Breastfeeding Hiatus Is Over

Believe it or not, it's been months since we've talked about anything even tangentially related to breastfeeding.

Hope you've enjoyed the break. Because it's over.

Here's a roundup of stuff we missed during the hiatus.

In April, Time Magazine explored Outsourcing Breast Milk, a modern version of the old "wet nurse" practice where lactating women nurse babies not their own. According to Time, some co-workers, sisters and neighbors are swapping babies. "It's a way of building that village or community that a lot of us crave," explained a woman who cross-fed her neighbor's baby. Eeeewww!*

Did you know you can breast feed an adopted baby? La Leche League will tell you how to induce lactation in their pamphlet Breastfeeding an Adopted Baby. I'm pretty sure men can try this method as well. (As an aside, my husband called the concept of men trying to breastfeed "sick and perverted." I reminded him that La Leche League cautions that "the success of a breastfeeding relationship shouldn't be judged by the amount of milk produced, but rather by the mutual trust that develops.")

In May, the Pennsylvania State Senate passed a breastfeeding rights bill, joining the 36 states that specifically allow women to breastfeed in public or private places. (There is no legislation allowing men to breastfeed in publicor private.) The bill passed 48-1. I'm really curious about the foolhardy "1" voter and whether or not his house has been toilet-papered by the 100 women and children who rallied the Capitol in May in support of the bill. Some infants held signs that read "I won't eat in the bathroom" and "Bathrooms are for diapers -- not dinner."

Did you know breastfeeding is grounds for getting out of jury duty? The pamphlet-happy La Leche League covers this one, too, in You Can't Call Me For Jury Duty -- I'm Breastfeeding!.

If we missed other breastworthy news during the moratorium, let us know!

*(Attention anyone who's new to On Balance: I don't really think this is gross. I'm a breastfeeding vet. I support breastfeeding in public, private, on airplanes, at protests and at podiums, by anyone, anywhere, for any hungry baby.)

By Leslie Morgan Steiner |  June 27, 2007; 7:00 AM ET  | Category:  Breastfeeding
Previous: Balance for One | Next: Working for the Work-Obsessed


Add On Balance to Your Site
Keep up with the latest installments of On Balance with an easy-to-use widget. It's simple to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry to On Balance.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Wow, breast feeding again. I actually knew you could breast feed an adopted child. But I think Fred said you had to have a fairly young baby enter your family. Because the older babies won't adjust to the human nipple. I think with foreign adoptions, most of the kids are older infants when they arrive. I don't like the concept of swapping babies, personally. I would be concerned about disease spreading. Unless you know the person is disease free (like best friend or sister), it seems kind of risky. Fred, can you enlighten us.

Posted by: foamgnome | June 27, 2007 7:14 AM

What is the balance angle on this one? My wife breastfed both our boys for a year each. I am a strong supporter on anytime anywhere. I do think swapping is a little weird because of the risk of disease. Mothers pass so much along through their milk...how do you know for sure what your baby is getting?

Posted by: HappyDad | June 27, 2007 7:26 AM

a man breastfeeding a baby?

Some things just ain't right.

Posted by: Lil Husky | June 27, 2007 7:31 AM

http://www.babycenter.com/expert/baby/babybreastfeed/8824.html

OMG, it is possible for a man to breast feed.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 7:37 AM

Mako, Where are you?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 7:49 AM

It's a dream day for the psycho Nursing Nazis!!

I'm outta here!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 7:53 AM

The New York legislature passed a law requiring employers to allow female workers (including factory/service industry workers) to take time off each day to express breast milk for their babies. These women cannot be demoted, fired, or otherwise penalized for doing this. Great news!

http://salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/06/19/pump_it/index.html

Posted by: Stacey in Germany | June 27, 2007 7:53 AM

The New York legislature passed a law requiring employers to allow female workers (including factory/service industry workers) to take time off each day to express breast milk for their babies. These women cannot be demoted, fired, or otherwise penalized for doing this. Great news!

http://salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/06/19/pump_it/index.html

Posted by: Stacey in Germany | June 27, 2007 7:53 AM

I'm still lauging about the recent "gifted mother" poster! Ha!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 7:55 AM

I used breastfeeding to get out of jury duty!! Didn't know there was a LaLeche pamphlet about it. I just wrote that I couldn't see how I could pump during a trial and at that point I don't think my daughter was even taking a bottle so it would have been a nightmare. I got a postponement for 8 months and by then my baby was almost weaned so it wasn't a problem. It's great news that states are passing legislation on this. I will say I never received so much as a unfriendly glance when I breastfed my children in public and my office was very supportive as well of my pumping/going to the daycare center to nurse schedule. I guess my experience was not the norm so I hope the legislation helps.

Posted by: PT Fed Mof2 | June 27, 2007 8:02 AM

I predict that within a decade or so, there will be a new movement by men who breastfeed.

Posted by: Leslie | June 27, 2007 8:13 AM

Aughdfkljlsssdhhh! (Sound of male hanging self after reading this topic.)

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:13 AM

Men have mammary glands? I guess I have to read that article now.

It's great that laws are being passed that support breatfeeders. That's about all I have to say about this. Have a great day, everyone!

Posted by: Meesh | June 27, 2007 8:19 AM

"http://www.babycenter.com/expert/baby/babybreastfeed/8824.html

OMG, it is possible for a man to breast feed."
But, but the HAIR!!

As for "wet nursing", I DID nurse once for about 15 seconds my nephew - he was obviously hungry and I was still breastfeeding my daughter. It was a definite "eww" and "uh?" experience for the both of us.

Posted by: Slacker Mom | June 27, 2007 8:23 AM

Actually, I did know that breastfeeding was grounds for getting out of jury duty. I was unable to serve on a jury because I was breastfeeding my 3-month old, and could not be away from him for the length of time needed.

I'm with Leslie: I'm all for breastfeeding wherever and whenever and I don't give a hoot about the naysayers and the people who are (sadly) grossed out. However, I completely support any woman who bottle feeds as well. I'm a former member of LLL and love that organization for the assistance and support they provided when I was trying to establish nursing with both of my children. I don't like dealing with extremists of any kind, including some who were members of LLL and those who talk about nursing nazis and so forth.

Let's hope today's discussion will be civil.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 8:23 AM

You know, I think that I will sit this one out today! (maybe)

But, having said that, adoptive mothers can nurse. The age of the baby is somewhat of a factor as is the motivation of the mother. Frieda has helped a couple of adoptive mothers lactate. She says it works better if the mother has bf before. She said that some of her mothers had to supplement.

Just so you know her opinion of swapping kids, well never mind.

Frieda does think that women should not necessarily be excused from jury duty. I can see a "case" for it esp. if the jury is sequestered.

Nazis killed people, mothers nourish babies. I once again strongly object to the term. For those of you new to the blog, my uncle hunted down war criminals in Germany in 1945/46.

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 8:27 AM

Hadn't thought about the hair thing...another "eeewwww!"

But on balance, I think men breastfeeding is a really good idea for equality in parenting.

Posted by: Leslie | June 27, 2007 8:28 AM

Fred

"Nazis killed people, mothers nourish babies. I once again strongly object to the term."

Once again, this is the Net! Your previous objections were impotent! You can't tell me what to think or say!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:31 AM

Leslie,

"But on balance, I think men breastfeeding is a really good idea for equality in parenting."

All that I have to say about that is (Fred's obscene comment was censored!)

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 8:33 AM

Fred

"Frieda .....just so you know her opinion of swapping kids, well never mind"

Why are you always the middleman? Have you ever had a thought that didn't first belong to Frieda?

Can't she do her own posting? Sheesh!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:35 AM

"Can't she do her own posting? Sheesh!"

Very simple answer, she is a luddite.

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 8:36 AM

Fred

"Can't she do her own posting? Sheesh!"

Very simple answer, she is a luddite.


So is DH. I post my own thoughts, not my spouse's. Weird.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:39 AM

From Roll Call earlier this week:
**
By Emily Heil
Roll Call Staff

June 26, 2007

Some women do it in Starbucks. Others in cramped bathroom stalls. And soon, the women of the House will have their very own lounge for it. The chamber will soon boast a new "lactation lounge" where nursing moms can pump and breast-feed to their heart's delight, and all in a private facility matching the one that's been operating on the Senate side for years.

The new family-friendly House locale is on the fifth floor of the Cannon House Office Building, and HOH hears the setup is pretty swanky (although the phrase "swanky lactation lounge" sure makes HOH think of a fancy new cocktail bar along Pennsylvania Avenue).

House staffers have jokingly dubbed the soon-to-be-open venue the "lactation lair."

Until now, House-staffer moms have had to either schlep to the Senate side or pop into the physician's office to do their business, but the new setup is aimed at being more convenient -- and nicer. And it's no coincidence that the project came about under the Speakership of a woman, staffers are saying. "The Speaker recognizes the real needs and sacrifices of working mothers in today's world and is committed to making Capitol Hill a family-friendly place to work," a staffer for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says.

The facility is overseen by the Office of the Attending Physician.

Well-appointed as it might be, HOH expects that the new lounge will not be offering half-price drink specials during happy hour.

Posted by: Annie | June 27, 2007 8:41 AM

"Very simple answer, she is a luddite."

She can read minds?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:43 AM

"So is DH. I post my own thoughts, not my spouse's. Weird"

Just to let you know, Frieda's thoughts are clearly identified as hers, anything else I write is my opinion.

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 8:43 AM

I'm still lauging about the recent "gifted mother" poster! Ha!

You really need to get a life then!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:43 AM

She can read minds?


Huh? What do you mean?

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 8:45 AM

Breastfeeding is fine - but it is something that should be done in private - or at least very covered up. I don't know why I feel this way but I just do. That being said - I don't have kids, but if I had a baby, I would not breast feed. I just don't have the interest in it and I know that this should be a personal choice and that kids are just as healthy - or not - as bottle -fed.

As far as swapping out babies - that is just gross. No kid of mine is going to breast feed off of someone when I have no idea if they are telling the truth or not about what is in their system. This is completely ridiculous and it is going too far - especially paying the money they are paying.

Posted by: WAMC | June 27, 2007 8:47 AM

Okay, for all you newbies to the board, Fred's opinions on all things related to breastfeeding are important and valid. His wife has been a lactation consultant for a very long time, and it's not a job, it's a way of life, right, Fred? So let the man speak. And leave Freida ALONE.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 8:50 AM

I'm not sure what to think about swapping babies. I loved breast feeding, but I have to admit there is something 'gone with the wind' about it. Am I reading too much into it? Am I being too pc?

Posted by: dotted | June 27, 2007 8:53 AM

WorkingMomX

"Okay, for all you newbies to the board, Fred's opinions on all things related to breastfeeding are important and valid. His wife has been a lactation consultant for a very long time, and it's not a job, it's a way of life, right, Fred? So let the man speak. And leave Freida ALONE"

Fred can SPEAK, but he can't tell me what to think or say!

Who died and made you Queen Bee of the blog?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:54 AM

"This is completely ridiculous and it is going too far - especially paying the money they are paying"

I have no idea what you are talking about?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:54 AM

Men can breastfeed? Awesome! My MIL is still critical of me years later because I had to abandon my attempts to breastfeed my son because he wasn't gaining weight. (And before you ask- yes, I tried everything you are about to suggest. Sometimes bf just doesn't work.) Now I can tell her that she should instead be criticizing my husband because he didn't try to do it himself.

Posted by: randommom | June 27, 2007 8:55 AM

Fred can SPEAK, but he can't tell me what to think or say!
Who died and made you Queen Bee of the blog?

This person is belligerent. I say we just ignore him, his Nazi posts, his Fred and Frieda post, and all his other posts.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 8:57 AM

I have to say anon is certainly getting his/her panties in a bunch over anyone defending themselves, giving information... No one is telling what to say, but workingmomx certainly gave you some background information that should certainly give you pause. think before you post, why don't you? or is that telling you what to do also? jeeeezzzz...

Posted by: dotted | June 27, 2007 8:59 AM

i don't think I could ever convice my husband to actually try to produce breat milk, but if the baby is really crying, I'm taking a shower and the baby won't accept a pacifier . . . has anyone ever tried that? Not for sustenence, just to get the baby to calm down and stop crying?

"what a piece of work is man . . "

Posted by: Jen S. | June 27, 2007 9:00 AM

To WAMC

Never say never. Once that baby comes out and you experience a surge of hormones and deep love for your baby, you just might decide to try to breastfeed.

And breastfeeding IS healthier for a baby, because breastmilk passes on antibodies found only in breastmilk. This cannot be replicated in formula.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 9:00 AM

Being a stay-at-home mom/dad is grounds for getting out of jury duty, too...

On topic: breastfeeding someone else's child (not talking about adopted kids)? Not sure I think that's the way to go (actually, pretty sure that's not the way to go). Formula isn't poison; if you can't breastfeed your child, give them formula, don't ask a relative to nurse your baby! And I speak from a pro-breastfeeding standpoint. But really, the idea of someone else nursing my child grosses me out for all sorts of sanitary reasons.

Posted by: writing mommy | June 27, 2007 9:06 AM

There are some studies that suggest brestmilk can help the (adult) body fight cancer. Don't ask me for more details, its been years since I dealt with the issue.

But, while I was going through chemo, I had two breastfeeding mother take me aside and offer to give me some breastmilk. I graciously thanked them and said I would consider it, but was probably going to stick with the doctor's plan for now.

Even today, 5 years later (cancer free), the concept turns my stomach.

Posted by: RT | June 27, 2007 9:06 AM

Leslie, I don't think men breast feeding would create equality in the true sense. Because the articles posted here say that men can breast feed and produce some milk. But probably not enough milk to really feed the baby. It is more of an issue of being a human pacifer. Also the quality of milk from men has not been tested. Although I don't think that would be too hard to test. Mostly, I don't think men would want to breast feed. Even if they could produce enough milk, I just don't see US men jumping on the band wagon.

Posted by: foamgnome | June 27, 2007 9:08 AM

Men breast feeding -- we are not built that way. It's not a factor, so condemning us for not wanting to do something we biologically can't do seems pointless.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 27, 2007 9:18 AM

Arlington Dad

"Men breast feeding -- we are not built that way. It's not a factor, so condemning us for not wanting to do something we biologically can't do seems pointless."

It's not pointless to the frequent man-haters on this blog!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 9:22 AM

The On Balance blog makes everything so complicated. I dont have kids but if/when I do I guarantee that my sister (whom I adore) will not be breastfeeding them. Creepy. And I would be grossed out if I learned that my aunt breast fed me when I was a baby.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 9:24 AM

I've read up on both of these issues, and I think we need to be cautious about how far we extend the "breast is best" argument. This isn't to say these aren't potentially good approaches, but they are often discussed without any warning or acknowledgement of potential shortcomings.

1) I think the induction of milk in adoptive mothers or fathers requires the use of some natural herbs that the Institute of Medicine has warned against using.I can't remember the name, but I think one of them has been linked to heart disease in adults and there is concern about what it could do to a nursing mother or a baby.

2) I also read up on the cross-nursing. Breast milk is best for babies partly because the baby has been exposed to the mother's germs etc while in the womb. Thus, the child's stomach is able to digest wahtever is coming in, and their bodies do not have to deal with foreign antibodies. The breast milk of another person would be completely foreign to the baby and may come along with another set of tummy troubles. That's in addition to concerns about disease . . .

I am not saying this to state that these practices are wholly good or bad. But I have been increasingly frustrated by how far individuals and organizations are willing to take the "breast is best" statements. They take their conclusions well beyond what the current science says . . .

Posted by: DC Mom | June 27, 2007 9:29 AM

About nursing someone else's baby: I personally would not offer to do this except in an extreme situation (like where the child's very survival depended on it), but I do wish I'd lived closer to a breast milk bank when I was nursing my son and had an oversupply. The donated milk is screened (as are donors) and used to help very premature babies survive.

Part of the reason I breastfed my children is because I felt it was a sort of talisman against other poor parenting choices I might make. Like, if I breastfed my child for at least a year, I might get a pass on letting them eat McDonald's "food" when we're on trips. Does any other mother who breastfed feel like this?

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 9:43 AM

I don't think there was an official policy on it, but I was able to postpone my jury service in New York City when I was breastfeeding (and pumping at work). I told them I'd be happy to serve, as long as they had a private place for me to pump and there would be adequate breaks during the trial. They quickly said they didn't have any such accommodations, and they told me I could postpone as long as I needed to. That was easy! (I served 6 months later, when I was finished breastfeeding, and I got on a jury for a very interesting trial. So I wasn't trying to avoid jury service, just trying to do it in a way that worked with breastfeeding.)

As for outsourcing breastfeeding, I would be for it. There's a very long history of wet nursing (of course some of it involved rich women who didn't care for their own children because they saw it as beneath their station in life).

I read an interesting law review article a few years ago on creating a market for human breast milk. That doesn't seem likely any time soon (mainly because pumping is such a pain, or at least I thought it was). What do people think about that? Buying your breast milk at Whole Foods?

Posted by: NY Mom | June 27, 2007 9:45 AM

I hope my state passes legislation to protect the rights of babies to nurse in public. I am not a fanatical anything; I believe that women should feed their babies, in public, private, whatever works best for the baby. Some babies won't nurse in public; too distractable. Some babies get hungry suddenly and need to eat Right Now, and have obvious hunger pains, anguish, and misery if you try to make them wait after they first exhibit hunger signs (by which time those types of babies are already ravenous.) Some babies, like mine, could nurse in public if they were really really hungry but otherwise (once they were older and nursing only 3-4 times a day) were happier indoors in a quiet room, preferably at home. I am in the vast majority of moms who, when nursing in public, make every effort to be discreet, but if someone staring at my breasts while my baby is latching or unlatching gets a glimpse of nipple, well, shockeroo. I do have nipples. You might see a quick flash of one every once in a while if baby's head + my attempt at quick coverup with nursing bra and top doesn't obscure the view. I'm the kind of nursing mom (and my babies are the kinds of relatively calm, non-thrashing-around, non-shirt-lifting babies who have never gotten a single negative glance or comment about our public nursing.

I do recognize that there are some moms who like to be 'in your face' (literally and figuratively) about their public nursing, and it sometimes seems like this very small minority of moms is not trying at all to be discreet. But those folks are the minority. And, just because the mom is an activist or an exhibitionist doesn't mean that the baby should suffer. (The baby might indeed suffer enough when he grows up, with a mom who has a huge chip on her shoulder or a penchant for flashing her naked body to strangers, in a way that seems quite purposeful and fink-you ish. )

So YAY for legislation that supports breastfeeding, and 40 lashes with a wet noodle to anyone who tries to make other people uncomfortable with their over-the-top exhibitionistic public breastfeeding, and another 40 lashes with a wet noodle to anyone who gets their undies in a bunch about the quick flash of some discreet moms' nipples.

