I also think that in affluent societies, child-rearing has become too much performanced-oriented.
The other day, I saw the most beautiful wild flower that has pushed through concrete cracks and hard, hard soil and dirt. She was blossoming and giving her beauty to the world. It was a true lesson in humility about the resiliency of nature - life always manages to live and blossom, even under the most unfavorable circumstances.
How many mothers would willingly give up breast-feeding if "given the choice", economically and socially speaking? Is it not enough that they have to struggle through childbearing, juggling between a full-time job and child-rearing, in a society where the valorisation of mothering is mere lip service? Do mothers really have to be brought to the public square and justify why they don't bread-feed? For some reason, we always concentrate on what mothers do WRONG, which is basically anything less than perfect. Are there really that many evil mothers?
My mother did not breadfeed me. I know her reasons, but she does not have to justify it to anyone. She was the most heroic mother I've ever known.
Breast Feeding
-
Chin-Chin
- Posts: 269
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Thu 20 Apr 2006 20:51
- Location: France
I think the natural drive for women is to have children, but is the fulfillment of that drive more important than being able to raise the child under the best possible circumstances?
I agree that this society is money- and career-driven, far from ideal, and offering far from ideal child-raising circumstances. But it becomes more and more acceptable that career comes first, and the child second. Nowadays it's very normal for both partners to have a (more than) full-time job/career, and sort of have kids in-between. How can you raise a kid properly when you know there's not going to be enough time?
There are a lot of other situations where the sensibility of having a child can be questioned.
To avoid misunderstandings: I'm talking about situations where there is a choice, and neither of the parents are forced in any way.
Somehow another option seems to be unnatural, alien, not-in-question, or outrageous: not having kids.
I agree that this society is money- and career-driven, far from ideal, and offering far from ideal child-raising circumstances. But it becomes more and more acceptable that career comes first, and the child second. Nowadays it's very normal for both partners to have a (more than) full-time job/career, and sort of have kids in-between. How can you raise a kid properly when you know there's not going to be enough time?
There are a lot of other situations where the sensibility of having a child can be questioned.
To avoid misunderstandings: I'm talking about situations where there is a choice, and neither of the parents are forced in any way.
Somehow another option seems to be unnatural, alien, not-in-question, or outrageous: not having kids.
That is definitely a legitimate question that many women and men should ask themselves: why bring more children unto this world? For whose benefit?
Unfortunately, many people do not have these questions figured out and maternity is something that tends to "happen" to people. I don't agree by the way, that's there's more of a maternal drive than a paternal drive. Some people, regardless of sex, want absolutely to have kids; and others gladly do without. Around me, I see so many couples who have unsynchronized urges to have/not have kids and that can be a major conflict in a couple or a reason for a split-up. Of course, women end up to be the ones carrying the kids, but that doesn't mean that we want them any more than men (from what I see around me, it appears to be quite the contrary, at least in big cities). But it does imply that it's a more weighty decision for a woman, and has a greater impact on a woman's life than a man's.
Career and kids can be and should be compatible, and I think society has to give women that option and support her choice. And come on, in a world where women own 1% of total wealth, are you suggesting that women haven't sacrificed enough? Shouldn't society give a helping hand?
What we call "choice" is a luxury in many countries, the obvious ones being fundamentalist countries, but also the United States, where the erosion of Roe vs Wade is only an ongoing process indicative of the Bush administration. It makes me sad to talk about this, and this is why I think all mothers are survivors. But also mothers of unborns, still-borns, denied-to-be borns...
This is my most overtly feminist post. But despite the possession of a pair of ovaries instead of testicles, who are just as varied in our aspirations as our male counterparts, and can have many facettes: mothers, housewives, poets, sailors, CEOs. Men should feel free to be househusbands, cleaning men, tailors, grade-school teachers. And if society feel like that our kids are in danger, do something about it: open up more nursing school, pay our teachers better, instead of sitting on a high horse and criticize (often the mother, even though pregnancy usually involves 2 people). It takes a whole village to raise a kid, I've never felt that kids thrive the most in sheltered stay-at-home mommy and daddy kind of environment. But that would require a lot more community spirit than modern individualistic Western society is willing to consider. We always end up in hopeless utopias, so what gives us the right to tell others how to raise their kids?
