil record, just the average weaning age. It's obviously important to point out that this doesn't mean there's anything wrong or unnatural with nursing beyond that. As for cross-nursing, it's something that's been heavily documented over the past 100 years by anthropologists in cultures across the world.

 

I also feel that it was relevant to the conversation. The idea that nature intended nursing to be a one-on-one relationship doesn't hold up in practice. Neither does the idea of nursing into the 4th, 5th or 6th year as being the biological norm (as was brought up in this thread).

post #187 of 246

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

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.


From what I've read LLL and other groups were *asked* for their input of the ad. That is a far cry from putting pressure on the health department. And, yes, New Zealand's official position is pro-breastfeeding, from what I understand, which is why they consulted with LLL on the ad -- to make sure the pro-breastfeeding stance was not harmed. LLL, or their representative said the image of a baby being given a bottle *might* be interpreted as being pro-formula or anti-breastfeeding, whichever way you want to word it. Therefore, they *recommended* that image be removed from the ad. The health department decided to remove it. No pressure. All the flack and uproar came after *someone*, not known, leaked the story to the press in a way that made LLL look like a villain.

 

OK. That's fine. This is why I was unsure of the whole thing... In the OP, there is a link to an article from today.com with a sentence that reads... "The ad initially included an endearing two-second shot of him feeding his 6-month-old daughter from a bottle. However, the country’s Health Sponsorship Council bowed to pressure from La Leche League and other motherhood advocacy groups, which claimed that the image didn’t mesh with its core message: that breastfeeding is best for children". Then, the next post offers a link to another article from LLL Canada that reads this... "Here’s what happened: several of the groups and experts who were consulted, including La Leche League New Zealand, suggested that the bottle-feeding photo would be better replaced with another image, given the NZ Health Ministry’s ongoing support of breastfeeding. That image was replaced, but there has been considerable negative reaction about it." It would be nice to know from the actual Health Sponsorship Council of New Zealand if they were asked or pressured. But, I'll have to settle for just not really knowing for sure. winky.gif
post #188 of 246

Ok, since I'm being insulted. Let's start from the beginning of this argument. Sustainer I am going to pull out the biological essentialist arguments from your posts.

 

" Little girls, who will be mothers some day, and need to learn what to do by watching other people, are watching the commercial and being trained to think that the way babies are fed is with a bottle."

 

 

I see you have a problem with the idea that a little girl might grow up to think of herself as anything other than a milk machine. It is very rare in America (I'm not going to get into the specifics of every country because I know things vary) for women to have the opportunity to stay home and nurse "full term". It's a luxury that very few people get. We simply do not have the public resources to just support everyone who doesn't want to work. Yes, little girls are taught that babies need to be fed. That they must be cared for by people who love them. 

 

"Yes, pumped milk is much better than formula, but that doesn't mean breastfeeding advocates shouldn't care that pumped milk isn't as good as direct breastfeeding.  The inferiority of pumped milk compared with direct breastfeeding is a fact that should be considered without defensiveness.  Yes, the way the message is given is important.  Direct breastfeeding is the biological norm -- it is what children are meant to have -- so it should be treated as the standard default.  If someone says "pumped milk is inferior to direct breastfeeding and should only be used when direct breastfeeding is impossible" and you hear condescension instead of the simple, straightforward statement that it is, then that is an emotion that you are bringing to it -- you are projecting your own defensiveness.  "Pumping milk for your baby is far superior to formula when feeding directly from the breast isn't possible" is also accurate."

 

Well, feeding children food that you have grown yourself is superior in every way. Especially if you grow it in a no-till organic manner. Anything short of that is a major nutritional loss. Are you out farming every day to put food on your table? Or have you decided that you are just a human being and you can't be everything at all times perfectly? It is a simple fact that direct breastfeeding fully on demand is just not an option for most American women. Workers rights are a big issue here. I get that. I believe it should be different. In the mean time I think that the large percentage of women who are taking care of their families in the best way they know how deserve to see images of themselves in the media as representations of what "good parenting" looks like.

 

"Jesus I hope not.  This isn't the time to start backing off and taking the movement backwards.  My biggest problem with LLL has always been that they were too moderate and tried too hard to please everyone and not be controversial or confrontational.  I'm hoping that the voices that I'm hearing saying that they shouldn't have spoken up on this issue are in the minority of the lactivist movement.  It certainly would have been a minority opinion in this sub-forum years ago when I spent much more time here.  Things have certainly changed."