Breastfeeding - in public or private - IS an issue about life balance. Moms are balancing work-life issues (some public breastfeeding happens at the child care handoff spot, for working moms, or while on their lunch hour that they take with their infant --- go get kid from daycare, spend 45 minutes snuggling and BFing, go bring kid back to daycare, etc.) and for all moms, WOH, WAH, SAH, etc., it's also about the act of balancing What You Know Is Right (feeding your child) with Dealing With The Negative Backlash From Ignorant SOBs (which might drive a bf-ing mom to nurse her kid in the -ugh- bathroom. Bleah. Yuk.

Posted by: ChrEliz | June 27, 2007 9:46 AM

Working mom:No, I just enjoyed the bf relationship with my child. My daughter loved it too. I let her eat plenty of junk now. So I guess I am a formerly good mommy-currently bad mommy.

Posted by: bf2years | June 27, 2007 9:46 AM

I got out of jury duty due to breastfeeding. I showed up, told the woman I was breastfeeding and that my husband would be bringing the baby to me every 3-4 hours to eat. She asked how hold the baby was. When I told her 4 months and with some health problems she just told me to go home.

I had served on a jury while pregnant with this baby so I really felt no guilt about getting out of this. Yes, you can serve on a federal jury and it not count when called up for DC court.

Posted by: Raising One of Each | June 27, 2007 9:46 AM

WorkingMomX

"Part of the reason I breastfed my children is because I felt it was a sort of talisman against other poor parenting choices I might make."

How?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 9:47 AM

Ok, completely off subject here but I need some advice from parents who have done this job search thing before.

Recently I posted a question regarding job searching while being a mom and how to handle the interview process to weed out un-family-friendly workplace. Many of you responded and provided me with great advice. Thank you.

I have gotten some nibbles recently but have come to realize after being back in the working world for about 5 months now that I want to step backwards so I can devote more time to my family. Thus, I am actually interested in applying for positions that employers might consider me too qualified for. Has anyone ever done this and how did you handle your cover letter and then the interview? I know the question as to why I am applying will come up?

In advance, thank you!

Posted by: Nutty Mama | June 27, 2007 9:50 AM

I don't know enough to comment on any possible health concerns with regard to cross-nursing, but I do find it fascinating that everyone is so grossed out by the idea, since through most of human history it was not an uncommon practice, and one frequent reason for it was if a woman couldn't produce enough milk on her own. But nowadays instead we have the "nursing nazis" (sorry to reuse the phrase, anyone who's offended) insisting that of course every woman can effortlessly produce more than enough milk for her baby and if she's having trouble or needs to supplement with formula, well, obviously she's a selfish, bad mother. Wouldn't it be nice if we ladies were able to band together more often instead of tearing each other apart like this? To me, cross-nursing seems like a nice example of the former.

Posted by: gmg | June 27, 2007 9:50 AM

I didn't breast feed and it is not fair for people to make you feel bad if you don't. That is a very personal choice.

Posted by: C.W. | June 27, 2007 9:50 AM

I believe my family is genetically predisposed to be wet nurses. Not that we are applying for the job. I have not breastfed for years but still have milk. And my mother had milk for about 15 years after she last breastfed. I produced so much milk for my first that I had to throw a lot of it away. I would feed her, pump another bottle, and freeze it. But there was no way to use all the milk. I would have gladly given it to someone who wanted it, for research or feeding a baby. It just seems that genetically, historically there are some women with a lot of milk and some woman without enought and so one nursed other babies. Now we have pumps and formula to help the over and under producing.

Posted by: Lactating Fool | June 27, 2007 9:55 AM

gmg

"Wouldn't it be nice if we ladies were able to band together more often instead of tearing each other apart like this?"

Yes, and could they please STOP bragging about their kids?! It's a big turn off and drives people away.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 9:57 AM

And I think that nursing someone else's child or donating milk to a milk bank is an intensely personal decision that should be made between the mothers involved, taking into consideration the comfort levels of the mothers, and fathers if applicable, with the idea of sharing milk that way. Obviously you should vet a potential sharer or donor for health issues, etc., but if both parties are cool with it, then what business is it of anyone else's? Lots of folks things in their private lives that would gross someone else out. And others would applaud, and most wouldn't care. That's how I feel about milk-sharing. I do not think that women who can't breastfeed should be pressured to accept breastmilk from another woman. Breast is best, but formula is a wonderful next-best alternative, and to act like it's poison is ridiculous. I hope that milk-sharing doesn't become a battleground of the lunatic fringe lactivists; I can envision a guilt campaign by the lactivist fringe to make ff-ing moms feel bad for not using a milk bank when their attempts at bf-ing failed. Ugh. Personal choice, people. I am/was/have always been an exclusive breastfeeder, really committed to it, nursed/nursing both kids til 18 months or more, but I still hate seeing breastfeeding die-hards give formula feeding moms the hairy eyeball as if they'd just caught them smothering their child or dosing them with heroin. It's formula, for pete's sake. They are feeding their babies. It's a nice thing, it's good. Lay off, is what I say to the chip on their shoulder lactivists who make ff moms feel bad or guilty. Judge not lest ye be judged. We are all doing our best. We all make different choices. Let's support each other instead of condemn each other. Isn't that what we're trying to model for our children?

Posted by: ChrEliz | June 27, 2007 9:58 AM

I appreciate your comments. I agree that it's funny that people are so grossed out about cross-nursing. It makes me think that maybe we've (sort of) gotten past the idea that a woman nursing her OWN child is sexual, but that we haven't really moved past that issue completely.

Those of you who are grossed out by it -- why is that? Is it about disease? Germs? Or is it the concept of someone else's child sucking on a woman's nipple?

I like the concept of cross-nursing as a way of women supporting each other, but it's also important to remember that it was done throughout history because there wasn't any other alternative (formula). So my question is whether we are promoting this because we truly think it's best for the child's health (in which case, we need to consider some of the things I raised earlier) or because a small number of people and organizations are on an "everyone must be breastfed" kick. The former is perfectly reasonable, it if is indeed true that this is best for children, and the latter suggests a lack of acceptance that people may choose (or be forced into) different ways to feed their babies.

Posted by: gmg | June 27, 2007 9:58 AM

Actually, Arlington Dad, there is some evidence that men are "built that way"-- God (or evolution if you will) created humanity so that both genders have nipples, mammary glands and the ability to produce the hormones that create breastmilk. Maybe before formula was an option, it was like an insurance policy-- if the mother couldn't produce milk, at least the father could.

That said, there is certainly a strong (almost universal) taboo against male breastfeeding-- and perhaps for a good reason! Imagine that either the mother or the father could provide breastmilk for infants-- what would be the cost to society? I can see the benefits, but I'm sure that there would also be unforeseen harms also. But maybe those harms were only relevant long ago-- that this taboo (like inter-racial marriage) has outlived its usefulness?

the taboo against sharing your breastmilk with another child is easy to pin-point and is still valid-- unless it is going to actually help perpetuate your genes, don't share the precious resource (or otherwise let it go to waste) on others.

Posted by: Jen S. | June 27, 2007 9:59 AM

My husband loved to nurse from my breasts. Whenever convenient, I let him finish up after our baby fell asleep. I always had plenty of milk, maybe too much. LOL!

Here is a question for the blog. Is this normal? I wouldn't dare share this with my family or friends, but an anonymous blog like this one could give me an answer.

Thanx

Posted by: TMI Question? | June 27, 2007 9:59 AM

I too would like to know about how others have handled a job search knowing that your family's needs are one of your priorities. I had received a job interview back in December from a woman who did a phone interview with me first and heard my daughter in the background. She said she understood since she also had 2 children. I was invited for an in-person interview which I thought went really well, but it did include some discussion about work/family balance that I was interested in knowing about being needed to work extra hours. I was not offered the position (which I was qualified for), so I'm wondering if they didn't think that i would give them the 110% percent commitment they would need despite the fact that my supervisor had 2 kids that I'm sure she needed to be there for. So, I'm still looking for something that might not be as time demanding (lower position than I'm currently in), but have not been called for any interviews.

Posted by: to Nutty Mama | June 27, 2007 9:59 AM

To DC Mom

"But I have been increasingly frustrated by how far individuals and organizations are willing to take the "breast is best" statements. They take their conclusions well beyond what the current science says . . ."

Are you threatened by the breast and breastmilk??

The breast IS best, which has been well-substaniated by "current science." There is no need to take conclusions beyond that statement, because the statement is an end-statement.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:02 AM

Nutty Mama, In my last few jobs (this one I have been at for nearly 6 years), I pulled a bait & switch. When they made me the offer, I negotiated the hours down to what I needed for my family. I did the "I can do that job in 30 hours per week." The VP in charge of selecting me said he asked my references if I was that fast and they all agreed I could do the job in a lesser amount of time than most people. I also swear to be flexible, which I am, working from home and coming in on nights & weekends when necessary. I do proposals for a contractor, and I have maintained the 9-3 hours with time off for school events as needed.

Posted by: Bethesdamom | June 27, 2007 10:03 AM

I think breast-feeding is great, if you are willing and able to do it. I tried with #1 -- he was 3 weeks early (my water broke & I ended up having a C-section) and he had mild jaundice, which was not unusual in an early birth, AND my body had not started producing milk, or anything else. BTW, he weighed 8 lb 15 oz. He was given sanitized water; this was in the days before the bottle nipples that simulate the breast. Even after 4 days in the hospital, there was nothing going on -- he was most emphaticaly not interested in latching on, and there was nothing available even if he had. I thought maybe it was just the stress of being in the hospital, and having the breast pump hooked up twice a day (I felt like moooooing) and having everyone check on me every 20 minutes. After a few days at home, nothing was happening still (well, except I had to keep giving him the water they sent home, and stick him in a sunny window virtually naked -- in January), and I went to formula.

When I found out I was pregnant with #2 (when #1 was EIGHT MONTHS OLD), I decided right away that I didn't want to mess with that again. Just to demonstrate that God has a rather bizzare sense of humor, almost everything went by the book with him -- went into labor on my due date, milk expressed on schedule (but I had complications & wound up in the ICU for a few days), and I probably could have nursed him if I wanted. Oh well. Both boys are smart, well-adjusted, and were quite healthy growing up.

I would never have allowed another person to nurse the boys, because who knows what that person is passing along in the breast milk? However, I was very generous in allowing anyone and everyone in the family to give the boys the bottle. Another thing I liked about bottle-feeding was that I could make eye contact with the boys -- their view during meals was not Mommy's armpit.

I think nursing is OK just about anyplace babies are OK. The one exception, in my mind, is church. I don't think it's such a great idea to try to attend church with a baby anyway. Almost all churches have nurseries, and many Catholic churches have crying rooms, where moms or dads and babies can go and still be at Mass; I think some of the megachurches do as well. I was not one of those moms who brought cheerios and coloring books to entertain the kids either. The boys started going to church when they could sit down and be quiet for an hour. Of course, son #2 manages to sneak his phone in and text like mad during most of the service...but at least he's there, and he's quiet!

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 10:04 AM

The breast IS best, which has been well-substaniated by "current science." There is no need to take conclusions beyond that statement, because the statement is an end-statement.


Posted by: | June 27, 2007 10:02 AM

But is the benefit minor in the overall picture? Most of pro breast feeding literature only shows mild benefits of bf. Even the studies linking FF with obesity have been refuted.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:04 AM

Jen S. -- where are you getting this? I'd be interested to read any research / history of men ever breast feeding.

It's not a "strong (almost universal) taboo against male breastfeeding" -- men don't breastfeed because men don't product milk.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 27, 2007 10:05 AM

Nutty Mama

"I was not offered the position (which I was qualified for), so I'm wondering if they didn't think that i would give them the 110% percent commitment they would need despite the fact that my supervisor had 2 kids that I'm sure she needed to be there for."

I wouldn't hire an applicant who permitted a child to make background noise while on a telephone job interview. I would question the applicant's maturity, among other things.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:06 AM

NuttyMama, I'm in human resources. I suggest that you include in your cover letter for the position that you're especially interested in the ABC position because you have worked as an ABCDEF, and your favorite aspect of the job was the ABC part of it. Now that you're back in the work force after taking time off to raise young children, you're interested in focusing your time in the ABC area, and this position appears to be an ideal fit. And try to find out what the salary range is, roughly, for this position, and if you're comfortable doing so, you might even mention in your cover letter what your desired salary range is. Or, if the job has an application (some professional jobs do, it's not all service industry jobs that do this) you can submit an application along with your resume and cover letter, and include your desired salary range (in line with the job) there. Also, try to use personal contacts. Ask friends at good companies to tell their HR people that they know a great candidate who's looking to take a job with more modest responsibilities for a big pay cut, and that you'd be a GREAT deal for the company, and make sure they tell the HR person that you are NOT looking to earn or work at the high/strategic levels that you were at before. Good luck!

Posted by: ChrEliz | June 27, 2007 10:08 AM

gmg - as I said earlier, and I'll clarify now, it isn't the germs, potential sexual nature or anything like that, it is simply too much 'gone with the wind'...meaning it seems like something slaves did for master, or irish did for their rich employers in New England back in the early 1800s.

Posted by: dotted | June 27, 2007 10:09 AM

To anon at 10:02:

I am not threatened by breastmilk. What a ridiculous statement.

But the science behind "breast is best" is a question of whether children who are fed breastmilk by a biological mother fare better than those who receive formula. even that science has huge flaws (as a researcher, I am well aware of them), but we'll take it as a given for now.

Regardless, those findings do not necessarily geralize to the idea that ANY breastmilk (produced by anyone under any circumstance) is ALWAYS better than the alternative.

Based on your faulty logic, it would be better for a mother undergoing chemotherapy (or taking dangerous drugs that can be passed to the baby through breastmilk) to breastfeed rather than to receive formula.

You probably need to brush up on your understanding of science. You might want to look into how to engage in appropriate, civil discussions, as well.

Posted by: DC MOm | June 27, 2007 10:09 AM

to TMI Question?:

In my opion, NO

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 27, 2007 10:10 AM

Teaching toddlers to be good in church with their family is bad, but some kid texting to his friends is okay? Obviously your kids didn't learn to go to church if they TEXT. I take my toddlers into church, without cheerios but with coloring books, and they understand it's a place of respect where they are quiet or removed. And why should breastfeeding mothers not nurse in church? That's less respectful than text messaging?

I'm still flabbergasted. Texting in church? Why bother to take them?

Posted by: HUH? | June 27, 2007 10:10 AM

I used to think I would never want to breastfeed. Even while pregnant- I looked at various bottles, formula, etc. When my child was born, I decided to breastfeed-- and I am glad that I did. Fr us it was the best choice and I breasefed for 6 months.

I have friends who wanted to breastfeed (their own children) and for various reasons it didn't work (such as not producing enough milk.) The breastfed and non-breastfed kids in our circle of friends are all fine-- so I don't think breastfeeding breaks or makes a kid, bonding, etc. It' a personal choice that every mother has to make-- or that Mother Nature decides.

I was very lucky that I only heard positive comments from people when I was breastfeeding. I live in Austria and here the public health insurance even pays for the rental of a breastpump.

Before being a mom I couldn't understand wy some women breastfed in public-- not as a mom myself, I understand. And even those of us moms who bring along a wrap, blanket, whatever to cover up with-- well, sometimes baby has other ideas!

Posted by: American mom abroad | June 27, 2007 10:11 AM

The interviewer called me at home after dinner time before my husband could get home to help me. Am I immature if I am not able to have a 2 year old keep quiet while I am talking on the phone?

Posted by: to anon at 10:06 | June 27, 2007 10:14 AM

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=&articleID=A24E0966-E7F2-99DF-322F8725F208D744

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:14 AM

"I'm all for breastfeeding wherever and whenever and I don't give a hoot about the naysayers and the people who are (sadly) grossed out. However, I completely support any woman who bottle feeds as well. I'm a former member of LLL and love that organization for the assistance and support they provided when I was trying to establish nursing with both of my children.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 08:23 AM

WorkingMomX, This balanced (pun intended) post makes you my Wednesday hero, LOL.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | June 27, 2007 10:14 AM

In addition, I was invited in for an in-person interview despite the noice my daughter was making in the background during the phone interview, so the interview must have felt I was qualified (an mature enough) to invite me.

Posted by: again to anon at 10:06 | June 27, 2007 10:16 AM

In addition, I was invited in for an in-person interview despite the noise my daughter was making in the background during the phone interview, so the interview must have felt I was qualified (an mature enough) to invite me.

Posted by: again to anon at 10:06 | June 27, 2007 10:16 AM

noice should be noise

an should be and

Posted by: fixing post by me | June 27, 2007 10:17 AM

First time on this chat, but I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the financial aspect of breastfeeding. Formula is pretty expensive - a friend who couldn't breastfeed spent $100/month on formula (Similac) and that was using coupons and buying powder at Costco. It was one of the reasons I kept pumping at work with #1 and am going as long as I can with #2. We had to supplement with #1, and I made it to about 11 months.

Posted by: Boo | June 27, 2007 10:18 AM

I'm still flabbergasted. Texting in church? Why bother to take them?

Posted by: HUH? | June 27, 2007 10:10 AM

I don't take him, actually. He gets up, showers, dresses and drives himself. He leaves for college in five weeks and three days. What do you think I should do -- ground him??

Texting like mad was an overstatement meant to be funny -- although he does sneak in some messages during the service. In my opinion, his self-directed church attendance, at his age, mitigates his texting.

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 10:20 AM

Formula 100/month for 12 months=1200$
BF
good pump around 300
plastic bags to store milk around 12/month =72
extra calories needed to BF=approximately 300
Total savings $528 a year (that is a conservative estimate on food costs) Hard to really know how much people pay for food.

I guess is $528 enough money for the hassle for the middle and upper middle class? Definitely not enough for the rich to make it worth it.

Posted by: bf2years | June 27, 2007 10:22 AM

Okay, peeps, saying that there's a dispute as to whether breastmilk is better than formula is like Cheney saying that there's a dispute about whether global warming exists. Puh-lease. The science, hard science, backs the breastfeeders every time. Moms who don't want to breastfeed and people who think it's disgusting love to talk about how formula is better, but you sound like idiots when you say it.

Posted by: WTF | June 27, 2007 10:24 AM

"Arlington Dad

"'Men breast feeding -- we are not built that way. It's not a factor, so condemning us for not wanting to do something we biologically can't do seems pointless.'

"It's not pointless to the frequent man-haters on this blog!"

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 09:22 AM

They are not man-haters. They are equality-worshippers. They make no secret out of why they would like to see men breast-feeding their babies: "Equality in parenthood." It's like these husbands of pregnant wives who strap something or other around their waists to "share" in what their wives are feeling.

In the long run, there is gender equality in store for each of us.

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | June 27, 2007 10:25 AM

WTF:Posts some citations to back up there is more then a minimal benefit to BF.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:25 AM

WTF -- that hurt C.W.'s feelings.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:26 AM

glad to see more support for women who want to and can breastfeed. things seem to have changed from people wanting me to go hide when nursing baby #1 6 years ago to now when baby #2 can sit and eat where we happen to be. if only my mother would support the idea and not think it freakish to "still" be nursing an 8-month old.

and sometimes you get side benefits. needed to nurse my son while negotiating the purchase of a new car. we were in a quiet office so he started eating. sales manager came in to speed the car sale along and instead of getting me to agree to his too high price, he dropped the total by 4 grand (to a bit less than i planned to pay) just to get away from nursing baby (all the while baby and I were not exposed b/c baby was holding his stroller blanket).

