Well, where is the respect here for the fathers of these children that Sustainer wants to be breastfed, at the breast 100% of the time, by no one else but the mother who should rethink her decision making about leaving the house for more than two hours at a time during the first year of her babys' life, and stick with it for a minimum of 2 years all while not allowing anyone to feed the child except for mom?
Here are some direct quotes from her regarding men/fathers...
"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."
So, according to her, a father's bonds with his children will be inferior to those of the mother and that they should just get over it and deal with it. Yeah, that is respectful of the father.
"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."
My interpretation of this language is that Sustainer has a problem with men/fathers in general, and would prefer men to be entirely out of the picture since it seems like according to her, we don't need them. Well, the kid needs a father. It wouldn't be fair to discount the father in the caring of THEIR baby since he did help make him/her. That's a fact. Read your science books and concentrate on the chapter where they discuss the roles of egg and sperm. And since she said this... "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." Yes, the baby is the most important person in the situation and saying essentially that the father is unneccesary and inferior to the mother is not fair to the baby. If I told DH that his bonds with our kids are inferior to mine and too bad, and then I told him that Nature can't verify that he is even the father and that the term father is not even a word he would send me off to get some therapy somewhere, or check under the cabinet to find where the alcohol and drugs were that I took before making such statements.
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... 
I don't know who Magnus Pyke is. I didn't capitalize all the letters in the word, so I'm not yelling the word.
It's halfway between saying "God" and saying "nature." It's what I'm comfortable with. Whether coming from a spiritual perspective or a secular perspective, Nature/nature is something we can all respect and appreciate the importance of.
If you're religious, substitute "God." If you tend more toward Earth-based spirituality, substitute "Mother Nature" or your equivalent term. If you're pure science, substitute "nature."
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 agree to disagree on whether or not the word "inferior" should be used. However, it's clear to me that people are attaching emotion to the word, and that you are conceding that it is an inherently emotionally charged word. To me it is a neutral word used scientifically with a very simple definition. EBM is not as good as direct breastfeeding. That is information. I don't see how anyone could deny that that is information. If someone is upset by the idea of feeding their child something that isn't quite as good or using a feeding method/delivery system that isn't as good, they have two choices: Choose the food and method that are not inferior to the biological norm, or make peace with the fact that they have balanced the inferiority against other factors in their life. Donor milk is not as good as the milk of the child's own mother, and formula is vastly inferior to the other options here mentioned. This is all information. I don't know how anyone could deny that this is information.
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
I'm fine with that. My remarks are usually addressed to a general audience rather than a specific person. So most of the things I say should be taken as "your mileage may vary." For example, if a mother is in a situation in which, for one reason or another, directly breastfeeding her child is physically impossible, then obviously some of the facts I share become irrelevant, and she needs to do whatever is best *for her child in her situation,* and there's no reason for her to feel bad or guilty about general facts.
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.
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.
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?
Assuming you're correct about what happened, no, I don't think it's overreaching. LLL is a breastfeeding advocacy organization. One of the major obstacles to breastfeeding is that the image of bottle feeding is normalized in the media.
Quote:
It seems that LLL turned it into an anti-breastfeeding issue
No. The makers of the ad created the issue by depicting a child being fed by a method that is not as healthy as the method by which children are meant to be fed.
Quote:
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?
That's a valid question. If you pump milk and then feed it to the baby so soon that it doesn't need to be refrigerated or frozen, then I would say it's equivalent to a strawberry that was picked in the morning. Once breastmilk is frozen, I think you might have to compare it to a strawberry that has been microwaved.
Quote:
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 don't know why you don't think the hierarchy is information. It is not something we're "spinning." I wouldn't present it unless I thought it was pure fact.
Quote:
I honestly think that if folks are reacting poorly to the information you are providing that they are most likely reacting to the spin.
Come on. Have you been paying attention to this thread? The people reacting are the ones putting their own spin on it. They are projecting.
[Edited to add: Didn't realize I was saying that to a mod. Oops. 
]
Quote:
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.
I didn't mean to imply that wet nursing is unnatural. But I think we can all agree that Nature didn't count on bottles.
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).
It was an anthropologist who determined that the normal duration of breastfeeding for humans ranges from 2 and a half to 7 years. It is based on the study of other mammals, and when their young wean, compared to the age at which their young grow teeth and meet other developmental milestones. The anthropologist was able to extrapolate the human range. This means that the determination was NOT based on a study of human remains or other physical evidence from human history. Humans lived through many challenges during their time on Earth. They were often only able to nurse their children for a less than optimal length of time. There are other facts that support a length of approximately 6 years as a normal duration of breastfeeding. For example, the human immune system is not fully developed until the age of six. Until then, children depend on the immunities in their mother's milk.