 

So when folks have negative experiences (and I, the former leader of my local LLL group, and at least one other mom in our home schooling group have all had negative experiences with our local chapter you think that the leaders should instead be more confrontational. Check. I'll keep that in mind.

 

"That has always been an unavoidable problem for LLL.  There have always been so many people in this culture who do not support breastfeeding, that LLL was never able to win over the general public, no matter how moderate they made themselves."

 

So... why do you think that the folks who have babies are automatically not part of the general public? Why should they be persuaded by LLL? People make decisions about breastfeeding in context. In context of their individual families (including extended families), work situations, personal physical issues, etc. People need to be met where they are and if you think there is no winning over the general public that might be because of the extremity of the stance. 

 

If people were encouraged to breastfeed as much as they could because as much direct human milk gives your kid a great boost but go ahead and bottlefeed and even use formula if you feel that is appropriate--you would win more people who would nurse for a few weeks. Or nurse once a day for a few months longer. ANY AMOUNT OF BREASTMILK IS USEFUL. That is my understanding of the science. This is not an all or nothing game. I see absolutely no reason to pressure people to stay attached at the boob for years and years without surcease. We no longer live in the kind of world where that is required. Supplementing with breast milk provides benefits. Human beings are very complicated creatures. When you present this as all or nothing then a very large percentage of people are going to take that as , "Fine, I'll take my football and go home." That is not me being hysterical.

 

"I, myself, am a career-minded woman.  Right now my career is mothering, and I think it's the most challenging and fulfilling career in the the world.  Some day, when my children don't need me at home any more, I am going to have a different career, and I would be determined to have it whether there were a financial need for me to have one or not.  But I would never choose to work outside the home, parted from my child, during his first year of life, if there was no financial necessity.  If a mother of a young baby chose to do such a thing just because she felt like it, I would think that she must just not know how important breastfeeding is.  And that's why we need education.  And it's also why we need to get images out of the media that normalize bottlefeeding.  I personally would have moved heaven and earth to protect my breastfeeding relationship with my children, but I don't expect everyone else to do the same, and I never said they should."

 

So if they don't act like you then they just don't know enough. It's really kind of insulting to people who have worked their butts off to have a career and say that what you are doing is the same thing. It's not. Having a career means going out and getting an education you otherwise wouldn't come into contact with and then working with people. Mothering means getting knocked up and not ditching the results. Yes, yes it is more complicated but that's the essential bit. People do not by and large treat it as an occupation. And the fact that you have made the choice to stay home all of these years means you will not be eligible to go do a great number of things. You will never have the time to become a Judge on the Supreme Court. Extreme example. You will have trouble getting most jobs that require a serious career. You'll probably only be able to get a job. Do the research on the consequences of being out of the work force. Some women honest to goodness want careers. They want to pick a field and go excel. That means they have to work and direct breastfeeding is not always possible. But you don't expect everyone to be like you or anything. Right. You would move heaven and earth. You care enough. But I'm not supposed to think you judge people who work. Right.

 

"Again, choosing to go out for a night with friends, as a casual decision, just because you feel like it, even though you have a baby who's so young that they need to be breastfed every 2 or 3 hours?  Sounds like the mother has been misinformed to the point that she's been convinced that a bottle can be *exactly* as good as breastfeeding -- or that the difference, at most, is insignificant.  On the other hand, I fully support a mother taking such a break if she's really at the end of her rope and feels like she's about to go crazy if she doesn't get a break.  Hopefully such an extreme situation wouldn't happen too often.  "

 

A mother who chooses to get away from her kid must be misinformed. And of course you support them getting a break. As long as it isn't longer than 2-3 hours. And not too often. Sure, you totally support people making different choices.

 

"Feeling touched out?  Again, I can understand it.  I'm not saying a bottle of EBM is the end of the world.  Personally I felt touched out many times and I went right on breastfeeding anyway, but I don't hold others to that standard.  Hopefully things wouldn't become unbearable so often that it would be really frequent.

 

Choosing to EP because you prefer it to breastfeeding?  I would only hope that, before this preference was acted on, the mother would fully educate herself on the differences, and on what the child needs, and why, and all of the things that can be affected by a lack of feeding from the breast."

 

OMG. We are at like the third or fourth generation in a row primarily fed with formula. Please educate yourself about these essentialist arguments. You understand being touched out. But you sucked it up. You educated yourself because if someone is educated they couldn't possibly make a decision different from yours.