Unfortunately, many people do not have these questions figured out and maternity is something that tends to "happen" to people. I don't agree by the way, that's there's more of a maternal drive than a paternal drive. Some people, regardless of sex, want absolutely to have kids; and others gladly do without. Around me, I see so many couples who have unsynchronized urges to have/not have kids and that can be a major conflict in a couple or a reason for a split-up. Of course, women end up to be the ones carrying the kids, but that doesn't mean that we want them any more than men (from what I see around me, it appears to be quite the contrary, at least in big cities). But it does imply that it's a more weighty decision for a woman, and has a greater impact on a woman's life than a man's.
Career and kids can be and should be compatible, and I think society has to give women that option and support her choice. And come on, in a world where women own 1% of total wealth, are you suggesting that women haven't sacrificed enough? Shouldn't society give a helping hand?
What we call "choice" is a luxury in many countries, the obvious ones being fundamentalist countries, but also the United States, where the erosion of Roe vs Wade is only an ongoing process indicative of the Bush administration. It makes me sad to talk about this, and this is why I think all mothers are survivors. But also mothers of unborns, still-borns, denied-to-be borns...
This is my most overtly feminist post. But despite the possession of a pair of ovaries instead of testicles, who are just as varied in our aspirations as our male counterparts, and can have many facettes: mothers, housewives, poets, sailors, CEOs. Men should feel free to be househusbands, cleaning men, tailors, grade-school teachers. And if society feel like that our kids are in danger, do something about it: open up more nursing school, pay our teachers better, instead of sitting on a high horse and criticize (often the mother, even though pregnancy usually involves 2 people). It takes a whole village to raise a kid, I've never felt that kids thrive the most in sheltered stay-at-home mommy and daddy kind of environment. But that would require a lot more community spirit than modern individualistic Western society is willing to consider. We always end up in hopeless utopias, so what gives us the right to tell others how to raise their kids?
Uhm, I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make... 
I think most, if not all, people on this forum will agree that our present society is far from (my) ideal. Where men and women are truly equal, where no one has to struggle for survival, where no money is needed to keep it running, where indeed kids are raised by communities and not only by their parents, etc. There is another thread in which we discussed this a bit more.
But that is not the issue in this topic. The question is: when you have the choice (again: not when you can't, are not allowed to, or other legitimate reason) between breastfeeding and formula milk, why not breastfeed your kid?
All this because our guest HJG questioned the validity of Wai's criticizing tone in her article about human milk vs formula milk.
I think most, if not all, people on this forum will agree that our present society is far from (my) ideal. Where men and women are truly equal, where no one has to struggle for survival, where no money is needed to keep it running, where indeed kids are raised by communities and not only by their parents, etc. There is another thread in which we discussed this a bit more.
But that is not the issue in this topic. The question is: when you have the choice (again: not when you can't, are not allowed to, or other legitimate reason) between breastfeeding and formula milk, why not breastfeed your kid?
All this because our guest HJG questioned the validity of Wai's criticizing tone in her article about human milk vs formula milk.
Oscar,
The point that I try to make is: Wai says that Formula milk should be forbidden, and she sounds pretty serious.
I think that's going to be another fanatic decision that's going to take away women's right to choose.
A scientist can expose both sides of a problem without making such a big moral issue out of it. In an ideal situation, a baby would be breastfed by his/her mother: we get her message, and she's not the only person saying that. But we all know that's a minority of cases in the world, and often for reasons that mothers have no control over. If only you knew how painful it is for women to artificially stop the milk flow, you'd think twice before saying that they "preferred" not to breastfeed in the absolute sense.
The point that I try to make is: Wai says that Formula milk should be forbidden, and she sounds pretty serious.
I think that's going to be another fanatic decision that's going to take away women's right to choose.
A scientist can expose both sides of a problem without making such a big moral issue out of it. In an ideal situation, a baby would be breastfed by his/her mother: we get her message, and she's not the only person saying that. But we all know that's a minority of cases in the world, and often for reasons that mothers have no control over. If only you knew how painful it is for women to artificially stop the milk flow, you'd think twice before saying that they "preferred" not to breastfeed in the absolute sense.
