I'd like to share some musing with you all, on weaning.  The musings 
were prompted by reactions to my propagating a request to mothers to 
take part in a 'baby led weaning' survey (that I posted here too).

As my 'baby' is four years old next week, I felt odd using 'baby led 
weaning' when I propagated, so I used 'child led' weaning in my own 
headers, but left the original quote - using baby led weaning - in the 
main body of the text.

And in a couple of forums, all hell broke loose.

It took a few attempts to understand why all hell had broken loose, 
apart from the obvious... this was the internet.  And I spent some time 
talking it through with the Dr at the University who was conducting the 
research.  And I think what happened, is important to signal.  If for no 
other reason, than language.

First of all, there was the usual problem with the word 'weaning'.  In 
one place, a process, in another, the end result.  The survey asked for 
those who had followed baby led weaning, was this open for those who had 
completely weaned, or was it for those still weaning?  When we got to 
the bottom of that, it was clear that changing the request... "we're 
looking for mothers who have weaned, or are weaning, using..." took away 
that problem.  But it was so interesting that this word adapting had to 
be done.  That just using the word 'weaning' made mothers feel unsure if 
they were still weaning, or not... especially since it was UKan mothers 
who got most confused about this.  In the UK, weaning means the process 
- we talk about starting weaning the moment a child has their first 
'solid'.  So it was surprising to me, that so much confusion arose from 
asking about 'baby led weaning'.

Especially when an argument arose, on the difference between 'baby led' 
and 'child led'.  Some mothers stated these were two entirely different 
things, and then went on to post URLs on how to define them.  'Baby led' 
meant skipping purées in solids, and only giving finger foods.  Further, 
some then claimed 'baby led' automatically, and exclusively, mean the 
work of Gill Rapley: the researchers clearly wanted to contact people 
who had used Gill Rapley's work.

I, personally, couldn't see how there could be a dichotomy on 'baby led' 
versus 'child led' - it was the same thing, just that the infant was 
older!  It was then introduced that 'child led' meant allowing the child 
to stop breastfeeding, as opposed to the mother making the decision.  
Which was UTTERLY different from letting them eat with their own 
fingers, solids, at their own volition. 

It was then it struck me.  That 'solids introduction' was being seen as 
a separate, and autonomous process, to that of breastfeeding.  That the 
meaning of 'weaning' - the moving away from the breast, to solid food, 
had been completely lost.  That 'weaning' was not about a transition, it 
was about 'eating solids'.  And so some mothers, very much feel they are 
baby led weaning, at the same time they themselves choose to stop 
breastfeeding.  Because they are giving choice on solids.  But the lack 
of infant choice on the breast, didn't come into the equation.  This was 
in forums exclusively occupied by breastfeeding mothers.  Lactavists, even.

I find this fascinating.  Truly, I find it fascinating.  I can't 
express, how fascinating it is to me, that we, as a culture, can take 
the process of weaning off the breast onto solids, and put the solids 
part of it in a box, seal it tight, and label it 'baby led'.  And yet, 
the dynamic, inter-related and primary element of still choosing to 
breastfeed, away from the baby, and lock it tight in another box, as 
'something else'.

As I said, this led into discussions with the researcher, on what she 
had intended.  And no, it was not about any doctrine or method, it was 
about, she mooted "infant self feeding" as a neutral term that made it 
clear it was about the infant being allowed to choose, and self feed.  
And this, in turn, led to a discussion of what that means, in terms of 
weaning.  For breastfeeding is the core of infant self feeding.  The 
hunger may be the prompt, but even from a very young age - they stop 
when they are full!  And it's rare for a caregiver with bottle feeding, 
to be able to read the signals so well.  (But possible, of course.) 

This also illuminated a smaller side section on the various discussions, 
which is can you have 'child led' in bottle fed babies?  And, of course, 
you can.  In fact, this is a bogeyman stereotype in our culture.  The 
'horror' of a toddler or small child, who self feeds from the bottle.  
The child who asks for, receives, and happily self-feeds, from a 
bottle.  The terror of it!  The lack of maternal pride, or discipline, 
in allowing an older child to still suck from the silicon teat. 

Which made me wonder about this artificial sense on 'weaning'... that 
one can follow infant's leads on solids, but ignore that this has a 
relationship with the breast.  And wonder, if, once again, we are seeing 
the world through the bottom of the formula bottle, in just about 
everything we do?  That the dis-connection between solids, and the 
breast, is a reflection of seeing formula, and solids, as something not 
really related, in terms of the baby's needs and desires.  And that, in 
turn, is the dis-connection between the breast, and mother, as the 
source of food and comfort: a source the child can approach, and 
interact with, at its own pace.

As I said, these are just musings.  Not fully formed, still musing.  
(Maybe it's not bottle led thinking - the fight over how long a baby 
gets the mother's breast, and who determines the use of that breast, is 
as old as culture I'd imagine...)

Although the point about making sure everyone is clear about what is 
being said on 'infant self' feeding is useful.   It was news to me that 
'child led' weaning was something utterly different and alien to 'baby 
led' weaning and that for some, 'baby led' ONLY meant Rapley.  I'm sure 
it will be news to others too!

:-)

Morgan Gallagher

(Who baby led her child, and still is, as we've not weaned yet, and who 
hasn't read Rapley!)

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1908 - Release Date: 1/21/2009 9:15 PM

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome