Showing posts with label breastfeeding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breastfeeding. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Georgia attempts to be least breastfeeding-friendly state...

At least, that is how it would appear. There have been two recent cases in which breastfeeding in Georgia has been restricted. One is by a public school system, Dougherty County, in which they have enacted a policy stating that babies are not allowed to breastfed in any of the schools. The second is the city council of the city of Forest Park, which has passed an ordinance which they hope will end "public nudity." Their law says that mothers may not nurse anyone over the age of two in public. Apparently they believe that breastfeeding in public is nudity - in fact, that it becomes nudity once the child is a certain age, whereas prior to that, it is somehow not nudity... ? How does breastfeeding suddenly become nudity based on the age of the baby? I thought nudity was defined by how much of one's clothing has been removed, and surely one doesn't disrobe to nurse an older child while staying clothed to nurse a younger one? This story has been explored on This Daddy's Blog here. Apparently these stories are being picked up nationwide, too: here's an article on The Stir.

Anyway, here are my letters to both the superintendent of Doughery County schools (joshua.murfree@docoschools.org) and the city council of Forest park, particularly City Manager John Parker (jparker@forestparkga.org). Here is his phone number: 404-366-4720. I called today and left a voice mail - he had already gone home... well, wouldn't you too, the day after passing unpopular policy which is being talked about across the country? ;) I would encourage anyone who feels that this is wrong to contact them yourselves to express your concerns.

To the Dougherty County Schools:

Hello,

I was recently made aware of a new policy in your public school system disallowing babies to be breastfed within any of your school buildings. As a mother myself and a volunteer breastfeeding counselor, I was surprised to hear of this. The state of Georgia has a law which protects the rights of mothers to breastfeed their babies anywhere that both mother and child have a right to be. If I am understanding your new policy correctly, this means that breastfed babies no longer have the right to be in your school buildings, at least not when they are hungry.

It appears that this policy was enacted because of a teacher's request that her baby be allowed to be brought to her during her breaks so that she could nurse the baby. Many moms who work like to find a daycare provider who is willing to do this. I understand that you wish to disallow this in favor of having any breastfeeding employees pump their milk instead. While this seems like a simple solution on the surface, it does not take into account the fact that for many mothers, their bodies don't respond as well to a pump as to their baby. A breastfeeding baby can always nurse more effectively than a pump. Allowing mothers access to their nursing babies if they so choose can help them to establish a better nursing relationship and may enable them to breastfeed longer, reducing illnesses in their babies and thus the number of sick days they would have to take themselves. A mother who cannot pump very effectively will be more likely to wean her baby earlier. A teacher on a break should be able to nurse her baby then, because she is not actually working with students at that time. Mothers who have access to their babies may be more relaxed and therefore be more productive during their working hours of the school day.

The most concerning thing to me regarding this policy is that it distances breastfeeding mothers from the schools. If a mother who has a breastfeeding baby wants to come to the school where her older children attend, then this policy makes her feel unwelcome. Mothers may want to come to the school for any number of reasons: to volunteer in their children's classrooms, to view a performance or assembly, to have a conference with a teacher, or to have lunch with their children. As a former teacher myself, I was always grateful for the presence of mom volunteers, and seeing parents involved in the school made me know that they truly cared about the education of their children. A mother who is breastfeeding may find that she is unable to pump milk and bring a bottle with her to the school: first, it costs money to invest in a pump and bottles, and it takes time to pump. A stay-at-home mother may not have the extra money to spend on a pump simply so she can visit her older children at school. As mentioned before, many moms do not respond well to a pump in the first place. A breastfeeding baby is a quiet, happy baby. A baby who is hungry because his mother could not pump enough milk and is not allowed to breastfeed him is going to cause a disturbance in a meeting or school performance! Many babies will not even take a bottle from their mothers because they expect their mothers to nurse them at the breast as this is their normal experience. It may also be reasoned that if the mother nurses the baby before she comes to the school, then he shouldn't need to nurse in the time she is there. This sounds good in theory, but breastmilk is digested very quickly and some babies take in small quantities more frequently, so it is quite possible for a baby who nursed an hour ago to be hungry again.

Surely the Dougherty County Schools do not want to isolate and exclude some mothers from being free to come onto school property with their babies who might need to nurse. Surely the schools don't want these moms to avoid parent-teacher conferences, PTA meetings, and award ceremonies for their older children because their baby may get hungry. Surely the schools do not want for a mother who has come to eat lunch with her child to end up having to leave the school instead to nurse her baby, while a formula-feeding mother may stay in the lunchroom with her school-aged child since her baby is eating from a bottle. Surely the schools don't want mothers to wean their babies prematurely because they feel that they must do so in order to be involved in the local schools. Surely the schools don't want to contribute to decreasing the breastfeeding rates even further (they are pretty low in Georgia), which adds to increased illnesses and more medical expenses for the taxpayers.

I ask that you reconsider this policy so that all mothers are able to take care of their babies in the best way they can while being an involved part of your school system, and I hope that the state law which protects breastfeeding has some bearing on this policy.

Thank you,

To the City of Forest Park:

Hello,

I was recently made aware that the city of Forest Park has passed a law making it illegal for mothers to breastfeed their children beyond the age of two in public within your city. As a mother and breastfeeding support counselor myself, I am aware of the Georgia state law which says that a mother may breastfeed her child anywhere that she and her child have the right to be. This state law has no restriction on age. I am unsure of how this will work for the city of Forest Park, given the state law. When I travel to another state with a nursing baby or toddler, I check out the state's breastfeeding laws ahead of time. I would never think to check the ordinances in each individual town that I may pass through on a trip. How will this affect mothers who maybe don't even live in the state of Georgia and are arrested for breastfeeding their 3 year old in the city of Forest Park? They may have informed themselves of the state law ahead of time and found that they were within their rights according to the state of Georgia.

The main issue I see here is that limiting breastfeeding to a certain age in an attempt to control public nudity does not make sense. How is a mother any more "nude" when breastfeeding a 3 year old than she is when breastfeeding a 6 month old in public? A mother nursing an older child will probably show less skin because her child covers up more of her body, and she has likely gotten the hang of breastfeeding and will therefore show less skin because of her experience. Breastfeeding a 3 year old should not count as nudity if breastfeeding a 1 year old does not. There is a problem in associating breastfeeding with nudity in the first place: most women show less skin while nursing than does a girl in a halter top or a low-cut shirt. If public nudity is a problem in the city of Forest Park, then it certainly isn't because there are hundreds of mothers removing their clothing to nurse 3 year olds. Are bare midriffs and low-cut tops going to be outlawed as a part of this attempt to control public nudity? If not, then think of what kind of message is being sent: that it is okay to show skin because you want to, but it is not okay to do when feeding/comforting your child. It tells young girls that we only want to see their bodies as sexual and not for their biologically intended purposes.

Forest Park needs to rethink this law, and quickly. Nursing mothers are not a nudity problem. They are just feeding and comforting their children.

Sincerely,

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Normalizing Breastfeeding (and Fatherhood, while we're at it)

There are many slogans and descriptive words we hear regarding breastfeeding: "Breast is best." "Breastmilk provides superior nutrition." "Babies who are breastfed are healthier." "Breastfeeding is a special relationship."

What would you think if I said those slogans are wrong? Well, they are. And here's the reason: these kind of phrases idealize breastfeeding, which takes it further away from being the standard norm. Take these phrases which make breastfeeding out to be some fancy "extra" along with the images of bottles that surround us, and you can see how breastfeeding is not seen as the cultural norm for feeding a baby in these parts.

Take the first one, "Breast is best." Best. That means that something else is good enough, something else is mediocre, and something else is worst. Feeding your baby sewage might be worst. Feeding your baby formula? Hmm, maybe that would be "good enough," since breastfeeding is "best." So here's what would make better sense as a slogan: "Breast is normal." Because it is... it is the biological norm for feeding babies. It is the standard, built-in way we have for nourishing and nurturing. Better than what? Not better, just normal. And doing things normally often results in achieving normal, healthy outcomes. Just look at the birth control pill and its link to health problems... do something abnormal, and you may not achieve optimal health. Breastfeeding works the same way: deviate from the norm, and abnormal things may occur to both mothers and babies.