Quote:
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.
EXCUSE me??? Holy crap. 
If a girl learns, through watching others, that babies are fed from the breast, then she is being taught to think of herself as nothing other than a MILK MACHINE?? Oh. my. gosh. I don't even know what to say to you.
Quote:
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.
All right. I'm done walking on eggshells with you. I am lower income than all of the other people I know who have personally told me that they can't afford to be a stay at home mother. I'm sick of being told that by being a stay at home mother, I'm indulging in a "luxury." I don't live on welfare and I don't get food stamps or anything else that everyone else doesn't get, if that's what you're implying. And it is highly insulting to imply that I "don't want to work." For your information, I DO work, thank you very much. Being a mother is the most challenging job in the world. By staying with my young children and taking care of them properly and raising them, I am meeting responsibilities. If I couldn't have avoided homelessness or starvation without two incomes, I wouldn't have chosen to have children.
Again, THAT'S ME. That's my values. If other people have other values, they make other choices.
Also, some people are able to be "Work-at-Home-Mothers" or take their children to their job with them. More power to them.
Quote:
Yes, little girls are taught that babies need to be fed.
And, as a lactivist, you think that's enough? That it doesn't matter whether they're taught that breastfeeding is the default?
Quote:
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.
I think the word "major" could be disputed in that sentence.
Also, importance increases as age decreases. Whether an infant is breastfed or fed formula has more of an impact on health than whether an adult eats organic food he grows himself or "anything short of that."
Quote:
Or have you decided that you are just a human being and you can't be everything at all times perfectly?
I know people are sick of me referring to the article Watch Your Language, but breastfeeding a child should not be characterized as being a perfect superhuman. It is just a basic standard.
Quote:
It is a simple fact that direct breastfeeding fully on demand is just not an option for most American women.
I think I have disputed that, using myself as an example. I've always been the poorest person in just about every social circle I've ever been in. I wasn't going to keep harping on it, but you're the one making an issue of it.
Quote:
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.
Breastfeeding is what children need and are meant to have. It's important. Bottles can mean formula and are usually assumed to be. Humans learn by watching other humans. The image they need to be exposed to is breastfeeding. The normalization of bottle feeding would lead people to bottle feed by default even in situations in which there's no reason for them not to breastfeed.
Quote:
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.
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll repeat that I was speaking of the organization in general. If you know of a local group that is already too confrontational, then obviously it doesn't need to become more confrontational.
Quote:
So... why do you think that the folks who have babies are automatically not part of the general public?
Hmm. Don't know where you're getting *that* one. I *do* think the people who have babies are part of the general public.
Quote:
if you think there is no winning over the general public that might be because of the extremity of the stance.
Lactivists have not been able to win over the general public because the culture is so unnatural.
Quote:
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.
Breastmilk should not be thought of as "giving a boost." It is simply what children are meant to have. What the normal development of their bodies requires. "Go ahead and bottlefeed and use formula if you feel that's appropriate?" Yeah, that's the message we as lactivists should be spreading. Sure, some people might breastfeed for a while if you told them all that. Or they might not. It certainly wouldn't give them much incentive to seriously consider breastfeeding if it was at all inconvenient for them.
Quote:
ANY AMOUNT OF BREASTMILK IS USEFUL. That is my understanding of the science. This is not an all or nothing game.
True.
Quote:
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.
First of all, I'm not pressuring people. I'm just providing facts. There *are* good reasons, though, to breastfeed a child for as many years as the child determines. Nothing in our world has changed to make breastfeeding unnecessary.
Quote:
Supplementing with breast milk provides benefits.
Actually, supplementing with formula *detracts* from the health development that a child is supposed to experience.
Quote:
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."
I have NOT presented it as all or nothing. That should be clear by now.
Quote:
That is NOT what I said. What I said was that if a mother of a young baby chose to work outside the home, parted from her child, during his first year of life, just because she felt like it, EVEN IF THERE WAS NO FINANCIAL NEED, I would think that she must just not know how important breastfeeding is.
To "act like me" would be to become a stay at home mother even though already living below the poverty line.
Originally Posted by rightkindofme
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.
Excuse the f*** out of ME????? Oh, if this doesn't make you *really* unpopular in the Mothering forums, then I am going to completely lose my faith in the Mothering forums.