Posted by: wsnc | June 27, 2007 10:26 AM

Arlington Dad, Someone else had posted this earlier:

http://www.babycenter.com/expert/baby/babybreastfeed/8824.html

also, there was a recent story i saw on Yahoo news or something about a father in India who breastfed his infant child after the mother passed away-- he did it at first just to help stop the crying, and then he was surprized when he also started to produce milk.

Maybe this is all wrong-- can't believe everything you read, especially on the internet-- but on the other hand, the human body is truely amazing and the trend for life to find a way to continue on is remarkable! I guess i won't totally believe it until I see it with my own eyes, but on the other hand, there seems to be some fairly credible evidence that some men can breastfeed.

Posted by: Jen S. | June 27, 2007 10:27 AM

Sorry, yup, still flabbergasted. I teach calculus at a large state university, and am embarassed for the number of students who text during lecture. I ask them to leave, and they can return after meeting with me and apologizing. Where are these students going to learn to behave? Are they going to text during interviews or meetings at work?

I was also shocked that you find breastfeeding inappropriate for church, which should be about family.

To make this relevant, I had a student last semester who had mastitis and asked to breastfeed her baby during class, and did. I was impressed she didn't let it stop her attendance, and she was an excellent student.

Posted by: HUH? | June 27, 2007 10:28 AM

According to my records on the Onbalance column

314 blog topics have been recorded.
84,617 posts have been submited.
2,146 posts contain the word "Breast" or " bf".

On the calendar year of 2006, 70 posts contained 'nazi"
This year, 2007 to date, the term "nazi" has appeared in 156 posts so far.

Posted by: Blog Stats | June 27, 2007 10:28 AM

educmom

"In my opinion, his self-directed church attendance, at his age, mitigates his texting."

Is he texting that Jesus dude? Otherwise, there's no mitigation.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:30 AM

Scary. You are wise to keep that under wraps.

Posted by: to TMI question | June 27, 2007 10:32 AM

I agree somewhat with the cost breakdown of breastfeeding/pumping, although I used a borrowed pump and used few breastmilk bags - I expressed straight into the bottles. You're probably right that for the upper class the cost savings isn't enough, but I'm pretty solidly middle class, and $50/month makes a big difference - it's two boxes of diapers at Costco.

As I said, this is my first time here, I didn't realize most people were upper middle class. I suppose that changes the equation.

Posted by: Boo | June 27, 2007 10:33 AM

Jen S. -- I read the article on Scientific American (thank you to whomever posted the link). It cited a few very rare cases throughout history where men did indeed lactate. But the bottom line, is that it's possible but has only occurred in extremely rare cases. The way I read the article is that most men aren't built to nurse.

By the way, the "related articles" were all about the benefits of breastfeeding and potential downsides to formula (soy-based, specifically).

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 27, 2007 10:36 AM

To the anon poster:

www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/NUTRITION/infant_exclusive.htm

www.aap.org/healthtopics/breastfeeding.cfm

www.uspharmacist.com/oldformat.asp?url=newlook/files/cons/acf2f78.htm

www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Breastfeeding.cfm

There are many, many more. Now, your turn. Quote me some scientific articles that show formula is better than breastmilk.

Posted by: WTF | June 27, 2007 10:36 AM

Boo: I don't think everyone here is upper middle class. I just think people think that. But for a lot of people a difference of $600/year just isn't enough to justify the hassle of bf. Like I said I bf for 2 years because I loved it. Cost really wasn't the issue. Heck people pay more then $50/month for cable. I would think if FF was more convenient an additional $50/month is no biggie. But your right, for some people $50/month is two boxes of diapers and it means something to them. Sorry if I offended you.

Posted by: bf2years | June 27, 2007 10:37 AM

To WAMC

Never say never. Once that baby comes out and you experience a surge of hormones and deep love for your baby, you just might decide to try to breastfeed.

And breastfeeding IS healthier for a baby, because breastmilk passes on antibodies found only in breastmilk. This cannot be replicated in formula.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 09:00 AM

My baby came out, I felt a surge of hormones and a deep love for my baby and proceeded to feed her - with a bottle. How dare you suggest that only those mothers who breastfeed truly love their babies?

As to the rest of your comment, you're merely spouting off what you've read in parenting magazines and on blogs. Take a look at the actual research and you'll find the results show nothing more than that mixing formula with tainted water in Nigeria is a bad idea. Here's a news flash for you: before you make any parenting decisions, look behind the headlines and do some real investigating. Also consider reading something other than from sources that tell you what you want to hear and/or already believe.

WAMC - ignore the wenches and decide for yourself based on evidence and real data, not the politics of Lactation Consultants Are Us and its worshippers.

Posted by: GA mom | June 27, 2007 10:38 AM

Dads can nurse? That changes the possibilities of this video:

http://www.dadlabs.com/fatherhood/dad_labs_breast_pump_101.html

Dads can pump, too!

I'm posting this for a laugh, really.

Posted by: slazar | June 27, 2007 10:40 AM

wow, GA mom sounds defensive

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:40 AM

WTF:No one is saying FF is better the BF. We are saying BF is only a minimal benefit. There are no studies showing it is a huge benefit in the overall health for the child. Dude, take a breather. Why are you so uptight about this? If your happy lactating for your kid-great. Leave the rest of us alone.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:40 AM

Formula 100/month for 12 months=1200$
BF
good pump around 300
plastic bags to store milk around 12/month =72
extra calories needed to BF=approximately 300
Total savings $528 a year (that is a conservative estimate on food costs) Hard to really know how much people pay for food.

I guess is $528 enough money for the hassle for the middle and upper middle class? Definitely not enough for the rich to make it worth it.

Posted by: bf2years | June 27, 2007 10:22 AM

Don't forget the cost of nursing bras. And nursing pads. Wouldn't want to leak all over the place.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:40 AM

I have to agree with the person that said that children should be quiet during a phone interview. Actually, the phone interview should be conducted away from child. If husband is not able to be home then dont schedule interview for such a time. Tell husband that husband MUST be home by XX for phone interview.

My husband and I have three naughty dogs. When he has phone interviews he locks them in their crates or makes sure I am there to monitor them. you cant lock children up obviously but you can put yourself in a position where children wont be heard--period. I am not a big fan of children and it still annoys me that a local appraiser called me while her kid was talking in the background. We had business to discuss regarding a property husband and I were considering. The mere fact that this woman's attention was not directed 100% at me was irritating.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:42 AM

Some women also buy little sterilizing pads. But I did not include that because it seems optional. I think good old fashion soap and hot water works just as well.

Posted by: bf2years | June 27, 2007 10:43 AM

HUH?:
There are lines in society. Eating in church, or feeding a baby (bottle or breast) is one step across the line. It has nothing to do with family values -- I am sure that's why churches all make provisions for families with young children to take part in worship, such as crying rooms, nurseries and the like.

Son attended a school which did not allow cell phones to be carried during the day. He was perfectly fine.
He does not text during conversations, during dinners, or at other times when it might be seen as rude.
He will not text in class, and I hope he is reprimanded if he does.

Please explain to me how it is inappropriate for your students to have electronic distractions, but appropriate for a student to come to a calculus class with a baby. That puzzles me. When my son is sitting in his college calculus class, I certainly hope another student has not brought his or her toddler to class -- I'm sure he would find that to be a supreme distraction!

By the way, how many of your students come to class with laptops? I am taking a summer class to receive a second certification, and it is an undergraduate level class. More than half the students (who all seem to be younger than 20) have laptops, and they spend their time surfing the Web, sending e-mails and having IM conversations during class. I did not see this behavior in the master's program I recently completed. How do you handle that?

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 10:43 AM

Boo

"50/month makes a big difference - it's two boxes of diapers at Costco."

Disposable diapers are really bad for the environment!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 10:44 AM

Arlington Dad, I just read that Scientific American article too-- isn't it amazing? Learn something new everyday . . .

anyway, I don't know what "related articles" you are referring to-- are they in the Scientific american article? Or the Babycenter.com article? Or something else? and in any case are you directing me to them or someone else? Just a bit confused here!

Posted by: Jen S. | June 27, 2007 10:45 AM

Is he texting that Jesus dude? Otherwise, there's no mitigation.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 10:30 AM

Well, he says that he is...but somehow I don't think that Jesus set up his tee time or has tips for his fantasy football lineup.

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 10:47 AM

So if I get myself dressed and drive myself to church, is it okay with you if I breastfeed my infant there?

Posted by: to educmom | June 27, 2007 10:47 AM

educmom: My Canadian friend became a young mother at age 19. She took her daughter to university classes till she finished. I was shocked how well behaved her two year old could be. My kid would be a raving maniac. But I guess some kids are just quiet and easily amused. I think it was awesome if it was not a distraction to the other students and the prof. It allowed her to get her degree at the normal age and further her education to help raise her daughter. Now at 29, she is married with another daughter and has a masters degree in accounting. Owns her own home and enjoys an upper middle class life. I am sure the ability to bring her daughter to class made a difference. She was just lucky she had her kid and not mine. :)

Posted by: foamgnome | June 27, 2007 10:48 AM

More of the story. The interviewer called me "out of the blue" and asked to speak to me about the position I applied for. I told her I was at home with my daughter and she said she just had a few questions. So, maybe i should have been more assertive and asked her to call me back at my convenience.

Posted by: to anon at 10:42 | June 27, 2007 10:49 AM

Jen S. -- the related articles were on the Scientic American article. That was more a general comment to the list about what time of BF information is on a reputable, scientific, non-mommy-centered site.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 27, 2007 10:49 AM

When my son was a baby, I breast fed him. I could have feed every baby in town, I joked that you could call me Elsie. Anyway, I had so much extra milk, I called the local hospital and asked if they could use it. I was told no, because of the fears of passing on an illness or some drug in my milk to an infant. So instead I pumped and dumped bottles of milk down the drain. When I stopped breast feeding I had a month's worth of milk in the freezer.

Posted by: Claire | June 27, 2007 10:49 AM

"So my question is whether we are promoting this because we truly think it's best for the child's health (in which case, we need to consider some of the things I raised earlier) or because a small number of people and organizations are on an "everyone must be breastfed" kick. "

Sometimes it's because a baby who is exclusively breastfed doesn't take a bottle easily, so it's a matter of convenience and comfort in the even to an unexpected or forced separation. For example, one mother I know of was hospitalized unexpectedly for several days and several friends helped nurse the baby who was refusing a bottle (she'd never had one before) and already under a lot of stress from the separation.

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 10:52 AM

Educmom! The student has mastitis! It is incredibly painful and the best "cure" for it is continuous breastfeeding! Ican't believe you would denigrate a woman not only trying to feed her infant but also trying to treat a very dangerous conditionin the best way possible while continuing her education!! I'm sure no one even noticed or if they did, they were probably impressed by her dedication to her health, her education and to her child.

and for it is worth, at my church women breastfeed right there in their regular pew-- they are discrete and it is not offensive to anyone-- certainly not to God! Geez!

Posted by: Jen S. | June 27, 2007 10:53 AM

Foamgnome,
My kids would have been, uh, less than silent and unobtrusive as well. It realy does depend on the child -- your friend was lucky in that respect.

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 10:53 AM

educmom:She did not BF her daughter in school. I think because of the timing of when her daughter was born and when fall classes started, she had already been weaned (sp?). But it was amazing that she could finish and her kid was so well behaved. She always jokes with her daughter that she already has a BA degree. She just needs to turn 22 to get it.

Posted by: foamgnome | June 27, 2007 10:56 AM

I don't allow laptops in my class either. Why would a student need a laptop to learn calculus?

Yes, I allowed a single mother with a very young child (2mo) who needed to nurse for medical reasons to bring her very quiet child into class, under the assumption that she would remove him if he made noise. The child was not a toddler. After the fact, I discussed this with my department chair, who fully agreed with my decision, and not one student complained.

It's easy to support mothers who are married and have plenty of money and resources. I was supporting a young single woman who decided to keep her child and get an education. Frankly, I'd allow it for any woman who was trying to get an education and be a mother. I would hope that most people would be okay with that.

Posted by: HUH? | June 27, 2007 10:58 AM

Another busy day today, so I'll just reiterate my opinion: I'm all for breastfeeding, wherever, whenever, and if I'm in a restaurant with you, flop it out and nurse away (please cover yourself up, though). I'll just politely point my eyes at your forehead.

I don't think I'd ever wet-nurse for anyone, though, unless I adopted an infant. I guess in a dire emergency, I could get over the "yuk" factor and handle it, but in general, I probably wouldn't "trade babies."

Posted by: Mona | June 27, 2007 10:58 AM

How cute is baby when he or she is done nursing? Mom pulls him up off her breast, and he has that calm, contented, glassy-eyed look of satisfaction. I love that.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 27, 2007 11:01 AM

"because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb."

Genesis 49:25, NIV

God understands if you breastfeed in church. But he might not forgive others' intolerance of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:02 AM

Jen S:
I'm not denigrating anyone. I feel sorry for anyone with a painful medical condition (I'm not familiar with mastitis). Foamgnome's friend notwithstanding, it is generally distracting to bring a child into an arena where children are usually not seen. What did the baby do when not nursing -- one would hope sleep, but I don't know what happened.

I have attended several churches over the years (we moved a lot) and I have never seen anyone nurse in the sanctuary during Mass -- although I have seen plenty of women doing so in the crying room, whether they sat there the entire Mass or took a baby there when it started to wiggle and prepare to fuss. Do those parents who nurse in church have a pantry in their purses for the older siblings?

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 11:02 AM

Do those parents who nurse in church have a pantry in their purses for the older siblings?

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 11:02 AM

They do in my church. Some parents come so loaded down with sippy cups, snacks, toys, books etc...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:04 AM

Arlington Dad, that post made me smile. I love that sated baby look.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 11:06 AM

Just to let you know my personal position about breastfeeding. Of course I support breastfeeding wholeheartedly but I am satisfied that I have done my job in respect to child nutrition when:

1. The baby is thriving
2. The mother is happy

Posted by: Frieda | June 27, 2007 11:08 AM

Frankly, I'd allow it for any woman who was trying to get an education and be a mother. I would hope that most people would be okay with that.


What about a father who had no one to watch the baby?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:09 AM

Let me say this once more, very clearly, then I'm done:

Don't snack in church! Don't let your kids snack in church! No sippy cups, no juice boxes, no bottles, no breasts, no cheerios, no animal crackers, no dried bananas, no apple slices, no pbj squares -- NO FOOD!! If it's inappropriate to eat anything else in church, then nursing is also inappropriate. It has nothing to do with the nursing aspect -- it all has to do with the eating aspect!

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 11:09 AM

I won't argue that scientifically - breast milk is suppose to be better for your kids. But formula is also fine as well. My kids developed just fine; there was no harm done to them. Or myself as I was also formula fed. It is not fair though that my kids hear "your mom didn't love you enough or care for you enough since she didn't breastfeed you". Or that I hear that. I love my kids from the bottom of my heart and I made the best decision for our personal situation and they did just fine.

I respect people on either decision they make as far as method of feeding their child. Each person makes the best decision for their particular situation.

Posted by: C.W. | June 27, 2007 11:11 AM

I mean, it's one hour!

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 11:12 AM

educmom: OK, I have to ask you why your against eating in church? What is more communal then sharing a meal. I mean the eucharist in itself is sharing a meal. I guess the point should be: If you are going to eat in church, bring enough for everyone.

Posted by: foamgnome | June 27, 2007 11:12 AM

Oh, I wasn't offended. Maybe my husband and I do overanalyze the cost benefit of things with our children - the first year seems so expensive. I remember buying that first gallon of whole milk for my son on his first birthday - woo woo!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had to pick up my running schedule though, since I wasn't burning the extra calories from breastfeeding.

For what it's worth, if people don't want to breastfeed, then don't. It's such a personal decision.

Posted by: Boo | June 27, 2007 11:12 AM

MMMM,the Last supper . . .

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:14 AM

Don't snack in church! Don't let your kids snack in church! No sippy cups, no juice boxes, no bottles, no breasts, no cheerios, no animal crackers, no dried bananas, no apple slices, no pbj squares -- NO FOOD!!

It's none of your business what other people do in church. Are you there to worship or are you there to criticize a mother or father trying to keep their kids in check. If you pay attention to the service, you won't notice little Johnny eating (gasp) a cracker.

Posted by: Jesus wept | June 27, 2007 11:14 AM

To ChrEliz,

Your post is about the best statement on public bf-ing I've ever seen.

Usually, the bf-ing discussions on this blog deteriorate into snark-fests between the self-righteous (bf-ing moms) and the indignant (offended bystanders), both sides insisting that their rights are being trampled on.

Your post, in contrast, offers a rational and truly balanced view of the whole issue. I don't see how anyone on either side of the argument could disagree with anything you've said.

Of course, knowing this blog...

Posted by: pittypat | June 27, 2007 11:16 AM

Educmom, while I agree about not eating in church during mass/service (generally speaking, except during communion), I don't think breastfeeding an infant counts. Infants need to nurse very frequently. Would you have the same problem with it if someone gave their baby a bottle in church?

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 11:18 AM

"I mean, it's one hour!"

I think part of the argument here is that one hour to a breastfeeding baby is very different than one hour to an older child or an adult who eats solid food. First, breastmilk is highly digestible, which is why breastfeeding infants need to eat much more often than children eating solids or even babies eating formula. Second, infants do not have the self control to ignore their hunger in the way we expect adults and older children to do. A hungry infant, breastfed or otherwise, is going to cry, and an expectation that they will not is unrealistic. I don't have an opinion about eating in church, but I do think it's unrealistic to say there's no difference between asking a five year old to wait to eat and asking an infant to wait.

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 11:19 AM

Just to let you know, not all churchs services are one hour. Ours is close to 3 hours long.

Posted by: mormonmom | June 27, 2007 11:21 AM

It is not fair though that my kids hear "your mom didn't love you enough or care for you enough since she didn't breastfeed you".

C.W. -- who said this?

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 27, 2007 11:21 AM

It is not fair though that my kids hear "your mom didn't love you enough or care for you enough since she didn't breastfeed you".


I really don't know what circle you run in, but I have never heard that statement before. And if your kids are hearing that- I think it's time to find new people to associate with!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:21 AM

C.W., that's a terrible thing for someone to say to you or your children. If you post the phone number of whoever said it, I'll give him/her a call and a piece of my mind for you, and I bet a few others on this blog will, too. :)

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 11:23 AM

I've never been asked by a father to bring a child into class, but I suppose (as with the mother) I would consider it on a case-by-case basis. Why wouldn't I? I'm a father, I understand the challenges.

I did allow a make-up exam for a father with a premature baby. His wife delivered 8 weeks early, and he didn't want to leave her alone and the family was far away.