 

 

I could keep gosh darn going through the whole thread. You are not even vaguely neutral. You drip with disdain. You are completely set on biological essentialism which I just flat don't agree with. Human beings are incredibly adaptable creatures. We can survive a ridiculous amount of trauma and difficulty. Formula is really not even the beginning of the end of issues. Every decision must be made in context. If you research the consequences of raising a child in extreme poverty all of a sudden the risks from formula really don't look as extreme. If you research the consequences of women who are not happy about being mothers being forced to go through that kind of contact in a culture where everyone is locked in their own little individual houses you will find things aren't going well. 

 

Full term direct breastfeeding happens best when there are multiple mothers who share. Otherwise we aren't, as a species, very nice to our young. It is too hard on mothers to expect them to do all of the care and with direct breastfeeding being mandated it is all placed on the mother. It means the father has to work a lot of extra hours to replace the income. So he's not there to help. I don't know many people who have help from extended families. I know a lot of moms who sit alone in their houses dealing with all the difficulties of parenting. The fact that they want to not have their nipples be yanked on constantly is something I can understand. 

 

I was "properly educated" and I chose to nurse my kids till 3 and 2. They never had formula. They wouldn't take bottles. A few times my husband spoon fed them when I had to be gone. It was miserable and depressing and sad. I stopped nursing partially because I was inches away from killing myself. The only reason my kids didn't have formula in bottles is because the little buggars wouldn't drink it. I bloody tried. 

 

I spent a lot of time hating my kids and crying. I don't think it was good for our relationship. I wish I had made choices that allowed me to feel less like I was reduced to my biological functions. I kept getting stuck in these cycles of, "I'm a walking uterus and milk cow. Moo." Biological essentialism is psychologically damaging. 

 

Bottle feeding is the norm in our species. It will be for at least a few more generations. Breastfeeding is picking up speed but it is not helped whatsoever by shaming biological essentialism. 

 

When I talk to pregnant women I go down the laundry list of benefits. I know them. Cancer, diabetes, asthma, blah blah blah. There are benefits. It's a great thing to do. But at the end of the day do what makes you like you and like your kid. The most important thing is that you like each other and get along. That is what will matter in 20 years. Not that I sat on the couch grinding my teeth to the point of cracking them so the little @#$#@$ parasites could @#$#$@! eat. That's not going to be a long-term win for us. Not at all.

 

 

But I'm just reading into things and hysterical. I am clearly twisting everything you say. I need to figure out how to unsubscribe from this freaking thread.

post #189 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie View Post

Our history as homo sapiens, to be specific (so roughly 200,000 years). Obviously we can't tell much in terms of cross-nursing through the fossil record, just the average weaning age. It's obviously important to point out that this doesn't mean there's anything wrong or unnatural with nursing beyond that. As for cross-nursing, it's something that's been heavily documented over the past 100 years by anthropologists in cultures across the world.

I also feel that it was relevant to the conversation. The idea that nature intended nursing to be a one-on-one relationship doesn't hold up in practice. Neither does the idea of nursing into the 4th, 5th or 6th year as being the biological norm (as was brought up in this thread).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie View Post

Our history as homo sapiens, to be specific (so roughly 200,000 years). Obviously we can't tell much in terms of cross-nursing through the fossil record, just the average weaning age. It's obviously important to point out that this doesn't mean there's anything wrong or unnatural with nursing beyond that. As for cross-nursing, it's something that's been heavily documented over the past 100 years by anthropologists in cultures across the world.

I also feel that it was relevant to the conversation. The idea that nature intended nursing to be a one-on-one relationship doesn't hold up in practice. Neither does the idea of nursing into the 4th, 5th or 6th year as being the biological norm (as was brought up in this thread).

But as your data is only relevant to the last 100 years, it is not a reflection of Nature or nature. I think we should leave nature out of this, as neither side has good proof of the claims. This topic is muddied enough without nature.
post #190 of 246