And that is one of the problems with this society. As I said, it is, in my opinion, the most challenging and fulfilling career in the world. I don't get paid in money -- I get paid in my child's development.
This is what I want too. A second career, after my career as a full time SAHM is over. A career that I need to go to college for. Since my kids are in school now, I am already taking classes. I know that being a stay at home mother has made some things more challenging about pursuing a different career after this one. It was worth it to me.
Of course I don't expect everyone to be like me. I stated very clearly that I would have moved heaven and earth but that "I don't expect everyone else to do the same, and I never said they should."
Think whatever you please. You will anyway, and I'm done caring. And I suppose I'm not supposed to think (LOL after everything you've said) that you don't judge SAHMs? You know what, I don't care about that either.
That is NOT WHAT I SAID.
Quote:
And of course you support them getting a break. As long as it isn't longer than 2-3 hours.
Didn't say it.
Quote:
Sure, you totally support people making different choices.
Go climb a tree. Tell us again about how we accused you of not caring about your child because you breastfed your child for 3 years.
Quote:
You educated yourself because if someone is educated they couldn't possibly make a decision different from yours.
Are you enjoying hearing yourself talk?
Quote:
I could keep gosh darn going through the whole thread. You are not even vaguely neutral. You drip with disdain.
You're not going to keep gosh darn going through the whole thread? Well thank god for small favors. I AM neutral. YOU drip with disdain. You are projecting it.
Quote:
We can survive a ridiculous amount of trauma and difficulty.
SURVIVE it, yes. Usually.
Quote:
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.
I HAVE researched it and the risks of formula are more extreme.
Quote:
If you research the consequences of women who are not happy about being mothers being forced to go through that kind of contact
Women who are not happy about being mothers should not be forced to become mothers. And obviously no mother should be *forced* to breastfeed.
Quote:
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.
There are many things that other people can do to help out with the care. There is no mandate to breastfeed and no one said there should be.
Quote:
It means the father has to work a lot of extra hours to replace the income.
This assumes a 2 income household by default.
Quote:
So he's not there to help.
One of the things that makes motherhood challenging. But according to you, she should be going to a job 8 hours a day as well?
Quote:
The fact that they want to not have their nipples be yanked on constantly is something I can understand.
I understand it too. But personally I felt that frequent breastfeeding in the early months was part of what I signed up for.
I was "properly educated" and I chose to nurse my kids till 3 and 2. They never had formula.
Awesome.
Quote:
A few times my husband spoon fed them when I had to be gone. It was miserable and depressing and sad.
And now I feel like you're projecting these things onto me almost as if it was my fault.
Quote:
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.
You need to own that experience. In the first year of life, my kids hardly consumed anything other than at my breast, but it did NOT psychologically damage ME. I'm not saying that there must just be something wrong with you or that it shouldn't have had the effect on you that it had. I'm just saying that it does not have that effect on everyone. If you felt that way, then you were right to try to give yourself a break. Everyone's experience is different. Everyone should try to do what they feel is right for their situation.
Quote:
Bottle feeding is the norm in our species.
Sorry, but this is just plain old WRONG. Breastfeeding is the norm for our species. I don't know how you can say what you said.
Quote:
Breastfeeding is picking up speed but it is not helped whatsoever by shaming biological essentialism.
I have not shamed anyone. If you feel ashamed then that's all you. Tell me again that my choice of Motherhood was just "getting knocked up?"
Quote:
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.
It is not a "benefit" of breastfeeding that it "reduces" rates of these diseases. It's a RISK of formula that it INCREASES the chances of getting these diseases. Read the article.
Quote:
The most important thing is that you like each other and get along. That is what will matter in 20 years.
That's certainly important. But whether the child got human breastmilk or not will also matter in 20 years. It affects health life-long.
Quote:
so the little @#$#@$ parasites
OK. I'm going to leave that one alone.
Quote:
But I'm just reading into things
You think?
Quote:
and hysterical
I'm sincerely sorry you had a negative breastfeeding experience with your little @#$#@$ parasites. Oops, I didn't leave it alone.
I need to figure out how to unsubscribe from this freaking thread.
Oh I think I can help you with that. You scroll down and click on... shoot, where is it? Could someone PLEASE help her with that?
I think I'm going to go take a puke break after reading that post before moving on to the next post.
Quote:
The Earth is not going to be thrown off its axis if a father bottle feeds his OWN child when needed.