It's not a contest between mothers and fathers. Parents have a particularly difficult time in school, and I respect those who try to continue their education. I'm at a traditional four-year institution, so the parents I encounter with challenges in class have children who were unplanned. These students tend to be very focused.

On another note, my church does not have a cry room, and even if it did, I do not support sequestering breastfeeding women. I'm Catholic, and if my church is against birth control and abortion, they should support families.

Posted by: HUH? | June 27, 2007 11:24 AM

It is not fair though that my kids hear "your mom didn't love you enough or care for you enough since she didn't breastfeed you".


My sister heard this from several Nursing Nazis. Would you like their numbers?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:26 AM

CW, what an awful thing for someone to say to you or your kids.

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 11:27 AM

11:26 anon: yes, I would, actually. Someone clearly needs to give them a ticket for a ride on the clue bus.

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 11:29 AM

at our church generally only infants are in the pews-- when they are toddlers they are generally left in the nursery and when older they go to sunday school classes. So there isn't any "snacking" going on, just occasional breastfeeding, which I don't think it as distracting as eating and drinking because it doesn't make a lot of noise or create spills and crumbs.

If the baby does start to make distracting noises, one parent will quickly leave and take the child to the nursery. Parents can also leave babies there from the very beginning of the service, if they so choose.

i once attended a Catholic mass at a small church that didn't have a nursery of any kind and we sat in the back pew with our baby. I can't recall if I breastfed or not, but I do recall that a father had to get up and leave at one point because his toddler was being a being disruptive. Wasn't a big deal.

Posted by: Jen S. | June 27, 2007 11:30 AM

oops! forget to mention that the father was took the toddler with him!
I think the only reason I remember this is because I am always on the lookout for ideas on how to discipline disruptive toddlers.

Posted by: Jen S. | June 27, 2007 11:32 AM

I am Catholic. I used to sit in the crying room when my daughter was an infant. And yes, I did nurse her there. It did not seem to bother anyone else. When she was old enough to go to the nursery, we sent her there (with a ton of snacks and drinks). No one every complained that she eats there. She won't attend services till she can sit semi quietly. I don't think that will be for another two years. She will go to nursery Sunday school at age 4. I figure I would send her with snacks there too. I am still surprised educmom has a problem with this. Because in our nursery, they will even provide a snack if you want.

Posted by: foamgnome | June 27, 2007 11:34 AM

"They do in my church. Some parents come so loaded down with sippy cups, snacks, toys, books etc... "


I spend the entire time of the service craving a cigarette and dying for a drink! If I can wait, these spawn can wait, too!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:34 AM

I spend the entire time of the service craving a cigarette and dying for a drink! If I can wait, these spawn can wait, too!

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 11:34 AM

Maybe you should pray for patience.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:36 AM

I wasn't sure if DD would want to nurse. She loved it and we did it for 14 months. I was not working outside the home and every penny saved then did help.

The other night I was in the playground with 5 year DD and two other moms. I was unusual because I nursed and did not have a c-section. All the children were happy, well fed, and loved, and that is what matters.

I do not let DD eat during our religous services. They have a snack for kids right after it is over. I probably would have nursed if we had gone at the age because she would not have been able to ask for anything. I keep the same rule for the metro. I nursed on the metro but now no eating or drinking on the metro.
Even I am carrying water we stop before and once we out of the metro rail she can drink to her heart's content.

Posted by: shdd | June 27, 2007 11:38 AM

I (heart) Blog Stats.

What fun! More, more, more!

Posted by: Meesh | June 27, 2007 11:39 AM

One example is when my younger sister-in-law had her kids and she was explaining to my children that breast feeding was the best thing you can do for your kids and how good it was for them, etc. etc. She knew my kids were formula fed. My kids questioned my decision to formula feed them and why didn't I care enough for them to breast feed considering all the benefits. It really put me on the spot and it did give my children a time of reflection thinking I'd failed them somehow.

One of the reasons my sister-in-law breast fed is because she is basically flat chested and she actually had breasts during this stage and she relished that. Not all intentions of breast feeding are related to the well fare of the children.

BTW, her two kids. One is very small for his age; her daughter is overweight. They are 9 and 10 years old now. Not saying breast feeding was not the ultimate for "her situation"; however, as I stated before my kids turned out developmentally just fine.

Posted by: C.W. | June 27, 2007 11:41 AM

I don't really care one way or the other about breast feeding. Do it, don't do it, who cares. It's your body and your baby. Why should I be so concerned because other people don't want to breast feed?

On the eating in church issue, I don't pay much attention to that either. I don't leave my daughter in the nursery because I don't know the people in there. We do usually go to the cry room and I bring snacks, usually fruit snacks. I have no problem with a woman breastfeeding. I am Catholic but only go to church a couple times a month. I just really don't feel the need to pay that much attention to what other people do unless they are hurting someone.

Posted by: scarry | June 27, 2007 11:42 AM

cw is very defensive, also your post about your sister wanting to bf because of her breast size is a joke. Noone would go through nursing for that, no matter how flat you are. And don't be to smug about your kids being healthy because chances are they'll suffer later in life from your "choice" to formula feed.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:46 AM

"I just really don't feel the need to pay that much attention to what other people do unless they are hurting someone."

But, Scarry, that's just so....reasonable! How on earth will we have anything to fight over this way? :)

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 11:48 AM

I think it's gross to breastfeed someone else's kid. However, my husband sees nothing wrong with it. He wonders why people think it's so gross yet they'll drink cow's milk. Why don't people get grossed out by the act of drinking milk from another animal??? :)

Posted by: Kimmy | June 27, 2007 11:48 AM

And don't be to smug about your kids being healthy because chances are they'll suffer later in life from your "choice" to formula feed.

Now who is being smug? You sound like an idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:48 AM

"And don't be to smug about your kids being healthy because chances are they'll suffer later in life from your "choice" to formula feed."

The above is why you are known as a Nursing Nazi!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:49 AM

cw is very defensive, also your post about your sister wanting to bf because of her breast size is a joke. Noone would go through nursing for that, no matter how flat you are. And don't be to smug about your kids being healthy because chances are they'll suffer later in life from your "choice" to formula feed.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 11:46 AM

Not sure why you view my response as defensive; just presenting the situation as it was/is. And you are right - her sole decision to breast feed was NOT that it increased her size and kept her large. But it was part of her inspiration. That is no joke.

Posted by: C.W. | June 27, 2007 11:52 AM

C.W. --

"when my younger sister-in-law had her kids and she was explaining to my children that breast feeding was the best thing you can do for your kids and how good it was for them, etc. etc"

is NOT the same things as

""your mom didn't love you enough or care for you enough since she didn't breastfeed you"."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:53 AM

"Why should I be so concerned because other people don't want to breast feed?"

1. Because breastmilk is healthiest for human babies. Society ultimately pays when there is a higher incidence of allergies in children and minor problems with babies such as constipation and intolerance to milk based formulas. The more trips to the doctor and the more medications needed by our society results in increased health care costs to us all.

2. Because breastfeeding is healthy for mothers. Breastfeeding moms experienced a decreased risk for breast cancer. See above.

3. Because formula feeding is not good for the environment. The disposal of formula cans, the impact of producing formula, the disposable bottles - all of those things ultimately effect ALL of us.

4. Because some people just inherently care about the health of other human beings, even aside from the cost to society.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:53 AM

Boob feeders and religious kooks on the sameday; what a big yawn!!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:56 AM

Boob feeders and religious kooks on the sameday; what a big yawn!!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:56 AM

Y'all cut C.W. some slack.

and
"...also your post about your sister wanting to bf because of her breast size is a joke."

I would not be that quick to call it a joke. I personally know women (not speaking on behalf of Frieda here) who were, ah, delighted with their new figures however temporary the change was.

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 11:56 AM

As far as eating/breastfeeding in Church, I think it completely depends upon your religion and the atmosphere of your particular services. In mine, we had a crying room (not sure about nursery, but think that is a great idea) and I got agitated when people had whiney/talking/crying young children in the pews and were too lazy to either take them out or take them into the crying room. Personally, I wanted the service to be quiet and non-distracting so I could focus on prayer and meditation.

Food in the pews bothers me a little because small children tend to be messy, and for *my* service I think it's important to fast until communion. However, I also understand that small children aren't making a conscious choice to worship and that parents can't always get sitters or leave children at home when they go and so if the child can eat somewhere (nursery sounds great!) quietly and out of the way, good for them. I think if your child can't sit through service you really should try to not make them go, but I understand this isn't an option for everyone. I think my church had some kind of nursery where small children were read stories during service in another room completely and would recommend that until the child can be quiet and obedient.

As far as the older child texting, I think that if he is old enough to drive himself to church he's old enough to decide how he worships and if the texting doesn't bother anyone sitting next to him (or distract) it's his perogative. We all worship in different ways and it's rude to assume he is denigrating his religion or church simply by sending the occasional text message.

To educmom - I see kids in my lectures all the time texting and goofing around on their laptops. While in some ways, yeah, it bothers me, I also appreciate that these slacker students are bringing down the curve for students like myself who study hard, listen, and pay attention. I've never had a professor forbid them. I think unless the behavior is truly distracting to the class as the whole, the lecturer can put up with it. Afterall, these students are PAYING (or their parents are) for this class and if they want to waste it by instant messaging the whole way through let them. It's college and time for hand holding is over. Plus I think it gives a stronger edge to those students who would be more diligent on their own. Just my opinion.

Posted by: Miles | June 27, 2007 11:56 AM

My mom tried to BF with my oldest sister. Managed to pop a blood vessels to the point blood was gushing, and my sister was vomiting it up. She never BF another of us (6 kids in total). Too traumatic for her.

RE: allergies - Mom has significant allergies to pretty much everything. Only one kid has mild seasonal allergies, the rest of us are a-ok and are all adults now.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:58 AM

"3. Because formula feeding is not good for the environment. The disposal of formula cans, the impact of producing formula, the disposable bottles - all of those things ultimately effect ALL of us."

Yet most of you use disposable diapers!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 11:58 AM

I think it's gross to breastfeed someone else's kid. However, my husband sees nothing wrong with it. He wonders why people think it's so gross yet they'll drink cow's milk. Why don't people get grossed out by the act of drinking milk from another animal??? :)

Posted by: Kimmy | June 27, 2007 11:48 AM

Because my lips aren't on the utter of the cow? ;) Cow's milk usually cleaned and expected before packaged, properly refrigerated, etc. But actually I don't know if it bothers me...both my grandmothers were wet nurses for women at the time who could not breastfeed and I'd think it would really depend on the situation for me to offer a solid opinion on that.

Posted by: Miles | June 27, 2007 11:59 AM

11:53 - those are all great reasons for moms to decide to breastfeed, and for us as a society to be supportive of moms who do in our policies.

But I find the idea that we should all butt into each others' lives every time someone makes a decision that may not be the very best troubling if not absurd. We all do things ever day that are not the best for our health, our children's health, the environment, and society at large, because we are all balancing a lot of different demands and ideals.

I think supporting breastfeeding as public policy is very important for all the reasons you state, but attacking or guilting women who choose not to breastfeed is just unreasonable in my mind.

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 11:59 AM

I forgot to add: none of us is overweight, have had any significant health problems and all did very well in highly rated colleges/univ.

Posted by: 11:58 | June 27, 2007 12:00 PM

I was bf by another woman -- my mother had serious problems and doctors told her not to feed me. I grew up just fine. I don't have kids yet, but I already told my husband and he is OK with this -- I will not bf in public, whether or not it is allowed or not, I will not bf in front of anyone but my husband or a nurse who might have to / want to help out at the begining. Grandparents don't need to see it, friends don't need to see pictures of me. Becoming a mother does not stop me from being a woman and I never show private body parts, not a matter of any religion or anything you might think. Just a personal stand on issues. I will just have to learn and figure out how to deal with it. And yes, I wholeheartedly hope I can bf (ie have milk) for all my kids.

Posted by: different opinion? | June 27, 2007 12:01 PM

I've breastfed each of my children in church at one time or another. They were hungry/fussy; perhaps it was a long sermon. We normally sat in the back of the church (there is no nursery or crying room), we were appropriately covered and didn't appear to bother anyone else. And no snacks for the older sibling. Where's the harm in that?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:01 PM

Yep, I knew that would bring out the "I was formula fed and I turned out just fine" crowd. Can I just suggest that we try to keep anecdotal information out of this and just trust that I meant statistically speaking? Did you smoke during your pregnancy because your mom did and you turned out just fine? I didn't think so.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:01 PM

"I got agitated when people had whiney/talking/crying young children in the pews and were too lazy to either take them out or take them into the crying room. "

I give my kids valium one hour before we leave for church. Works every time!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:02 PM

Fred says "I personally know women (not speaking on behalf of Frieda here) who were, ah, delighted with their new figures however temporary the change was."

Yeah, but there's that thing that happens later. Kate Winslet's description of post breastfeeding boobs: "Like a sock with a tennis ball at the bottom".

Posted by: WorkingMomX | June 27, 2007 12:02 PM

To the posters who responded to my off-topic question, THANK YOU! All of your responses contained exactly the information I needed. Thank you again.

Posted by: Nutty Mama | June 27, 2007 12:04 PM

"Yet most of you use disposable diapers!!"

Well, I don't. Not that it has anything to do with the conversation at hand.

"I think supporting breastfeeding as public policy is very important for all the reasons you state, but attacking or guilting women who choose not to breastfeed is just unreasonable in my mind. "

I didn't say that we should attack or guilt women. I said (in response to Scarry) that those are reasons that we should care about what other people do regarding breastfeeding. Because believe it or not, it's not all about us.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:05 PM

"I forgot to add: none of us is overweight, have had any significant health problems and all did very well in highly rated colleges/univ. "

Well whoopee for you.

Did you drink Kool-aid three times a day too?


Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:07 PM

"I didn't say that we should attack or guilt women. I said (in response to Scarry) that those are reasons that we should care about what other people do regarding breastfeeding. Because believe it or not, it's not all about us."

Then we agree - it just sounded from your post like you were giving reasons for doing that, since Scarry's point was that she doesn't.

And for whoever's so hung up on diapers, we didn't use disposables either until my son went to daycare, where they of course can't do cloth. But as nameless said, it really is irrelevant - the inability to choose perfectly every time does not negate the value of the good choices we do make.

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 12:10 PM

Haven't read all the comments yet, but no one seemed to mention that years ago, so many women used to die in childbirth. So what happened to those babies? Someone else nursed them. It wasn't all 'master's kids and slave wet nurses.'

Just another perspective.

Posted by: atlmom | June 27, 2007 12:11 PM


I can see contexts where wetnursing/ crossnursing could be worthwhile. Pumping, storing, and feeding is labor-intensive; even for your own child it's 4 times the time and effort of just nursing. For a milk bank with collecting, shipping, screening, sterilizing, etc, it's prohibitively expensive, even with an abundance of willing donors.

A screened and trustworthy donor to directly nurse could be much more accessible. Such nursing could bridge mom and baby through a needy time, preserving the chance to establish/resume the nursing relationship. Mom/baby pairs who can't get nursing established might have better luck if baby has some success with an experienced mom with reliable supply and letdown, while mom brings in her supply with a pump and heals/recovers/settles a bit (not that pumps work for everyone, or that this would always work, but it could jumpstart *some* nursing relationships - my first sleepy-suck baby couldn't nurse properly til a few days of pumping brought in my supply; once I actually had milk, she got the hang of it) Crossnursing for a mom unavailable due to medical emergency, surgery, temporary meds could carry the baby til mom returns, having pumped to maintain supply. Many moms won't want to risk very early bottlefeeding as it carries a risk baby won't return to the breast, which demands different technique/patience than the bottle; many older bf babies reject a bottle, so that introducing a bottle becomes an unneeded trauma/struggle, especially if the baby just needs to get through a brief time til mom's available again. (And again, I know some babies breeze through these challenges, but some struggle and moms try to do their best by the baby they've actually got)

I've known of donors even willing to adapt their diet to provide milk safe for allergic babies, whose own mothers struggle to produce enough especially in the 10-24 months age range, where failure to thrive scares can emerge. This creating safe food from nothing --- it's an amazing gift, and it bridges the kids til they can outgrow some allergies or at least establish a full safe diet. As a mom of a once-allergic baby, this self-reliance was the biggest pro of bf for me: I retained the power to produce safe food for my child, no matter how idiosyncratic her needs became. I didn't cede her lifeline to manufacturers willing to produce only what a greater market rewards.

Posted by: KB | June 27, 2007 12:16 PM

"Haven't read all the comments yet, but no one seemed to mention that years ago, so many women used to die in childbirth. So what happened to those babies? Someone else nursed them. It wasn't all 'master's kids and slave wet nurses.'"

Duh! The kids who were fed tended to be from the upper classes, whether or not their mothers were alive!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:18 PM

Why should I be so concerned because other people don't want to BE VEGETARIAN?"

1. Because is A VEGGIE DIET is best for human babies. Society ultimately pays when there is a higher incidence of CCOLON CANCER, HEART ATTACK, etc. in people. The more trips to the doctor and the more medications needed by our society results in increased health care costs to us all.

2. Because A VEGGIE DIET is healthy for mothers. VEGETARIAN moms experienced a decreased risk for ALL cancers. See above.

3. Because MEAT EATING is not good for the environment. The DESTRUCTION OF FORESTS, THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE, THE EXPENSE OF FEEDING, HOUSING, MATING, and SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMALS - all of those things ultimately effect ALL of us.

4. Because some people just inherently care about the health of other human beings, even aside from the cost to society.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:19 PM

I think I was misunderstood a bit. I'm not bothered by snacking in the nursery or the crying room -- those places are set aside for children who are not ready to sit in on the actual service, and the 'church' behaviors aren't expected there. But I find eating in the pews to be a distration -- and, like someone said earlier, if you bring food, bring enough for everyone.

Usually, the parents who come in with gobs of food also provide little Johnny or Suzie with dolls or toy cars, so they can play during church as well. There have been times I wanted to move, because I couldn't hear the homily very well, but I didn't know how to do so without bringing attention to myself and embarrassing the rude people behind me -- like the time the kids behind me were playing Run Over Barbie With the Thomas the Tank Engine. The entire Mass. Unless they were crunching their carrot sticks.

Giving a bottle or a breast is best done in the back of the church, as it is less distracting that way (primarily because of the fussiness factor), if the church doesn't have other accomodations.

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 12:21 PM

Is the use of paper diapers necessarily the worst ecological choice all the time?

What about areas which have plenty of space but very limited fresh water supplies and limited sewerage treatment facilities? The desert comes to mind as one such example.

Posted by: cloth vs. paper | June 27, 2007 12:21 PM

And don't be to smug about your kids being healthy because chances are they'll suffer later in life from your "choice" to formula feed.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 11:46 AM

Yep, I knew that would bring out the "I was formula fed and I turned out just fine" crowd. Can I just suggest that we try to keep anecdotal information out of this and just trust that I meant statistically speaking? Did you smoke during your pregnancy because your mom did and you turned out just fine? I didn't think so.