I think that being a good mother, especially in the first year, shouldn't just be focused on what Rightkindofme referred to as, biological essentialism. Mental and physical health of the mother is key in getting through all the trials and tribulations one goes through during this time. I think it is especially important with a first-time mother. A mom needs help and should get it when possible... in all aspects. The Earth is not going to be thrown off its axis if a father bottle feeds his OWN child when needed. Believe it or not, there are men out there that WANT to help and they shouldn't be discouraged to do so just because Nature intended for only the mother to feed the baby. Our society has evolved exponentially since the caveman era. The all-or-nothing approach is dangerous and just not a good overall message to send. Why? Because our society doesn't support this. That's a "fact". Should we accept this, and if not, try to change it? Sure. Doing so is a good thing. Right now, 100% breastfeeding from the mother 100% of the time is not happening 100% of the time. Let's also deal with what's in front of us in addition to what we want to change. If women can be as perfect as Sustainer has presented herself to be in this thread, then that's great. Her children are lucky to have a mother that is as dedicated as her and stands firm in her beliefs. That is what works for HER family and HER children. There are all kinds of people, all kinds of families, and they have to be supported no matter what. Pregnancy, childbirth, and being a new mom is a HUGE learning experience. Women need to be given correct and objective advice/education on these subjects and then left to make their decisions based on what is right for them. This has been repeated in this thread from all of us. What LLL does is just a piece of the pie. They do their job well, maybe a little too invasive at times, but overall I think we all can agree that they are a good organization. However, there are people who represent LLL and aside from the proven science of BFíng, their personal experience, opinions, and judgment get thrown into the mix and their views come out in a negative light. Here are some examples..."What many mothers do is feel guilty about their decisions and then accuse others of having "guilt tripped" them." Or, "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." Or, "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." Or, "or is it the defensive person misinterpreting what is said who needs to try not being so defensive?" Or, "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." Or, "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." No wonder things don't always go well. So, the people who are supposed to be "helping" are ready to blame the mothers? Where does it end? They are accusing women who are seeking help as already coming to the table with guilt complexes and feelings of defensiveness or needing to be coddled right from the start because women can't handle the truth of what is proven science. I call BS. If I had an experience with someone like above, yeah I'd feel defensive too. If that's how they feel, then perhaps they need to check and see if THEIR attitudes are indirectly shining through from their language and tone to those who are seeking help and therefore setting the initial tone in a judgmental fashion. Perhaps the defensiveness and "guilt tripping" starts with them and not the mother seeking help?

post #191 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post



But as your data is only relevant to the last 100 years, it is not a reflection of Nature or nature. I think we should leave nature out of this, as neither side has good proof of the claims. This topic is muddied enough without nature.

Yeah, especially when I read stuff like this... "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."

 

I have no idea what the author of this statement is trying to say here. Someone educate me, please.

post #192 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post

Yeah, especially when I read stuff like this... "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."

 

I have no idea what the author of this statement is trying to say here. Someone educate me, please.

 

That fathers have no place in the lives of children.

 

That's the only possible conclusion I can reach from statements like that.

post #193 of 246

IdentityCrisisMama - I can't multi-quote right now, but wanted to say a big THANK YOU!!!

 

I think you have done alot to restore clarity and understanding to this thread.  Some points that I particularly liked...1.) whether the strawberry analogy is what I stated or simply a difference between off the vine and farmer's market.  In other words, the issue of degree of nurtient/immunology loss.  I think this has been a very sensitive issue on this thread, and the subject of much misinterpretation (some saying I said EBM was a "distant" second, which isn't what I meant).  Furthermore, it's a point of clarification that I would like to find more about, too.  I do care about evidence based decision-making, as I know you do.

 

Second, I think you hit the nail on the head about the discrimination going both ways.  It seems there is an attitude floating around this thread that if someone is staying home with their kids and nursing from the breast (and making economic, social, career and other sacrifices to do so) then she is automatically holier-than-thou and judgmental at best - misguided, backward and anti-feminist at worst.  If one side wants to be better understood and listened to, certainly we need to apply the same grace for both.  I think information is just that, but the implications people draw from it do need to be explored in order to build effective communication.  I can only speak for myself, but I've tried to repeatedly acknowledge on this thread that mothers must do what works best for their families, that pumping might very well make them better mothers in the grand scheme of things, but that they should have accurate information to weigh the trade-offs.  Also, that LLL can and should speak the truth while still meeting mothers where they are and providing tailored support.

post #194 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickle18 View Post
It seems there is an attitude floating around this thread that if someone is staying home with their kids and nursing from the breast (and making economic, social, career and other sacrifices to do so) then she is automatically holier-than-thou and judgmental at best - misguided, backward and anti-feminist at worst.  If one side wants to be better understood and listened to, certainly we need to apply the same grace for both.  

 

 

Uhm I stayed home and nursed from the breast exclusively making economic, social, and career sacrifices. I don't think I am holier than anyone. I am judgmental, that's absolutely true but it has nothing to do with how I fed my kids. I don't feel like I am misguided for choosing to stay home and not work. I don't feel backward. I seriously don't feel anti-feminist. 

 

What I feel like is a mom who made one set of choices that are neither superior nor inferior to other people. I'm not going to tell people not to be like me and I'm not going to tell people to be like me. I have no idea what they are dealing with in life. 

