You keep asking why...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-13-2008
You keep asking why...
1104
Tue, 12-16-2008 - 2:48pm

wedding websites

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 2:54pm
But if you had a tribe of say 20 people half men and half women, each woman only needs to have two babies survive to maintain the same number in the next generation. And cavewomen didn't have the pill, so you could assume she could have a baby every couple years if she was having sex, and there are a lot of years a woman can be fertile - so they didn't need all the babies to survive to populate. And if one or two women had babies that she didn't nurse or didn't thrive when she did nurse, it wouldn't keep the tribe from increasing in size.
Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2005
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 2:55pm
I think it goes back to the brief convo we had yesterday.
Photobucket
CL for Reflux
 
"That's the
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:10pm

Yes,



~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:18pm

<>


If I was a nursing mom in a tribe where food is in short supply, and another mom decides she just doesn't feel like feeding her baby, I would take on her baby, but I would also expect to get her food share as well, since I need enough energy to now keep two babies alive.


So I gues the non-nursing mom had better find herself more food that the tribe hasn't already found - or slowly strave to death. I can't imagine that the rest of the tribe would feel to sorry for a mom who refused to feed her own child?


<>


I can see it happening as well, but I think that natural justice would be much quicker back then. Don't feel like working? You starve.



~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2008
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:27pm

"I will give it a try - but fair warning you might get exasperated and if you start with the 's again I might give up again."


I'll practice restraint, lol.


>>>>What if mom hates feeding period? She hates bfing, she hates bottle feeding. It all makes her miserable. Do we care more about her happiness, or about what is healthy for the child? <<<<


"I care about her happiness enough to suggest someone else in the home should feed the baby instead of her. If there is a risk the baby will now starve because she's alone in charge of care, I'd call CPS."


So in this case the baby's needs outweigh mom's happiness, then?

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:30pm

<>

I would include a fourth reason in that some women would try BFing if not the fact that they have been mislead into believing they either can't BF or shouldn't BF. One example would those misinformed on the safety of a particular drug while BFing. Another would be the mom who is mislead to believe they will suffer the same low milk supply their mother experienced she tried to BF under the false assumption her mom's problem was an inherent genetic problem as apposed to a problem of lack support and bad advice.

<

It is certainly possible that women in ancient times had could have had problem with BFing though I would think that some problems such as nipple confusion or BF issue sometimes associated with C-section or epidurals would not be issues. Also their would be greater perseverance without a viable alternative available.

<>

I think it is more likely that among the lower classes, in some cases of BF trouble, cross nursing via lactating sister or friend would be employed temporarily (or permanently in some cases) as apposed to a for-hire wetnurse.

<>

Infant formula was invented in 1860 by Henri Nestle, who went on to form Nestlé S.A.. It was the knowledge Nestlé gained from his infant formula invention that would later be used by doctor in instructing mothers how to make homemade formula. Prior to the discoveries Nestle made, the attempts to create a alternative food source for infants generally failed as few infants survive on them. Now as far as the early infant feeding devices are concerned, I would imagine that they existed for those cases where BM was not available and they where trying a hail marry with some homemade concoction in hopes that by luck the would child survived.

<>

Formula is available to at least some degree in every country so far as I know. As far countries avoiding the trap, I believe that Nepal has largely avoided the trap and does have high breastfeeding rates. Their may be other examples but I can't recall of the top of my head.

<>

I think it has to with the idea that the best chance of BF success starts with early initiation of BFing. Later initiation could lead to breast refusal and thus formula use. Since formula use in third world countries among the poor is associated with deadly gastrointestinal illnesses and such due polluted water supplies and improper bottle sanitation ensuring third world mothers get off to the right start whenever possible would help reduce infant mortality associated with formula use.

<>

They may not make the connection between the formula use and their baby's death. I would imagine that many lower class third world FFers do not understand what mixing contaminated water with formula can do in terms of infant mortality nor do they understand the immunological properties of BM they are depriving they infants. They might just think the death was inevitable.