Posted by: | June 27, 2007 12:01 PM

This is where your opinion progresses to demeaning idiocy. Comparing the choice to bottle feed to the choice to smoke during pregnancy is nothing more than an attempt to humiliate and demean educated bottle-feeding parents. Yes, let's keep anecdotal information and uninformed urban legend out of this and speak about statistics and actual research. That should pretty much leave you speechless, Queen of Snark.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:22 PM

Fine. I have no problem with any of those statements. And no, I'm not a vegetarian.

Nobody is making it a law that you can't breastfeed or eat meat. Stating that something isn't good for the world isn't interfering with your ability to keep doing it. Do you get defensive when people tell you to turn off your lights when you're not using them?

Posted by: to 12:19 | June 27, 2007 12:23 PM

"Did you smoke during your pregnancy because your mom did and you turned out just fine? I didn't think so."

I did, beyotch! Stop being a shapeless killjoy!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:26 PM

educmom, what a logical leap from kids playing with toys and crunching carrot sticks to nursing or bottlefeeding. Bottles and breasts are not crunchy and don't come with dolls or toy engines attached. The time it takes to get the baby out of the pew and to the other space is longer than it takes to pop a bottle or breast in its mouth. The two situations are not remotely similar.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:26 PM

"Comparing the choice to bottle feed to the choice to smoke during pregnancy is nothing more than an attempt to humiliate and demean educated bottle-feeding parents. "

So if I told a (nicotine-addicted) woman "you shouldn't smoke during pregnancy because it's bad for your baby" that wouldn't be an attempt to humiliate and demean her?

"and speak about statistics and actual research."

So please, oh educated bottle feeder, please provide me with statistics and actual research supporting formula feeding.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:29 PM

Meesh, for your personal entertainment, I took a minute and crunched a few numbers for you.

Out of 693 posts, you have included the word "love" 59 times, and the word "hate" only 19.

If I had to guess from reading these numbers, I would think you make quite a decent lover. ;-)

Posted by: Blog Stats | June 27, 2007 12:30 PM

I can't imagine not breastfeeding. It's what's best for my child. When I had to start supplementing with formula, it really bothered me. Chemically modified cows' milk is not what's best for my child. It's not that hard to understand that human milk is best for human babies. However, I'm glad that good quality formula is out there and I don't have to mix evaporated milk with corn syrup and call it formula.

I have yet to hear an explanation of why someone wouldn't at least try to breastfeed that makes sense to me, other than that they are on a medication that would be dangerous. It's just a natural, normal thing that's not gross or inconvenient or expense. It shouldn't hurt. I really don't get it. Oh, well, people do things all the time that don't make sense to me...

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 12:31 PM

How many people have completed a health survey at the doctor's office where they were asked if they were bottle or breast fed? How many people have had health diagnosis related to how they were fed as infants versus genetic reasons?

Just curious.

Posted by: Starlight | June 27, 2007 12:31 PM

"How many people have completed a health survey at the doctor's office where they were asked if they were bottle or breast fed? How many people have had health diagnosis related to how they were fed as infants versus genetic reasons? "

Also circumcision questions appear on surveys.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:33 PM

What doesn't make sense to me is to engage in a conversation about breastfeeding where one refers to formula as "chemically-modified cows' milk". It bears no chemical relationship to cows' milk at all.

A little more accuracy. A little less emotion. Both good things.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:35 PM

"Why should I be so concerned because other people don't want to breast feed?"

1. Because breastmilk is healthiest for human babies. Society ultimately pays when there is a higher incidence of allergies in children and minor problems with babies such as constipation and intolerance to milk based formulas. The more trips to the doctor and the more medications needed by our society results in increased health care costs to us all.

2. Because breastfeeding is healthy for mothers. Breastfeeding moms experienced a decreased risk for breast cancer. See above.

3. Because formula feeding is not good for the environment. The disposal of formula cans, the impact of producing formula, the disposable bottles - all of those things ultimately effect ALL of us.

4. Because some people just inherently care about the health of other human beings, even aside from the cost to society.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 11:53 AM

There's no scientific support -- if you look at the actual research -- for your first two points. Recycling and re-using solves the environmental issue, as if you really care about that. If you're so concerned about the health of human beings, why are all of your badgering, ignorant posts anonymous?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:37 PM

"How many people have completed a health survey at the doctor's office where they were asked if they were bottle or breast fed? How many people have had health diagnosis related to how they were fed as infants versus genetic reasons? "

Also circumcision questions appear on surveys.

+ + +

Actually, those questions were on my Online Dating form...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:37 PM

to cloth v. paper -

The short answer is that there isn't a clear answer to your question. To my knowledge, at least, there has not been a recent life cycle analysis of cloth v paper that takes into account newer styles of cloth diapers (the explanation of why this might make a difference is probably tedious and I will spare you). The question of local vs. global environmental impacts and how to account for them is also very complex and not easily accounted for in any analysis. I felt better using cloth for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it's a clear cut choice.

Of course, you could always decide to practice elimination communication and avoid the choice altogether, but I don't want to get too crazy here ;)

I'm out for the day, have a good one all!

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 12:39 PM

YAY! Thanks, Blog Stats!

Posted by: Meesh | June 27, 2007 12:40 PM


educmom -

You might well never notice if babies nurse in your vicinity at church. My nurslings didn't cry or fuss when hungry --- typically they would root, when *very* young, or (more usually) start sucking their thumb. From there it's just a matter of giving them access to nurse, if already in mom's lap that's just a quick discreet unclasp inside mom's blouse near the shoulder and a minor shifting of the baby, doable in seconds. Only a protracted delay would lead to fussing or crying, for my babes, and I've read that's typical. . . fussing and crying are very late hunger signs for a bf baby.

I'm sure many nursing moms could tell you as I can that strangers have come up to them, cooed and wanted to interact with the baby, totally unaware that the baby was currently busy nursing! Just looks like your typical baby nestled in a lap . . .

Posted by: KB | June 27, 2007 12:41 PM

educmom,

We are looking for different things in a church and congregation, evidently. I wouldn't want to be part of a congregation that makes parents of newborns and infants feel anything more than entirely comfortable either using the nursery or not using the nursery. I'd rather have them attend services than not. The nursery is there if they want it, at their option. The impact of throwing dirty looks at breast-feeding moms and parents of noisy or rambunctious kids is that they feel less welcome. If one's goal is to chase them to another church or parish or to the golf course, then throw those looks and make 'em feel pressured to leave the sanctuary. If one's goal is to make all visitors truly feel welcome and able to experience God in whatever way they are open to experiencing Him, then presumably the judgment and dirty looks should be squelched or kept to a minimum.

It is my understanding that, historically, the Catholic Church discouraged eating food prior to taking communion. This prohibition is not universal and does not, in my experience, have any relevance for Protestant and other non-Christian congregations. Heck, it may even be a fading issue in Catholic parishes. I'd welcome any info on this.

Breast feeders, bottle feeders, parents with Cheerios, even -- perish the thought - those unwilling to turn off their cell phones for a limited period of time: God welcomes them all. So should we. My 2 cents.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | June 27, 2007 12:51 PM

"It bears no chemical relationship to cows' milk at all."

Huh? What's it made from then? Not all of them are soy are they?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:52 PM

There is a great archive article in Slate about breastfeeding and how it was proven 40 years ago that the most it will do is prevent diarrhea. Mammals, like cows and pigs, etc., will die without breastmilk because they can absorb their mother's antibodies through the colostrum that is in the milk. Humans can't absorb antibodies; if we do at all, it is in trace amounts. Basically, what we are born with is all we are ever going to get. I don't know why this info isn't more widespread. When it finally gets out there, I predict a lot of bitter moms who were up for countless months praying for a good night's rest. If breast feeding is so great... why would it be so hard? And yes, I bottle fed - and my two sons are very healthy.

Posted by: rockvillemom | June 27, 2007 12:55 PM

It is my understanding that, historically, the Catholic Church discouraged eating food prior to taking communion. This prohibition is not universal and does not, in my experience, have any relevance for Protestant and other non-Christian congregations. Heck, it may even be a fading issue in Catholic parishes. I'd welcome any info on this.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | June 27, 2007 12:51 PM

You were traditionally supposed to fast the morning of Mass. Now I believe they recommend you either fast or have a "light meal" so like many things Catholic, the standards get a little laxer every year for lazy americans.
(Disclaimer: no offense to lazy americans, i am one.)

Posted by: Miles | June 27, 2007 12:56 PM

now there would be an interesting discussion: circumcision

Parents of boys: did you circumcise? Why or why not? If you had it to do again, would you make the same decision?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 12:57 PM

When I was young, you fasted before a Sabbath mass or a high holy mass. Now, I think your not suppose to eat an hour before which would be the time from mass to the eucharist. But I think most people just disregard most things and consider if their not eating during the Mass, they are OK. There is no rule for small children and babies. But Catholics do not take the host till around 8 years old anyway.

Posted by: foamgnome | June 27, 2007 1:00 PM

"If one's goal is to make all visitors truly feel welcome and able to experience God in whatever way they are open to experiencing Him, then presumably the judgment and dirty looks should be squelched or kept to a minimum."

It's tyranny of the few! The few parents who can't control their children destroy the whole church experience for the rest of the congregation that somehow manages to behave properly. Do these same kids behave in school? I won't get into clothes some folks wear in the summer!

How does one "chase them to another church or parish or to the golf course"?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:01 PM

I won't get into clothes some folks wear in the summer!

Different religions have different answers on clothes. Fancy clothes on Sunday would be considered anything but holy to the Amish. I don't know where people got this idea that everyone needs to dress up for church. Do you really think Jesus went around in the state of high fashion? Why would God care what you wear?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:03 PM

Thanks, Miles. I knew what you meant, LOL.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | June 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Are misbehaving children really such a problem at your church? I attend mass regularly, and can't remember the last time a child disrupted mass all that much. Parents seem to get their kids out to the vestibule pretty quickly upon meltdown. Before I had kids, I was always impressed.

One preschool-age child did disrupt a wedding I was at earlier in the summer, and the parents were pretty slow to act, but the child had never been to church. Not a judgment, but the kid probably didn't know what to do. My husband went out to the lobby and gave the parents some extra aquadoodles we had for him. In the end, not a big deal.

Posted by: Boo | June 27, 2007 1:07 PM

"Do you really think Jesus went around in the state of high fashion?"

Whatever that Jesus dude did was groovy!

Don't think he wore speedos, halter tops, cut-off shorts, visible thong undies, etc.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:07 PM

visible thong undies

Cool, what church do you go to? I want to sign up.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:11 PM

"In the end, not a big deal."

Am sure the bride had a different opinion!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:14 PM

"In the end, not a big deal."

Am sure the bride had a different opinion!


Posted by: | June 27, 2007 01:14 PM

If the bride did not like it, she shouldn't have invited children to her wedding.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:15 PM

Bingo - the bride and the groom weren't too annoyed because they knew when they invited children it could happen. They are pretty laid-back people, and didn't need to have a 'perfect' wedding. Some people want kids at weddings, some don't.

It was cute when the parents had the preschooler apologize to the bride and groom at the reception, and the photographer took an adorable picture of it.

Posted by: Boo | June 27, 2007 1:18 PM

"If the bride did not like it, she shouldn't have invited children to her wedding."

Or, the bride had no choice, or the kids crashed the wedding, etc.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:19 PM

So only upper class women died in childbirth? Did babies born to poor mother who died in childbirth just die? No, they typically had someone else in their not well to do family nurse.

Posted by: atlmom | June 27, 2007 1:22 PM

I nursed my friend's baby as she did for me. I've donated breastmilk. It's a huge benefit, actually, to be able to drop off your young infant knowing she will get EXACTLY what she wants and needs while there. In my case, I needed to have outpatient surgery and couldn't get my 2 month old to take a bottle. She nursed happily on my friend (who had a 9 month old at the time) and my friend wore her in a baby carrier up on her back pretty much the entire time. Thank GOD for girlfriends and breastfeeding! Otherwise, I would have had to put my health in jeopardy by postponing this surgery OR made my baby miserable for 4-5 hours, something I'm sure she would have "gotten over" eventually, but isn't it nice she didn't have to.

Posted by: Bethesda | June 27, 2007 1:23 PM

It's tyranny of the few! The few parents who can't control their children destroy the whole church experience for the rest of the congregation that somehow manages to behave properly. Do these same kids behave in school? I won't get into clothes some folks wear in the summer!

How does one "chase them to another church or parish or to the golf course"?

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 01:01 PM

They are chased from the church every day by hostility to children, hostility to breastfeeding, hostility to the poorly dressed, the ex-con, the ex-dancer. A few churches do an impeccable job of communicating hostility to those who are different - in dress, in experience, in background, in church jargon.

Unless you live in a very small town, you should be able to find a congregation and worship community that meets your standards. If your highest priority is peace and quiet, there are a whole ton of churches out there full of people over 50 with few small children. They are also known as dying churches - financially and in terms of their community outreach. Those who seek peace and quiet often don't want to be bothered with the homeless, the hungry, or the ex-cons, either.

Is your worship experience about you? or is it about God?

'And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God' (Mark 10:13-14).

Leaders of all religious faiths understand that the financial and spiritual future will always be with the children and, hence, the parents of young children.

Posted by: MN | June 27, 2007 1:27 PM

Where are all these cuckoo birds coming from today?

Did the nut house release a bunch of looney tunes recently?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:28 PM

Breastfeeding again?

As I discovered, breastfeeding is not as easy as it looks. I developed many complications (scabbing, bleeding, clogged ducts, you name it), plus I had big baby and a small supply. To my shame, I was also uncomfortable asking for help, so struggled through on my own and ended up using formula as well. Luckily, DD was a switch hitter. So at feeding time, we nursed, then followed with formula for 7 months. She was fighting the breast pretty hard by then, so we went straight formula after that. In hindsight, I wish I had asked for help, as we might have either avoided the formula or been able to breastfeed longer. However, DD is a healthy, happy 9-year-old now and doesn't seem the worse for wear.

Different children can make breastfeeding a different experience as well. My sister's first child LOVED breastfeeding. It was the best way to relax her and she breastfed for almost 2 years. Child number 2 was not as big a fan and it was a fight to get through the recommended first year, then she switched him to milk.

Posted by: Vegas Mom | June 27, 2007 1:32 PM

To the anon poster who keeps asking about studies showing benefits from fromula feeding - from the nih link posted about the benefits of breastfeeding:

"Are there cases in which it is better not to breastfeed?
In certain situations, health care providers may advise a woman not to breastfeed:

A woman with certain health conditions, such as HIV or active tuberculosis, should not breastfeed because she risks giving the infection to her infant through her breast milk.
Women who actively use drugs or do not control their alcohol intake, or who have a history of these situations, may also be advised not to breastfeed.
Certain medicines, including some mood stabilizers and migraine medicines, can also pass through the breast milk and cause harm to the infant.
Women with certain chronic illnesses may be advised not to breastfeed, or to take special steps to ensure their own health while breastfeeding. For example, women who have diabetes may need to eat slightly more food while they breastfeed, to prevent their blood sugar levels from dropping.
Women who have had breast surgery in the past may face some difficulties in breastfeeding."

So in these cases formula is better.

Posted by: Divorced mom of 1 | June 27, 2007 1:33 PM

Mn

"Leaders of all religious faiths understand that the financial and spiritual future will always be with the children and, hence, the parents of young children."

How can you speak for the leaders of ALL religious faiths?

That's right - the children -EVERYTHING is about the children - it's always for the children, blah, blah, blah!

And now, it's the PARENTS of young children!

Kooky religious fanatic!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:41 PM

"If the bride did not like it, she shouldn't have invited children to her wedding."

Or, the bride had no choice, or the kids crashed the wedding, etc.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 01:19 PM

Agree with above poster. Trying to limit children at a wedding creates a LOT of pissed off people who don't understand why darling jimmy isn't allowed to mess up your wedding day. And weddings involve enough politics without that hastle...

Posted by: Miles | June 27, 2007 1:41 PM

Megan so true about having nothing to argue over on this topic.

I will change my sentence to say: Why is it any of my business who breastfeeds? And, no the village does not get a vote concerning what I or any other mother does with their boobs.

I breastfed my daughter for six weeks with little luck. I will try again with this baby, but I will not feel bad about if it doesn't work out.

Posted by: scarry | June 27, 2007 1:43 PM

Lactating Fool -- I'm curious about the men in your family. Do they show any promise?

Posted by: Leslie | June 27, 2007 1:49 PM

I won't get into clothes some folks wear in the summer!

Different religions have different answers on clothes. Fancy clothes on Sunday would be considered anything but holy to the Amish. I don't know where people got this idea that everyone needs to dress up for church. Do you really think Jesus went around in the state of high fashion? Why would God care what you wear?

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 01:03 PM

The problem is with the state of undress or inappropriate dress, not that anyone should dress up or dress more expensively. Some of the bandeau tops and strapless dresses appear to be one moment away from an embarrassing moment. Bare muffin tops belong on breakfast foods.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 1:54 PM

For us, breastfeeding wasn't about anything more than the fact that formula is like $30 a tin.

Posted by: Dad with Kids from A-Z | June 27, 2007 1:55 PM

Mn

"Leaders of all religious faiths understand that the financial and spiritual future will always be with the children and, hence, the parents of young children."

How can you speak for the leaders of ALL religious faiths?

That's right - the children -EVERYTHING is about the children - it's always for the children, blah, blah, blah!

And now, it's the PARENTS of young children!

Kooky religious fanatic!

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 01:41 PM

What does fanaticism or kookiness have to do with it? Any organization, including the social security administration, depends on having young contributors grow into older contributors. This is a fairly simple business concept, not an issue of faith.

Posted by: MN | June 27, 2007 1:57 PM

Where are all these cuckoo birds coming from today?

Did the nut house release a bunch of looney tunes recently?

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 01:28 PM

Anonymousitis Disease: an illness marked by randomly insulting everyone else on a blog while contributing no constructive thought, either on or off topic

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:00 PM

"Bare muffin tops belong on breakfast foods"

Amen! Don't people look in the mirror before they leave the house!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:04 PM

If a bride isn't mature enough to make the call on whether she wants to invite kids to her wedding, and deal happily with the consequences, she isn't mature enough to marry.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:05 PM

"Any organization, including the social security administration, depends on having young contributors grow into older contributors. This is a fairly simple business concept, not an issue of faith."

What about converts?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:06 PM

Off topic, but interesting nonetheless . . .

Apple Juice Tantrum Causes Plane To Make Emergency Landing
http://www.nbc10.com/news/13575254/detail.html

Posted by: squiss | June 27, 2007 2:07 PM

Off topic, but interesting nonetheless . . .

Apple Juice Tantrum Causes Plane To Make Emergency Landing
http://www.nbc10.com/news/13575254/detail.html


Posted by: squiss | June 27, 2007 02:07 PM

eeks

Posted by: bf2years | June 27, 2007 2:09 PM

"Off topic, but interesting nonetheless . . .

Apple Juice Tantrum Causes Plane To Make Emergency Landing
http://www.nbc10.com/news/13575254/detail.html "

The children, the children. We must support the children!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:20 PM

What about converts?


