Wow, Pam, what a terrific, thoughtful, empathetic post you wrote! Hats off!
We would not have been were we are right now, had the seven LLL-founders
thought that change was impossible and we'd rather all comply with things as
they were.
We need courageous, strong advocates, salmons swimming upstream, to make
difficult, but considerably important changes happen.
If not for this list, I often don't know where I would find the strength to
keep saying 'uncomfortable' things on behalf of baby's (habitat) interest.

Warmly,

Marianne Vanderveen IBCLC, Netherlands (who finally read the book you
brought with you to Vienna, Pat, called 'The Revolutionairies Wore Pearls')

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam MazzellaDiBosco" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [LACTNET] National Guard Training and Breastfeeding


> Everyone did what they thought was best for their own. So, those
> military mommas who chose to pump, to separate, to do whatever because
> they saw the military as their first and primary obligation are likely
> to find this situation a non issue.  They did it, their kid is good,
> what's the big deal?  Similar to I was formula fed, what's the big
> deal.  We can't have it both ways. Babies need their mothers only if
> their mother chooses they do?  How does that work?  Somehow the baby
> intuits that the mother feels unnecessary, so the baby adapts and no
> longer has a need for her? When I looked for the science and the
> studies for the impact of maternal deployment on the infant, followed
> through the early years, etc. I could not find it.  I would prefer
> studies that say not only do the children survive, they thrive.
> Children survive some rather unpleasant experiences and go on to make
> it in the big bad word, but it did cost something. Before we say this
> mother needs to get over it, we may want to consider if we have a
> right to ask the same of her child?
>
> In the real world, unfortunately for the babies, most are asked to
> find that balance between best for baby, and best for food on the
> table. In the military the options are less open for negotiation and
> since heaven forbid women dare to use being female with female
> functions as a reason to receive different treatment they are accused
> to holding women back or a detriment to the military, etc.   We don't
> of course know this particular mother's situation and perhaps she
> simply is using bf as an escape from duty.  But, just as likely she
> was unaware of the depth of attachment and desire to remain with her
> child that would engulf her when she started out.  Like many mothers,
> perhaps she believed our social construct against the biological care
> of our infants and was not prepared for feeling 'motherly' so
> strongly.  Perhaps she did not choose to leave because during
> pregnancy she was unaware of how strong those emotions would be for
> her. While I respect that women have choices, and a right to make
> those choices, babies are without voice, rights, or any choice at all
> in their circumstances. In those occasions when a mother desires to
> remain her infant's habitat, a country's institutions...including
> military...should see that the child has a right also.  Yes, it is
> true we are still a voluntary military.  However, that may not always
> be the case.  What precedent we set today around the rights of the
> children balanced with the needs of the nation and the rights of the
> parents may one day matter quite a bit.  I would never choose military
> life...don't do well with the whole following orders thing. Haha.  And
> that does probably cloud my understanding of the expectation of women
> to serve during the earliest months of their babies' lives when the
> very fiber of their psyche is being formed and attachment is being
> affected for a lifetime by the absence of the mother. I respect those
> that serve.  I am a child of a military career man.  I get the whole
> service to country and duty.  What I cannot understand, and since
> military was never my life's ambition probably never will, is how or
> why we ignore what the reality of that choice by the mother means to
> the child.  Or, maybe the reality is, mothers are not that important,
> and human babies really just need loving care from someone and a
> source of food that is nutritionally adequate in the absence of the
> human mother.
>
> What I would hope to find among professionals aware of the importance
> of early mother baby attachment and breastfeeding as a process, not
> just a product, is an attitude that the mother is seeking to make the
> best choice for her child, even if that choice is not one that was
> chosen personally. It is what I expect in all maternal and child care
> professionals.  The science and the respect for what is a biological
> normal behavior and drive for many women....never mind biological need
> and normal behavior for the infant and child should be what motivates
> and guides care.  Not personal experience, opinion, or 'well, this is
> what I did and my kid is fine' attitude.  I see that among ob/gyns who
> mock women desiring a non intervention birth, pediatricians who mock a
> mother's desire to avoid even one bottle or even the smallest amount
> of formula, etc.  And now the attitude among breastfeeding
> professionals that a mothers milk in a bottle is good enough and the
> goal is to make enough, store enough, and get back to duty.  I prefer
> the 'can-do' attitude to be more about finding a way to limit the
> separation and protect the process of breastfeeding which requires the
> presence of breasts, not a good pump and FedEx.  I think before we
> assume the choice of the mother is hers to make and the baby is not to
> be considered, we may want to have some science that says nothing
> harmful happens to the baby who loses the mother's presence as well as
> the process of the breastfeeding itself.  We may or may not agree with
> the choices, but our opinion should be separate from the science of
> what is best for the child.  Since there doesn't seem to be much
> research, the least I would expect is a respect for a baby's
> biological expectation to breastfeed, not bottle feed expressed milk
> or be fed formula.
>
> Of course, there is always the possibility that we are all just
> spinning our wheels for nothing and the reality is that human babies
> do equally well without their mother as well as the human source of
> feeding. I am sure that in a few more years we will be able to prove
> that formula feeding is equal to breastmilk feeding, that bottle
> feeding as a process is equal to breastfeeding as a process, and that
> mothers as care providers, and this idea we have that babies need
> their mothers is just so much nonsense after all.  I think we have a
> long way to go when it comes to respect for the child let alone the
> mother.  Indeed we seem to desire to escape our biology and deny our
> offspring theirs.  How many years will it take before the next stage
> of evolution?  I have a pediatrician in my area who tells mothers all
> the time that women have evolved beyond producing adequate milk and
> that formula is a necessity for all babies.  Maybe he knows something
> we don't?  Maybe I have been saying it wrong for all this
> time...babies are humans, humans are mammals, and we all know baby
> mammals need their mothers.  Now, it is true that many mammals leave
> the den/nest (never mind we are carry mammals, moms can't get all the
> way there sometimes) but mostly mammals come back and feed their
> offspring.
>
> I agree if the mother cannot find any alternative the hope will be
> that she can pump enough to leave behind, manage to protect her supply
> for a few weeks, and return to breastfeeding.  But what if that is not
> the case?  What if she is that mother who needs frequent feeding at
> the breast to protect her supply and the pump doesn't cut it.  What if
> her baby is the one who suffers greatly due to the loss of her milk?
> What if her supply runs out, the baby absolutely will not return to
> breastfeeding and therefore must have formula and lose the right to
> breastfeed? Then what?  So what?  She did her duty and fulfilled her
> obligation and the cost to the child is of little consequence in the
> balance of military duty.  I never will be able to wrap my head around
> that.  Just because the current regulations do not allow for the need
> of the child does not make it right.  As more and more women
> participate in military duty, the military must expect to make
> changes. However, if women are expected to shut up, put up, and get on
> with it without seeking to make those changes it just won't happen. It
> will unlikely happen in time for this mother and this baby, but to say
> it should not happen or that it is unreasonable to want it to happen
> makes no sense to me.  Acceptance of the way things are and always
> have been does not encourage change.
>
> Best,
> Pam MazzellaDiBosco, IBCLC, RLC
> South Florida, USA

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

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