Letters to the Editor
-
I agree with Kathy in KY...
and it's something that really bothers me about the "Editors's Choice" letters.
I don't have particularly strong opinions about this issue, other than that I think that beyond a certain age the desire to continue breast-feeding is more about the mother than the child. On the other hand, my eight year old still sucks his thumb and I don't say anything about it because it obviously soothes him and he's going to need braces anyway.
But I wish Salon would "choose" well-written letters supporting more than one side of an issue. Instead of just being a "Here is what the Editors think"-which is what it is now, "Editor's Choice" should be "Here are articulate responses from both/new sides of the issue so maybe you'd think abot something that hadn't occurred to you before".
-
You Want Science?
For all you naysayers: If you truly wish to be informed about this subject, instead of flaming away in willful ignorance, check out these books.
Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
The Mommy Brain, Katherine Ellison
Woman, Natalie Angier
In addition, for those who cry "give me statistics":
Has it ever occurred to you that women's health has been sorely overlooked since the dawn of male-dominated allopathic medical research? Why don't you direct your vitriolic energies to demanding that western medical science devote even a tiny portion of funding and scientific inquiry into the mostly unknown ingredients of mother's milk?
How about serious anthropoligical studies of the nursing relationships of mothers and children in the West? There are many more long-term nursing couples out there than you would ever dream of. We just have to nurse our older nurslings away from the judgemental and intolerant general public for fear of condemnation and the type of abuse heaped upon us that is exemplified here. AND, many of us have very happy and well-tended husbands who realize that their children are benefiting from their daddies' own bit of self-sacrifice. Does a man really have a "right" to his wife's body on demand? Does every wife really wish to sleep with a snoring hunk of guy every night? Come on!
Even better: Why don't you contemplate empathy, compassion, and logic; in the Greek, that's ethos, pathos, and logos, before posting ethically blind, cruel, and irrational letters meant to hurt and shame mothers who choose the path less traveled?
queenlybluebean
-
Hm...
Isn't it interesting that the articles attracting the most reader comments are invariably "lifestyle" articles about women and their choices?
Not the articles about the (non)progress of the Iraq war.
Not the articles about how our government is abusing the trust of the citizenry.
Not even the articles about the inconvenience of air travel.
Nope, the most outrage is invariably aimed at women who DARE to flout convention in some way. SHAME SHAME SHAME on these awful women! How dare they not conform to our standards (even if said standards are different for each reader)!! How dare a mother act as if her child's welfare is for HER to decide!! It's just disgraceful!!!
For gods' sakes, people, grow up and get a life.
-
Where Chickenhawks come from...
The really *big* problem arising from perennially breastfed sons is that they eventually grow up.
And right now they're running the country.....
Badly.
-
Here we go again....
Has it ever occurred to you that women's health has been sorely overlooked since the dawn of male-dominated allopathic medical research?
The books you cite, unfortunately, are polemics, not research. Like most of the advocacy literature that is out there, they are about advocacy, and are very low on anything factual or providing genuine supporting evidence.
Part of the reason for the lack of evidence and newer research actually is that doing the kind of research that would actually prove the claims made (e.g., controlled studies of mothers who lactate vs. those who do not) would be very difficult to do on humans (though it has been done extensively on other primates), especially since it would have to screen out other factors (e.g., is the baby thriving because of breast milk, or because the parents are well-to-do, have access to fresh food and other important resources, and have fewer children, etc.)
Still there is research. Yes, real research focused on women and children. And I'm afraid it doesn't support the pro-lactation past six-months argument. What it really suggests is that tehre is much ado about nothing.
What's really mystifying is that so many claims that seem on the surface to be very pro-woman and pro-child actively spread misleading and often emotionally damaging information. I think that is really sad because it privileges and ideal over real human happiness.
Ahh, but this will fall on deaf ears. If you can't pound the facts, pound the table and dismiss outright anything that doesn't support your point of view. This in my mind only confirms what this is really about: the politics of controlling women's bodies. It may be wrapped in tie dye, but it is still right-wing all the way.
-
Serai
As of late, the most popular article (in terms of # of letters) has been the one about coding in BASIC. Which is ...oh so telling about the readership... :)
-
Why is there space being taken up with this idiocy?
Why is there space being taken up with this idiocy? This is silly. Who cares what your kid "wants" - he's four. What the hell does he know? You are the parent. He should be drinking out of a cup. You're going to grow up with a spolied little wiener there...
-
The link is interesting, but it's not the whole story
Anon, thanks for posting the link to a Slate article. I've read it, and while the quote you provided does somewhat support your position, I'm thinking less about colostrum than about the following issue, (also a quote from Slate):
"I'd like to reiterate that I'm only talking here about the incorrect idea that maternal antibodies in milk or colostrum protect against diseases by being absorbed in the baby's blood. The breast milk antibodies are present in the babies' intestines, and while they're not absorbed, they still protect against diarrheal disease, and perhaps other infections as well."
This resistance to diarrheal disease and perhaps other infections is what is more important to me and my children, in my opinion.
I've often thought about the benefits of breastfeeding, additional to immune function, in thinking about natural disasters, especially those like Hurricane Katrina. Yes, in the United States the vast vast majority of women and children have no dire need to nurse beyond a certain point. (Clean water is available and most babies can tolerate formula). But when water supplies are contaminated, and even canned formula is difficult, expensive and maybe impossible to locate for a period of time -- which is something everyone can end up being concerned with at some point -- nursing has many advantages that cannot reasonably be contested.
Even when we had the big blackout a few years ago, we lost power for a day, lost water for half a day, even though my daughter was not taking most of her nutrition by nursing anymore, I was very glad to be able to worry less, and not have to scramble to feed her.
I am fully aware of the arguments against feminism and against working mothers re: breastfeeding, but I feel that being able to nurse, and for as long as I wanted to -- but not having to -- and it working so well to nourish my children was a commendation, not a condemnation of being a woman.