 

But I'm not a career woman and I'm not going to call myself one. I uhhh picked not having a career because I wanted to stay home. That makes me not a "career woman" kind of by definition. 

post #195 of 246

Essentialism is defining an object by its supposed 'essence' (in the sense defined by Plato), For eg, one could say that  the essence of woman is that she has breasts and lactates.   An authentic woman, is one who has breasts and lactates.  That would be essentialist.    

 

I dont think Sustainer said anything like that anywhere.

She made a few points referring to human  biology, to the effect that a woman gives birth,  forms a mother/child bond, lactates in order to feed the baby, and that this is natures intent. (i guess evolution brought it about)

Just because women shared breastfeeding in the past  doesnt really change the biological fact of  the mother/child dyad  seen in most  other mamals too. And just because everyone wants to glorify dads (because they believe in the importance of the nuclear family, and i'm not debating that myself, although i think it has its limitations), doesnt change the fact that  the father has a limited bioligical role in reproduction relative to the mother.

 

This is just biology, using biology to examine gender is not the same as being essentialist. 

post #196 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoestoShow View Post

 

That fathers have no place in the lives of children.

 

That's the only possible conclusion I can reach from statements like that.

That's what I took from it too, and I couldn't disagree more. We are more than our biology, and it's largely believed that heavy paternal involvement is what has allowed us to evolve and thrive. 

 

I also am puzzled as to why I can't bring up evolution when so many are discussing this mystical way "Nature" designed us. Nature didn't design us. It was brought up that the only appropriate person to feed an infant was the mother, because of the way we were "designed." That's just not true, because we see cross-nursing in practice even to this day. In a time where we do generally stick to monogamous, long-term relationships, I think that it's much more intimate for a father to feed his baby mama's milk than another village woman.

post #197 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie View Post

Our history as homo sapiens, to be specific (so roughly 200,000 years). Obviously we can't tell much in terms of cross-nursing through the fossil record, just the average weaning age. It's obviously important to point out that this doesn't mean there's anything wrong or unnatural with nursing beyond that. As for cross-nursing, it's something that's been heavily documented over the past 100 years by anthropologists in cultures across the world.

 

I also feel that it was relevant to the conversation. The idea that nature intended nursing to be a one-on-one relationship doesn't hold up in practice. Neither does the idea of nursing into the 4th, 5th or 6th year as being the biological norm (as was brought up in this thread).

I think that some women are against the thought of cross nursing because they feel it diminishes their perception of their all powerful mystical breasts being the only ones that can feed their child. Kind of humbling to realise that any lactating woman can feed your baby, you are not some kind of miraculous being.

post #198 of 246

Group dynamics absolutely have a place in our evolution.

 

Women in tribal/indigenous situations share child feedings and care.  Perhaps the very fact that so many Western women get "touched" or burned out is an indicator that we're not meant to be living this way.

post #199 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaBeanie View Post

That's what I took from it too, and I couldn't disagree more. We are more than our biology, and it's largely believed that heavy paternal involvement is what has allowed us to evolve and thrive. 

I also am puzzled as to why I can't bring up evolution when so many are discussing this mystical way "Nature" designed us. Nature didn't design us. It was brought up that the only appropriate person to feed an infant was the mother, because of the way we were "designed." That's just not true, because we see cross-nursing in practice even to this day. In a time where we do generally stick to monogamous, long-term relationships, I think that it's much more intimate for a father to feed his baby mama's milk than another village woman.

No one said you can't discuss evolution. I merely said that it's yet another tangent on this thread, and maybe that should be discussed on it's own thread. It's an interesting topic, but takes us away from the original point -- again!
post #200 of 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightkindofme View Post


Uhm I stayed home and nursed from the breast exclusively making economic, social, and career sacrifices. I don't think I am holier than anyone. I am judgmental, that's absolutely true but it has nothing to do with how I fed my kids. I don't feel like I am misguided for choosing to stay home and not work. I don't feel backward. I seriously don't feel anti-feminist. 

What I feel like is a mom who made one set of choices that are neither superior nor inferior to other people. I'm not going to tell people not to be like me and I'm not going to tell people to be like me. I have no idea what they are dealing with in life. 

But I'm not a career woman and I'm not going to call myself one. I uhhh picked not having a career because I wanted to stay home. That makes me not a "career woman" kind of by definition. 

Your choice of words, and intention to convey tone, comes across, to me, at least, as having a very superior attitude.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › not too happy with this