Posted by: | June 27, 2007 02:06 PM

Converts are great from a spiritual perspective, but, on the business side, again think of the Social Security Administration parallel. You can't build or sustain a business model based on anticipated percentages of immigration or, in the case of a faith congregation, converts.

The budget's based on received pledges, not the cash that drops in the plate.

Posted by: MN | June 27, 2007 2:22 PM

MN

"The budget's based on received pledges, not the cash that drops in the plate."

My church doesn't have pledges.

Why are you such a self-righteous know-it-all? Do you need to get laid? You really need to lighten up!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:25 PM

Mr. Mako! Mr. Mako! You're late for our date!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:26 PM

"The budget's based on received pledges, not the cash that drops in the plate."

My church doesn't have pledges.

Why are you such a self-righteous know-it-all? Do you need to get laid? You really need to lighten up!

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 02:25 PM

what did MN say to piss you off, 2:25?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:34 PM

Funny story- when my SIL was graduating (from a school in the south),the dress for the graduation was: sunday dress. We all looked at each other and thought: what? We're supposed to wear a tshirt and shorts?

(Cause we're jewish and we go to synagogue (sometimes) on saturdays, which is when we would dress up).

We thought it interesting in this day and age (and with the jewish pop at the school what it is) that that's what it said.

Posted by: atlmom | June 27, 2007 2:39 PM

Formula, unless soy based, is chemically modified cow's milk. It's a weird foreign substance that I'd rather not give my child, but I'm virtually incapable of producing milk by pumping, so I have no choice. Well, I could quit working, but then I'd be homeless, and homelessness is worse for the baby than formula.

I ask again, other than not wanting to introduce something bad to your baby via breastmilk, why wouldn't you try to breastfeed? I think it must be a cultural thing.

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 2:42 PM

"We thought it interesting in this day and age (and with the jewish pop at the school what it is) that that's what it said. "

What is Jewish pop?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:42 PM

atb

"I ask again, other than not wanting to introduce something bad to your baby via breastmilk, why wouldn't you try to breastfeed? I think it must be a cultural thing.
"

Right. It's a cultural thing with me. Please STFU or you'll get ghetto slapped!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:45 PM

jewish pop=jewish population.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:45 PM

Jewish population . . .

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:46 PM

I'm planning on breast feeding for 3 months - the length of my maternity leave.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:47 PM

Do you need to get laid?

Who doesn't need to get laid? :)

MN don't worry about it.

Posted by: scarry | June 27, 2007 2:47 PM

I ask again, other than not wanting to introduce something bad to your baby via breastmilk, why wouldn't you try to breastfeed? I think it must be a cultural thing.

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 02:42 PM

a cultural thing? WTF?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:48 PM

scarry - thanks. I usually know when I might annoy someone, but I'm missing the controversy here.

Oh well, maybe it's a cultural thing :>)

Posted by: MN | June 27, 2007 2:50 PM

Do you need to get laid?

No, but we need some soap for your dirty mouth.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:53 PM

Who doesn't need to get laid? :)

Quote of the day!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 2:54 PM

Do you need to get laid?

No, but we need some soap for your dirty mouth.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 02:53 PM

Who cares about her mouth? Do something about those dirty typing fingers.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:00 PM

Did a church bus take a wrong turn and end up on this blog today? Sheesh!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:03 PM

Did a church bus take a wrong turn and end up on this blog today? Sheesh!

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 03:03 PM

Why do you care? Did you miss the Satan bus or something?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:05 PM

i got laid this morning

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:05 PM

"i got laid this morning"

Haha, good for you, that is better than breastfeeding.

Posted by: scarry | June 27, 2007 3:06 PM

Did a church bus take a wrong turn and end up on this blog today? Sheesh!

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 03:03 PM

if you want to talk about breast-feeding, we're all eyes. The church conversation started with educmom expressing her opinion that nursing is inappropriate in church - on topic.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:07 PM

i got laid this morning

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 03:05 PM

Did it yourself, huh?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:07 PM

"Why do you care? Did you miss the Satan bus or something?"

Oh, my God!! This blog is going down the tubes pronto..................

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:08 PM

On breastfeeding and jury duty -- it's an appropriate reason to get out of the jury-duty obligation, and not just because of the inconvenience to mom and/or baby.
I've been called for jury duty many times. I've been excused once because I was breastfeeding and once because I was pregnant and pretty overcome by morning sickness. I wound up not being needed at other times and have served on a couple of juries. My work takes me to court a lot, too, so I know something about court procedure and trials.
It would be very difficult for a juror who is breastfeeding (or pumping) frequently during the day to give adequate attention to her duties. Jurors' movements are highly controlled. Bathroom breaks are strictly regulated and usually very brief; believe me, you're lucky as a juror to get your turn on the toilet when you need it. Jurors can't even stand up to stretch when they need to. Still, prosecutors, litigants and defendants depend on having jurors who are able to focus their attention and sit very still and quietly for long periods at a time.
So breastfeeding is one of several physical issues that are incompatible with jury service.
Breastfeeding mamas are not infirm or overly distracted or anything, but they do need more freedom of personal movement than jury service will allow.
So it makes much sense from everybody's perspective that breastfeeding mothers have their jury service deferred into the future.
On breastfeeding at religious services -- I'm not sure that acceptance has too much to do with the type of religious faith. I think it has more to do with whether a congregation is child-friendly.
I attend services (sometimes) at an Orthodox Jewish congregation, where the rabbi and his family some members are in fact ultra-Orthodox, with all the hair-covering and modest clothing that goes along with that. Yet no one has any problem with the many mothers who sit nursing their babies and toddlers, during services or after. It's a kind of unusual Orthodox congregation, in that following the rules of Orthodoxy is considered totally optional, but still. The important thing is that there are lots of babies and young kids, and it's a very welcoming place for families, even, in fact, non-Jewish families. Same thing goes for the local mosque, I'm told.

Posted by: anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:08 PM

On breastfeeding and jury duty -- it's an appropriate reason to get out of the jury-duty obligation, and not just because of the inconvenience to mom and/or baby.
I've been called for jury duty many times. I've been excused once because I was breastfeeding and once because I was pregnant and pretty overcome by morning sickness. I wound up not being needed at other times and have served on a couple of juries. My work takes me to court a lot, too, so I know something about court procedure and trials.
It would be very difficult for a juror who is breastfeeding (or pumping) frequently during the day to give adequate attention to her duties. Jurors' movements are highly controlled. Bathroom breaks are strictly regulated and usually very brief; believe me, you're lucky as a juror to get your turn on the toilet when you need it. Jurors can't even stand up to stretch when they need to. Still, prosecutors, litigants and defendants depend on having jurors who are able to focus their attention and sit very still and quietly for long periods at a time.
So breastfeeding is one of several physical issues that are incompatible with jury service.
Breastfeeding mamas are not infirm or overly distracted or anything, but they do need more freedom of personal movement than jury service will allow.
So it makes much sense from everybody's perspective that breastfeeding mothers have their jury service deferred into the future.
On breastfeeding at religious services -- I'm not sure that acceptance has too much to do with the type of religious faith. I think it has more to do with whether a congregation is child-friendly.
I attend services (sometimes) at an Orthodox Jewish congregation, where the rabbi and his family some members are in fact ultra-Orthodox, with all the hair-covering and modest clothing that goes along with that. Yet no one has any problem with the many mothers who sit nursing their babies and toddlers, during services or after. It's a kind of unusual Orthodox congregation, in that following the rules of Orthodoxy is considered totally optional, but still. The important thing is that there are lots of babies and young kids, and it's a very welcoming place for families, even, in fact, non-Jewish families. Same thing goes for the local mosque, I'm told.

Posted by: anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:08 PM

i got laid this morning

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 03:05 PM

sure you did, honey.

Skipped your meds again, didn't you?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:09 PM

Did it yourself, huh?

projecting your actions on others again?

to answer your question, nope, did it with a person of the opposite sex.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:09 PM

I love boobs, but not the kind that habitually clog this column. Don't you boobs have a giant nursing bra that's waiting for you to jump into?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:10 PM

GA mom:

You are so threatened. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:11 PM

Why does even funny things have to turn into a nasty posting.

got laid this morning

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 03:05 PM

sure you did, honey.

Skipped your meds again, didn't you?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:11 PM

On breastfeeding and jury duty -- it's an appropriate reason to get out of the jury-duty obligation, and not just because of the inconvenience to mom and/or baby.
I've been called for jury duty many times. I've been excused once because I was breastfeeding and once because I was pregnant and pretty overcome by morning sickness. I wound up not being needed at other times and have served on a couple of juries. My work takes me to court a lot, too, so I know something about court procedure and trials.
It would be very difficult for a juror who is breastfeeding (or pumping) frequently during the day to properly perform her duties, or at least efficiently perform her duties.
Jurors' movements are highly controlled. Bathroom breaks are strictly regulated and usually very brief; believe me, you're lucky as a juror to get your turn on the toilet when you need it. Jurors can't even stand up to stretch when they need to. Still, prosecutors, litigants and defendants depend on having jurors who are able to focus their attention and sit very still and quietly for long periods at a time.
So breastfeeding is one of several physical issues that are incompatible with jury service.
Breastfeeding mamas are not infirm or overly distracted or anything, but they do need more freedom of personal movement than jury service will allow.
So it makes much sense from everybody's perspective that breastfeeding mothers have their jury service deferred into the future.
On breastfeeding at religious services -- I'm not sure that acceptance has too much to do with the type of religious faith. I think it has more to do with whether a congregation is child-friendly.
I attend services (sometimes) at an Orthodox Jewish congregation, where the rabbi and his family and some members are in fact ultra-Orthodox, with all the hair-covering and modest clothing that goes along with that. Yet no one has any problem with the many mothers who sit nursing their babies and toddlers, during services or after. It's a kind of unusual Orthodox congregation, in that following the rules of Orthodoxy is considered totally optional, but still. The important thing is that there are lots of babies and young kids, and it's a very welcoming place for families, even, in fact, non-Jewish families. Same thing goes for the local mosque, I'm told.

Posted by: anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:12 PM

To 2:47 if you truly want to bf but don't want to pump, something else you could do would be to nurse in the AM and then when you get back after work and then before bed. Or just before bed (for the kid, not you). My ds did not sleep thru the night, even after I went back to work when he was 5 mos until he was about a year, so I nursed him at night (it would be a nightmare for me to have tried to give him formula at night, I don't know how people do it).

Other options if you choose. Of course (if you know) you may want to not nurse, but if you want the benefits of nursing (including the cost) there is another way. It's not all or nothing.

Posted by: atlmom | June 27, 2007 3:13 PM

Yo, Fred!

"Don't you boobs have a giant nursing bra that's waiting for you to jump into?"

I nominate for Quote of the Day!

Posted by: Pyewacket | June 27, 2007 3:15 PM

OT to atlmom: how was Disney and your working vacation?

Posted by: dotted | June 27, 2007 3:15 PM

Well, cultural it is, then. Unless you give me another reason, I can only go with my best guess. Industrialized nations often adopt anything that takes the animal out of being human, and BFing is pretty mammalian of us. So, BFing is "gross." Or maybe you're worried your breasts will, gasp, sag, and we know how sexualized breasts are. Are these not all cultural reasons?

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 3:20 PM

The boobs with all that extra milk can send it my way! My cats love it!

Posted by: Hemingway | June 27, 2007 3:20 PM

Oops. Sorry for the double post. Tubes are apparently clogged today, and I don't mean breast tubes.
The Internet: It's not a big truck you just dump something on!

Posted by: anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:24 PM

I wasn't worried about any negative results of BFing and don't consider BFing gross. BFing simply wasn't the right choice for our family. I'm not sure why that's any more difficult for some of you to comprehend than that fact that some families prefer a one-story house and others prefer a two-story house. Sheesh.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:25 PM

"Or maybe you're worried your breasts will, gasp, sag, and we know how sexualized breasts are"

thank god for breast lifts and tummy tucks!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:26 PM

"I didn't say that we should attack or guilt women. I said (in response to Scarry) that those are reasons that we should care about what other people do regarding breastfeeding. Because believe it or not, it's not all about us."

The person who said this just doesn't seem to get the message that other people's breastfeeding habits, plans, intentions, behavior, etc., etc., are just not her business.

And, yes, it IS all about each individual woman. It is not selfish for a woman to make her choice(s) based on what she feels is best for herself, her baby, her family, and her job.

Mindless self-sacrifice doesn't, in the long run, benefit anyone.

Posted by: pittypat | June 27, 2007 3:27 PM

Or maybe you're worried your breasts will, gasp, sag, and we know how sexualized breasts are. Are these not all cultural reasons?

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 03:20 PM

I'd consider those personal reasons, and not reflective of any particular culture.

It's more than a bit self-righteous to imply that anyone who chooses differently than you must have some inexplicable cultural reason for choosing differently.

Is it a cultural thing, or a difference in values, taste, and budget, when one woman buys a mini-van and another buys a minicooper?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:30 PM

Tomorrow on the On Balance blog: butts

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:32 PM

"Or maybe you're worried your breasts will, gasp, sag, and we know how sexualized breasts are"

"thank god for breast lifts and tummy tucks!

Now,if only the boobs would wax the mustaches on their homely faces and do something about their shapeless bodies. Sigh.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:32 PM

But people usually have a reason they prefer 1 story or 2. Climbing up and down stairs with laundry sucks or separating public and private space is preferred. So, ya, it's hard to understand why it's not "right." Usually there are reasons for preferences. So, if I say "I like fall best of the seasons", and you ask "why?", of course I can say "because I prefer it," but that doesn't really answer the question.

BTW, I don't care that you don't BF. Some people are just so adamantly against BFing and I really don't get it.

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 3:35 PM

pittypat, the voice of reason.

Laura must be on vacation.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:36 PM

To dotted: coronado springs was okay, I didn't think it was spectacular. The mtg rooms were nice didn't get to eat at the nice restaurant cause everyone else kept wanting to eat at the not as nice one.

I was surprised that you couldn't walk to animal kingdom from there since it's very close. The busses aren't horrible but not my preference. I was very surprised that you can't walk to animal kingdom from the animal lodge tho. Animal kingdom was awesome. We only had an afternoon, but it's not a huge park. Everest was great the safari was great. We had dinner at epcot, which was good, and mickey made an appearance. We were in a private room for that, then went into the park for dessert (which was funny cause we came thru one of the gates and it appeared that the other guests were expecting us to perform or something).

We stayed at epcot since they had the magic hours til 12. All in all an exhausting trip. No relaxation. I wanted to take advantage of all we could do. So no afternoon at the pool for me. Plane home was delayed but nothing too much. I was still home for dinner. I felt sorry for my colleagues whose plane was cancelled and they left at 8.

Posted by: atlmom | June 27, 2007 3:38 PM

I don't have children yet, but the whole breastfeeding/formula feeding debate has me already anxious for when I will. I will not be breastfeeding. I have a chronic illness (lupus) and my maintenance drugs can be passed through into the baby's milk. It seems like I will be constantly harassed by the people that are so insistent that breast feeding is the only way. I don't want to have to constantly defend my position. It's my body, my business.

You can never know, for sure, what someone's reasons for not breastfeeding are, so people who feel the urge to speak up to the formula feeding Mom or Dad, should just butt out.

Posted by: Beth | June 27, 2007 3:41 PM

"We were in a private room for that, then went into the park for dessert (which was funny cause we came thru one of the gates and it appeared that the other guests were expecting us to perform or something)."

And then you started singing.....?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:41 PM

Pyewacket

That one did catch my eye!

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 3:45 PM

Beth, That's a whole other issue. It's one thing to ask about it on an anonomous blog, and another to have to nerve to confront and judge a stranger. Hopefully the only questions you'll get will be from your doctor, and obviously you'll discuss the lupus with him/her. Feel free to roll your eyes and walk away from anyone who dares ask you about it.

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 3:45 PM

Beth,

First, my sympathy about your Lupus, Frieda's best friend has it and we know what a devastating disease this can be.

Second,

If any strident nursing people approach you, just tell them that Frieda has excused you from breastfeeding! Send them to this blog and I will beat them down for you!

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 3:49 PM

Beth, just ignore them. I can't believe anyone would give a mother with lupus the dirty eye for not bf.

Posted by: bf2years | June 27, 2007 3:49 PM

"I attend services (sometimes) at an Orthodox Jewish congregation, where the rabbi and his family and some members are in fact ultra-Orthodox, with all the hair-covering and modest clothing that goes along with that. Yet no one has any problem with the many mothers who sit nursing their babies and toddlers, during services or after. . . . Same thing goes for the local mosque, I'm told"

Posted by: anonymous | June 27, 2007 03:12 PM

Four questions:

1) Can a man concentrate on his prayers if there is a nursing woman sitting next to him in the pew?
2) Can a man concentrate on his prayers if there is any woman sitting next to him in the pew?
3) Can a man concentrate on his prayers if there are women sitting in the women's section of the mosque, behind the partition?
4) If the answer to (3) is "yes," why is a nursing woman different from any other woman, as long as she is in the women's section?

Posted by: Matt in Aberdeen | June 27, 2007 3:50 PM

Beth

"It seems like I will be constantly harassed by the people that are so insistent that breast feeding is the only way. "

You are correct. Even worse, the buttinskys will suggest "alternative" drugs for you! Avoid these fanatics. They just can't shut up! Or let the subject go!
They are really into a weird recruitment thing. It's amazing how many Nosy Parkers are in this world!

They use fear tactics and intimidation.
That's why they are called Nursing Nazis!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:51 PM

You are correct. Even worse, the buttinskys will suggest "alternative" drugs for you! Avoid these fanatics. They just can't shut up! Or let the subject go!
They are really into a weird recruitment thing. It's amazing how many Nosy Parkers are in this world!

They use fear tactics and intimidation.
That's why they are called Nursing Nazis!

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 03:51 PM

They are familiar with a variety of punctuation marks, though, which is a plus.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:54 PM

Four questions:

Answer depends on whether or not the woman is a dawg and/or she has a nice rack.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:55 PM

No, I think the guests being disappointed with us doing nothing was better than their disppointment would have been had we started singing. It was better that way.

Posted by: atlmom | June 27, 2007 3:56 PM

"They are familiar with a variety of punctuation marks, though, which is a plus"

Too easy.........

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 3:57 PM

"I can't believe anyone would give a mother with lupus the dirty eye for not bf. "

Believe it. The boobs are quite brainwashed to spout their propaganda no matter what!

Taking power drugs? No problem.
Mentally ill? Here's the answer.
Dying soon. Breast is best!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:06 PM

"I can't believe anyone would give a mother with lupus the dirty eye for not bf. "

Believe it. The boobs are quite brainwashed to spout their propaganda no matter what!

Taking power drugs? No problem.
Mentally ill? Here's the answer.
Dying soon. Breast is best!

