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
|