There is still too much pressure on new moms to BF

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
There is still too much pressure on new moms to BF
10
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 8:54pm

How sad.  I BF years ago because I could and because of the pressure to do so.  Lactivists argued **without foundation** that, as in the earlier thread: I would have a cleaner home, my kids would have higher IQs, fewer ear infections, less risk of obesity, basically less risk of anything and everything.  It saddens me that years later, and nothing's changed.  It's still the Mommy Wars.  No one can prove bupkis.  The Emporer is wearing new clothes.

Check out this timely article and especially the sad Comments:

www.huffingtonpost.com/parentingcom/lactation-failure_b_2632623.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010

I think the Mommy Wars will always be with us.

<<my kids would have higher IQs, fewer ear infections, less risk of obesity, basically less risk of anything and everything. >>

The only thing you can compare your kids to is themselves. You can't compare them to someone else's kids - it's meaningless - and you can't go back in time to do a proper comparision.

For me it makes sense - they tell us that putting on too much weight increases our risks. Driving without a seatbelt increases our risks. Using street drugs increases our risks. So most of us try to do what is considered best for us, try to lower our risks. Does that mean we will never get sick, never get into an accident, never die? Of course not...

For me, breastfeeding lowered my children's risks, and lowered my risks. For me, that was important. Will I ever truly know if it made a difference? No, because I can't go back and try it again feeding them a different way.

But as I watch my mother die of breast cancer, I do take comfort that I have possibly lowered my risks by breastfeeding...

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Honestly, whenever I see a post like this one, my first thought is that the person posting doesn't understand how statistics work.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006

I think you may have missed the irony of the "cleaner house" quote. Joan Wolf is notoriously Anti-breastfeeding. Lactivists are not making the claim - a formula defender is!

Sad really, that people attribute the foolishness to Lactivism. Kinda like the "breast is best".

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006

Joan Wolf believes that she understands statistics better than practically everyone else.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006

In my opinion the link you shared adds nothing to the debate. It is just one more opinion piece perpetuating false claimss about Lactivists/LCs/breastfeeding etc. It is "possible" that the woman speaks about her own experience, but one can't legitimately generalize it.

www.huffingtonpost.com/parentingcom/lactation-failure_b_2632623.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006

I'm starting to believe the alleged Mommy Wars are really just one-sided Sour Grapes.

http://www.parenting.com/blogs/natural-parenting/taylor-newman/breastfeeding-advocacy-its-movement-not-war

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002

Witch-Power says: <<For me, breastfeeding lowered my children's risks, and lowered my risks. For me, that was important. Will I ever truly know if it made a difference? No, because I can't go back and try it again feeding them a different way.>>

Well said.  I think it is so ambiguous and promotes fear when people who are not themselves breastfeeding to say unwaveringly, the term "lowers the risks."  There is no way of proving this.  As in the article, I've seen too many moms and babies hurt by the fear that they cannot turn to formula without lowering the risks.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002

Nisupulla: I actually loved the sarcasm of the "cleaner house, more vegetables" blog.  Very funny!  And too true.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002

Nisupulla wrote: <<In my opinion the link you shared adds nothing to the debate. It is just one more opinion piece perpetuating false claimss about Lactivists/LCs/breastfeeding etc. It is "possible" that the woman speaks about her own experience, but one can't legitimately generalize it.>>

That's why I referred everyone to the article and to the Comments.  So many Comments echoed the writer's situation and ill feelings.  One mom's experience is not dispositive and certainly wouldn't be used as a generalization.  But the writer's experience and the many Comments following are experiential data; as such, they are all relevant to the debate.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006

Some trivia: http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/04/the-plural-of-anecdote-is-data-after-all.html
The plural of anecdote is data, after all

I've used the quotation "The plural of anecdote is not data" in various talks over the years, never knowing the original source. I searched the usual places (though clearly not hard enough!), but never figured out whom it should be attributed to. So I was pleased to learn that John Myles White had discovered the source: Raymond Wolfinger (presumably the political scientist from Berkeley). This attribution comes in this 2004 email from Fred Shapiro, editor of the Yale Dictionary of Quotations:

I [Shapiro] e-mailed Wolfinger last year and got the following response from him:

"I said 'The plural of anecdote is data' some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford.  The occasion was a student's dismissal of a simple factual statement -- by another student or me -- as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder. Since then I have missed few opportunities to quote myself. The only appearance in print that I can remember is Nelson Polsby's accurate quotation and attribution in an article in PS: Political Science and Politics in 1993; I believe it was in the first issue of the year."

So I've been using the quotation wrong all this time! I think I'm going to stick with "The plural of anecdote is not data", though: the word "anecdote" to me suggests information surrendered, not collected, and it's the implication of reporting bias that makes the quote so apposite for statisticians.