weaning, breastfeeding, long but not wholly off topic
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/14/02 6:30:42 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< ... because some have decided it isn't natural to wean early and to
even set a specific year before which they claim it would be unnatural to
stop nursing. >>
The Bible gives a year, but I don't remember if it's two or three (I think
two), before which children shouldn't be weaned. So it's not just a recent
LLL idea. And the same as with the idea that if we LET kids learn to read on
their own schedule, there still is a schedule (as it were), one thing many
LLL members try to do is to see when the child will quit on his or her own
without the mother withholding or distracting to induce weaning.
Weaning is more common in this culture than nursing is. You can ask
grandmothers about weaning methods (some of them cruel--putting bad-tasting
stuff on the breast, scaring the babies, shaming them), but few of them have
a clue as to supporting and extending breastfeeding.
-=- I think the best we can do is to become
more aware of why we are choosing to do certain things so we can throw off
our own cultural baggage rather than taking on the baggage of others because
we assume they're more natural.-=-
This culture prides itself on being unnatural. I thought (hoped) I was one
of the last to have been taught in school (public and university classes
both) that humans had no remaining instincts--that they had all been
extinguished, and we had no way to learn except from what was passed down in
writing, and that's why it was so important that people study writings from
the past and continue research and writing.
It sounds stupid. It IS stupid. A friend of mine fifteen years younger was
taught that too, in college.
-=-If she was hurt I hugged her just because it wouldn't
have occured to me to make a connection between pain and food.-=-
Breastmilk isn't just food to babies. It's sedative. And a screaming baby
can be comforted, and a wounded baby can be, and a fidgety, tired baby can be
sedated to sleep with enough nourishment to have a long nap.
In cultures in which breastfeeding babies is natural, that's so known that
it's not worth mentioning. Here, we have to read it out of a book (or learn
it from other moms, which is what LLL's all about).
Another note about our (depending on who "we" are) culture: In the U.S. we
call it "nursing," which is an old word and concept, but is not the name for
what mothers do for their babies. That word is breastfeeding, but in a
language that won't say breast or ass (certainly not at the dining table, and
this DOES have to do with eating), we cover words over with other words. We
can ask for someone to pass the white meat on chicken or turkey day, and we
can nurse a baby.
In England "nursing" is a different thing.
In English, historically, that's true too. If someone else was hired to
nurse your baby (to breastfeed them, but because they were not the mom, it
was a "wet nurse"--someone who could take care of the baby AND feed it), that
was nursing.
Rich people didn't nurse their own babies. They hired poorer women (but
never redheads) to do it. In the southern U.S., there are stories of
recently-delivered slaves nursing white babies even while their own babies
went hungry for hours, and on the unsanitary version of the bottle which
existed then.
There's a 16th or 17th century grave (I'd have to look for the reference) in
England with an epitaph stating that the woman had fed all her babies from
her own breast. Must've been unusual to make it worth carving in stone.
"Neither offer nor refuse" is one of the extended breastfeeding phrases
sometimes given from mom to mom if she's wanting to separate some without
weaning.
I know a mom who quit at ten months with both babies because they refused a
time or two. To say "take it every time or never have it again" is kind of
harsh, but we're conditioned to want them to stop as soon as they can (from
social pressure against nursing, I think), and so moms are relieved when it's
refused sometimes. And they say "that baby's done!"
-=-In a culture where infants are nursed when they cry regardless
of the cause, is it done because that's natural or because there is social
pressure to do so to quiet the infant because so many people are living so
close together? Or is it both?-=-
Are there causes for which a baby should be left to cry?
I would nurse my baby if he cried if we werethe only two people for miles,
because crying meant he was unhappy, uncomfortable, needy. He could refuse
to nurse if he wanted to, but he rarely did because it was liquid comfort.
Sandra
<< ... because some have decided it isn't natural to wean early and to
even set a specific year before which they claim it would be unnatural to
stop nursing. >>
The Bible gives a year, but I don't remember if it's two or three (I think
two), before which children shouldn't be weaned. So it's not just a recent
LLL idea. And the same as with the idea that if we LET kids learn to read on
their own schedule, there still is a schedule (as it were), one thing many
LLL members try to do is to see when the child will quit on his or her own
without the mother withholding or distracting to induce weaning.
Weaning is more common in this culture than nursing is. You can ask
grandmothers about weaning methods (some of them cruel--putting bad-tasting
stuff on the breast, scaring the babies, shaming them), but few of them have
a clue as to supporting and extending breastfeeding.
-=- I think the best we can do is to become
more aware of why we are choosing to do certain things so we can throw off
our own cultural baggage rather than taking on the baggage of others because
we assume they're more natural.-=-
This culture prides itself on being unnatural. I thought (hoped) I was one
of the last to have been taught in school (public and university classes
both) that humans had no remaining instincts--that they had all been
extinguished, and we had no way to learn except from what was passed down in
writing, and that's why it was so important that people study writings from
the past and continue research and writing.