Breastfeeding is not a choice as is whether you want to pursue a career, or not. That career is your choice because its your life; do with it whatever you want.Chin-Chin wrote:Is it not enough that they have to struggle through childbearing, juggling between a full-time job and child-rearing, in a society where the valorisation of mothering is mere lip service? Do mothers really have to be brought to the public square and justify why they don't bread-feed?
Breastfeeding however, is an obligation to the child. If its your choice to have a child, then you are committing yourself to giving that child the best start possible.
You cannot say: I will give that child the best start, but only to the extend that it suits me. If you cannot put the child's interests at the very first place, you shouldnt take a child. If there is anything else that is more important (career, non-sagging breasts, time, no too much trouble) then you shouldnt give birth.
Thats my opinion.
I think that's an honorable position to hold. (Furthermore, I don't even think that pregnancy and breast-feeding are the hardest part, albeit hormonally tricky. It's the rest that's so hard).
But instead of being so quick to judge, I always think twice about people's realistic circumstances. Tolerance has been a big value in my education. I think we'll have a far greater society where people try to first understand each other instead of thrusting our values to the world.
"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one...just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."
-F. Scott Fitzerald
But instead of being so quick to judge, I always think twice about people's realistic circumstances. Tolerance has been a big value in my education. I think we'll have a far greater society where people try to first understand each other instead of thrusting our values to the world.
"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one...just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."
-F. Scott Fitzerald
-
CurlyGirl
- Moderator
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Thu 29 Dec 2005 01:01
- Location: South Africa (soon to be USA)
- Contact:
Chin-Chin, your appeals to tolerance are noble, but I think they are misplaced. I tend to agree with RRM. I don't think his stance is critical of others so much as appealing to us to honour the needs and interests of every child that is born. This society has such disdain for children, it seems to me. The career needs of women and men are automatically held in highest esteem, and children just have to learn how to 'fit' into their schedules. To me that is a strong factor in the general unease I sense in our society today - people who, as children, immediately knew that they were not their parents' first priority, in every respect, do often grow up feeling as though they don't really belong in this world.
I'm all for breastfeeding - who wouldn't be? OK, maybe not the corporate world.
But at the same time, I'm vigilant on the apparent innocence behind a discourse on limiting choice for women.
Why? Because for one more time, we decide to marginalize and infantilize women.
We marginalize a huge population of women because mothers who don't or cannot breastfeed are considered bad mothers, regardless of their personal history. These mothers may be the most well-intentioned mothers in the world, but they are failures in Wai's viewpoint. And this failure is so irreparable that if the mothers cannot purchase human milk from another mother, she might as well kill themselves, and kill their kids while at it since they are worthless anyway and will be have low IQ and be cooked food junkies all their life.
We infantalize women as an entity because we imply that mothers don't know how to act in their babies' best interest, and measures have to be enforced to make sure that they do so. That includes making formula milk illegal; pretty soon, it will be withdrawing mothers' right to work or their ability to think for themselves.
Maybe that's what I should have expected, because in Wai's book, all women are worried about acne and cellulite and aspire to top models' legs. getting rid of acne and cellullite should be the goal of a women' life, and to do that, she should have her "beauty walks", file her nails, shop for unique clothes and old books, take a hot bubble bath, and just chill.
As long as women are reduced to their looks (an image) and their biological self (an animal), they will always be discredited if they fail at either: their looks cannot fail them and their biological body neither.
What kind of a better world are we proposing to our children?
And please, let's stop beating around the bushes and concentrate more on Wai's breastfeeding article, which really offended and hurt a loving mother, who originally started this thread, and who's probably by now so disgusted that she will not return to the forum. Was that necessary? Isn't there a better way to get the information through? Questions for thoughts...
I've said most of what I have to say concerning this subject, and it's up to Wai to change or not change the tone of her article. It's great that a diet allows people to become healthier, better-looking, smarter; but all that is no justification for discriminating against people who do not live the Wai's way.