How about using the words "superior nutrition" to describe breastmilk? Again, it is just normal. Breastmilk provides a baby with normal nutrition. Sometimes people see "superior" and they think, "Ah, it is magic! Breastmilk has super powers! Supermoms give their babies that... but I can't always be a Supermom, so why strive for the 'extra' of breastfeeding? I can be 'Good Enough Mom' and use formula." But what if these moms had the understanding that breastfeeding was normal? Wouldn't they then feel more determination to give their baby what is normal for a human infant, perhaps? Particularly so if there were pediatricians, hospital staff, breastfeeding support groups who were all saying, "Yes, breastfeeding is normal, we will help you," instead of saying, "Well, formula is almost as good... and some people just can't breastfeed. Just give up - you're going above and beyond to try to make nursing work." So, breastmilk provides normal nutrition, meaning anything else provides abnormal nutrition.

"Breastfed babies are healthier." Hmm, well, that is true, you might be thinking. On the surface, yes, it is. But how about saying that breastfeeding provides a baby with normal health - maybe even saying "optimal health." By breastfeeding, a baby can achieve the normal health which he was intended to have. It is not normal for babies to have GI diseases, a large number of ear infections, constant viral infections... So, phrasing that indicates the health risks of feeding formula would be more appropriate. Breastmilk doesn't give the baby some magic powers to have super health - it lets his body do what it was designed to normally do, which is to build his immune system. Breastmilk building immunity isn't magic - just normal.

And then this one: "Breastfeeding is a special relationship." Special... ooooh. I bet most of us who breastfeed have used that word ourselves to describe our own breastfeeding relationships with our children! But looking at the meaning of the word only... what does it imply? It implies that breastfeeding is, again, not just what we do, but something "extra." It also can be seen as something that is private - the word "special" is often used by those who are opposed to mothers nursing their babies in public, because " that's something special between just the two of you, so you should do it in private." So, what to say instead... Breastfeeding is an intimate relationship? Some people see that as having a sexual connotation. A nursing mother and baby are supposed to have a close bond: that's just the normal way it is supposed to be. Breastfeeding is a normal relationship between the mother and baby... there's that word again, normal. That is the key word in all this: NORMAL.

I had the opportunity to attend a few talks given by a woman who is pioneering this change in our language with regard to breastfeeding. Diane Weissinger has several articles on her website, www.normalfed.com, explaining the need to normalize the language we use regarding breastfeeding. This, coupled with more exposure (no pun intended) to nursing moms and their children every day, in normal daily situations, is what will normalize breastfeeding so that no mom has to worry about being harassed for nursing in public. No moms will have to feel the need to go hide to nurse their babies. Moms won't resort to supplementing with formula when they are having no physical problems simply because they feel like they have to use bottles when around other people. This will take several generations to come about, but if children went into the grocery store and saw two or three babies nursing EACH TIME they were there, wouldn't they just grow up thinking that it was NORMAL?


So, what's that in the parenthesis about fatherhood, you may be wondering... well, for all the normalizing of breastfeeding that we'd like to see, fatherhood is something that is being pushed away from being normal in an effort to be "politically correct" and "inclusive." This is also the same reason we heard for many years about how formula was "just as good" or "nearly as good" as breastmilk... it was an effort to make abnormal things seem normal so as not to offend people. With the language changing regarding breastfeeding, I hate to see the language changing the other way regarding fathers.

The latest edition of the Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, La Leche League's big book of breastfeeding info for nursing moms, came out last year. I noticed that it never once used the word "father." When I checked back in the previous edition, "father" actually appeared enough times that it was listed in the book's index. But in the recent edition? Not one mention, it seems.

So, I asked Diane Weissinger about this, because she was one of the people who worked on this current revision of the book. She seemed to agree that fatherhood was normal and natural, that children raised by both mother and father are the biological norm and that children having fathers is important to their overall development, but she said the decision was made to use the word "partner" in order to cover everything, because this is a breastfeeding book which is about mothers nursing their babies, and they decided to focus just on breastfeeding and reaching as many people as possible.

Unfortunately, the phrasing used in the book turned me off to the point that I haven't even read the rest of it. I can overlook the word "partner," because that could include a husband, and I understand that there are women whose husbands have run out on them and they are single moms - I do understand the need to not offend and assume that every nursing mom has a husband. But it is the norm that every baby has a father - it is biologically NORMAL that a baby has a female mother and a male father - otherwise, there is no baby, biologically speaking. Anyway, the sentence that had me so turned off in the Womanly Art of Breastfeeding was this: "Most new mothers have a life partner: a husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, or whatever name you give your relationship." Most new mothers do not have a "wife" or "girlfriend," because most new, nursing mothers conceived their baby in the normal biological way: by having sex with a MAN. This is normal. It is not normal for two people of the same gender to create a baby - in fact, it is pretty much impossible!

It seems to be a well-established fact that, statistically, a child will fare much better in life if raised in a home with both a mother (female) and a father (male!). Children who are raised by a single parent or with the absence of one of the two gender roles are more likely to get involved in trouble, such as drugs, premarital sex, crime... not that all of these children will, but studies have affirmed the importance of the male role model in a child's life in avoiding these types of issues. It is normal for children to have a father figure, so children being raised by a mother with a "wife" would therefore be in an abnormal situation. That's not an offensive statement, just as it is not offensive to say that formula feeding is abnormal - it is the biological truth.

If the book had just said, "Most mothers have a life partner," and then moved on without listing the possible combinations, then I likely would have just rolled my eyes at the funny-sounding term in its attempt to be inclusive and then moved on. But since it actually excluded the word "father," and it openly stated an abnormal parenting situation alongside what is the norm for most mothers, it could be taken as an attempt to elevate having two mothers as "normal," as if it is just as common as a child having one male and one female parent. The vast majority of breastfeeding mothers do not relate to this situation, though! I actually ordered the book when it was brand-new and had it shipped straight to a family member as a baby shower gift, because older versions of this book have not had anything of this sort in them, so the thought never crossed my mind that this edition would. Now that I know what it says, I am hesitant to buy copies for other expecting mothers I know (even though it is one of the best sources of breastfeeding info out there), because I don't want them to assume that I must think same-sex parenting is normal. And the deletion of the word "father" is problematic. Most babies do have a father, biological or not, present in the home or not. By taking away "father" in an effort to include same-sex parents, the much larger audience of male fathers has been excluded - and these men are the biological norm!

Some might think that this must mean I am "against" any type of parenting other than the biological mother and father, and I want to clarify that this is not the case. It is certainly a fact that the biological norm is for the biological mother and father to raise the child, but of course there are situations in which this is not possible. Adoption is a beautiful thing, and parents who adopt a baby are as much parents as the biological ones are (Did you know there are actually people out there who are opposed to adoption?? I am serious, you can Google it!!!). If one parent abandons the family, then a single parent is certainly not to blame, and I know those who are excellent, wonderful parents despite having the abnormal situation of being the only parent. Often times, those parents have relatives of the opposite sex who can be a positive role model in their children's lives, like a substitute father or mother. So while these situations may not be "normal," they can and often do mimic a normal parenting experience, and they are not done in a purposeful attempt to exclude a male parent from the child's life.

The way this relates to breastfeeding is that, while nursing is normal, there are times when people must deviate from the norm and do something abnormal, such as using formula. There are times when this is necessary: if the mother dies, if the mother cannot produce enough milk (perhaps she had breast reduction surgery), if the baby is born with a rare condition in which he cannot metabolize galactose (which requires a prescription meat-based formula)... of course, it is far better to feed these babies some type of formula than to do nothing! Sometimes what is normal does not work, but it cannot be denied that it is still the norm. In the same way, it cannot be denied that children raised with no father are not in a biologically normal situation. But of course it is better they are raised by a single mother than if they were not raised at all! And it is better for a child to be raised by a same-sex couple than by nobody at all, yes, but it is not normal. There are sets of mothers and fathers out there who would love to adopt a child, and do I think they should be given preference over same-sex couples and single people wanting to adopt? Yes, I do, in the same way I think that if a baby cannot be fed his own mother's milk, then it is better to give him donor breastmilk than formula if possible, because it is closer to the biological norm. If there were a child who nobody would adopt other than a same-sex couple, then sure, that is the best option and God bless them for adopting the child rather than leaving him on the streets! But there are countless numbers of heterosexual couples waiting to adopt and few babies waiting for them (thanks in part to abortion).

The bottom line is that we were biologically designed to be parented by both a father and a mother, and children tend to do best when they have both a mother and a father. Fathers are normal. It is tragic when they aren't in their children's lives, but worse so when they are intentionally excluded. Mothers cannot make babies without men (as much as some feminists might want to do! ;). Fathers count - they have a purpose. They should not be seen as "optional," a "nice extra," but something that mothers want to have if possible when having and raising children. For the fathers out there who read these kinds of statements (which appear more and more today) and feel replaceable and like they are a non-essential piece to reproducing and bringing up the next generation, you have my sympathy. I am not sure what to do about it, though. The more technology takes over natural biological processes and roles, the farther we drift from these kinds of norms remaining normal.