It sounds stupid. It IS stupid. A friend of mine fifteen years younger was
taught that too, in college.
-=-If she was hurt I hugged her just because it wouldn't
have occured to me to make a connection between pain and food.-=-
Breastmilk isn't just food to babies. It's sedative. And a screaming baby
can be comforted, and a wounded baby can be, and a fidgety, tired baby can be
sedated to sleep with enough nourishment to have a long nap.
In cultures in which breastfeeding babies is natural, that's so known that
it's not worth mentioning. Here, we have to read it out of a book (or learn
it from other moms, which is what LLL's all about).
Another note about our (depending on who "we" are) culture: In the U.S. we
call it "nursing," which is an old word and concept, but is not the name for
what mothers do for their babies. That word is breastfeeding, but in a
language that won't say breast or ass (certainly not at the dining table, and
this DOES have to do with eating), we cover words over with other words. We
can ask for someone to pass the white meat on chicken or turkey day, and we
can nurse a baby.
In England "nursing" is a different thing.
In English, historically, that's true too. If someone else was hired to
nurse your baby (to breastfeed them, but because they were not the mom, it
was a "wet nurse"--someone who could take care of the baby AND feed it), that
was nursing.
Rich people didn't nurse their own babies. They hired poorer women (but
never redheads) to do it. In the southern U.S., there are stories of
recently-delivered slaves nursing white babies even while their own babies
went hungry for hours, and on the unsanitary version of the bottle which
existed then.
There's a 16th or 17th century grave (I'd have to look for the reference) in
England with an epitaph stating that the woman had fed all her babies from
her own breast. Must've been unusual to make it worth carving in stone.
"Neither offer nor refuse" is one of the extended breastfeeding phrases
sometimes given from mom to mom if she's wanting to separate some without
weaning.
I know a mom who quit at ten months with both babies because they refused a
time or two. To say "take it every time or never have it again" is kind of
harsh, but we're conditioned to want them to stop as soon as they can (from
social pressure against nursing, I think), and so moms are relieved when it's
refused sometimes. And they say "that baby's done!"
-=-In a culture where infants are nursed when they cry regardless
of the cause, is it done because that's natural or because there is social
pressure to do so to quiet the infant because so many people are living so
close together? Or is it both?-=-
Are there causes for which a baby should be left to cry?
I would nurse my baby if he cried if we werethe only two people for miles,
because crying meant he was unhappy, uncomfortable, needy. He could refuse
to nurse if he wanted to, but he rarely did because it was liquid comfort.
Sandra
Jorgen & Ann
<<Breastmilk isn't just food to babies. It's sedative>>
Yes, and breastmilk is even more than that. Breastmilk's composition changes as the baby/child ages, as the brain goes through different stages of development, if there is exposure to illness. There's lots of research you can check out through LLL about specific health/developmental benefits of nursing at different stages.
Ann
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yes, and breastmilk is even more than that. Breastmilk's composition changes as the baby/child ages, as the brain goes through different stages of development, if there is exposure to illness. There's lots of research you can check out through LLL about specific health/developmental benefits of nursing at different stages.
Ann
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The Mowery Family
The body can do some wonderful things. Dana would not nurse from me until
she was 4 months old. I pumped and bottled the liquid gold. The thing that
fascinated me the most was how my body produced what she needed no matter
what. If she was going through a growth spurt, I made more milk. I had no
clue what she needed, my body did. I went from producing teaspoons to 37
ounces(over the course of a day in two pumping sessions) then she finally
"got it" and latched on. Then I only pumped once a day while at work (had
to work, was the insurance carrier, hubby worked midnights and I worked
days). We happily breastfed until she was 22 months old and I dried up - my
dad died and I had what I now know was a breakdown.
The body is a magical thing.
sistakammi
of development, if there is exposure to illness. There's lots of research
you can check out through LLL about specific health/developmental benefits
of nursing at different stages.
she was 4 months old. I pumped and bottled the liquid gold. The thing that
fascinated me the most was how my body produced what she needed no matter
what. If she was going through a growth spurt, I made more milk. I had no
clue what she needed, my body did. I went from producing teaspoons to 37
ounces(over the course of a day in two pumping sessions) then she finally
"got it" and latched on. Then I only pumped once a day while at work (had
to work, was the insurance carrier, hubby worked midnights and I worked
days). We happily breastfed until she was 22 months old and I dried up - my
dad died and I had what I now know was a breakdown.
The body is a magical thing.
sistakammi
> Yes, and breastmilk is even more than that. Breastmilk's compositionchanges as the baby/child ages, as the brain goes through different stages
of development, if there is exposure to illness. There's lots of research
you can check out through LLL about specific health/developmental benefits
of nursing at different stages.
>
> Ann