How does this relate to the debate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
How does this relate to the debate?
2771
Wed, 08-20-2003 - 7:56pm
Hey I rhymed! lol

Something occurred to me earlier and I wanted to see how others thought it might relate to the whole "which is harder SAH/WOH" portion of the debate that crops up so often.

I think that, when you look at either group *as a whole*, the WOHs might have it harder. And this is why ...

There are virtually no SAHMs who SAH because they "have to". There are virtually no SAHMs who are forced to SAH. A woman that SAH wants to SAH.(I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there; controlling dhs who MAKE their wives SAH, disabled children, etc) A woman that SAH doesn't hate her "job", or else she'd go get a WOH job. A woman that SAH is generally getting what she wants.

There are LOTS AND LOTS of WOHMs who WOH because they "have to". A single mom, or one whose dh doesn't make enough to support the family, or one with a disabled dh, whatever the case may be ... she may long, with all her heart, to SAH, but *can't*. Many WOHMs hate their jobs, but can't quit.

Anyhoo ... just wanted to stir up something new

Hollie

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:53pm
Almost all cultures, that is interesting - while not necessarily unbelievable- I would like to see that study.

And again - if that - breastmilk in a cup is preferrable and more natural (whether physically or phsycologically) in a cup at a certain time, what is the issue?

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:07pm
I do not think that breastmilk in a cup is EVER preferable to breastmilk from the breast. I think it is an acceptable alternative when nursing from the breast is not possible and it is certainly preferable to formula for an older baby.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:25pm
There's not one exhaustive study, but a series of smaller ones. You can read:

Greer, F. R., and R. D. Apple. "Physicians, Formula Companies, and Advertising: A Historical Perspective." American Journal of Diseases of Children 145 (1991): 282-286.

Hull, V., and M. Simpson, eds. Breastfeeding, Child Health, and Child Spacing: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Croom Helm, 1985.

Sellen, Daniel L. "Comparison of Infant Feeding Patterns Reported for Nonindustrial Populations with Current Recommendations." Full text available at http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/10/2707


Small, Meredith. Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent. Anchor Books, 1999.

Stuart-Macadam, Patricia, and Katherine A. Dettwyler, eds. Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives. Aldine de Gruyter, 1995.

N. Tuross and M. Fogel, "Stable Isotope Analysis and Subsistence Pattern of the Sully Site," in Skeletal Biology on the Great Plains: Migration, Warfare, Health and Subsistence, D. W. Owsley and R. L. Jantz, eds. (Washington, DC, and London: Smithsonian Press, 1994), 283-289, 393.


This is but a sampling of the available literature; it seems to demonstrate that the median age of weaning cross-culturally is about 30 months.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:38pm
ummmmmm, i wouldnt say OLD, perhaps ehhmmmmm, MATURE would be a better word. LOL

ALRIGHT, TAKE THE DAMN "QUEEN OF SARCASM" CROWN. but i'll only let you have it for a week and then i get it back.....ROFLMAO....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:48pm
you're right. personally, i dont understand why anyone would want to breastfeed a three year old. actually, i never even considered bfing my children beyond a year, but i only made it two months with each, as i didnt produce enough milk to satisfy them, and *i* did not like doing it at all. the only time i did like it was at night when it made things easier for me and the baby. ff was more conducive for my liking, and my children were all very healthy, so there is no real depth to a statement as, "breastfeeding is better for babies than ff". not implying you said it, just making a point.

like i said before, i think bfing a three yo is gross, yucky, blech, however you want to interpret it, i am totally turned off by it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:49pm
I'll use the 50+ hours because that is the closest figure that i can give you. The number of hours vary daily and thus weekly. Therefore, I AM home 50+ hours per week, but the only times they are not "with" me is when they are playing with their friends (no, not even every afternoon) or religious school. If they are at soccer, i drove back and forth and am at the field watching (and will be an assistant coach to dd's team this year). If they are at basketball, i drove back and forth and am at the court watching (yes, even for practices). In fact, even when they go to religious school, i am the one to drive them back and forth.

So, the figure is as accurate as i can make it -- and as such, i will use it because it best exemplifies what we do as a family. If that bothers you, i really, truly don't care - and you can feel free to "call me on it" , but the answer will not change. In fact, it HAS been the answer all along.

<>

I HAVE re-evaluated the ACTUAL time spent with my kids when they were little. Since they weren't in activities, didn't have but a few playdates here and there (and supervised), didn't attend religious school (oh, wait, they attended WITH me for the preschool 3-4 year olds), etc...HOW in the world didn't it apply then???????

<>

Just as time spent SAH does not necessarily equal time spent with kids. Interesting how that works, isn't it?

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:53pm
except, you're using the word "gross" in a totally different context than i did, therefore, the analogy is on a different level.

personally, it was nothing but a hassle for me to bf. pulling these jugs out to nurse, and then the babies were never satisfied, and i had to suppliment anyway was all nothing but frustrating.

if it is good for others, have at it, but looking down on people for ff is not very nice at all.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 2:55pm
Your reaction is not uncommon, but that doesn't make it rational.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 3:13pm
It sounds like you at least gave it a try. I don't understand women who won't even *try* bf'ng.

well, I may "understand" but I don't think it's best.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 3:25pm
Infants are not capable of manipulation, which is defined as "to influence or manage shrewdly or deviously." To me, that implies trying to get you to do something for some reason other than because it is what they think they need. Even the tantrum throwing toddler you used as an example is just trying to get what he thinks he needs. What you are talking about is really just behavior modification.

I want to teach my children that I am there for them both emotionally and physically. That does NOT mean that I reward tantrums. But it does mean that I will respond to my baby's cries in the middle of the night (or any other time for that matter). I just don't feel right about letting a baby scream alone in her crib. Her diaper may be dry, and her tummy may be full, but if she's crying it's because she thinks she needs something. And if that something is a little cuddling, then dh or I will give that to her.

Also, "patting their back instead of picking them up" has never worked with my kids. It only upsets them more. My 8 month old usually sleeps through the night, but if she does wake up and cry, I just nurse her back to sleep. I did the same thing with her older sister, and she sleeps fine (well, she doesn't sleep as late as I would like, but that's another issue ; ) Obviously they both have periods of wakefulness in the night (everyone does) but manage to get themselves back to sleep. I just don't think that it's necessary (at least under most circumstances) to let your child CIO in order to teach them to comfort themselves.

Pages