But at the same time, I'm vigilant on the apparent innocence behind a discourse on limiting choice for women.
Why? Because for one more time, we decide to marginalize and infantilize women.
We marginalize a huge population of women because mothers who don't or cannot breastfeed are considered bad mothers, regardless of their personal history. These mothers may be the most well-intentioned mothers in the world, but they are failures in Wai's viewpoint. And this failure is so irreparable that if the mothers cannot purchase human milk from another mother, she might as well kill themselves, and kill their kids while at it since they are worthless anyway and will be have low IQ and be cooked food junkies all their life.
We infantalize women as an entity because we imply that mothers don't know how to act in their babies' best interest, and measures have to be enforced to make sure that they do so. That includes making formula milk illegal; pretty soon, it will be withdrawing mothers' right to work or their ability to think for themselves.
Maybe that's what I should have expected, because in Wai's book, all women are worried about acne and cellulite and aspire to top models' legs. getting rid of acne and cellullite should be the goal of a women' life, and to do that, she should have her "beauty walks", file her nails, shop for unique clothes and old books, take a hot bubble bath, and just chill.
As long as women are reduced to their looks (an image) and their biological self (an animal), they will always be discredited if they fail at either: their looks cannot fail them and their biological body neither.
What kind of a better world are we proposing to our children?
And please, let's stop beating around the bushes and concentrate more on Wai's breastfeeding article, which really offended and hurt a loving mother, who originally started this thread, and who's probably by now so disgusted that she will not return to the forum. Was that necessary? Isn't there a better way to get the information through? Questions for thoughts...
I've said most of what I have to say concerning this subject, and it's up to Wai to change or not change the tone of her article. It's great that a diet allows people to become healthier, better-looking, smarter; but all that is no justification for discriminating against people who do not live the Wai's way.
WOW to all of the above!
CurlyGirl, you are an amazing writer! And every one else also. But the minute I saw CurlyGirl's post, I sat back and knew I was in for a ride.
It starts with sex. If not no one would be here. In a perfect world, a baby is born of love and intention. Then there's duty. This can last the lives of everyone involved. Duty, obligatory service is a tough road to follow. Duty to raise the child as best you can...But then there's truth and lies. Lies fed to us buy our own fellow humanoids. Cereal filled with sugar. There's a new tv commercial on air right now about a girl at a spelling contest. She's struggling with a word she can't spell. Sitting on the mic before her is a piece of talking cereal with a white topping of sugar. The girl listens to the cereal and spells the word correctly. I know that reads strange out of context...but, the bottom line is we do the best we can, or we don't. We go with flow, or we grab hold of a branch, and look at exactly where we are going. From Breast milk, to Trix are for Kids, to hot pockets to frozen, dried, processed everything.
The desire to do right is propbably what brought all of us here.
Since joining this forum and continuing to learn about nutrition, I have been experiencing a feeling of angst with regards to the 'Mass marketing' of our foods. I read articles criticizing the raw food approach by focusing on the 'high cost' of the food as a reason not to try. Please!
Easy outs:
What is it that gets one to start questioning the Matrix?
Seekers of tuth?
Follow the white rabbit.
CurlyGirl, you are an amazing writer! And every one else also. But the minute I saw CurlyGirl's post, I sat back and knew I was in for a ride.
It starts with sex. If not no one would be here. In a perfect world, a baby is born of love and intention. Then there's duty. This can last the lives of everyone involved. Duty, obligatory service is a tough road to follow. Duty to raise the child as best you can...But then there's truth and lies. Lies fed to us buy our own fellow humanoids. Cereal filled with sugar. There's a new tv commercial on air right now about a girl at a spelling contest. She's struggling with a word she can't spell. Sitting on the mic before her is a piece of talking cereal with a white topping of sugar. The girl listens to the cereal and spells the word correctly. I know that reads strange out of context...but, the bottom line is we do the best we can, or we don't. We go with flow, or we grab hold of a branch, and look at exactly where we are going. From Breast milk, to Trix are for Kids, to hot pockets to frozen, dried, processed everything.
The desire to do right is propbably what brought all of us here.