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 04:06 PM

Have you ever actually met any of these people and have specific instances where they recommended a person with lupus change drugs in order to breastfeed? Or is this just typical anti-anything-with-a-hint-of-women's-rights slander...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:12 PM

I am all for breastfeeding, but I think people should leave other mothers/families alone if they don't breastfeed. There are often reasons for the inability to breastfeed that you don't know about. After all, not everyone's reproductive systems work well, not everyone's hearts work well, etc and we don't get all angry when people go through infertility treatments or tell them that they should be able to get pregnant because it is a natural thing for the human body to do, or tell people with heart disease that they can't get surgery because people way back in the day never needed surgery. So, I think it is ridiculous to say that everyone's breats should pump out enough milk for their baby. Nearly every other body part/system fails for many, many people in our world, why can't people accept that the ability to produce milk might fail for some people.

Getting back to topic, I think it is important to encourage breastfeeding and allow women who work in all types of jobs the ability to pump. I also think generally it is or should be acceptable to breastfeed in public, but that it should be done with some discretion. Once I was on the metro during rush hour and a woman came on the train with an infant, sat next to me and started breastfeeding. I have to say even though it was only a year since I had breastfed my own daughter, I was totally grossed out. Maybe because I feel that the metro is so dirty..... even I couldn't explain my reaction. So, I think breastfeeding women should keep others feelings/likely reactions in mind to the extent that they can when breastfeeding.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:13 PM

Have you ever actually met any of these people and have specific instances where they recommended a person with lupus change drugs in order to breastfeed? Or is this just typical anti-anything-with-a-hint-of-women's-rights slander...

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 04:12 PM

BWAHAHAHA! BFing has zero to do with women's rights. Women's rights are about options and flexiblity. The Nursing Fascists (bowing to Fred) are about everyone lining up obediently as commanded. See above for examples.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:15 PM

Have you ever actually met any of these people and have specific instances where they recommended a person with lupus change drugs in order to breastfeed? Or is this just typical anti-anything-with-a-hint-of-women's-rights slander...

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 04:12 PM

BWAHAHAHA! BFing has zero to do with women's rights. Women's rights are about options and flexiblity. The Nursing Fascists (bowing to Fred) are about everyone lining up obediently as commanded. See above for examples.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 04:15 PM

So now you're an expert on nursing fascists (whatever those are). Please tell me exactly what their national agenda was. I'm pretty sure Fred's wife helps women who WANT to nurse. I'd like to see some proof that anyone tries to force breastfeeding on anyone else. And yeah, anything that rings of something particular to women usually brings out hate-spewers who use words like "nazi" and "fascist" way too much without having the excuse of discussing the early twentieth century or some situation where those words are appropriate.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:26 PM

I never understood people being to adamant about something. I'm all for bfing. I think it's the best way, but I definitely supplemented with formula -not so much, but I did. But I do have a friend who thinks formula is akin to child abuse ( she thinks the same about playgroups). I think she's a little nutty. But really, why do people need to have such opinions? Is it to make themselves feel better?

Cause in reality if you are stuck on something you are rarely going to change other people's minds. You are rarely going to do it in the first place, but if you can't even listen to the other side and the arguments, then you usually have already lost.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:27 PM

Beth,

You have enough to deal with if you have Lupus without worrying about what crazy people will say. My sister has it and has struggled to get it under control for the last five years. I would ignore the people who say things to you, it's none of their business.

Posted by: scarry | June 27, 2007 4:30 PM

"So now you're an expert on nursing fascists (whatever those are). Please tell me exactly what their national agenda was. I'm pretty sure Fred's wife helps women who WANT to nurse. I'd like to see some proof that anyone tries to force breastfeeding on anyone else."

It doesn't take an expert to read the comments here today. Did you bother before attacking someone else? Fred's wife does help women who want to nurse and I'm certain she is nothing like the obnoxious pro-bfing posters here.

Proof of those who want to force it on someone else is in the following typical comment:

Yep, I knew that would bring out the "I was formula fed and I turned out just fine" crowd. Can I just suggest that we try to keep anecdotal information out of this and just trust that I meant statistically speaking? Did you smoke during your pregnancy because your mom did and you turned out just fine? I didn't think so.


Posted by: | June 27, 2007 12:01 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:31 PM

"I'd like to see some proof that anyone tries to force breastfeeding on anyone else"

Do your own work and look it up!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:33 PM

"so I nursed him at night (it would be a nightmare for me to have tried to give him formula at night, I don't know how people do it)."

Formula at night was easier than nursing. I just poked hubby and said "Your turn, I'm sleeping."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:35 PM

(sigh). Church clothes...

I'm the product of a mixed marriage (Mom is high-church Lutheran, Dad is Holy-Mother-of-God Irish Catholic). When we went to church, we were ALWAYS dressed nicely -- not expensively, but decently. No jeans, no halter tops, no flip-flops. My folks lived in a working-class neighborhood when I was young, and NOBODY wore jeans to church, even the Catholic church. Folks didn't look showy; they simply dressed conservatively in order to show respect for God in His house.

When they moved, and we began to go to Mass in our new parish (in a higher-income area), I was pretty surprised. It looked like people just threw on whatever was on top of the dirty laundry basket and crawled out the door. These same people looked better when they went to Safeway on Saturday! Mom was convinced it was a Catholic thing -- that any self-respecing Protestant of any denomination would never, ever go to church that way. I tried to convince her that it was just the times becoming more casual. I said once that I bet even Episcopals wore jeans to church.

Fast-forward several years. I started attending an Episcopal church a couple of years back (naughty priests, secret payouts, my young adolescent sons/potential victims -- I'm sure you get the picture), and I've grown to like it. It's a historic little church in Baltimore-area hunt country, with both lots of old money folks and many of the hands that work for the old money (we are neither -- the church has a K-8 school, and my boys attended it after we moved back to the state). And, do you know, I think Mom was right about Protestants and church clothes. In five years, I have yet to see one pair of jeans on anyone in church!!

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 4:38 PM

Eating in church. The Mass I attend is approximately one hour long. How hard is it to feed the children before Mass? I think that children and adults need to learn that different behavior is appropriate in different places.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:45 PM

Fast-forward several years. I started attending an Episcopal church a couple of years back (naughty priests, secret payouts, my young adolescent sons/potential victims -- I'm sure you get the picture), and I've grown to like it. It's a historic little church in Baltimore-area hunt country, with both lots of old money folks and many of the hands that work for the old money (we are neither -- the church has a K-8 school, and my boys attended it after we moved back to the state). And, do you know, I think Mom was right about Protestants and church clothes. In five years, I have yet to see one pair of jeans on anyone in church!!

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 04:38 PM

That's a bit biased...I hope you really don't believe that. Churches of all types vary in how conservatively people dress based on the community, income level, professions, etc. Hope you didn't inherit your mother's anti-catholic bias. And child molesters come from all places and all flavors of religion. Fine for you that you held it against the church and left but hope you REALLY don't think all catholics are slobs, i mean come on here...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:45 PM

It seems important to point out that most of the posters on this blog sound truly supportive of a family's right to make the decision that's best for their family when it comes to feeding their child. Even if they don't understand the decision, they still support that right. There are those who are judgmental of formula feeding, and those who are overly defensive about formula feeding. But those folks are in the minority.

I think most of us agree that breast milk is preferable if it works for a family, that society could be more supportive of breastfeeding in a number of ways, that formula feeding is not BAD (just not quiteas good), and that noone has a right to judge a family that uses formula to feed a baby.

Somehow this departed from the original topic about alternative forms of breastfeeding (by adoptive mothers and fathers)and degenerated into the usual tired discussions about breast vs. formula. Shame, because I think there were some valid points made on this blog (in both directions) about the original topic. It could have been an interesting conversation.

Posted by: DC Mom | June 27, 2007 4:48 PM

The Mass I attend is approximately one hour long. How hard is it to feed the children before Mass? I think that children and adults need to learn that different behavior is appropriate in different places.

There is a difference between an adult and a child under the age of five. I think busy bodies should mind their own business too, but they don't.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 4:49 PM

Frieda knows some of the strident (you didn't think I was going to use the other N word did you?) nursing advocates. They do exist. They do try to influence individuals unduly.

Having said that, many medical and mechanical problems related to bf'ing can be solved with the appropriate help. Some as the case with certain diseases and certain medicines cannot. Don't let the stridency on the part of some shut your mind completely to the possibility. Frieda has helped many women who have tried and thought that they have failed. Some have given up and others have gone on to a wonderful breastfeeding experience.

In any case, Frieda's Big Rules are:
1. the baby is thriving
2. the mother is happy

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 4:51 PM

DC Mom

"It seems important to point out that most of the posters on this blog sound truly supportive of a family's right to make the decision that's best for their family when it comes to feeding their child. Even if they don't understand the decision, they still support that right"

I don't get that vibe at all. There's no general consensus of support for anything.

"I think most of us agree"

Again, please don't presume to speak for me.

Posted by: Pyewacket | June 27, 2007 4:54 PM

DC Mom- I'm not sure how much mileage we would have gotten from making men and adoptive women lactate! I think the men made their points (against) early on. I think it's super that adoptive moms would try, but I don't have the medical background to understand how possible or difficult it is.

Posted by: atb | June 27, 2007 4:55 PM

Hmmm, finished my task and dropped by and whaddya know, the conversation is pretty much the same!

I think it's obvious there are nursing fascists - they are called extremists, and pretty much any movement/group/position has them. There's not really a lot to be done about that except to ignore them.

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 4:58 PM

I wasn't going to say this, but since Fred admitted it too, why not. A crazy doctor in VA told me not to feed my baby formula under any circumstances. My mother who heard my kid screaming on the phone said to give her a bottle, I did and she immediately shut up and acted like she hadn't been nursed at all.

That same day on the way to the doctor's office, I looked at my baby in the car and she looked yellow. When I got to the doctor's office a different doctor thought I hadn't been feeding my child on purpose and was going to hospitalize her for jaundice. She had lost half her baby weight! Luckily she was alright and I HAD to start supplementing with formula. I am just one of those ladies who don't seem to make enough milk.

So, to all you nay sayers out there who think these people don't exist, they do, and it's just not the lactation people either. I wish I would have known someone like Frieda or even have had this blog then.

Posted by: scarry | June 27, 2007 4:58 PM

I wasn't going to say this, but since Fred admitted it too, why not. A crazy doctor in VA told me not to feed my baby formula under any circumstances. My mother who heard my kid screaming on the phone said to give her a bottle, I did and she immediately shut up and acted like she hadn't been nursed at all.

That same day on the way to the doctor's office, I looked at my baby in the car and she looked yellow. When I got to the doctor's office a different doctor thought I hadn't been feeding my child on purpose and was going to hospitalize her for jaundice. She had lost half her baby weight! Luckily she was alright and I HAD to start supplementing with formula. I am just one of those ladies who don't seem to make enough milk.

So, to all you nay sayers out there who think these people don't exist, they do, and it's just not the lactation people either. I wish I would have known someone like Frieda or even have had this blog then.

Posted by: scarry | June 27, 2007 4:58 PM

"I can't believe anyone would give a mother with lupus the dirty eye for not bf."

Why should anyone give ANY mother the dirty eye for not bf-ing?

It's not anyone else's business.

If you're having trouble with this concept and you see a bottle-feeding mother just begging (not) for your interference, repeat as often as necessary:

"This is not my business. This is not my business. This is not my business."

Posted by: pittypat | June 27, 2007 5:05 PM

Thanks goodness for Fred and Frieda! If only everyone was as willing to admit that this issue isn't black and white.

I was one of those who had trouble breastfeeding, and I can say that the lactation consultants I spoke with were generally helpful. They offered support in the form of information about what devices etc were around to help make it work if that was what I wanted. But when I was clearly showing signs of depression and exhaustion resulting from my troubles with breastfeeding, they helped me think about whether this was the right path for me. They never made me feel guilty. I did have one consultant later (when I thought I'd try to reestablish my milk supply afte I discovered why things had failed) who struck me as highly judgmental and not at all helpful -- but she was in the minority.

I have seen much more upsetting things on these blogs than I have ever seen or heard in my experience as a formula-feeding mother in a largely breast-feeding area. Having said that, my breastfeeding friends and acquaintances occassionally say things about formula feeding that are quite offensive. If someone ever accidentally assumes their child is on formula, they recoil as if that person suggested slipping the child some cocaine. So, sometimes the messages are far more subtle and not always intentional.

The most interesting thing to me was when this reaction came from friends who, before they had a baby, complained about "milk fascists" and freely stated they would formula feed if breastfeeding didn't work for them.

In the end, I think this is a highly personal decision, and one that is linked to some very strong emotions (and hormones don't forget). For those women who breastfed, it was strongly personal and emotional for them -- but for those who weren't able, imagine those emotions being transferred to something you desparately want to do but cannot (and all this after just having given birth). It's a very sensitive and painful subject for many mothers.

Posted by: DC Mom | June 27, 2007 5:05 PM

Megan

"I think it's obvious there are nursing fascists - they are called extremists, and pretty much any movement/group/position has them. There's not really a lot to be done about that except to ignore them. "

I try to ignore these stupid b!tches, but some of them are extremely militant!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 5:05 PM

"Have you ever actually met any of these people and have specific instances where they recommended a person with lupus change drugs in order to breastfeed? Or is this just typical anti-anything-with-a-hint-of-women's-rights slander..."

Well, this doesn't make any sense.

True women's rights people believe that women are free make their own choices. If you're in favor of women's rights, then you don't demand that they follow a prescribed, rigid program with no deviation from the approved path.

These in-your-face BF-ers are the furthest thing from feminists. Their ideas are a throwback to old, tired regimes.

Posted by: pittypat | June 27, 2007 5:11 PM

Pyewacket:

With the exception of those anon posters who were probably just trolling to create trouble, that was my sense of people's reactions. I never mentioned you by name, so I in no way presumed to speak for you. Your hostility is completly unwarranted. Is it possible for you to have a reasonable conversation without attacking people?

atb -- fair point. Maybe there was nothing to discuss. But you'd think at least we could have a more balanced discussion about breastfeeding than this.


Posted by: Dc Mom | June 27, 2007 5:13 PM

"atb -- fair point. Maybe there was nothing to discuss. But you'd think at least we could have a more balanced discussion about breastfeeding than this."

Why? The past predicts the future. Today was par for this blog.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 5:16 PM

5:05, I know, I know, it's hard! But they're out there on nearly every topic so you just have to try.

Posted by: Megan | June 27, 2007 5:19 PM

Divorced Mother of 1 -

Thanks for the post about the cases in which it is better not to breastfeed, but that wasn't what I asked. I asked for statistical research that showed the benefits of formula feeding. I'm aware that many women shouldn't and cannot breastfeed. But a poster above acted like there was some sort of mysterious research out there that showed the superiority of formula over breastmilk generally speaking - research that proves that a mother who chooses to not breastfeed in the absence of any physical or medical problems is actually making an educated choice.

It seems to me that if said research existed, that the formula companies would use it in their advertising.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 5:24 PM

Will Nancy Grace breastfeed her twins?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 5:27 PM

The boob church bus was here. What a waste of time & space.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 5:37 PM

Fine for you that you held it against the church and left but hope you REALLY don't think all catholics are slobs, i mean come on here...

You seem more concerned about the idea that Catholics are slobs, than the fact that your church knowingly hid and transferred sexual predators so they could assualt kids in other parishes. Drop the baloney about teh anti-catholic bias - the church has done quite enough to people of other faiths to deserve a little anti-catholic sentiment. Be a sucker and be catholic if you want to but don't complain that people don't respect your church. You've let them get away with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 5:42 PM

Fine for you that you held it against the church and left but hope you REALLY don't think all catholics are slobs, i mean come on here...

You seem more concerned about the idea that Catholics are slobs, than the fact that your church knowingly hid and transferred sexual predators so they could assualt kids in other parishes. Drop the baloney about teh anti-catholic bias - the church has done quite enough to people of other faiths to deserve a little anti-catholic sentiment. Be a sucker and be catholic if you want to but don't complain that people don't respect your church. You've let them get away with it.

Posted by: | June 27, 2007 05:42 PM

I'd be a sucker if I ever left my children alone with an adult male (or I suppose male of any age), especially one who is single. It's just something I'd never do and base it on the statistics of child molesters. The Church investigated, and where it couldn't find proof of abuse, moved the priest. Typical large bureaucracy. And these events were a lot more limited in scope than media would have you believe. But whatever, join the majority of protestants in this country who continue to HATE Catholics, continue to HATE the Church. I'm just saying, move on. Enjoy your new church and move on. There was plenty of bias already before this scandal arose, don't use it as an excuse for your personal biases.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 5:56 PM

educmom,

Plenty of Protestants, including Episcopalians, wear jeans to church. Heck, I've seen athletic shorts, cargos, whatever. It's called, the Contemporary Service. It's the only type of worship my church offers and many people love not feeling pressured to purchase church clothes. More importantly, many people without means don't have to feel like the poor church mouse when their "Sunday Best" (just for you, atl mom) isn't as good as everyone else's. To each his own, but clothes don't provide a guaranteed seat on the Heaven Bus.

Posted by: MN | June 27, 2007 6:10 PM

I breastfed my son until he was well into his toddler years. It was a rough start at first. I initially thought breastfeeding was one of these intuitive things that would just happen naturally. Boy was I wrong. My milk did not come in for almost a week. My 10 lb baby was hungry from the very first day. He was not one of those newborns that sleep all the time. He cried his head off when hungry from the first day he was born. So I started out with formula because my supply was virtually nonexistent. At first, I thought I would never be able to breastfeed, but a good lactation consultant put me on the right path, and my son was breastfeeding the first week, with formula supplementation which we gradually decreased over time as my supply increased. Once my son was breastfeeding successfully, he preferred the breast to the bottle hands down. I have heard about all the health benefits of breastfeeding, but personally, I what I found most rewarding about breastfeeding was the ability to bond with the baby in such a personal way. When he was irritated or cranky, breastfeeding calmed him down immediately. When he was hurt (I remember a few episodes after getting vaccinated), breastfeeding calmed him down. When he was tired or sleepy, breastfeeding put him to sleep. I did not find that the bottle had such a soothing effect on him (although he took it when hungry if the breast, i.e me., was not available).

All in all, for us, it was a sweet experience that lasted a long time and was well worth the initial trouble. But to each her own. I would never intrude on whatever method of feeding another mother has chosen for her child. It is a very personal thing.

Posted by: Emily | June 27, 2007 6:14 PM

"I would never intrude on whatever method of feeding another mother has chosen for her child. It is a very personal thing. "

Stating that you think one method of feeding an infant is superior to another is not "intruding on what a mother has chosen." It is simply stating a point of view. Breastfeeding advocates aren't trying to force another woman to breastfeed (as hard as it is to do even when you want to, I'd like to see them try to do that). They're not trying to make it illegal to formula feed. They're simply saying that breastfeeding is the best way to feed an infant.

There is no reason to become defensive about your choice, whether you've done it for reasons that breastfeeding advocates deem worthy or just because you don't want to have a baby suckling at your breast. People are entitled to their opinions - if you're comfortable with your choice, just do it.

