Fathers who breastfeed!? - Page 9

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Eh.

Pretty controversial topic for a guy with only 4 posts to his name.

Yeah, I always wonder about people who have such a low post count who start a thread and never come back to it.


Seems odd, to me.

[lunar forest]

oh I know. I'm habitually suspicious of trolls. I'm quite convinced of this one, but I couldn't care less.

[greenfish]

Originally Posted by thismama

Being opposed to male breastfeeding does NOT equal seeing gender as binary or oppressing trans people. In any way.

I never said that. I realize, as I tried to make clear, that there are reasons to be suspicious. It's the wholesale rejection out of an emotional place that makes me wonder. My post was in reaction to the "biological abnormalities" post.

Originally Posted by thismama

Risks include the man 'comfort nursing' at his 'breast' in the name of being a 'sensitive man' and mama's supply is compromised, advocacy of use of drugs to increase male milk production, and men inserting themselves and interfering with mama-baby bonding in IMO an inappropriate way to the detriment of both mother (who can experience PPD) and baby (who may get nipple confusion or a mama without enough supply to meet his/her nutritional needs), etc etc.

What if there isn't a "mama"? (I realize there are other doubts, just curious if you have any others?)

Originally Posted by thismama

I don't like this idea one bit, and I think it is not closed minded in the least to refrain from joining the cheerleading squad on this issue.

If I wasn't clear, I realize there are reasons to resist and question. Questioning and not cheerleading isn't necessarily closeminded. (At least any more than jumping on a bandwagon without being willing to consider all the questions to ask first!)

I DO think that the possibility that some men can lactate does add one more bit of evidence (as if we needed more) that rigid two sex gender roles just are a lot simpler than nature is.

[greenfish]

Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~

Yeah, I always wonder about people who have such a low post count who start a thread and never come back to it.


Seems odd, to me.

Yeah. But I sure wouldn't have tried to engage in this conversation as a male. Too much ouch. Trolls lurk, but there are also other possibilities to consider.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by greenfish

What if there isn't a "mama"? (I realize there are other doubts, just curious if you have any others?)

There is always a mama. That is a fact of biology.

[MaterPrimaePuellae]

Originally Posted by greenfish

I'm not jumping up and down and cheerleading for immediate male BFing, just really interested in the level of emotional response to changing gender roles around child rearing. Maybe it's so fascinating because there are so many people who can't seem to interact with me like a normal human being when I wear a suit and tie with my butch dyke short hair or don't think I should be raising kids. Seems pretty similar to me--immediately reject or punish any suggestion of breaking out of the nice little boxes. Maybe those boxes are just too comfortable?

.....

If this post is a little terse and snippy, it's just that I really react strongly to dismissing the real lives of people outside the nice two sex/gender boxes by just calling them "biological abnormalities" and refusing to take seriously the questions raised by their living as if we can sweep everyone who doesn't fit those boxes under the table and make us stay there. I refuse to stay under the table!!

Greenfish,
This is obviously a very sensitive issue for you, and it really isn't to me, so I hope I haven't offended you. Just because I don't *agree* with you, however, doesn't mean that I am "trapped" by my thinking about "nice little boxes." There are few things that bother me more than assertions about "what all men think" or "all women are like." However, I am basically committed to a view of human sexuality which is biologically centered around procreation. My concerns are, first, ethical/moral/religious, which I don't think we're supposed to discuss on this board. We probably would not agree about these unmentionable issues, but that doesn't mean that I do not acknowledge you as a person! Furthermore, it doesn't mean that I have not considered the points you raise (or at least to which you make allusions)-- all it means is that, having considered them, I have reached a different conclusion.

[bluezephyr]

Well--thismama, I appreciate your directness in both of your last posts. Actually saying (even if you have to skirt!) where you're really coming from helps me understand you better. Thanks!

Originally Posted by thismama

There is always a mama. That is a fact of biology.

Since I'm raising kids who don't have their mama right now, I guess I see that part differently. Yup, they have a mama, but not here. But...my partner and I raising the kids or my gay friends' raising their darling little ones might have different questions than you'd choose.

[thismama]

Right but just coz your kids' mama isn't here doesn't mean you need to take her place. Kwim?

As for gay men with children with 'no mama'... I have a lot of criticism of adoption in its current form. I think children have a right to be with their mama if at all possible, and that adoption should not occur in the way it does now if at all possible, that is that all ties should not be severed, except in the most extreme circumstances. That however is probably another thread.

Thanks for the props about directness! I appreciate it too. Clear opinions/perspectives are good IMO. As are open minds, where appropriate.

[choli]

Originally Posted by thismama

There is always a mama. That is a fact of biology.