So, does anyone have any tips on how to keep fathering as a norm?

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Babies with Reflux?

There are so many babies diagnosed with reflux lately... I have been thinking off and on about why this may be. We know that formula-fed infants are more likely to have reflux than breastfed infants, but we still hear of so many breastfed infants with reflux as well. Apparently reflux was not common in babies 20 or more years ago, as my mother has commented, "What is up with all these babies with reflux now?" She just didn't know of any babies having reflux when she was raising babies throughout the 1980s.

So, one thought that immediately came to mind: The Back to Sleep campaign (which I believe was introduced around 1990, but don't quote me on that). Medical professionals used to advise parents to place their babies on the bellies to sleep, but research has shown that position to be associated with a much higher risk of SIDS. So it is now advised that babies are placed on their backs to sleep. Lying on the back is a position in which reflux is more likely to be irritating to the throat, since the saliva can pool at the back of the throat easily that way.

Now, the Back to Sleep campaign is not a bad thing in and of itself. If parents are going to be putting their infants to sleep in separate rooms by themselves, then it is safest for them to be on their backs - they are less likely to have a stop-breathing episode while on their backs.

Babies also spend a large amount of time on their backs at other times, not just overnight and at naps. Baby swings, strollers, and infant car seats also keep them in this position more often. Sometimes babies spend so much time on their backs that the backs of their heads get so flat that they must be fitted for a special helmet to help their head regain its proper shape. Surely this is not natural, right? But it is not surprising if a baby spends 10 hours on its back overnight, a few hours each day napping in that position, and then more time on its back in swings, infant seats, and strollers. The "bucket" infant car seat is something else that is a relatively new invention. In the days when my parents were raising babies, the car seat stayed in the car. The child was always removed from the seat to go in and out of buildings. Now, it is relatively easy to keep an infant in a carseat for large chunks of time each day. So, babies are spending more of both their days and nights on their backs now than they were in the 80s and earlier.

To counteract this flat-head syndrome, the "experts" began recommending something that is referred to as "tummy time." This is intentionally placing the baby on its tummy while awake, to encourage the lifting of the head and pushing up with the arms, and also getting the back of the head off a surface.

In addition to the time spent on their backs, babies have other things which might be exacerbating the reflux nowadays. Scheduled feeding is one thing that comes to mind. With a breastfed baby, the initial milk is thinner and gradually gets thicker and more filling as the feeding progresses. Thus, the longer a mother goes between nursings, the more foremilk there is at the next feeding. The fattier hindmilk is what the baby receives further into a feeding. Cutting off a feeding too soon may cause a baby to miss most of the hindmilk, and spacing his feedings out to once every three or four hours gives the mother's body more time to build the foremilk back up. Frequent removal of milk causes the baby to continue to get more hindmilk at each feeding. Getting too much watery foremilk and not enough of the thicker hindmilk could contribute to reflux symptoms. Sometimes doctors recommend that mothers thicken their milk by pumping it and adding rice cereal - but introducing solid foods (of which rice cereal is one) prior to about 6 months increases the baby's risk for allergies. Rice cereal is also likely to cause constipation in babies, so even if it seems to help with the reflux, it may cause other problems. Nursing the baby more frequently could aid in this. In thinking of nursing as more than just a set feeding time, mothering through breastfeeding leads to nursing for comfort and thus being done more frequently.

Mothering through breastfeeding also tends to include close contact with the mother, which includes the infant being carried around both while awake and while napping. An upright position in a sling might be helpful in reducing reflux. Neither of my children really liked to lay down in the sling unless they were nursing, but the upright tummy-to-tummy position was great for them.

Babies who co-sleep with their nursing mothers end up spending time on their sides at night as they nurse. Also, the mother may switch them from side to side during the night. Therefore, less time is spent on their backs even while they are sleeping overnight.

One last thought is that a bottlefed baby is being fed on his back in a reclined position, whereas the breastfed baby is more on his side, and in the natural position has his legs and belly lower than his head.

So, in looking at all this, it appears that it may be that our straying from the biological norms of infant care contributes to a higher incidence of reflux. Rather than introducing other solutions, perhaps we could go back to the root of the issue and make changes there? I am not saying that this is definitely why babies have reflux more often lately... I am sure there are co-sleeping babies who never spend time on their backs and are carried upright and still seem to have some reflux symptoms. But I haven't heard any speculation on why it is that so many babies are diagnosed with reflux lately, so I thought I would do a little speculating myself. Any other ideas to add? Has anyone read anything which discusses potential reasons for this infant reflux epidemic?

Friday, July 09, 2010

The Double Standard


Welcome to the July 2010 Carnival of Nursing in Public

This post was written for inclusion in the Carnival of Nursing in Public hosted by Dionna and Paige at NursingFreedom.org. All week, July 5-9, we will be featuring articles and posts about nursing in public ("NIP"). See the bottom of this post for more information.

***

With regards to breastfeeding in public, there seems to be a double standard.

Definition of Double Standard: A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another

Regarding a nursing mother, people are quick to say things such as:

"She should do that somewhere else."

"She should cover up if she's going to do THAT."

"I shouldn't have to see that!"

"She should be more considerate of the people around her who don't want to see that."

That, that, that... what exactly is meant by "that?" The act of breastfeeding itself, or the potential skin exposure?

I figure it must be the act itself which many people find objectionable, because many of these same people, when walking past a lingerie store in the mall or a group of young women in low-cut, strappy shirts, often fail to make the same comments. At least, they don't typically approach them and say, "Your low-cut shirt is making me uncomfortable." They don't express their discomfort with the waiter at the restaurant by asking, "Ugg, that girl is showing too much cleavage - could you ask her to put on a sweater or leave?" And they certainly don't complain to the authorities, asking for the police to come and stop the cleavage-baring.

But all this happens to breastfeeding mothers in public. They are told by strangers that what they are doing is inappropriate. They are approached by waiters who have had complaints from other diners. They are harassed by the police for feeding their babies. That last one happens so often, it is astounding to me. When is the last time you heard of a woman being asked by the police to leave a mall because she was wearing a low-cut top or an incredibly short dress?

The message being sent is: You may show cleavage for no reason at all, just because you want to dress that way, but it is not okay to possibly show a bit of skin while using your breasts for an actual, real purpose.

And the kicker is this: breastfeeding mothers typically show far less skin than many women wearing low-cut tops, strappy dresses, bare midriff outfits, and short skirts.

Here's about how much skin you will see on a breastfeeding mother who is dressed in an average short-sleeved shirt:
That is me nursing my toddler at a Tonic concert recently. No cleavage. Small amount of skin if you look really, really hard (and if you are looking really hard, then you must just be looking to start an argument!).

Same event in this next picture, non-nursing women this time (click to see a closer view):
I will first clarify that I am NOT picking on these random women in the above photo. It was a hot day out. I am not showing photos of their cleavage - that would not be nice of me. ;) But if you look at the clothing on several of the women here - pictured from the back - you can see that these shirts and dresses would be the type that might show a lot of skin from the front as well. More skin, at least, than a nursing mom would be showing. I show this to illustrate the point that of all the skin and cleavage seen in public, most of it does not belong to nursing moms!

So, is it the skin? Or is it what is being done with the skin?

Why is there this double standard? Why is it okay to display flesh for the sake of fashion, or to be promiscuous, or because you are at the beach or it is a hot day, but not to feed a baby???

***

Art by Erika Hastings at http://mudspice.wordpress.com/

Welcome to the Carnival of Nursing in Public

Please join us all week, July 5-9, as we celebrate and support breastfeeding mothers. And visit NursingFreedom.org any time to connect with other breastfeeding supporters, learn more about your legal right to nurse in public, and read (and contribute!) articles about breastfeeding and N.I.P.

Do you support breastfeeding in public? Grab this badge for your blog or website to show your support and encourage others to educate themselves about the benefits of breastfeeding and the rights of breastfeeding mothers and children.


This post is just one of many being featured as part of the Carnival of Nursing in Public. Please visit our other writers each day of the Carnival. Click on the links below to see each day’s posts - new articles will be posted on the following days:
July 5 - Making Breastfeeding the Norm: Creating a Culture of Breastfeeding in a Hyper-Sexualized World
July 6 – Supporting Breastfeeding Mothers: the New, the Experienced, and the Mothers of More Than One Nursing Child
July 7 – Creating a Supportive Network: Your Stories and Celebrations of N.I.P.
July 8 – Breastfeeding: International and Religious Perspectives
July 9 – Your Legal Right to Nurse in Public, and How to Respond to Anyone Who Questions It

Monday, July 05, 2010

Making Breastfeeding the Norm


Welcome to the July 2010 Carnival of Nursing in Public

This post was written for inclusion in the Carnival of Nursing in Public hosted by Dionna and Paige at NursingFreedom.org. All week, July 5-9, we will be featuring articles and posts about nursing in public ("NIP"). See the bottom of this post for more information.