No, the Earth is not going to be thrown off its axis. But maybe now someone can explain to me why the word "own" keeps getting capitalized in this context. Does it really make that much of a difference, when a father is bottlefeeding the child, whether he is the child's father? I can see that it would make sense to emphasize a mother breastfeeding *her own* child, since there are breasts involved and there is milk involved that she produced that was specifically formulated for *that* child. But people keep saying "a father feeding his own baby" as if a man with a bottle is doing something just as natural and appropriate as a mother breastfeeding and that it should be taken for granted as "the thing to do."
Quote:
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.
It's great that men want to help. As I keep saying, there are plenty of ways to help, and feeding isn't necessarily the best way for a man to help with a baby. If a mother doesn't specifically request help with feeding (and by the way, fetching her things like a glass of water is a great way to help) and the man insists on helping by doing the feeding himself instead of helping in other ways, he might want to consider that it might be out of envy and possibly a bit of selfishness.
Quote:
Our society has evolved exponentially since the caveman era.
Most of the drastic and unnatural changes are relatively recent.
Only the past 5000 years have been Patriarchy. Before that was the Matriarchy.
Quote:
The all-or-nothing approach is dangerous
Oy. Could we please stop with this straw man? No one has said that it is all or nothing! In fact we have all been saying repeatedly that it is NOT all or nothing.
Quote:
If women can be as perfect as Sustainer has presented herself to be in this thread, then that's great.
I am not perfect and have not been trying to characterize myself as perfect. I have shared my experience and choices for a variety of reasons, none of which was to brag or pose as the ideal. Sometimes I just want to let people know what some of the options are, and that there are particular things that *can* be done and *have* been done.
Quote:
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.
Thanks.
Quote:
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.
Totally. And yes it has.
Quote:
"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."
Sorry, but those things are all true and I stand by them. I did not come into this thread with the intention of saying those things, though. I was reacting to things that happened during the discussion.
Quote:
So, the people who are supposed to be "helping" are ready to blame the mothers?
I did not come into this discussion with the attitude of being ready to blame the mothers. Facts started being grossly misinterpreted and I reacted in a human way.
Quote:
They are accusing women who are seeking help as already coming to the table with guilt complexes and feelings of defensiveness
Well if the shoe fits...
Quote:
or needing to be coddled right from the start because women can't handle the truth of what is proven science.
This is what I'm against. I'm against coddling and watering down facts.
Quote:
If I had an experience with someone like above, yeah I'd feel defensive too.
Don't confuse the cause with the effect.
Perhaps the defensiveness and "guilt tripping" starts with them and not the mother seeking help?
Nice try. But it doesn't.
"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.
You need to go back and read it in context. Read what I was responding to. Read the discussion that led up to it.
Quote:
That fathers have no place in the lives of children.
YEAH! That's what I was saying! Good GRIEF! How do people make these LEAPS from one thing to something else??
Quote:
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.
Yeah. She wasn't saying that you are. She was saying that people *shouldn't* imply that you are. Couldn't you find the unsubscribe link yet?
Contactmaya, thank you. I'm pretty close to loving you too. ;)
Quote:
I also am puzzled as to why I can't bring up evolution when so many are discussing this mystical way "Nature" designed us.
I'm puzzled too. Why *can't* you bring up evolution? I don't think there's anything "mystical" about how Nature designed us. I believe in evolution too.
Kind of humbling to realise that any lactating woman can feed your baby, you are not some kind of miraculous being.
Depending on how you define "miraculous," I think all women who give birth or produce milk could be described as miraculous. It is true that any lactating woman can feed any baby, but only the child's own mother produces milk that is specially formulated for that exact child at that exact stage of life.
Quote:
children that Sustainer wants to be breastfed, at the breast 100% of the time, by no one else but the mother who should rethink her decision making about leaving the house for more than two hours at a time during the first year of her babys' life, and stick with it for a minimum of 2 years all while not allowing anyone to feed the child except for mom?
I'm really getting tired of people putting words in my mouth. Don't you think the things I say are extreme enough without having to be changed so much?
Quote:
So, according to her, a father's bonds with his children will be inferior to those of the mother and that they should just get over it and deal with it.
Yup.
Quote:
Yeah, that is respectful of the father.
Just the way it is.
Not at all. But thanks for reading into things. It never gets old.
Not at all.
Never said it.
Not necessarily.
Sorry, but that is what is called an OPINION. Unless you're just referring to the "he did help make him/her" part. I suppose he did ejaculate. That must entitle him to a FIFTY PERCENT interest.