Since joining this forum and continuing to learn about nutrition, I have been experiencing a feeling of angst with regards to the 'Mass marketing' of our foods. I read articles criticizing the raw food approach by focusing on the 'high cost' of the food as a reason not to try. Please!
Easy outs:
I don't buy this one. My cat meows very little, but it can drive me crazy. A baby screaming for hours could be torture on the ears and heart, but it's not a good enough reason to avoid doing what may be best. It does let her off the hook though. Justification.If i had continued to express after my husband had returned to work it would have meant leaving baby to scream while i pumped for 30 mins every 3 hours
What is it that gets one to start questioning the Matrix?
Seekers of tuth?
Follow the white rabbit.
If that is what you read, maybe its you who feels addressed somehow?Chin-Chin wrote:These mothers may be the most well-intentioned mothers in the world, but they are failures in Wai's viewpoint.
???And this failure is so irreparable that if the mothers cannot purchase human milk from another mother, she might as well kill themselves, and kill their kids
Is it bad to aspire beautiful legs?in Wai's book, all women ... aspire to top models' legs.
Too superficial?
The book doesnt tell you how to live / be.As long as women are reduced to their looks (an image) and their biological self (an animal)
The book doesnt reduce your humanity.
The book actually IS about cellulite, health etc.
Whatever you write, there will always be people offended. We think the issue is too important, and we dont care if we step on people's toes in the process of addressing it.let's stop beating around the bushes and concentrate more on Wai's breastfeeding article, which really offended and hurt a loving mother, who originally started this thread, and who's probably by now so disgusted that she will not return to the forum. Was that necessary?
Was she hurt? Good. Maybe that kept her thinking for a while, and maybe even about the nature / ground of her disgust.
There are different ways as to how address an issue.
This is one of them.
At least it gets people thinking and discussing (we received lots of email about it).
From every different point of view there absolutely is.Isn't there a better way to get the information through?
We just dont like beating around the bush.
The answer is: "Absolutely not".it's up to Wai to change or not change the tone of her article.
Mmm, I'm not planning to have any kids (which I actually think is a privilege that only rich people can have access to: look at India or Africa, or lots of women on welfare), but I do know many mothers who cannot do the 1 1/2 year of breastfeeding like Wai prescribes. I personally was only breastfed for 6 weeks, if that's what you mean by feeling addressed?RRM wrote:If that is what you read, maybe its you who feels addressed somehow?Chin-Chin wrote:These mothers may be the most well-intentioned mothers in the world, but they are failures in Wai's viewpoint.
But no, I do not feel mistreated because I know that my mom did everything possible in my best interest, and in communist China, back then, a woman did not have the option to stay at home, so I was only one in a billion. I was however put to a nursing mother, who actually deprived milk from me, even though it cost my parents a king's ransom, so I ended up having extreme malnutrition and no sunlight. They only discovered this months afterwards...
I feel very strongly about this issue because I think that the underprivilaged, the poor, can aspire to a family as well. And in terms of public policy, instead of attacking mothers, we should first attack our society's treatment of mothers. In many parts of the world, birth control is still a big challenge for women. And what about public policies on maternity leaves? Is that sufficient for mothers to breastfeed?
Unfortunately, there's a difference between not beating around the bush and being plain inconsiderate and arrogant.RRM wrote:From every different point of view there absolutely is.Isn't there a better way to get the information through?
We just dont like beating around the bush.
I can only express my profound disappointment. I suppose this is really a rich person's diet. Now I understand who it's addressed to and who it's not addressed to.RRM wrote:The answer is: "Absolutely not".it's up to Wai to change or not change the tone of her article.
The economic policies of the western world should take a large part of the blame for the rich/poor world. Capitalism is not a cure for the class system, and I believe it actually causes a stronger system to exist. Companies and corporations only purpose is to consume our money and time, in which case we need to work to get money, which results in even more loss of time. Naturally, we should NOT live this way. So people are working too hard, too long, and for what??? To buy material objects that will take away the pain of cancer, depression, the inability to breastfeed, etc. What we should do is eliminate the cause of the disease, not let some company feed our children, whose #1 priority is our allegiance to their logo. We should also realize the class system that exists and try in all of our power to destroy it, and help those in need. An example would be to grow your own fruit, and give the excess product to poorer families, and maybe plant a few trees for them as well.
