Monterey Bay Aquarium - Page 5

[Unoppressed MAMA Q]

Boingo (and all)-

I think that the question of 'Which is more important- Programs or cultural redefinement in promoting breastfeeding?' is a valid question, maybe. But what it comes down to is-

BOTH concepts are absolutely important. It really seems that you know which aspect calls to you to put your life energy towards. We certainly know it isn't the bottles in the aquarium! I support and applaud you for your own contributions to increasing proper human feeding.

Personally, I consider myself as a memetic engineer. You can google this phrase, but what it means to me is that I'm a culture reformer on a very fundamental, often imperceptible scale. I often ask Socratic questions of the neighborhood kids, and I like to have bumper stickers. I believe that what is out there inherently takes on a form of normalization in people's brains. I don't like my kids to witness violence in my neighborhood, not because it scars them emotionally as much as I don't like the idea that it gets introduced as a viability/possibility in little brains. Before my kids saw a neighbor throw bricks through the window of a house near us, I don't think brick-throwing-as-anger-expression had ever occurred to them. But now it has!

This applies to any and everything, not just nursing. I also forbid the neighbor kids to bring HFCS-filled soda to my house when they play here. Because I think it's aberrant for kids to drink high-fructose corn syrup instead of eating fruit, and I don't want my kids having it exhibited it for them all the time, and certainly not by those that make up any sort of circle around them.

I also seek to protect them from breast-substitutes, because I think that it warps their sense of biology to see mammals drinking out of plastic.

(And here's where I'll throw in some solidarity and covering-of-the-ass to say, that I did bottle-feed one of my infants for several months due to extenuating circumstances).

No form of lactivism inherently precludes the existence of any other. The bottles in the aquarium are really inappropriate, and I support the concept of the OP or anyone else writing the aquarium a loving, insightful letter to help promote the resurgence of proper infant feeding (which in my mind, includes pumped milk from a donor in the bizarre situations). I don't need to play the 'more important' game- personally, I think the bottles-as-normal, in the long-run, are arguably MORE harmful than say, formula bags in the hospital.

I think it could be interesting to discuss the different forms of lactivism, and compartmentalizing 'who loves to do what' could possibly help us be exponentially more effective, rather than us all sitting here bickering with each other (!) about what is more or less important.

[menomena]

Originally Posted by boingo82

So you go ahead and get the aquarium to change images. Where does that leave us? A few more moms who want to BF, but most probably still can't long term, due to misinformation from doctors, no access to quality pumps, no time / space to pump at work, etc etc etc.

Promoting nursing as healthy, normal, appropriate, etc WILL help change the tides culturally so that doctors WILL have the correct info, as well as a positive attitude toward breastfeeding; access to quality pumps WILL be available to anyone who needs one; employers WILL acknowledge that it's better to give mom space & time to pump, thereby increasing employee retention rates and lowering moms' & babies' sick time needs just to start; etc!

I think the two go gloriously hand in hand. Promote nursing as normal biologically and culturally so that the cultural support is in place - including WIC, doctors, daycare/babysitters, employers, etc.

If nursing was normal - i.e. if it was expected that every mom nursed their child for a minimum of a year (again, standard disclaimer acknowledging that some babies do need formula/bottles) - then doctors would encounter nursing moms ALL THE TIME and would be informed. Employers would have nursing/pumping moms as a regular occurrence, not a rarity/hassle. Random people wouldn't make snotty comments/give dirty looks about NIP because how else is the baby going to eat? Etc.

Again, I'm not picking on you; I just really think you are closing your eyes to this aspect of lactivism and I'm not sure why. It obviously makes perfect sense to me.

[EBeth0000]

I am a social historian, and my pre-baby career was in the museum field so I have to say I "look" at museum exhibits with a far more critical lens than most, because I understand the back-end process of how it gets up there on the wall. There IS a TON of CULTURAL BIAS in exhibits, just as there is in books, media images, news reporting, etc.

A study in museum visitor research showed that people trust "the curatorial voice" more than almost any other authoritarian source of information, such as the encyclopedia, a news anchor, a teacher, a doctor, etc. Add to that the fact that most museum exhibits DO NOT acknowledge curatorial voice, and do not include citations and, well, you have a heady mix of power without peer review. It's a problem in the field professionals are trying to address.

I THINK a letter would be a great idea, because the fact is, probably a team of between 3-5 people had the content input into the exhibit, and they were probably all inhibited by their own biases. Perhaps a letter could open their minds. What could possibly be wrong with that? Even if they don't change the exhibit, it could point out to them how DIFFERENT audiences VIEW and PROCESS information differently according to their life experience (as described in the scaffolding model of learning). Often times, museums cater to a specific audience and really have a problem with only reflecting back the dominant culture--we are trying to get better about inclusiveness and getting feedback from different audiences can help institutions RECOGNIZE their bias.

So, while I'm not trying to make this into a museum studies forum, I think it's important to realize that people may be unwilling to see a bias here as quickly as they would in, say, a television commercial, because most Americans are not used to turning an eye for source criticism on museum exhibits---we're just not used to it.

Finally, I believe that getting better BF support programs and changing the culture go hand in hand. We need to work on both ends. Not just one or the other. I, however, have experience in the field of cultural criticism, so working on the culture end stimulates me and utilizes my skills. I'm not in the geographic area of the aquarium, but who knows? Maybe I'll write a letter!

[menomena]

Originally Posted by boingo82

Name one other container that little babies commonly drink from. Besides boobs, which aren't really a container at all.

Now name one other age group that uses bottles on anything approaching a mass scale. The elderly? No. People 33-40? No.

Bottles were designed FOR babies. Babies drink more commonly from bottles than from any other container. THAT is why they are associated.

I also wanted to address this. I am not denying that Bottles = babies, since you're right, bottles with teats/nipples were created for babies as a breast substitute.

What I am concerned about is the association of babies = bottles. Not all babies drink from bottles as a primary source of their nutrition. Even many babies who get bottles while mom works/goes to school/is occasionally away drink from their mothers' breasts while with their moms.

So yes, many, many babies take a bottle at some point in their life. Even otherwise exclusively breastfed babies. That is not my issue. Again, bottles are not inherently evil or bad or whatever.

My issue is the assumption that a baby NEEDS a bottle because it will not be drinking milk from it's mother. (Or that it is somehow impossible or too much effort to nurse a baby without the use of supplemental bottles.)