What if the biological mother is deceased?

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by choli

What if the biological mother is deceased?

That was my first thought, too.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by choli

What if the biological mother is deceased?

Then, as I said before, nature's back up system is other nursing mothers. Throughout time, cross-culturally, this is what has happened again and again and again. Until formula.

[choli]

Originally Posted by thismama

Then, as I said before, nature's back up system is other nursing mothers. Throughout time, cross-culturally, this is what has happened again and again and again. Until formula.

So it's OK for another unrelated woman to take the place of the mother, but not the child's own father?

[thismama]

Originally Posted by choli

So it's OK for another unrelated woman to take the place of the mother, but not the child's own father?

Yep, exactly.

I think we've been over why. It doesn't work for fathers to nurse babies, they simply cannot make enough milk to meet their needs, 'positive thinking' is a pretty nice hippie notion but the reality is I just don't buy that it works. With perhaps the exception of very isolated incidents but then I question what is going on hormonally with the men. The milk men do make is different than normal breastmilk (higher protein), there are risks to men's health in producing that milk. We've kind of been over this territory already...

[choli]

Originally Posted by thismama

Yep, exactly.

I think we've been over why. It doesn't work for fathers to nurse babies, they simply cannot make enough milk to meet their needs, 'positive thinking' is a pretty nice hippie notion but the reality is I just don't buy that it works. With perhaps the exception of very isolated incidents but then I question what is going on hormonally with the men. The milk men do make is different than normal breastmilk (higher protein), there are risks to men's health in producing that milk. We've kind of been over this territory already...

Well, for me, quite apart from the nursing aspect, I would rather see my child's father replace me if I died than anyone else. I don't feel that anyone else could possibly love her and have the same bond with her as her father - whether he nursed her or not.

[thismama]

But why can't he keep his bond with her, and another mama nurses her? More love to go around. I think it is unrealistic to expect that a man will be able to produce sufficient milk to nourish a child, unless he has already proven that he can do so. Because it is extremely rare.

[Red]

Originally Posted by greenfish

but they are all people(bold mine) and no one call will away their existence. If some of those people are XY and can still breastfeed and accept whatever risk to their bodies, what's it to you?

Obviously this is not the reality most people see or live. They see the vast majority of humanity fitting into two little neat boxes. Cool, if it works for you, go for it, color your world pink and blue--without any purple--but don't impose such a stilted worldview on me, ....... So, for me the existence of what you call "biological abnormalities" are evidence of how wonderfully diverse and beautiful we humans are. But, if you look around and expect to only see pink and blue, you'll convince yourself that every other color really does fit in your neat little boxes.

Boy, I just wish I'd said all of that. Nicely done!





(And I have to admit that I was once one of those people who judged Lesbian women who were raising children. Then I got to know a few couples and their kids. My dh and I had long talks, first about how screwed up those kids would be, and then, as we got to know the families, about what fools we'd once been. On behalf of my former ignorant self, I want to apologize for ....basically all the ignorant people n the world, I guess. Too bad that can't work,huh?

Oddly, I was never bothered my gay men rasing kids. )

[choli]

Originally Posted by thismama

But why can't he keep his bond with her, and another mama nurses her? More love to go around. I think it is unrealistic to expect that a man will be able to produce sufficient milk to nourish a child, unless he has already proven that he can do so. Because it is extremely rare.

You stated specifically that the father should not try to replace the mother. I feel that replacing the mother involved a LOT more than nursing. In fact, I would consider nursing a fairly small part.

I would have no problem with my baby comfort nursing on her father, even if he could not product enough milk to nurture her completely. I would send him kudos from my grave if he did so. Anything that would increase the bond between them, help her get over the loss of her mother and make her feel better would be a blessing from the goddess in my eyes.

[thismama]

I think there are very few things in this world that objectively qualify as the father attempting to replace the mother. Most of both roles are socially constructed. The only things that involve essentialist biological processes are pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding. When I say the father should not try to replace the mother, I am referring to the biological relationship between mother and infant. Everything else is theoretically up for grabs, although this is not what we see play out currently in our culture.

[lovingmommyhood]

Originally Posted by thismama

Yep, exactly.

I think we've been over why. It doesn't work for fathers to nurse babies, they simply cannot make enough milk to meet their needs, 'positive thinking' is a pretty nice hippie notion but the reality is I just don't buy that it works. With perhaps the exception of very isolated incidents but then I question what is going on hormonally with the men. The milk men do make is different than normal breastmilk (higher protein), there are risks to men's health in producing that milk. We've kind of been over this territory already...

I am sorry to abandon you thismama but you just explain things so well!

[thismama]

Well I stole it off Cherry Bomb.