Quote:
saying essentially that the father is unneccesary and inferior to the mother
Never said he was unnecessary. I would agree with the statement that he plays an inferior parenting role compared with the mother.
Quote:
If I told DH that his bonds with our kids are inferior to mine and too bad
Can't think of a particular reason you would point this out to him. Unless he fought you for custody.
Quote:
and that the term father is not even a word
It's a word now, after we spent thousands of years figuring it out.
Good point. I'd just like to state again, for the record, that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a LLL leader. Nor have I ever made any of the statements that I made on this thread, in a LLL meeting. Thank you.
OK, let me rephrase... the women on here who call themselves lactivists.
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.
It's funny how when you quote someone, you pick it apart and leave the rest of it out. If you fully quoted me, it would have included that I had also read that LLL was asked their opinion on the situation. Earlier, I wanted to know did LLL pressure the NZ gov't, or were they asked. No one here knows for sure and from what I have been able to find elsewhere I have heard both that LLL pressured to have the image removed and that they were asked their opinion.
Quote:
It seems that LLL turned it into an anti-breastfeeding issue
No. The makers of the ad created the issue by depicting a child being fed by a method that is not as healthy as the method by which children are meant to be fed.
If LLL pressured the NZ govt to remove the image then yes they turned it into an anti-breastfeeding issue, as it was an anti-smoking ad. If they were asked their opinion then, no. But again, no one on here knows for sure the story about who asked who or who pressured who. So, we really can't answer this I guess.
That is NOT WHAT I SAID.
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.
Quote:
And of course you support them getting a break. As long as it isn't longer than 2-3 hours.
Didn't say it.
Another position I take, as a lactivist, is that the best thing for babies who need to breastfeed every 2 or 3 hours, is that their mothers aren't parted from them longer than that, any more frequently than necessary.
Quote:
The Earth is not going to be thrown off its axis if a father bottle feeds his OWN child when needed.
No, the Earth is not going to be thrown off its axis. But maybe now someone can explain to me why the word "own" keeps getting capitalized in this context.
Own is being capitalized because the father keeps getting removed from the equation when speaking about the feeding of HIS kid.
Umm, yes, it does matter that the male feeding a child is, in fact, the father. A PARENT feeding his/her child IS a natural thing and IS appropriate. Why do you continue to insist on removing the father from the equation. You are way extreme in your feminist views and believe me, it shows here perfectly. Are you such a feminist that you will go so far as to deny the fact the kids have fathers???? Yes, women have breasts and can only produce human milk for the baby they bring into the world. We already know this. If a father wants to feed his kid every once and a while or has to because for some reason Mom has to be somewhere else, so what? My kids are my kids, and my kids are my DH kids. My own kids. His own kids.
Quote:
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.
It's great that men want to help. As I keep saying, there are plenty of ways to help, and feeding isn't necessarily the best way for a man to help with a baby.
A father feeding his child on occasion is one of many great ways that a father can help with the caretaking of his kid.
If a mother doesn't specifically request help with feeding (and by the way, fetching her things like a glass of water is a great way to help) and the man insists on helping by doing the feeding himself instead of helping in other ways, he might want to consider that it might be out of envy and possibly a bit of selfishness.
I highly doubt that any man would offer and then insist to feed his baby out of envy and selfishness?? How is this being selfish? And envy? Please.
Perhaps the defensiveness and "guilt tripping" starts with them and not the mother seeking help?
Nice try. But it doesn't.
Really? You just contradicted yourself...
Quote:
They are accusing women who are seeking help as already coming to the table with guilt complexes and feelings of defensiveness
Well if the shoe fits...
"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.
You need to go back and read it in context. Read what I was responding to. Read the discussion that led up to it.
I did read before, during and after and what you are saying here still doesn't make any sense. Please explain further what you mean here. Nature meant for a mother to not know who the father of her child is? I suppose if she is having unprotected sex with multiple partners, then that would be the case. Then you go on to question the existence of the word father??? Huh?? Are you serious?? Based on what you are saying here I suppose we can say the same for the word mother too, then, right?
Quote:
That fathers have no place in the lives of children.
YEAH! That's what I was saying! Good GRIEF! How do people make these LEAPS from one thing to another??
What else are we to think.
Quote:
children that Sustainer wants to be breastfed, at the breast 100% of the time, by no one else but the mother who should rethink her decision making about leaving the house for more than two hours at a time during the first year of her babys' life, and stick with it for a minimum of 2 years all while not allowing anyone to feed the child except for mom?
