Hey Bellasmum, good to see you back! Hope all is well with you.
First up, my night was great. Katherine Jenkins is a Welsh soprano with a wonderful voice. I'm not usually an opera buff and so I didn't get the point of singing Whitney Houston's "I will always love you" and Bryan Adams' "Everything I do I do for you" in Italian, but apparently that's the only way the real opera nerds will handle hearing stuff like that. I was shouted the tix as a belated b'day pressie from DH's mate who accompanied me - he really wanted to go along for a perve (Katherine is very beautiful and wore 5 different gowns (gowns, not dressess, ladies!) during the performance.
Today was a good day too - went into Law Institute for a meeting and then dropped into work and then curised Melb Central (why oh why is there always more stuff to buy??) Then had book club meeting while DH minded Flubby - poor lamb ended up wanting tucker while I was gone so luckily there was some EBM in freezer. I came home to see both my boys sitting on the bouch waiting for me - poor Flynn was half asleep on DH's lap but had a bit of a nibble before drifting off to sleep without a peep.
Now IK, about your meeting. I can completely understand you wanting to make a stand with Oscar and think you should do it. But I think you should make sure the stand is about BF. What I mean by this is that if Oscar "plays up" (ie: is a baby and makes a sound) all the old fogeys are going to focus on is that there was a screaming brat around and the BF will just be a nail in the coffin of how babies shouldn't be at CFA meetings. BUT, if you can 99% g'tee that Oscar will be "quiet" or DP can bring him in for a feed when needed, then your point will solely be about BF, which is one which I think needs to be made. Personally I think that our community should be more accepting of bubs and the fact that they niggle a bit, but I can understand that in a meeting people want to concentrate in an adult arena without children interfering. The meeting I had today was a professional focuses one where we were talking about cases and legislative interpretation, and I, let alone the others, would have found it had to focus if Flynn was crying. As it was, he slept the whole time, little lamb! Similarly, I have started leaving Flynn with DH when I sit on my Law Institute Council meetings, because I can't really predict how Flynn will go - they start at 4.30 and end at 7.30 - real arsenic hours for any baby. But I would have no qualms about BF in any of my meetings and reckon you should go for it. The CFA needs a rocket up it from what I hear. DH's friend, who I went to the show with last night, is in the CFA as is his whole family. Turns out his mum was one of the first female radio ops and had to have approval from three or four committees before she could join (in the 1970's or early 80's) She (friend's mum) is a real tough woman and the CFA is lucky to have her, but it sounds like she had to really fight to get accepted. Now you have to fight for the women coming after you IK. But I just reckon you might have more of a chance of "winning" the fight if you can isolate your point to BF. I think I'm rambling, but do you get what I mean? I am practising speaking my mind more, so sorry if I am way out ;-)
On BF and stopping, what is it that would make a supply fail to meet a bub's needs? One of the mothers in our mothers group who has been a great cow by all accounts has started on formula at 6 months because her boy was hungry after feeding. She tried expressing after feeds (while her boy was crying for more) and there wasn't enough for him. Now, I don't think she was convinced to do it from MCHN pressure, but I wonder if sometimes a woman's body just stops producing?
Bookmarks