<>

I do not believe many women where trying to cook up their own formulas so as not to have to BF. Yes, some did in deed try that but not many. The problems of not BFing in third world countries are mostly a result of the past and current promotion of formula and not a lack of desire to BF.

-Charleen

Photobucket


Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting





Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting



Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:31pm

Infanticide and Exposure

From the Sumerians down to the time of Augustine, it was generally accepted that if you had a newborn baby that you didn't want, you could kill it or abandon it somewhere and not take care of it. Killing a baby is called infanticide, and leaving it somewhere is called exposure.

Sometimes, the father decided whether to keep a baby or not. Of course most fathers wanted to keep their babies, and most of the time they did, but sometimes they felt it was not the right thing to do. Sometimes a baby would be exposed if it seemed to be sick or for some reason was not likely to live anyway. If there was something seriously wrong with the baby's heart or stomach or something, then ancient people could not do surgery to fix that. The baby would probably die anyway in a few days.
Other babies were exposed because they were physically challenged: they couldn't see or hear, or they were born with only one arm or one leg. Maybe their parents felt they couldn't take care of them. (But other physically challenged babies were raised).
Sometimes if there were twins, one of the two babies would be exposed, because people thought twins were unlucky.


In very poor families (but there were a lot of very poor families in the ancient world), sometimes babies were exposed because the family didn't have enough food to feed everyone. They might decide it was better to give the food to the older kids than to split it among everyone if there wasn't enough.


Other babies were abandoned by other people, not their parents. For slaves, their owner decided whether to keep them or abandon them. Even some free people were so much under the power of a rich patron that he or she would decide for them.


Most of the babies who were exposed probably died, but some of them were picked up by people who couldn't have babies themselves and wanted to adopt a baby. Others were picked up by slave dealers and raised to be sold as slaves. Mothers and fathers who had to expose their babies always wanted to think that their baby had been saved (this is the plot of many Greek and Roman plays).




After most people in Europe converted to Christianity, around 400 AD, infanticide and exposure became less common, because the Church said that babies had souls too and so it was murder to kill them or let them die. Still this did not stop some people from leaving babies on the steps of churches for somebody else to take care of.


Source: http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/people/infanticide.htm



~*~ Catherine, "Internet Research Specialist" ;)




No matter what decision you make in your life, or your child's life - there will always be someone just waiting to tell you what a stupid idiot you are for doing so...

Some of my blogs:
Life Begins... (miscarriage)
Frugal Baby Tips
Frugal Freebies
Pregnancy Stories By Age - 43-56+yrs old!
You Can Get Pregnant in Your 40's



~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:34pm
<< "Their society expected mothers to nurse their babies (that was one of their roles and contribution to society), they didn't expect *other* mothers to do it for them unless absolutely nec."

How do you know that?
>>


"The sexual division of labor in which hunter/gatherer males hunt, make war, and engage in other exclusively male activities (Frayser 1985:90-91), while women concentrate more on gathering and infant care is supported by a very large body of objective observations.
"


http://www.anthro.appstate.edu/ebooks/gender/ch04.html


As far as expecting other women to nurse their babies....why would they expect another nursing mom to nurse their child in addition to their own?

 

stephanie041209.gif picture by shellnick2003

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:45pm

<>


I agree with this. I just don't think it was just for the reason of not *wanting* to BF.

 

stephanie041209.gif picture by shellnick2003

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Fri, 12-19-2008 - 3:53pm
Going back to an earlier post, I think there are three groups. I'm not talking about absolutely can't or just not feelin it, I'm talking tough time and can but it's really hard. Like the poster whose mom had a year of cracked painful nipples. I am willing to bet even cavewomen had some sympathy and empathy for a fellow woman in that situation who didn't think she could hack it and was genuinely grateful for relief.
Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

Pages