Wai's diet might seem to only be for the economically wealthy humans, but the diet is meant for everyone. This diet shouldn't even be that expensive. Just think of all the land that fruit could grow on, and imagine all the fruit that goes rotten because no one buys it. I believe the article should remain the way it is. It is not Wai's fault women can not breast feed, it is the inorganic matter in our environments.
Wai's diet might seem to only be for the economically wealthy humans, but the diet is meant for everyone. This diet shouldn't even be that expensive. Just think of all the land that fruit could grow on, and imagine all the fruit that goes rotten because no one buys it. I believe the article should remain the way it is. It is not Wai's fault women can not breast feed, it is the inorganic matter in our environments.
Limiting anyone's choices, men or women, is not supported here. Access to information about possible outcomes of our choices is freedom, not restriction. "...the less human infants have been breast-fed, they generally become dumber, and fatter, and more susceptible to infections and diseases." This may seem harsh, but these are scientifically studied and documented trends. You're right, poverty-stricken and/or illiterate people don't have as much access to this information. We must do all we can to help that.
Exactly. Formula producers try to prey on ignorant women and convince them that formula is better for the baby than breastmilk. This is an attack on women's right to choose. WHO advises at least 2 years breastfeeding for all babies. Formula is generally more expensive.I'm all for breastfeeding - who wouldn't be? OK, maybe not the corporate world.
All well-intentioned mothers can learn new facts at any point during child-rearing. "Failing" does not imply an imperative to die, here or anywhere! "Failing" is a method of learning. Women must have all the information they need to make the right choice. Formula milk may never become illegal, but making it so would benefit society. Forbidding women to work would not, and I'm offended by your connecting the two. Freedom of choice does not equal freedom to trample on other's rights.We marginalize a huge population of women because mothers who don't or cannot breastfeed are considered bad mothers, regardless of their personal history. These mothers may be the most well-intentioned mothers in the world, but they are failures in Wai's viewpoint. And this failure is so irreparable that if the mothers cannot purchase human milk from another mother, she might as well kill themselves, and kill their kids while at it since they are worthless anyway and will be have low IQ and be cooked food junkies all their life.
We infantalize women as an entity because we imply that mothers don't know how to act in their babies' best interest, and measures have to be enforced to make sure that they do so. That includes making formula milk illegal; pretty soon, it will be withdrawing mothers' right to work or their ability to think for themselves.
This is very unfortunate! But it's admirable that your parents attempted to do this for you. Perhaps with this kind of experience, you might have some ideas for improving/regulating this type of service.[/quote]I was however put to a nursing mother, who actually deprived milk from me, even though it cost my parents a king's ransom, so I ended up having extreme malnutrition and no sunlight. They only discovered this months afterwards...
"Dada is the sun. Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
-
sslea
In reading this post, all I can say is why are people getting offended? I think it's just that it is hard for some people to accept the truth because accepting the truth means change. The current situation of the world is not natural and is the reason why this post was started. She was searching because she was looking for answers. When you are a mother you should educate your self on the care of your child and I believe that this is what the OP was doing. Then she found Wai's article and it made her feel scared. I am a mother and it scares me that our world is so messed up. But, it only makes me want to learn all I can to keep my family safe. If the article offended the OP, I belive it's because she doesn't want to change and change is scary and hard. A lot of people get offended when thier secure world is threatened. It's not easy being a mother. The choice you do have, however, is what kind of mother you are going to be.
I hope the orginal poster finds what she is looking for. Maybe she will come back one day when she researches what she found here. When I found this site, it was like I found what I always knew deep down inside to be true. I tell all my friends and relatives to read this site. They all agree, but it's not enough for them to change.
I hope the orginal poster finds what she is looking for. Maybe she will come back one day when she researches what she found here. When I found this site, it was like I found what I always knew deep down inside to be true. I tell all my friends and relatives to read this site. They all agree, but it's not enough for them to change.