What PZ is saying is that women who don't breastfeed at six months and beyond (who don't have medical issues) do so for one of two reasons - choice or lack of support/information. If only life were that black and white.
Printable View
What PZ is saying is that women who don't breastfeed at six months and beyond (who don't have medical issues) do so for one of two reasons - choice or lack of support/information. If only life were that black and white.
It sucks that this is such a sensitive issue. I'd rather find a way to deal with the emotions regarding FF than to be sheltered from the evidence.
Yes. I like information.
No I wasn't being that simplistic, but ta, I can only attribute a certain amount of that to pregnant brain, I'm also incredibly stupid at maths. And I was BF, more proof that stats like these are broad and not case by case :lol:
If 3-4% cannot BF, and only 19% are at 6 months (I believe the stat is for exclusive BF, not any BF) then yes, I believe the main reasons for not BF at that stage are either no longer wanting to, lack of support to keep going or lack of education. There are variables, like needing to go back to work, mental health issues etc. But really, they boil bak down (at a very fundamental level) to choice or lack of support/education. That is being incredibly basic though. I'd hate to think that I could be perceived as black and white, I think I'll I've shared of my life on BB demonstrates rather clearly that I don't believe that that is the case in life.
ETA I'll leave my little mathematical blunder for continuity and future lols, but clearly people can see its an easy enough mistake and hopefully understand me ;)
i totally agree with MaryDean on this one (wish that like button was still here :) ). its not about making FF mothers feel bad, it's about providing information for future mothers- so that they can make an informed choice.
i'm so glad i found out lots of information about the benefits of breastfeeding when i was pg with my first child.
I think it's not just about educating mothers - it's also the fathers, the grandmothers & grandfathers, the aunts & uncles, etc because these people can have as much, if not more, impact & influence on the mother as any amount of information. So articles & research have to be "out there" & strongly worded so that you have some chance of reaching these folk as well. Outside of my ABA group I can count on one hand, with leftover fingers, the number of mums I know who have fed for the WHO recommended 2 years and beyond. But I don't have enough fingers & toes to count the number that I know who have been unable to make it past the first week or so, or who believe they've had low supply & bubs has self-weaned at a matter of months,who've introduced solids before the (still) recommended 6 month mark, or who have used ABM so that other people can have a go at feeding bub, and I can't help but think that if we had a better collective understanding of how breasts & breastfeeding work, and why, in scientifically explainable terms it's so valuable, then we'd have significantly better bfing rates. And my ratio of long-term extended bfing friends compared to non/short-term bfers would be happily reversed.
I kind of think of it in terms of climate change advocacy - 30 or so years ago (when I was a kid :) ), there was only a small group of people that believed that we were heading for major environmental issues, but that slow, consistent, steady & at times confrontingly radical education & research has changed the thinking of most people at least to some degree. But to get to the point that we're at now, where it's at the forefront of government's thinking and changing the way people behave, there had to be some pretty serious work done. I'm not suggesting that having a nation of exclusive breastfeeders will change the future of the world, but I think the concept of advocacy of is the same. And hey, if it were one less factory making formula or plastic bottles, that's maybe a good thing for the environment :)
There has been studies on cats. Basically from what I can recall problems did not appear in the first generation, but in the ones that came after and they were so bad, that the study basically had to stop/was stopped due to the cats being unable to breed/survive (**disclaimer I am doing this from memory, so I could be wrong, will google now to see if I can find a reference to the study). I recall hearing about this, but it was in an article/discussion about why we "suddenly" seem to have an issue with gluten.:
ETA: Pottenger's s cats - Study on how inherited degenerative disease is caused by improper nutrition that weakens the genetic code you pass to your children. *Warning - don't look up if you are a bit sensitive*
Yes, I think that's a very likely scenario, unfortunately.
The truth is that formula - in its changing forms over the decades - has been tested on children in the marketplace and the effects have become so normalised now because of it's prevalence.
I also think what happens, is that no-one asks "where you formula fed as a baby?' when you see a medical professional. They ask all the other history and family history, but never that. I my heart, I believe DH's extreme case of diverticulitis is connected to what he was fed as a baby (in conjunction to existing genetics), his mother was also formula fed (both not straight away, but after 6 or so weeks). I think we would have a greater picture of what risks are if they added that one question to all medical questionnaires.
I totally struggled to breast feed. My son was born through C/s and skin on skin was not done properly due to poor procedures and the emergency situation. INitial latching on did not go well at all. I was very sick and vomited each time my milk let down in the early days because I reacted to the drugs I was on. I argued with my GP who wanted me to wean my baby at 6 weeks. His words " I was formula fed baby and look at me I'm fine" ARRRGGGHHH.
I had a tiny baby and big nipples. I got thrush but didn't know and struggled. I had Vasospasm. I was told I didn't have good supply.....this turned out not to be true......it was problems with milk getting from me to baby. My baby was not gaining weight and I was made to feel bad about this by nurses and mostly by my doctor. I had to express, I had to stay home so I could sit in a very controlled stable position as I learnt what to do. I REALLY thought breast feeding was important. I had all the excuses in the world to not breast feed but I still breast fed.
I am in no way a "breastfeedingnazi" but I do get frustrated when people tell me they couldn't manage to feed and list ONE of the problems I had. I think all our pre-baby education is so "flowers and sunshine" that we don't prepare women enough for the possible problems they may encounter. Then they encounter a problem and believe they are a failure not just encountering a little blimp.
My first baby was born still. There was no mention of this being even slightly likely at our pre-birth classes. When I went to breastfeeding classes for my second child there was no mention (except as a minor aside) of thrush or cracked nipples except to say if the mother doesn't achieve good attachment this can happen......in other words if you are not good at breastfeeding it will not work.........it's really no wonder AT ALL that women give up so easily.
I work. On week-ends I go and teach riding lessons. My work is based around coming back to my baby to feed him every 4 hours.......it's inconvenient and complicated. If I didn't care so much about breast feeding I'd have been using formula so I could just leave my little fellow with his dad for a whole day.
It really is no wonder at all that feeding rates are so low
Vent over (sorry)
agreed.:
Why dont we say "not smoking cigarettes decreases your risk of cancer"