***

Breastfeeding is so often seen as "exceptional." It is portrayed as a lofty ideal, the ultimate best a mother can do, far above "average." I think that needs to be redefined. Breastfeeding is not exceptional - it is NORMAL. It is the standard way of feeding and nurturing infants. Biology dictates that it is simply the way that babies were designed to be fed. Nothing magic, nothing supernatural, nothing exceptional - just normal.

But what is seen as the normal, standard way to feed babies in our society? The bottle. Walk into any supermarket - at least in the area where I live - and count how many babies and toddlers you see drinking from bottles. Then compare that to the number of babies you saw who were nursing... What's that? You saw no babies nursing on your last trip to Wal-Mart? You have never seen a baby being nursed while doing your weekly grocery shopping? Wait... you say you can count on one hand the number of times you have ever seen a baby being breastfed in any public place?? So, are you not seeing many babies out in public? Oh, you are? Lots of babies and toddlers? You are seeing them eat in public, but you have rarely seen a child nursing in public? How is that???

...... Oh, yes, that's right... it is because the bottle is seen as the standard, normal way to feed babies in our culture. "Everybody does it!" We see bottles everywhere, and when you see a baby eating in a public place, he is drinking from a bottle rather than a breast 99 out of 100 times - maybe even more often than that.

The bottle is everywhere... listed as an "essential" on baby gift registries (even under "breastfeeding supplies," implying that nursing moms all must bottlefeed at times), pictured on baby shower gift bags and wrapping paper, baby scrapbooking supplies, parenting magazines, being used by nearly every baby portrayed on a TV show or in a movie... all bottles. And what does this teach us as we grow up surrounded by bottles and not by nursing breasts? That bottles are normal, and that breastfeeding is not (even if it is seen as better, it is not "normal").

So back to nursing in public... when all a person sees of baby-feeding around them is bottles, then one begins to think that it must be done that way - at least while in public. All the children, all the single people, all the currently-childless couples see is bottlefeeding, subconsciously influencing their future decisions they make as parents one day. So, on the rare occasion that they catch a glimpse of a mother who appears to be - GASP! - breastfeeding her baby in a public place, it is seen as weird, abnormal, wrong...

Why? Why is seeing a mother feed her child in the way she was biologically made to do it so shocking? IT IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT SEEN OFTEN ENOUGH OR AT ALL BY MOST HUMAN BEINGS. It is something practically foreign in many people's minds, seeing a baby nurse at the breast. If we don't see it happening regularly, then it seems abnormal when we do happen to see it. The way to normalize breastfeeding as the standard way of caring for infants is to have it been seen widely in public. The first time, it might be shocking, yes... it is something we typically don't see every day while doing our shopping. But see it again, and then another time, and eventually, it just becomes normal. A mother feeding her baby. A mother responding to the needs of her child. Simple as that.

"But won't somebody please think of the children!!!" This is the rallying cry of many people regarding children seeing breastfeeding in public. So, what if they see a mother nursing her child in public? Good, I say! One tiny step towards normalizing breastfeeding! If that child sees many mothers nursing in public as he grows up, then it won't be a foreign concept to him. It won't be "weird."

"But I don't want to have to explain THAT to my child," some parents say. Well, there are lots of things that I might not want to explain to my child, either, but other people's rights to do as they please in public (as long as they are not doing something illegal, which breastfeeding is not!) do not get rumped by my perceived "right" to not be offended or to not have to explain things to my own child. The simplest answer to give a child who asks is, "That mommy is feeding her baby. Some mommies feed their babies milk from their breasts. That is what breasts were made to do." This gives the child a healthier view of the female body than he will get by observing the more often publicly seen "purpose" of breasts: to accentuate them in tight, low-cut clothing as a sexual tool.

I don't think that other parents should have to explain breastfeeding to their children if they don't want to... I'm not about infringing on the rights of other parents to raise their children as they see fit. This is just a suggestion of a way for parents to address the issue of seeing a baby nursing in public. Remember, a young child most likely doesn't have a mentality of breasts being sexual, so he will not think that the mother is doing something wrong or "dirty," even if he happens to actually see enough to recognize it as a breast. He can use this experience to form a more healthy view of the purpose of breasts.

Most mothers are somewhat discreet when they nurse, meaning they aren't the mythological women who "whip it out" (I hate that expression and have yet to see it in public, actually) and give passers-by the evil eye, daring them to say anything. But being discreet doesn't have to mean hiding the baby under a blanket or running out to the car or a bathroom (ick!) to nurse. If we hide public breastfeeding (or pump and bring bottles for use in public), it will still seem abnormal, like it is wrong to nurse a baby around others. If mothers hide to nurse, then it won't be seen by the public, and therefore it won't become normalized! That being said, if a mother finds it more comfortable for herself if she nurses in a private area, then she should do so if she would otherwise not breastfeed at all. It is a crying shame that mothers feel embarrassed to nurse in public because of cultural perceptions, yet in order to change those perceptions, we must go outside our comfort zone by nursing in front of others! Even the most confident mom can be shaken by a negative encounter with a stranger objecting to her feeding her baby. I must say that personally, I have gotten more comfortable nursing in public the longer I have nursed. I know how to do it discreetly (yet not hidden - you can still figure out what I am doing if you look and think about it), and I know I am doing what is right for my baby. I know that my baby has a right to be fed and comforted, regardless of who else might be in the general vicinity. All babies have this right!

So, if you are a nursing mom, feel confident about nursing your baby in front of others. It is not wrong, and in fact, it could help to change public perception about breastfeeding: that it is NORMAL! If you see another mom nursing in public, give her a little smile of encouragement, knowing that it might be taking her outside of her comfort zone to do this. If you feel uncomfortable when you see a nursing mother in public, just look away and remind yourself that she is only providing for her baby in the way God designed, and one day, maybe more mothers will nurse in public and help you to see it as being normal! It can be hard to change mindsets that have been ingrained all our lives, but I think that more public nursing would be a great step towards the normalization of breastfeeding.

***

Art by Erika Hastings at http://mudspice.wordpress.com/

Welcome to the Carnival of Nursing in Public

Please join us all week, July 5-9, as we celebrate and support breastfeeding mothers. And visit NursingFreedom.org any time to connect with other breastfeeding supporters, learn more about your legal right to nurse in public, and read (and contribute!) articles about breastfeeding and N.I.P.

Do you support breastfeeding in public? Grab this badge for your blog or website to show your support and encourage others to educate themselves about the benefits of breastfeeding and the rights of breastfeeding mothers and children.

This post is just one of many being featured as part of the Carnival of Nursing in Public. Please visit our other writers each day of the Carnival. Click on the links below to see each day’s posts - new articles will be posted on the following days:
July 5 - Making Breastfeeding the Norm: Creating a Culture of Breastfeeding in a Hyper-Sexualized World
July 6 – Supporting Breastfeeding Mothers: the New, the Experienced, and the Mothers of More Than One Nursing Child
July 7 – Creating a Supportive Network: Your Stories and Celebrations of N.I.P.
July 8 – Breastfeeding: International and Religious Perspectives
July 9 – Your Legal Right to Nurse in Public, and How to Respond to Anyone Who Questions It

Saturday, May 01, 2010

What is Biologically Normal?

Why does our culture try to cache what was meant to be carried? This article on the "species-normal experience" for babies discusses what is biologically normal for an infant. It is a bit lengthy, but I would highly recommend reading it if you have a baby or may have a baby one day. It discusses what human infants expect, biologically... and that's not to be left in a room alone for 12 hours a day and fed artificial baby milk! ;)

What do I mean by "cache" and "carry?" Well, looking at animals (humans being animals as well), there are "cache" animals, which hide their babies somewhere and go off for hours at a time to hunt or graze or whatnot. Deer would be an example. The milk of these mammals is high in fat and protein and is designed so that the babies will stay fuller longer and thus stay safely hidden while their mothers go out for extended periods. The "carry" species are those animals whose young are carried all the time - the mothers do not leave their babies at all, and their milk is of a lower fat and protein content. Human beings are among this group. Our babies cannot follow behind us as do fawns. They are helpless when it comes to being able to move about freely. Our milk is digested rapidly so that our babies will require frequent feedings.