I'm really getting tired of people putting words in my mouth. Don't you think the things I say are extreme enough without having to be changed so much?
How wrong did I get it? I think I was rather spot-on here.
Quote:
So, according to her, a father's bonds with his children will be inferior to those of the mother and that they should just get over it and deal with it.
Yup.
Quote:
Yeah, that is respectful of the father.
Just the way it is.
These are your opinions, they are not fact. I can't imagine any woman in a loving relationship with her husband who share children together would agree with you. I paraphrased in these quotes, but you basically portray these as facts in other posts. They're not.
Not at all. But thanks for reading into things. It never gets old.
You portray yourself in this manner.
Not at all.
Then, where do they belong... according to you?
Not necessarily.
Really? What exactly do you mean here? My kids need their father. What are you implying? This sounds like it is coming from a place of disdain for men from an experience you may have had and you are generalizing that kids don't necessarily need their father as a general rule. You can't just say something like this without explaining yourself. It leaves an open-ended area for interpretation, which may be incorrect. You do this and then get upset with people when they "twist your words" or "read into things" you write like this. What do you expect??
Sorry, but that is what is called an OPINION. Unless you're just referring to the "he did help make him/her" part. I suppose he did ejaculate. That must entitle him to a FIFTY PERCENT interest.
THIS IS FACT! How can you possibly think this is an opinion??? So, because men ejaculate, which you elude to being the only thing that men can offer, then by default, the father is entitled to 50% interest of his kid. I don't know too many men who would consider themselves a parent and father by default. You are insulting A LOT of people by saying this.
Quote:
saying essentially that the father is unneccesary and inferior to the mother
Never said he was unnecessary. I would agree with the statement that he plays an inferior parenting role compared with the mother.
You've never said the words unneccessary, but you certainly don't want to admit to how he is neccessary in the parenting department. In the ballpark picture of a child's life, which is from conception to adulthood, breastfeeding is a small percentage of a person's life. Saying that ones' parenting role is inferior to the other is not correct. Mother and father roles are vital equally to a child's development and long after that child becomes an adult.
Quote:
and that the term father is not even a word
It's a word now, after we spent thousands of years figuring it out.
????
nm
Sustainer, I don't care for your debate style on this thread. If find you interesting, passionate and we've both been members on MDC for about the same amount of time and I have a fondness for mamas from back in the day. I have a few points on this thread that I have made over and over again. I can repeat or if you are interested you could just go back and read again with a fresh pair of eyes. We are on the same "side" - I think all of us are.
Mamas, thanks for an interesting conversation. I'd be down with a few spin-offs if anyone posts one. It's been interesting and engaging for sure. 
I know I'm signing off but how interesting would it be for a LLL leader to write to LLL for advice on how to discuss EBM and see what the say!
I dont see a problem particularly with Sustainer's debating style. I do see a tendency in other posts to mock/pick a fight, and agree with Pek64 there. Thats how i am viewing this conversation. Just another view.
Just to be clear - I am finding it difficult to communicate with Sustainer - it is not a reflection of how I view her in general or a comparison to other members on this thread. It is clear that there is a perspective that resonates with some and one that resonates with others but that's not what this is about for me. Truth be told, it may be more a computer capability, a response time, and a visual thing more than anything else. The multiple post feature is difficult for me to read. That and the fact that a lot of my posts were intended to be my last words and then the quote feature (especially when taken out of context) makes me feel sucked back into a redundant topic. I certainly understand not being finished with the topic but for me the better thing to do is probably to go back and read and try to understand everyone's perspective.
I bumped an old thread on the WHO source question: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1326641/who-statement-on-infant-feeding#post_17226241
For those interested I did post what I think is the source for the WHO preference for direct BFing - a joint article from WHO called "Facts for life" forth edition page 68. I posted it to the above thread.
IdentityCrisisMama, have you found any articles that explain the nutritional difference between fresh breastmilk directly from the breast versus fresh, pumped breastmilk that has been either given shortly after being pumped or refrigerated for a few hours? I'm curious to know if there is a difference, and if so, how much. I'm having trouble finding this specific information. All I see are things like, the act of nursing helps develop the babys' jaw, helps prevent ear infections, provides comfort, etc. This is not the same as specifically explaining nutritional differences.
TIA
Pickle posted a bunch of links but I am not scientific enough to fit those studies into the grand scheme of things. I'd love to read a good breakdown of the current research that is well sourced. It's a really interesting question for sure. Do you want to start a spin-off?