Most breastfeeding advocates talk about it because they want all women to breastfeed because they feel it is the healthiest way to feed babies. They don't do it to make mothers feel guilty or defensive or put themselves on a pedestal. Yet virtually every time this conversation comes up, that's what's assumed. There's never any scientific knowledge to back up the opposing point of view - just a simple "you can't tell me what to do! You're judgmental and you're trying to make me feel guilty!!" And no matter what the BF advocate says, there's never any rebuttal other than that.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 6:27 PM

"Stating that you think one method of feeding an infant is superior to another is not "intruding on what a mother has chosen.""

I actually agree with you on that. I think that that statement that breast is generally best is true, and have no problem with people who simply state this.

But there are breastfeeding advocates who are more intrusive than that. I remember being out in public, giving my son his bottle at a restaurant, when two women from another table approached me and chided me for not breastfeeding him. Little did they know, at that time, that I the bottle was full of breastmilk. And even so, it was none of their businesss. I would never intrude on someone in that fashion. I think general statements about breastfeeding being better, for public information purposes, are fine. But I do not think that any particular woman should be challenged or approached by strangers, or even friends, about their decision to bottle feed. People need to respect boundaries.

Posted by: Emily | June 27, 2007 6:39 PM

MN:
I think the church I attend has a more casual service early on Sunday, and I've never been to it -- for all I know, that might be the 'jeans' service. And I agree, clothes don't open the Pearly Gates. I suppose it's that childhood conditioning to 'dress up' for church that keeps reasserting itself. I think I may have just stumbled on to a more old-fashioned church. Anyway, it won't kill me to treat church as someplace worthy of a little extra effort. It helps me get into the church frame of mind -- that's just me, I guess.

Anon at 5:56:
I'm not sure -- is some of that directed at me? I have taught in Catholic schools for several years, and guess what -- that abuse DID happen. The Church was more concerned with its reputation than the boys who were injured, and they DID hide the abuses and lie when transferring the abusers. They still minimize the damage as much as possible. I don't hate the Church, but I don't believe the excuses they put forth. I' still Catholic, and maybe one day I'll go back to Mass -- we'll see. Any church is going to be flawed, since church (as opposed to faith) is of man, and my eyes will be wide open to the Catholic church's flaws when (or if) I do return.

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 6:41 PM

MN,
I have to say that I loved your posts about the need for the church to be welcoming and open to all sorts of people, including children and their parents. If I were a chuchgoer, I would want my fellow churchgoers to be just like you.

Posted by: Emily | June 27, 2007 6:45 PM

I'm waaaay beyond breast-vs-bottle-feeding now, but if I was still dealing with little ones, and I was using formula (or even breast milk in a bottle) and someone came over to me and stuck her nose in my business, I think I have the perfect comeback, thanks to today's blog.

I would simply sweetly ask the noseyparker if she was interested in being a surrogate nurse for the baby; since she obviously is a strong, strong advocate of nursing, to the point of accosting a stranger, perhaps she would be interested in actually doing the hard work of nursing MY baby. I might even go so far as to keep copies of the study showing that adoptive mothers may be able to lactate, so that I could hand one to her.

It could work...!

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 6:53 PM

Anon at 5:56:
I'm not sure -- is some of that directed at me? I have taught in Catholic schools for several years, and guess what -- that abuse DID happen. The Church was more concerned with its reputation than the boys who were injured, and they DID hide the abuses and lie when transferring the abusers. They still minimize the damage as much as possible. I don't hate the Church, but I don't believe the excuses they put forth. I' still Catholic, and maybe one day I'll go back to Mass -- we'll see. Any church is going to be flawed, since church (as opposed to faith) is of man, and my eyes will be wide open to the Catholic church's flaws when (or if) I do return.

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 06:41 PM

Well a lot of people don't like the lies, coverups, and lives lost under our current administration. Or, if you are across the political spectrum, I am sure you didn't like the investigations, lies, coverups, and mistakes of the past administration. However, that doesn't mean I give up on the government entirely or hate government employees or think they are stupid for supporting such a system. I give it a chance that each mistake will *hopefully* mean that mistake is never made again. There were a lot of people in charge of the Church who made some terrible decisions and allowed awful things to happen. That doesn't mean I'm going to hate what The Church stands for, despise every aspect of its religions, or consider its participants idiots. I'm not giving up on the system, same as many of you who hate the current government or have hated past governments likely still vote or pay taxes. Protect your own children, and choose your own religion, but don't hate on the individuals who are a part of an organization whose leadership made some bad decisions.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2007 6:54 PM

Educmom,
I like your approach to the nosy parkers, except I am half afraid that they might actually take me up on such an offer. :)

These days, I am a bit older and less susceptible to such intrusions. I just say, "Thank you for your unsolicited advice. I will consider it." It usually stops people dead.

Posted by: Emily | June 27, 2007 7:02 PM

Emily,
You have a point -- if they're forward enough to bother you in the first place, they might just grab the baby & latch it on!

Posted by: educmom | June 27, 2007 7:22 PM

Fred's Quote of the Day
(Breast Feeding Division)
goes to Lactating Fool!

(come on! With a blog title "Breastfeeding Hiatus is over and a name like Lactation Fool, she was a shoe in!)

"I believe my family is genetically predisposed to be wet nurses. Not that we are applying for the job."

The creepy van awaits, there are probably some double pumping kits back there somewhere among the construction materials!


Honorable Mention to wsnc for her knowledge of a side benefit to bf'ing that even Frieda did not know about!

Posted by: Fred | June 27, 2007 7:40 PM

Thanks, Emily. I appreciate your kind words.

Posted by: MN | June 27, 2007 8:52 PM

"The Mass I attend is approximately one hour long. How hard is it to feed the children before Mass? I think that children and adults need to learn that different behavior is appropriate in different places.

There is a difference between an adult and a child under the age of five. I think busy bodies should mind their own business too, but they don't."

I Knowthere is a difference between adults and young children. I have two teenagers so I've had children that age and been around many others. It is possible to put your children on a feeding schedule so that they can go for 1-2 hours without eating.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 7:13 AM

"Stating that you think one method of feeding an infant is superior to another is not "intruding on what a mother has chosen." It is simply stating a point of view. Breastfeeding advocates aren't trying to force another woman to breastfeed (as hard as it is to do even when you want to, I'd like to see them try to do that). They're not trying to make it illegal to formula feed. They're simply saying that breastfeeding is the best way to feed an infant."

Unless someone asks for their opinion, they shouldn't be saying anything. A vegetarian shouldn't be telling a meat-eater that vegetarianism is best. A shopper shouldn't tell someone with canned vegetables in their cart that fresh is best. A Jew shouldn't tell a Catholic that Judiasm is best. A mother shouldn't tell a non-mother that having children is best. A married person shouldn't tell a single that marriage is best.

If someone is feeding their baby formula and asks what you think, tell them breast is best if that is what you believe. Otherwise, butt out.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 7:22 AM

More feminist drivel from Leslie, with no balance issues covered. When do you plan to rename the column?

Posted by: more of the same | June 28, 2007 7:40 AM

I Knowthere is a difference between adults and young children. I have two teenagers so I've had children that age and been around many others. It is possible to put your children on a feeding schedule so that they can go for 1-2 hours without eating.

Is it possible for you to pay attention to mass and not what other people's kids are doing? Glad to see that because you've raised two kids, you know they are all the same.

Posted by: GOD, you people suck | June 28, 2007 8:00 AM

rockville mom

you are an idiot. A study conducted 40 years ago??!!!?? Get real. Puh--lease!@!!!&&%&#( You are so threatened with breastfeeding that you have to put down that choice. Get over yourself and stop spewing lies.

I bet you are a republican, too.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 8:58 AM

Was Jesus breastfead or did he have a wet nurse?

Posted by: No Mas at Mass? | June 28, 2007 9:05 AM

I breastfed my nephew once. At the time I was nursing my own son, and my sister asked me to take care of her twin babies, both of whom were breastfeeding.

My sister left me with bottles of pumped milk, but warned me that the twins might not take a bottle. I told her I could try to nurse either twin myself if she wanted me to, and she said go ahead.

The little boy twin happily drank from a bottle, but the girl wouldn't and was screaming.

So I breastfed her and, though she looked a bit surprised for a quick second after she latched on, she had no problem feeding. It felt different than my son: she had a weaker suck.

It felt a little strange to do that but not in a bad way.

It's funny that that experience was a foreshadowing of the twins' characters: the boy is happy and sunny and open to anything, loves everyone. The girl is reserved and secretive and much more selective.

Posted by: Annapolis | June 28, 2007 9:08 AM

I Knowthere is a difference between adults and young children. I have two teenagers so I've had children that age and been around many others. It is possible to put your children on a feeding schedule so that they can go for 1-2 hours without eating.

Is it possible for you to pay attention to mass and not what other people's kids are doing? Glad to see that because you've raised two kids, you know they are all the same.

Posted by: GOD, you people suck | June 28, 2007 08:00 AM

Why are you such an idiot. Just because someone thinks that there should be standards of behavior in certain places doesn't mean that we are awful people. I expressed my opinion on a blog. I do not approach people in public places and express my opinions or tell them what they should or should not be doing with their children.

I don't think that people should bring babies and small children to movies, but they do. Does that make me anti-child or anti-family?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 9:48 AM

"Unless someone asks for their opinion, they shouldn't be saying anything. A vegetarian shouldn't be telling a meat-eater that vegetarianism is best....."

Of course strangers in the grocery store or at the park or a restaurant should keep their unsolicited opinions to themselves. Telling someone - a stranger or a friend - that they are doing something wrong when they haven't asked you your opinion is just being rude.

But in a discussion about breastfeeding, like this one, what exactly is the problem with offering public service type information about breastfeeding? Nobody is forcing anyone to read this blog. If someone sees that the daily topic is about breastfeeding and they don't do it and are going to be offended if they see information that supports it's benefits and superiority to formula feeding, then maybe they should just not participate in a discussion about breastfeeding.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 11:33 AM

Why are you such an idiot.

Why are you? I am just expressing my opinion like you are. Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion on this blog.

Why are you? I am just expressing my opinion like you are. Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion on this blog.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 12:04 PM

If someone sees that the daily topic is about breastfeeding and they don't do it and are going to be offended if they see information that supports it's benefits and superiority to formula feeding, then maybe they should just not participate in a discussion about breastfeeding.


Posted by: | June 28, 2007 11:33 AM

I get it now. We are only permitted to participate in a blog on breastfeeding if we bow down to the nursing fascists. It couldn't be that we could challenge your assumptions about nursing, moms and dads who decline to nurse, the health and happiness of our children -- nope, there's only one acceptable position for you. Glad we cleared up that tiny misunderstanding about families being able to reach valid conclusions that are the opposite of your opinion.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 2:55 PM

why can't folks be rationale about this topic?

Yes . . .studies have often linked breastfeeding to number a number of positive outcomes for children. That doesn't threaten anyone -- it's just a reality.

At the same time . . . while statistically significant, these relationships are small, and probably are inflated by selection bias (those who breastfeed are typically more educated, yada yada).

These are not mutually exclusive statements.

I don't think anyone on this blog ever said that there was research suggesting that formula feeding was better (well, maybe a few very poorly informed person). But they did question the strength of the findings and the quality of the studies. All legitimate arguments that most scientists would agree with.

This doesn't invalidate anyone's choice to breastfeed. I myself did and will do so again with the next child (For me, it's a "why not? can't hurt. . . "). But it certainly isn't a MAJOR influence on children's well-being in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not worthy of the amount of screaming that goes on about it. And there's no empirical support for the statement that it is related to mother-child attachment (which some people on here have suggested).

Let's go back to your early research methods:

1) Correlation does not equal causation
2) Just because something's statistically significant doesn't mean it is large in size

On an interesting note, I was just in a research meeting where someone REALLY wanted to find a link with breastfeeding and didn't. Despite that fact, she still concluded there was a link there. As a scientist, I was apalled. Why do the study if your conclusions won't change based on the results? This was a unique study, though -- most actually DO find a relationship (though small).

Posted by: For Pete's Sake! | June 28, 2007 3:45 PM

And to back up my comment (before someone says that there was a poster saying formula feeding was better). . .

See the quotes below from the folks who got attacked as if they were suggesting that formula is better. Anyone who interprets these quotes as suggesting that research says formula is better either 1) has problems with their reasoning skills; or 2) was so caught up in the emotions that they couldn't reason properly. My guess is it's the latter . . .


"Take a look at the actual research and you'll find the results show nothing more than that mixing formula with tainted water in Nigeria is a bad idea."

"Most of pro breast feeding literature only shows mild benefits of bf. Even the studies linking FF with obesity have been refuted."

"No one is saying FF is better the BF. We are saying BF is only a minimal benefit. There are no studies showing it is a huge benefit in the overall health for the child."

Posted by: For Pete's Sake! | June 28, 2007 4:00 PM

To the scientist who posted at 3:45 and 4:00 - would you like to address this post? Because this is the one where bottle feeding and scientific researched were linked. Was this poster (or was it you?) not saying that there are statistics and actual research to support formula feeding as an educated choice? (other than the "if you're taking xyz drug or have have your breasts surgically altered or if you are HIV positive" information, which covers, oh, 10% of the population max?)

"Comparing the choice to bottle feed to the choice to smoke during pregnancy is nothing more than an attempt to humiliate and demean educated bottle-feeding parents. Yes, let's keep anecdotal information and uninformed urban legend out of this and speak about statistics and actual research. "

Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2007 4:55 PM

"It's none of your business what other people do in church."

Untrue. Church is a communal thing--you can worship or pray in private if you like, but you go to church for the communal, social aspect of it, for your traditions and values to be reinforced by others. "Whenever two or more of you are gathered in My name..." If someone ran naked through the sanctuary, would you really not object, on the grounds that "it's none of your business"?

However, I happen to think there's a middle ground between BFing in the middle of the congregation, and sneaking away to another room (mainly because I don't think of BFing on the same level as the ever-present sippy cups and Cheerios). If you're a nursing mother, sit in the back and do it discreetly so you don't distract from the service. Problem solved.

Posted by: NYC | June 29, 2007 3:07 PM

That comment -- which I think was a bit defensive -- was about the INTENTION behind another poster's statement about smoking. It still wasn't saying that research suggests that bottle feeding is better than breast feeding.

The original person commenting about smoking was reacting to someone's statement that they were formula fed and they turned out just fine . . . That wasn't a statement about research, either, just their own observation about their own situation. It makes no claim that there's research supporting formula feeding.

I stand by my statement -- there's nothing on this list suggesting that research has supported formula feeding over breast feeding. Yet several of those on the defensive pro-breastfeeding side took statements that way. Why they can't accept the possibility that research may not be as strongly on their side of the argument -- without needing proof that it's completely on the other side -- is beyond me.

If you want to breastfeed, do it. Do you NEED science to prove that it's hugely beneficial for your child to do it? Or Would you change your behavior if the research found that it really didn't matter? If not, why does it matter?

Posted by: to 4:55 on June 28 | July 2, 2007 9:43 AM

I'm a 33 year old male, and I love breastfeeding! Yummy to the tummy!

Posted by: May | July 2, 2007 2:00 PM

Late to the party, as always.
Veteran BF mom here, and it is very true that people should not give others unsolicited advice about the breastmilk-versus-formula decision. Foremost, it's really rude to intrude on such a personal subject. Some mothers turn to bottles and formulas because of some personally difficult issues (such as serious illness, physical limitations, infections) and strangers should just leave the subject alone.
However, I'm tired of anti-BF types referring to BF advocates as "nipple Nazis" or "fascists."
Nazis are people who believe in separation of people according to "race" (as they define it), establishing their own "race" as master and killing off or enslaving people of other "races."
Facists are people who believe that government and corporation should be melded into one, and that there is no place for democracy.
BF advocates, even the most strident ones -- actually, especially the most strident ones -- are trying to make sure that they can do what they believe in wherever and when ever they want. That's why so much energy is put into making sure that public nursing is legal and not hindered by The Man. If any political label must be applied, it's libertarian. They want to do what they think is right without the Authorities (government, corporate, religious, social disapproval or other) giving them any grief about it. And if they try to persuade others to embrace their philosophy, well, that's one libertarians do.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 1:51 PM

Late to the party, as always.
Veteran BF mom here, and it is very true that people should not give others unsolicited advice about the breastmilk-versus-formula decision. Foremost, it's really rude to intrude on such a personal subject. Some mothers turn to bottles and formulas because of some personally difficult issues (such as serious illness, physical limitations, infections) and strangers should just leave the subject alone.
However, I'm tired of anti-BF types referring to BF advocates as "nipple Nazis" or "fascists."
Nazis are people who believe in separation of people according to "race" (as they define it), establishing their own "race" as master and killing off or enslaving people of other "races."
Facists are people who believe that government and corporation should be melded into one, and that there is no place for democracy.
BF advocates, even the most strident ones -- actually, especially the most strident ones -- are trying to make sure that they can do what they believe in wherever and when ever they want. That's why so much energy is put into making sure that public nursing is legal and not hindered by The Man. If any political label must be applied, it's libertarian. They want to do what they think is right without the Authorities (government, corporate, religious, social disapproval or other) giving them any grief about it. And if they try to persuade others to embrace their philosophy, well, that's one libertarians do.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 5, 2007 1:51 PM

doegkswz dwbjzflpu luey thylefxm ibagdwyv wnbhx zyds

Posted by: urmpzoi hsuvo | July 11, 2007 1:47 AM

dfic utcygsv vplch rxtn scfhwnu ybsgcozj yzftadrn http://www.cgfli.mcqoavk.com

Posted by: quevcntp avexqm | July 11, 2007 1:48 AM

dfic utcygsv vplch rxtn scfhwnu ybsgcozj yzftadrn http://www.cgfli.mcqoavk.com

Posted by: quevcntp avexqm | July 11, 2007 1:49 AM

dfic utcygsv vplch rxtn scfhwnu ybsgcozj yzftadrn http://www.cgfli.mcqoavk.com

Posted by: quevcntp avexqm | July 11, 2007 1:50 AM

juzwhfbtx gnua wdptes cqhzyfmst imcqdpz vbiluprnm gdxv iwpyz zwmxlpb

Posted by: owydxau ghqrx | July 11, 2007 1:51 AM

juzwhfbtx gnua wdptes cqhzyfmst imcqdpz vbiluprnm gdxv iwpyz zwmxlpb

Posted by: owydxau ghqrx | July 11, 2007 1:52 AM

juzwhfbtx gnua wdptes cqhzyfmst imcqdpz vbiluprnm gdxv iwpyz zwmxlpb

Posted by: owydxau ghqrx | July 11, 2007 1:53 AM

kbre xgfnupy rblym ptvcmxf tsbnolfj fvmrscypq ocehrfjup [URL]http://www.niaq.oxqchj.com[/URL] mhzakx dxgja

Posted by: upxwyzm kvzpqux | July 11, 2007 1:56 AM

kbre xgfnupy rblym ptvcmxf tsbnolfj fvmrscypq ocehrfjup [URL]http://www.niaq.oxqchj.com[/URL] mhzakx dxgja

Posted by: upxwyzm kvzpqux | July 11, 2007 1:57 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company