I am not going to rehash the whole article, but just get the thoughts moving here... Many might say that, sure, biology dictates that human babies stay with their mothers, but now we have technology that allows us to change this: bottles, formula, breast pumps, sleep training books and cribs, baby monitors, pacifiers... in other words, mother substitutes, or tools for otherwise distancing mothers from their babies.

But can an increase in technology actually change basic biological norms? Do human infants understand that technology has made for these allowances? Can technology really change the expected biological experience, the norm, the standard, for a baby? Do human babies somehow know that, "Yes, if I was left alone from my mother for a half hour 5,000 years ago, then a wolf might eat me, but now that it is the year 2010 and we have technology, I am safe here in this crib in my own room... so I don't need to cry." Human babies were designed to be with their mothers because they are totally helpless and defenseless - they cannot run away from wolves! Just because the wolves are no longer a threat in our culture, does this mean that the hard-wiring in the infant's brain has changed? That he will feel less of an urgent need to be with his mother?

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Assorted Parenting Stuff

So, did anyone hear the story about the woman in Old Country Buffet restaurant in MN being asked to stop nursing her six month old baby there? Crazy that this is still happening. The state of MN even has a breastfeeding protection law, stating that mothers can nurse in both private and public places, and that it should never be considered "indecent exposure." Apparently the police don't know the laws in their own state, because they were called and agreed with the restaurant staff. They also claim that the baby's father become loud and aggressive or something... unclear whether or not that is true, but had the restaurant staff not been confrontational in threatening this family that they'd have to leave if they didn't stop nursing, then there would not have been an issue to begin with.

If other patrons are complaining about a mother breastfeeding at another table in the restaurant, then management needs to know how to deal with this. They need to offer to move the offended party to a different seat and say that the mother and baby are within their legal rights. Mentioning that it is a family-friendly restaurant and that babies are part of many families could be helpful, and that babies who aren't fed when hungry end up much more disruptive to the dining atmosphere!

I know why this keeps happening across the US: ignorance. people who have never breastfed, or at least not for long, just have no idea what it entails and how it works. Every time one of these situations is made public, there are ignorant comments such as, "She should stay home until the baby can eat solid foods," "She should just pump and bring a bottle," and, "Just because the baby has a right to eat doesn't mean it trumps my rights." People apparently think they have the right to not have to be around things they see as offensive. If that were the case, we'd be kicking people out of stores and restaurants left and right: "Excuse me, your tight-fitting clothes over your overweight body offend me, so please put on larger clothes that fit you or leave." "You talking on your cell phone while I eat is offensive, so please take it to your car or leave." "Your tube top and short shorts are offensive to my eyes, so leave." Ha.

Some people think that restaurants have the right to kick out anyone they want, regardless of the law, because they are a private company and have the right to refuse to serve people who might be offending others in the restaurant. So, to people who think that, I want to know: are you saying that if patrons find the eating habits to be disgusting if a physically handicapped person cannot put his food into his mouth and chew it neatly and with typical "good manners," then they should be able to kick him out? Or ask him to cover himself or go eat in the bathroom because other patrons don't like seeing food falling out of his mouth and him chewing with his mouth open? You say moms should bring a bottle for use in public, so would you say this man's family should give him a feeding tube when they go out with him in public? Or they should just stay home until he can eat "normally?"

The breastfeeding laws often say that a mother can nurse her baby wherever she and her baby have a right to be. Old Country Buffet allows babies in their restaurants, so they are allowing breastfeeding there as well. I'm sure there are high-price restaurants out there that don't allow any children - and so they don't have to allow breastfeeding there either. People can eat there if they don't want to be around babies who might do normal baby things!

Speaking of all this, did you know there is a movement of people out there who hate children so much that they choose to be "child free" and actually have websites encouraging this, calling themselves "brat free." Do these people not realize that they were children once, and that the only way to continue the human race is to have more children? It is almost laughable, except that it is just evidence of the Culture of Death.

The latest news regarding the Culture of Death is just sick... a couple wanted one of their twins aborted because he appeared to have Down Syndrome. The doctor killed the other twin mistakenly. Then the parents went back to him so he could kill the "correct" twin. And then they sued him, of course. Sick, sick, sick! This article on catholic.org does a good job of explaining why people feel like they have the right to do this... they think they can have complete control over reproduction.

And one last parenting topic I came across recently: Changing Minds about Infant Circumcision. It is a collection of comments from people about how they came to realize that it was wrong to choose to have their babies circumcised. Interesting range of comments, from nurses who had to assist in hospital circumcisions to parents who had their first son circumcised to people who didn't care one way or another until they watched a video of one being done...

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

A New "Trend" in Breastfeeding

In the breastfeeding community, a certain article from Time has been making the rounds (online) recently: Mothers Who Opt for Breast Milk, not Breast-Feeding. It discusses how there is a growing trend in mothers who choose not to feed their babies at the breast and to instead pump their milk full-time (often called "exclusively pumping") to be given to their babies using bottles.

I have known mothers who had to pump full-time - not chose to - because of medical problems with their babies. The babies physically could not latch on to the breast, so thank goodness that the option of pumping all their milk was available and that the mothers were able to maintain a full supply by pumping (some mothers have difficulty maintaining a full supply using a pump alone). These babies were still able to receive the nutritional and immunological benefits of breastmilk overall, and this is of special importance to children who have medical problems.

I have also counselled several women who, for whatever reason, have ended up pumping exclusively and want to get the baby back to exclusively nursing at the breast. Unfortunately, these mothers who wanted to nurse their babies faced obstacles in the early weeks, such as hospital staff who insisted that the babies had to have bottles due to illnesses or prematurity (babies can develop a preference for the faster flow from a bottle nipple and should be fed expressed milk in other ways if the mother desires nursing once the baby is able to do it). Some of them had problems getting the baby to latch on (for a variety of different reasons) and pumped in order to maintain a supply and feed the expressed milk to the baby. Some had severely cracked and bleeding nipples and turned to the pump or were encouraged to do so by family and friends who wanted to help - yes, a quick fix, but understandable that relatives and friends would want to try to remedy the issue and fast. Husbands particularly can have a great desire to solve the problem as quick as they can because they so hate to see their wives and babies struggling. Some moms just had an emotional time getting started, and they were convinced by well-meaning people that they should "just pump," because then they wouldn't be "tied down" to the baby and could "get back to normal" faster (uh, life never goes "back to normal" after having that first baby! ;). There are so many reasons why moms who intended to nurse end up pumping exclusively... and then, when they want to get the baby back to the breast, the baby has forgotten how to nurse and sometimes even cries and rejects the breast, which makes an already hormonal new mother doubt herself. It is such a shame! That sounds kind of cliche, but it really is tragic to see. It is really unfortunate to see that it could have been prevented, and how much work it can take to get the baby back to the breast and to wean from the pump and bottles. Some of these mothers I have worked with are devastated that their baby won't nurse at the breast, but they are also very strong and courageous, as many of them present a positive attitude and continue to try offering the breast in a relaxed, no-pressure kind of way, so as not to get stressed out over it, yet hoping and praying that one day, the baby will nurse at the breast. Some of these mothers, when initially contacting me for help, seem almost apologetic and say things such as, "This might sound weird, but I just have this overwhelming desire to nurse my baby!" It only "sounds weird" because of the cultural views on breastfeeding. But it is not weird at all - that's a mother's biology crying out!

There are also some mothers who decide from the beginning not to nurse, not just because "it's weird" or "it's not for me" or "I just don't want to be the sole baby-feeder," but because of past sexual abuse. Some mothers have a really hard time coping with the idea of something intimate like that occurring due to the terrible things that happened to them in the past. I can't fathom how awful that would be, to have such bad feelings due to somebody violating them in that way. And for the ones who can still manage to pump even though nursing at the breast is too emotionally unsettling to them, then hooray for them! I can only hope and pray that these mothers are able to resolve the pain from the past and heal through therapy and whatever else it might take, and maybe even one day be able to nurse a future baby one day.

