Betsy has kindly provided another illustration of how the mother's goals are presented in the To Breastfeed Or Not To Breastfeed dilemma. Once again the baby is not mentioned - it's all about the mother. Karleen has made a good point - that as parents we do many things we don't necessarily want to do - because we believe that our children need them. Should breastfeeding be any different? Jennifer takes this further by mentioning the commonly held belief that it's important to the baby to have a happy mother. Yes! Many mothers have also said to me that once they made the decision to quit breastfeeding they felt free to enjoy their babies, and this is so sad - it's impossible not to wonder how many extra infections/allergies that baby/child is going to experience and the life-long impact this will have on mother or child enjoyment. The importance of a mother's "happiness" is a very seductive argument so often used to persuade mothers that their babies don't need them, or their milk, eg formula-feeding is nearly as good as breastfeeding, mothers should leave the baby to go out to work in order to feel fulfilled, or spend time-alone-as-a-couple with Dad so that he can have the mother's undivided attention etc. Let's examine this: Is the mother's own happiness really more important to her than her baby's health and well-being? How much stress and distress do we as LCs and BF supporters see heaped on mothers as they attempt to comply with and juggle these societal expectations? I don't think that the information we provide to mothers can be labelled as "our" agendas - I'm not using my own personal experience when I give a mother information about how often her baby needs to breastfeed, or why her newborn needs her precious colostrum or why it is worthwhile to provide her EBM for her baby when she returns to work, or why she's right to feel anxiety about leaving her baby with someone else so she can take a romantic weekend away with her partner. It's not "my" agenda - it's researched fact. Since we're the experts on breastfeeding, and since our expertise includes knowledge about the likely consequences on a baby's health of not breastfeeding, I'm not convinced that we can continue to honestly and ethically provide a mother with our unqualified approval for a poor decision. Do we really believe that a mother would knowingly prefer to place her own welfare before her child's? Or has she been seduced into believing this by an underlying societal apathy about the value of mother's milk, and of mothering in general? Is there not an obligation to speak for the baby? How will the mother feel when she realizes we have withheld information from her in order to "save" her feelings, or perhaps even to bolster her self-respect? How will she feel months or years later if she comes to know that she had a chance to do something irreplaceable for her child and was not helped? Where does motherhood fit in to what women want? What could be more important than nourishing and nurturing the next generation? As to according respect to women, wouldn't we agree that the value that we place on mothering and mother's milk is the ultimate compliment? Perhaps we need to re-think the ways we communicate that respect; I don't believe that "meeting a mother where she's at" can be translated into "acceptance" of the low value that she herself may be placing on breastfeeding. If she is mistaken about her irreplaceable function, I don't believe it is respectful to agree with her. Shouldn't we alert her to the fact that she is being tricked, or even manipulated by a society that seems to under-value children in general into trivializing her own self-worth? Perhaps one simple mechanism for achieving this might be to keep the word "baby" in the conversation. Of course, it would be helpful if governments put in place up-to-date public health policies which actively protected children, including promotion and support for breastfeeding, and giving effect to the provisions of the Code, enacting humane maternity protection, and proper training for all healthcare providers having contact with mothers and babies, so that breastfeeding supporters could carry out their primary function of facilitators, rather than having to take up so much time and energy in the role of advocates or even beggars speaking on behalf of children. Pamela Morrison IBCLC ------------- Even after we explain the "risks of not breastfeeding" (or as I have seen it written....the disadvantages of not breastfeeding)we still have to meet that mother where SHE is and go with HER goals and NOT ours as breastfeeding supporters (no matter what the credential). Sometimes women change their goals (either for or against) and our role is to facilitate her wishes NOT to push our own agendas. The same happens with doulas on occasion. If the doula pushes HER agenda, the mother loses. If the doula gives the mother (and father) her total all to support the mother's wishes (and they may change) then it is a win-win for all. Each of us comes at our approach to breastfeeding through our own positive or negative experiences. We ALL have to remember to take that step back and meet that particular mother where she is: not to expect that mother to meet us where we are coming from. *********************************************** To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest) To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet All commands go to [log in to unmask] The LACTNET email list is powered by LISTSERV (R). There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html