This article from this thread (maybe Pickle again?) isn't a bad start. Some may not like the perspective but it is well referenced. Sometimes when I don't care for the tone of an an article, I just skip down to the references and just read from them myself. (ETA: I'm not saying I disagree with the tone of this article but I can see why some may).
Kind of humbling to realise that any lactating woman can feed your baby, you are not some kind of miraculous being.
Depending on how you define "miraculous," I think all women who give birth or produce milk could be described as miraculous. It is true that any lactating woman can feed any baby, but only the child's own mother produces milk that is specially formulated for that exact child at that exact stage of life.
How does that work when tandem nursing? It sounds as though at least one child participating in tandem nursing would be getting less than ideal milk.
IdentityCrisisMama,
I found the post with Pickle's links... thanks! I read the one you just linked 2 posts above and I read the others from her post. Generally speaking, it looks like expressed breastmilk starts to lose it's TAC (total antioxidant concentration) after 48 hours.
I said "Bottle feeding is now the norm for our species" (or something very close) which is both inaccurate and pretty idiotic. I meant that it is the norm in our American culture. I grossly misspoke and that completely changed what I meant. I apologize for that.
In my view if you want to change culture you need to do it in a way that doesn't cause people to feel like they have no shot of making it to "good enough" without an effort they currently see as impossible.
And the unsubscribe on the page only allows you to stop getting emails. This still shows up in "I've Posted" and obviously my self-control is lacking.
Thank you for quoting my exact words.
Thank you for not trying to rephrase my words. You're bad at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88
See above. Well, actually you don't support this in the first year of life. Again, see above.
I did not say that I don't support a mother leaving her infant with someone else for more than 3 hours. Read my exact words.
Now it's "his" that you are capitalizing, and that doesn't make any more sense than capitalizing "own" in that context. Read my explanation of why it doesn't make sense to emphasize either word. I am not removing the father from the equation. Other people, including you, are trying to imply that it should go without saying that a father should feed the infant that he is the father of.
A mother breastfeeding her infant is natural. Now it's the word "parent" that you're emphasizing. It's as if people keep trying to erase the difference between mothers and fathers. As if it doesn't matter that one of them lactates and the other (except in rare cases) does not. As a lactivist, are you claiming that it is JUST as appropriate for a presumably non-lactating male to feed an infant as a mother? I am NOT removing the father from the situation. I am talking about BREASTFEEDING which is something that WOMEN do. There is absolutely nothing extreme about this. There IS something extreme and unnatural about people continually using language to insist that a man feeding a baby with a bottle is THE SAME as a mother breastfeeding a baby. I am absolutely not denying that children have fathers. I am only talking about infant feeding here. Breastfeeding. That's why I'm talking about mothers. As I keep saying, if a father or some other member of the family feeds the baby EBM every once in a while, THAT'S FINE. The only thing I'm questioning is the repeated emphasis of phrases like "HIS OWN baby" and "it's natural for a PARENT" when talking about INFANT FEEDING -- as if it makes no difference whether the mother or the father feeds the infant.
How is it selfish? Well, the best thing for the *baby* would be if the mother breastfed the baby. Again, I'm talking about a situation in which the mother is not specifically asking for *feeding* help. A previous poster -- sorry, I forget who -- explained why a non-mother might specifically want to *feed* a child as opposed to helping out in some other way. It is a superior bonding experience and it can make you feel especially important. It is a fact that some men envy the female ability to produce milk.
No, I didn't, actually. I have been claiming the same thing consistently.
Mother Nature did not arrange for *anyone* to know who the father of a child is -- except the mother if she's only been with one man -- and it could be guessed at, if the guy hangs around and the baby looks like him. But Mother Nature did not arrange for people to know that there is such a thing as a father. For most of human history, there was no word "father." It was not known how pregnancy happened. Only now, with modern technology, can we definitively determine who the father of a child is. For most of human history, *all* sex was "unprotected." The condom is relatively recent. I'm talking about how things were arranged by nature and how they were for most of human existence. I'm not talking about modern times with modern technology. No, the same thing cannot be said about mothers. There has always been a concept of a mother and I'm sure one of the first words was "mother." It's very clear who the mother of a child is. She's pregnant with the child for 9 months and then you can see it come out of her body and it's still attached by the cord and then she's holding it and breastfeeding it and is generally in primary possession of it from then on, until the child reaches adulthood. AND it looks like her. And she knows that she needs to stick around the baby because she knows it has been born, and the hormones and chemicals in her brain are telling her to. The father might not even know the baby has been born or even conceived.