So, this apparent "trend" in mothers choosing to pump from the get-go, or after trying nursing for a week and then deciding "it's not for me" leaves me with many concerns. On the one hand, I am very glad that breast pumps have become so much better than they were in years past. If a mother or baby cannot nurse, then thank heavens for the pump, which can be quicker and more comfortable for many women than manual hand-expression. For mothers who chose to go the exclusive pumping route, thank heavens that their babies can still receive breastmilk. In years past, if a mother didn't want to nurse, then her baby had to receive formula, and in the days before that, a wet-nurse, although I would guess that far fewer women decided to just not nurse then because access to a wet-nurse was limited to the wealthiest people. So, it was nurse the baby or he starves. So thank heavens we don't have starving babies, and of course the expressed breastmilk is far healthier for babies than infant formula. If mothers are going to not nurse their babies just because "it's not for them," then I am glad that some of them are still willing to provide the normal nutrition for their children. I do wonder though, if this were not such a readily accessible option, would less mothers choose it? Kind of a "which came first" question.

I also want to say that exclusive pumping is a huge commitment - one that most mothers don't plan to make ahead of time because of the immense amount of work involved. Not only does one have to pump every 2-3 hours in the early months and thereafter every 2-5 hours for many mothers, depending on mother and baby, but she also must clean the pump parts after each nursing, she must maintain the pump and make sure it stays in good working order, she must pack it up and take it with her any time she stays away from home more than a few hours, she must clean bottles and nipples... oh, and she still has to feed the baby a bottle! Add to that the fact that she is unable to pacify the baby at the breast, and she may well spend the rest of her time trying to comfort her baby, as one cannot pacify a baby with a bottle for any longer than it takes him to drink the milk it contains! So, like I said, a huge commitment. All moms who have ever done it for any length of time should pat themselves on the back for not resorting to using formula instead. It is hard! Of course, lots of things in parenting can be hard, nursing at the breast included, although that usually improves after the first few months. Pumping doesn't really get better/different other than eventually being able to go longer stretches in between each pumping session.

So why would mothers choose, either before the baby is even born or after just a very brief time of nursing with only minor problems (or no problems at all), to pump exclusively? The reasons are ones I want to explore here. A few that come to mind are:
  • fear of nursing being "sexual"
  • fear of nursing in public (goes along with the first one in many ways!)
  • thinking nursing is "gross" (also related to the first one!)
  • pressure from other family members to be "equal" with the mom in baby care
  • fear of "being tied down" to the baby/wanting the baby to become "independent" (as the women in the article called it, "a lifestyle choice")
  • having pumped exclusively for the first baby and thinking "well, this is all I know" or wanting to be "fair" to both children
  • the concern that breastfeeding will be too much of a hassle or will be too difficult
I am sure there are more, but these are reasons I have observed and heard.

Before digging deeper into these reasons, I want to address the question: whose fault is this? Not because we need to place blame somewhere, but because it is not necessarily the mother's fault. I doubt there are many women out there who want to go through the trouble of pumping milk for their babies who also don't care about the well-being of their children. It wouldn't make sense! Clearly, most of them must have good intentions. So why do they choose this route? We have to look at their influences. I come back again to society/culture. Oh, how I love to blame everything on the media, pop culture, etc. ;) - because while they don't force people to make certain choices, they do shape and influence us in our decisions. So, things that may influence a mother to choose to pump exclusively from the get-go:
  • cultural/societal expectations about both women and babies
  • cultural/societal beliefs about breasts and sexuality
  • marketing
  • the "me" mentality of individuality so prevalent in our culture
  • the technology boom of the past two decades and the corresponding decrease in the virtue of patience
  • feelings of relatives and friends about nursing
  • advice from "experts" such as doctors
  • misinformation regarding nursing and/or pumping
So, let's break down these reasons and influences...

Mothers choosing to exclusively pump because of a concern of it being seen as sexual or as an inappropriate thing to do with breasts in front of other people:

Some people - many people, actually, in our culture - view breasts as sexual. They are to be covered up because they are a "private" part, and therefore feeding a baby with them is also something to be done only in private. The irony of this is that more cleavage is seen in skimpy tops worn by teenagers, on commercials, and in magazine ads. The message is being sent that it is okay to see parts of the breast as long as it is done in a "sexy" way, or a way that makes money. So how is it then something "private" when breasts are being used to fulfill their primary biological function? Shouldn't using breasts for sex be the thing that is done in private?

Cultural/societal expectations and beliefs: If our culture has an expectation for breasts to be sexual, then many people are going to see them this way regardless of how they are being used at the time. If our culture expects women to use their breasts for sexual purposes primarily, then people may get uncomfortable when seeing a baby attached to those breasts instead. When cultural views of babies are that they should be made to be independent, that they should have bottles, that they shouldn't have to be with their mothers (the cultural view that women should work outside the home to be of value and/or to be "fulfilled" comes into play here)... then these things influence people to see breastfeeding as unnecessary or even as a "bad habit" in need of breaking.

Marketing: Well, breasts are certainly used sexually in marketing... beer commercials, right? The other day, I noticed an image printed on the truck of a rent-to-own store, and the woman pictured (who was presenting the two glamorous options of a big screen TV or whatever else it was they were trying to sell) was wearing a tight-fitting top with lots of cleavage visible. It is used in all kinds of advertising! Then there's the marketing of women's clothing itself, and how stores display their revealing clothes as being sexy and fashionable.

But then the marketing of breastfeeding itself... let's think about that a moment. Some of the very things that are marketed for breastfeeding mothers continues to perpetuate the idea that breasts are mostly for sexual purposes and are therefore best kept out of sight: the Hooter Hider, for instance. The product itself is not a bad thing, because some moms desire this level of modesty particularly when they are still learning in the first few months, but it is the name that is a problem. Although the cover is for nursing, it refers to the breasts as "hooters," which clearly has a sexual connotation. The inventor of the Hooter Hider probably just thought it was a cute, catchy name without considering the message it might send. I have also heard about one called the "Udder Cover." Not a good choice of words there, either!

Nursing covers in and of themselves can probably be traced back to the cultural issues we have about breasts, too. Mothers would not even feel like they had to go to that much modesty if nursing were seen as just a natural and essential part of life. I have said lots more on the issue of nursing in public, go here to read it.

The "me" mentality: As it relates to sexuality, some women have a desire to make themselves as attractive as possible, at all costs - and that would be "attractive" in the way that society defines it in women, which really just means "sexy." As one person wisely said, "It takes nine months to grow a baby, it's going to take nine months to get your body somewhat back to normal." And bodies never go back to exactly the way they were once a woman has been pregnant. A big myth about breastfeeding is that it will make your breasts sag. Actually, the changes that happen to the breasts during pregnancy contribute to that regardless of whether a mother nurses, pumps, or neither. Aging also contributes to sagging breasts. So if a mother (who may have pressure put on her by her husband, or it may just be her own perception) feels like her breasts must be a certain way so they'll remain "sexy," then she might choose not to breastfeed at all if she hears this piece of misinformation.

Mothers who feel like they have to maintain a perfect body image may plunge themselves into such a rigorous exercise routine that they don't feel like they have time to nurse the baby. Perhaps they have time to express milk with a pump every three or four hours, but to nurse on-demand would not allow them the same flexibility with regard to working out intensely. Now, I have never heard of a mother exclusively pumping for this reason - maybe pumping part-time - but there can be many smaller choices that lead up to making the bigger choice of exclusive pumping, and this could certainly contribute.

Feelings of relatives and friends about nursing: This is a big one when it comes to breastfeeding being seen as sexual and how that affects mothers' decisions on nursing at the breast. Studies have shown that the main factor in a woman's decision to breastfeed is the support of the baby's father. Supportive family and friends are highly important as well, particularly the ones with whom a mother spends the most time. When relatives or friends see nursing as very uncomfortable to be around because of their subconscious (or completely conscious!) feelings of the breasts being sexual and therefore they shouldn't see a woman who is nursing, then they can make comments that are less than supportive and even extremely critical. When nursing mothers are made to feel as if they are doing something dirty, private, or sexual, then they often begin to feel uncomfortable when nursing around those whose attitudes lead to these feelings. So, many mothers end up trying to avoid nursing in front of others. They will go to another room for every nursing, pump for when out in public (or nurse in places like the bathroom or their cars), and even try to schedule nursings and hold off a hungry baby so that they can wait to nurse at home. Some mothers decide that the hassle of trying to avoid nursing in front of others is not worth it, and they turn to exclusive pumping - particularly if their husbands are uncomfortable seeing their wives nurse but agree that human milk is healthiest for their babies. Women who feel like they have to hide away for every nursing often feel isolated and lonely, which can lead to their desire to wean completely and to either pump exclusively or to formula-feed. I have known mothers who would never nurse in public, and by the time the baby was right at a year old, they were so relieved to be "done." They hated that they had to hide away to nurse. They were only nursing out of obligation because of what doctors told them about breastmilk being important for a child's development for at least the first year. What most people ignore is the "at least" part and think that must mean that babies are supposed to be weaned completely by their first birthday.

