I think the discussions of "professionalism vs. family life" and
"non-nutritive sucking vs. nutritive sucking" fall under the heading of
"dualistic thinking" which is the concept of EITHER/OR or US vs. THEM as
opposed to more wholistic thinking. It is not true that you are either
engaged in "professional" activities or "family" activities unless you are
thinking from a dualistic paradigm. American culture is the epitome of
dualistic thinking. As Jay said, we have to be considerate of our specific
child's needs when considering whether or not to take him/her to work,
conferences, etc. Individual men can think wholistically and individual women
can think dualistically, but dualism is primarily a male/dominant culture
concept that is so pervasive that we barely question it. Women are supposed
to feel incompetent if they don't prioritize "work" over their children AND
like bad mothers if they don't prioritize their children  over "work". Women
have been told to put on the power suits and be "professional " (i.e. be like
a man) in order to be taken seriously by the "real world" OR stay home. Those
aren't the only choices. A wholistic approach does not assume that if  "home"
wins, then "work" loses. The world is messier than that. We can be more
creative and flexible than that. Welcoming kids at conferences does not mean
that ALL kids should go to ALL sessions - no matter what. That is just as
inflexible and dualistic as barring all children from all "work" life.  It
doesn' have to be only: men vs. women, male vs. female, bottle vs. breast,
working vs. stay-at-home, black vs. white, good vs. bad, etc.

Which brings me to "non-nutritive vs. nutritive" sucking. Where do you draw
the line? I loved Alison's critique of the concept of "non-nutritive"
sucking. I always called this type of nursing "comfort" nursing when my son
was tiny and now I just think nursing is variable from session to session and
baby to baby. When does it change from non-nutritive to nutritive sucking? My
son did a lot of "hanging out of the breast", but he was definitely
transferring some milk most of the time and would elicit occasional MERs. He
was definitely controlling the amount of milk (the fat content too?) he was
getting. My daughter was more of a "down to business" nurser and could not
seem to figure out how to control the rate of flow as well until she was
almost a toddler. I felt that "comfort" nursing was at least as important as
"down to business" nursing, but the line was very blurry.  I was admonished
not to let my son use me as a pacifier and that he was getting 95% of what he
needed in ten minutes. HA!!!!

I also loved the concept of filling the physical stomach and the emotional
stomach. It seems that different babies have different sized "stomachs" and
that pacifiers and ABM really circumvent the natural mechanisms for the baby
to get the right amount of physical and emotional attention. When do physical
needs end and emotional needs begin? Who are we to decide that one is more
important than the other to the baby?

Marie of WI LLLL & MOM