What else are we to think.
So when you don't know what I mean, you just decide to believe that I mean some ridiculous thing that isn't even remotely what I said?
How wrong did you get it? Well let me see. I have repeatedly clarified that an infant being fed at the breast 100% of the time is not the only acceptable situation. I've said it's okay for other people to feed the baby sometimes, especially when it's necessary. I did not say that any woman leaving her infant for more than 2 hours should rethink her decision. I did not say that anyone has to breastfeed for more than 2 years. Other than that, the things you said were.... wait. That actually covers all of the things you said.
Debatable.
I hope it's not that bad.
Actually I've communicated with several people who meet your description, who have told me they agree with me. I've also communicated with some men who told me they agree with me.
No I don't. You're reading into it, too.
Ideally, earning money, and then coming home and helping out the mother.
I mean what I said before. I'm a single mother. My mother was a single mother. I believe I am raising my children well, and I'm not sure the visitation they have with their father is particularly advantageous, considering my ex's character. I also believe that I was raised well, although I hardly ever saw my father. I am not saying that your kids have no need of their father. That's why I said not necessarily. I didn't say not at all. I do not have disdain for men in general. I have disdain for my ex. There's nothing I'd like more at this time in my life than to find a loving stepfather for my children. But if I don't find one, we'll be okay. I am not saying that most kids have no need for their father. I'm just saying that, in some families, it can be better if the father isn't there. What do I expect? I expect you not to read your own meaning into things or assume things. If you want me to expand on something, ASK. When I say something, what I mean is *what I say.* It should not be assumed that I mean something *other* than the exact words that I said.
As I said, the "he did help make the baby" part of the sentence is a fact. But the sentence overall is an opinion:
"It wouldn't be fair to discount the father in the caring of the baby because..."
You are misquoting me again. I did NOT say that sperm is the only thing that men can offer.
You lost me here. I don't know what you're trying to say.
A small percentage in what regard? Do you mean the amount of time they spend doing it? I think it is of great importance in a person's life.
That's YOUR opinion.
Identity Crisis Mama: I came here today determined to feel sorry for rightkindofme and not allow her comments to anger me, and to try not to lose my patience. I'm a little surprised, though, that you are focusing more on my reactions than on some of the things she said, which are much more extreme, and certainly more insulting, than anything I've said -- things like choosing Mothering being nothing other than getting knocked up. And, about stay at home mothers, that society cannot afford to support everyone who doesn't want to work -- implying, not only that stay at home mothers don't do work, but that they live off of welfare or otherwise drain society. She also severely mischaracterized several things I said, in ways that often seemed malicious. Anyway. When multiple posters repeatedly accuse me of saying horrible or insulting things that I *have not said,* I tend not to take it too well. Maybe if they could edit out their false accusations, I could delete my reactions, and that would make for a more amicable discussion. And if the nasty insults to SAHMs could be edited out, I could delete my reactions to them, too.
I apologize for saying that mothering is just getting knocked up; that was inappropriate hyperbole. Other than picking a great father for my kids you and I have made pretty much the same choices. And I weaned my children at earlier ages because I didn't want to kill them. But I actually think it is a good thing that you were able to handling nursing for as long as your children needed. I couldn't do that.
Mothering is a difficult thing to do. But it is more about a relationship and less about a career. I stand by that distinction. Being a good mother is a ridiculous amount of work--I'm not sure I do enough work to qualify. But it's still not a "career". I apologize for being demeaning as I tried to make that distinction. That wasn't necessary.
How does that work when tandem nursing? It sounds as though at least one child participating in tandem nursing would be getting less than ideal milk.
The milk is formulated for the younger child. It's still great for the older child, though. 
Thank you, Roxswood, for providing another of the very reasonable posts on this thread. Reading your post was very healing for me. 
Quote:
I said "Bottle feeding is now the norm for our species" (or something very close) which is both inaccurate and pretty idiotic. I meant that it is the norm in our American culture. I grossly misspoke and that completely changed what I meant. I apologize for that.
And I apologize for reacting harshly to it if I did (and I probably did).
I posted another spin off.
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1371957/understanding-evolution
Sustainer, I hope there are no hard feelings. I really did enjoy the conversation and it was the dynamic of the thread that made me focus on you. And a lot of it really was a technical thing because the multi-quote feature meant that your posts were really hard for me to read - it really is nothing personal.
Follow Mothering