So, before I ramble too much, back to the mothers who are made to feel as if they must be confined to their homes in an isolated bedroom so as not to nurse in front of anyone... a mother's comment on the Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog spoke volumes on this:
"One thing that worries me about this trend [choosing to pump exclusively] is that it might become expected that all breastfeeding moms pump and bottlefeed for public situations. I've already been chastized by my family for not formula feeding in public-seems that people like my relatives would see pumping as a "good" solution..."
The woman in the Time article who chose to pump exclusively for her second and third children even before they were born said this:
"I just did not like it. I felt locked away. I was young and self-conscious, and everyone would leave the room when I breast-fed. I was lonely."



What a shame that the attitude of family and friends can cause people to feel so isolated when they are just trying to do what is normal for their children! People callously say, "Oh, just go somewhere private to nurse!" But if a mother feels that she must do that at least every two or three hours for a year, then how upsetting! Humans are social creatures - we thrive on contact with each other, as a general rule. Some mothers do not mind being isolated when nursing because they enjoy the private time with their babies, but they have chosen to go somewhere private in that case - it is a very different thing when they are made to feel like they must go into seclusion every time they nurse when other people are around.

Mothers choosing to exclusively pump because of pressure from other family members to be "equal" with the mom in baby care:

Cultural/societal expectations of both mothers and babies: Mothers are seen as replaceable in our culture. Anybody can care for a baby, we are told. Women are "equal" with men, which really is construed as meaning that women are the same as men, and if that is true, then shouldn't men have an equal chance to feed the baby? This mentality, that women and men are the same, ignores basic biology. It claims that women who nurse directly at the breast for all feedings are being selfish when all they are actually doing is following their biology, the way God made their bodies!

Many people in our culture also expect for all babies to take a bottle at some point. This is an especially popular view with older generations, who often ask, "Well, when is he going to get a bottle?" Almost as if it is a developmental milestone which must be achieved and recorded in the baby book.! People sometimes think it is practically their right to be able to feed your baby a bottle.

Marketing: Bottles are everywhere. This leads to others within the family seeing them and potentially thinking, "Well, why can't I feed our baby a bottle?" When something is available so readily in all stores, and well over 99% of babies seen on TV shows or in commercials are bottle-feeding rather than nursing at the breast, then it slowly becomes ingrained in people's minds that this is what is done, and feeding the baby can be "fair" among everyone. Biology isn't always fair - males and females are designed differently! Unfortunately, people want to try to convince us otherwise nowadays in many cultural trends.

Breast pumps are also marketed as being practically essential for all nursing mothers. Family and friends may well want to buy pumps and bottles as baby shower gifts, thinking they are needed because "Dad has to feed the baby, too."

The "me" mentality of individuality so prevalent in our culture: It is supposed to be about what is best for the baby, not what other people want to make themselves feel good. Yes, it feels nice to feed another person's baby a bottle, because it is a loving act (I know - I have given bottles to babies while working in day care centers and while babysitting as a teenager). But making Grandma feel good is not a good reason to have her give the baby a bottle. She can do so many other things that are good for the baby: change him, hold him, play with him when he is older, help out around the house so that mom and baby can rest in those early months...

Misinformation regarding nursing: Some parenting books perpetuate the idea that dads can't bond with the baby unless they are able to feed bottles to their babies. While this may well help their bond, at what expense? Babies were designed biologically to form a primary attachment, and biology dictates that that be with the mother. Thankfully, babies are also designed to be able to adapt to other situations in case of maternal death, but in the ideal situation, the baby will bond first with his mother, the one inside of whom he has been growing and developing for many months. He can then form more meaningful bonds with others as he grows. Mother-baby separation stresses young babies, and it has a biological effect on mothers as well. So, many people will criticize that a nursing baby is "too attached" to his mother and won't accept comfort as readily from any other family members or friends. What is not recognized is that this is biologically normal.

Mothers who choose to pump due to fear of "being tied down" to the baby/wanting the baby to become "independent":

Cultural/societal expectations about both women and babies: Women may distance themselves emotionally from their babies, either willingly or subconsciously, in large part because of our culture's expectations about them and their babies. We are taught from an early age in the US that independence is one of the most desirable traits. We are told through parenting books, magazines, friends, family, and doctors that children should be taught to be independent as soon as possible, and that we must train them to become this way. Nursing a baby at the breast is not seen as aiding to this push for early independence. Many people seem to think that nursing a baby on-demand or nursing for comfort, particularly once the baby is past a few months of age, is "spoiling" the child and making him a "Mama's boy" who will never grow up, never be independent, and will have to have his mommy go off with him to college. Studies on attachment of children to their caregivers don't back up these myths - in fact, the evidence suggests that children who develop a close, trusting attachment in the early years will become more independent - in their own time.

So, mothers who are persuaded to ignore their instincts of nurturing their babies and instead to distance themselves from their babies - not picking them up when they cry, for instance - may very well see nursing as too close of a relationship and that if the baby gets pumped breastmilk, then he can still get those benefits while not becoming "too attached" to the mother and thus "spoiled."

Our culture also views mothers in a certain way - that is, expecting them to return to work soon after the baby's birth, as being strong and independent rather than admitting that biologically, they also need their babies! Mothers who nurse their babies for comfort or on-demand after a certain age are often seen as "hovering" or "smothering" to their children. While it is true that a mother can be smothering of her children as they are growing in independence, this does not happen in the first few years! This happens in situations where the child is really becoming independent after he is past the baby and younger toddler stage, but babies do actually need their mothers! Very young children still need their mothers, and breastfeeding is a natural way to meet their needs. Very rarely does a mother nurse her toddler or older child to meet her own needs of feeling important... as many will say, you cannot force a child to nurse!

So, if mothers are viewed as dispensable and needing to get back to their "real lives" after childbirth, and children are viewed as needing to be taught to soothe themselves and become independent as babies, then is it any wonder that some women may see the pump as a perfect tool for encouraging independence and fulfilling these beliefs about mothers and children that are held by our society?

The "me" mentality of individuality so prevalent in our culture: As mentioned before, we are taught along with independence being so important that having our own personal lives separate from our babies is of utmost importance. This is a bit different from having some time to yourself sometimes to take a relaxing bath or something, but it is more of an attitude that everyone has to have their personal "me time." We hear it in advertising a lot - pamper yourself. Treat yourself to some "me time," because you deserve it! Of course, mothers need to take care of themselves, and sometimes a walk alone or an hour to work on a project without children around can be very refreshing. But when we take it to the extreme - that we are deserving of our private time and how dare these little children's needs interfere, then something has gone wrong. As adults, we are supposed to be self-sacrificial because we can understand delaying our own desires in order to meet the needs of very young children. This is not spoiling them... buying them a toy every time they cry in a store is spoiling them! But making an effort to give closeness to your young child meets their need for security, whereas choosing to pump so you don't have to feel so "touched out" by your baby is purposefully distancing yourself from the baby who biologically expects to be up close to his mother much of the time.

Why do people in our culture feel this almost need for alone time, for not being touched much, for feeling like we'll go nuts if our baby is "too clingy?" It is apparently in our culture and the way we are brought up... other cultures are far more touchy than we are here. Americans seem to shy away from touch, and that is a shame since touch is so important to us thriving emotionally, particularly in the early years: touch helps to actually form connections in the brains of babies!

The technology boom of the past two decades and the corresponding decrease in the virtue of patience: This goes right along with mothers (consciously or subconsciously) not wanting to feel "tied down" to their babies. The technology of having a powerful breast pump allows them the "freedom" to be away from the baby longer.

Has anyone else noticed how the Internet, cell phones, etc. have led to decreased patience in younger people lately? We are becoming a society that expects to have things instantly at our fingertips. Having what we want when we want it can contribute to that "me" mentality, and it can also contribute to a lack of patience towards our children. Babies are so helpless and require lots of time, and that can be hard for us to accept when we are used to not having to be patient. Pumps are relatively quick, and they are often over-suggested by medical professionals as a "quick fix" to breastfeeding problems in the early days, or for moms who feel "burned out," because they are readily available and are mechanical - and we are used to dealing with mechanical things in our culture, while emotional and personal relationships (such as nursing) are much more complex to deal with. So pumps are prescribed as an easy solution and as a way for mothers to "get a break." But if mothers get to where they are intentionally pumping more and more in order to get away from the baby, it can easily lead to exclusive pumping - or to a decrease in milk supply and then weaning.

Feelings of relatives and friends about nursing: I have heard accounts on more than a few occasions where family or friends pressure a new mom to get back to the things they used to do without the baby, whether that be going out with them for adult-only time, or staying out late partying, or being able to just go anywhere at the drop of a hat (which we know is harder with children!). One mom told me that her relatives were repeatedly disappointed when she would turn them down on invitations and how they thought she was "no fun" anymore. If this happens, then a mother may feel pressured to bottle-feed so she can free herself up to make time for these other people. While it is important to spend time with people who mean a lot to us, friends and relatives shouldn't pressure new mothers to put their needs ahead of the baby's needs. This seems to happen particularly with friends who have not yet had children or whose children were young a long time ago and they have forgotten what it was like.

Mothers who choose to exclusively pump because of having pumped exclusively for the first baby:

This doesn't seem to be influenced by anything specifically, but I have heard it said before. And I have heard a lot of moms who ended up exclusively pumping the first time and saying, "Are you nuts?? That was hard work, and I'm going to do all I can to avoid getting onto that path again!" Many mothers who have pumped exclusively for one baby find that nursing future babies is easier and rewarding, and that that doesn't have to negate the experience they had with pumping for the first child. They are confident that they did the best they could at the time given their circumstances and what struggles they may have encountered that led to pumping exclusively, but they can do it differently for subsequent children now that they have more information or a different set of circumstances or more support. It is not in any way an insult to the first baby to nurse the next one at the breast, no more than it would be an insult to the first child if he was circumcised to then circumcise his brothers just so they'd all be the same and it would be "fair." If your first baby was hospitalized with pneumonia at a few days old, you wouldn't insist on leaving future babies in the NICU for a few days to be fair - that would be ridiculous, right? Life isn't always exactly the same for each child, and when we know differently, we do differently, and when we have different circumstances, we make different decisions.

All that being said, there are many reasons a mother may choose to go with the "status quo" for subsequent babies, and her decision may be based on a combination of many of the other factors already discussed, or simply on fear of the unknown and therefore just doing what she already knows how to do.

Mothers choosing to exclusively pump out of concern that breastfeeding will be too much of a hassle or will be too difficult:


Cultural/societal expectations about both women and babies: While our culture often thinks of breastfeeding as something to be done behind closed doors, it also views breastfeeding as "natural" and thus as coming naturally and being easy to do. Many mothers are surprised that breastfeeding doesn't just happen naturally for them in our society, and it is because of this paradox that we have this issue. If mothers are to be hidden away when nursing, then how will any of us learn how to do it without being exposed to it as being a natural, normal part of life on a frequent basis? Then new mothers hear the horror stories from friends and in magazines, and they become fearful of nursing - what if it doesn't come naturally for me? Should I even bother? Or if it starts out being difficult, the fear can set in and women may turn to the pump because it is easier and less of a hassle - at least it may appear that way at first when compared to overcoming initial difficulties with nursing.

Marketing: Expectant mothers are often influenced by marketing, which leads them to believe that breast pumps, bottles, and milk storage bags are essentials when it comes to breastfeeding. There is an excellent piece on the Blacktating blog that discusses this and is well worth the read. Please do read it; I promise it is shorter than my blog posts! ;) She asks,
"But are moms also being influenced by this message, that pumping provides the benefits of breastfeeding without having to deal with any of the stuff that might be uncomfortable or weird at first?"
Excellent point... and the comments there are also thought-provoking.

The technology boom of the past two decades and the corresponding decrease in the virtue of patience: When people become less patient, then hassles are to be avoided entirely rather than worked through until they are solved. If mothers begin to view breastfeeding as a hassle, then they may choose the pump because it is mechanical and therefore, there are less variables to contend with in making it work correctly. We are quick to rely on machines lately - how many people are lost without their computers? I sometimes am! ;) But this is a reliance on a machine that is replacing a natural act, and, like nearly all technology, it is designed to make people's lives easier - less hassle. But is it really less of a hassle in the long run to pump full-time, and even if that answer is yes, then is it worth it? Is it worth willingly sacrificing the natural act of nursing at the breast, which imparts so many benefits on mothers and babies?

Advice from "experts" such as doctors: I touched on this before... doctors typically don't know how to solve breastfeeding concerns, because most were not given much training at all on breastfeeding. So, it would be more of a hassle for them to try to help mothers remedy the actual problems if they can just say, "Switch to pumping." When things get tough, doctors should be encouraging while giving actual evidence-based help to mothers who are nursing, and if they cannot help, they should refer them to licensed lactation consultants or to La Leche League or both!

Misinformation regarding nursing and/or pumping: Again, the advice given to mothers that pumping is "easier" if they are having a difficult time... it may prove to be true in the beginning, but when a mother is still taking a half hour every time she pumps, feeds, and cleans the pump parts when the baby is nine months old, then it is not easier.


Sooooo....

Certainly pumping full-time is a necessity for some mothers and babies. The trend of choosing it willingly certainly says something about our society. The problems with hospital interventions and such in the early weeks that lead to moms ending up pumping exclusively when they were hoping to nurse are unfortunate and yet preventable in many instances. Hospitals need to stop giving formula as a band-aid fix for babies who aren't gaining enough , aren't nursing well, or are jaundiced. They need to be using science and common sense to back up what they do for nursing mothers and babies: not separating them except for grave reasons (as long as a baby is stable, separation is not generally necessary), encouraging skin-to-skin contact, avoiding artificial nipples rather than insisting that sick and premature babies must drink from a bottle before nursing at the breast, using alternative supplemental devices instead of bottles with the mother's own milk as the first choice for a supplement, making sure nursing is well-established before sending mothers home from the hospital, and having lactation consultants available. Society as a whole could be more supportive of mothers when they are having trouble instead of thrusting a pump and bottles upon them, or bottles and formula.

For moms who really are unable to nurse at the breast yet they can produce milk - the baby has a physical problem and cannot latch, or the baby will not latch because of a difficult start - how disheartening to see people choosing not to do something that is available to them, something that these mothers would give anything to be able to do! It probably adds insult to injury when they hear of people choosing to pump full-time even though they don't have to. How discouraging! How they must question, "Why? Why were they given the chance and I was not, when they don't even want to use their opportunity to nurse?"

Finally, how did we get this way? How can we get back to the basics, to mothers trusting their own biology rather than trying to escape from it? How can we turn back to a time when society accepted nursing, when it was commonly seen and thus handed down from one generation to another, where interventions didn't set mothers up for failure, where mothers don't feel ashamed to nurse their babies around other people? Gosh, I don't know the answers here. I do know that the more women who nurse in public, the more "normalized" nursing will become, which can help to slowly shift the attitude away from nursing being something to be kept behind closed doors. The attitude about babies and their utter dependence need to change as well. I don't know how to get a culture who is intent on believing that babies are spoiled when they get physical closeness to change their misconception, especially with organizations out there who teach that it is Biblical to force a child into independence as an infant. [Of course that is not Biblical, and it is not how children in the Bible were raised!] And lastly, women need to be shown that this is normal, it is just what mothers do, and that there are people who will help them do it!

I don't think this trend is the fault of the individual women... not at all. It is a much larger issue within the culture. When a mother wants to nurse her baby and nobody in her family has nursed before, none of her friends have done it, her birth experience is difficult, she gets poor advice from hospital staff, she is confronted with the marketing of feeding gadgets and formula in her very own mailbox (thanks, Motherhood Maternity for selling our info to the formula companies!!!), when she either must go back to work financially or feels pressured to do so... she really has the cards stacked against her. Mothers want to give their babies the very best, and they know that breastmilk is the best source of nutrition, far above infant formulas. And so when they can't make it work, or don't want to make it work because of cultural norms that interfere with their biological maternal instincts, they turn to pumping exclusively. What can we do, other than help with accurate info and support, and to encourage them because we have known the bliss of a happy nursing relationship and want that for all mothers? I think it is going to take a lot of years to change ways of thinking. We can't just throw out the pumps - they are valuable tools when used for certain situations. We need to change ways of thinking at the societal level. We need to stop blaming mothers when they don't want to nurse and address the deeper issues of what it is that causes them to feel this way.

I am sure I have not covered all the reasons why a mother may choose to exclusively pump, but that is not to say that there are not more. I don't claim to know what everyone's reasons are for their decisions, but I have tried to summarize some that I have encountered in the reading and work I do as a breastfeeding counselor.

I want to end this with a quote I came across from Marian Tompson, one of the founders of La Leche League. I think it hits the nail on the head: "The world is better off when mothers are allowed to take care of their own children." She referred to pumps as a transitional tool until we as a culture come to our senses." from: http://www.llli.org/NB/NBNovDec99p206.html