SAH doesn't support change,
Find a Conversation
SAH doesn't support change,
| Sat, 08-26-2006 - 4:58pm |
"SAH doesn't support change, it supports going backwards to the 1950's,"
Statement in a post below.
I wholeheartedly disagree. To me, SAH is a choice. How is that going back to the 1950s, when a lot of women didn't have much of a choice.

Pages
"i'm referring to the same people you are--gung-ho, over-the-top lll members--as well as a few people i have known irl and dozens of posters in this and related forums, at the moment punkalicorn, who is in another thread quoting inaccurate statistics and information."
if they are inaccurate, why don't you quote me the accurate statistics? why don't you write a letter to the CDC and to Babytalk telling them how inaccurate they are and how you know much more than them? oh, and ps, I'm not in the lll or any other breast-feeding organization. i'm just capable of reading, researching, and hearing what other people have to say--unlike you. i think i'll trust the center for disease control and a well-respected magazine over you, considering you have NO sources to back up your info.
I wasn't saying that all women could successfully pump without suffering supply issues. I was replying to the implication that sah is required to successfully breastfeed. I was giving examples about how it could work with a woh. Two ingredients needed for successful workplace pumping are a sufficient amount of maternity leave to allow for *most* supply issues to work there way out and a safe clean welcome place in which to pump.
I was giving *my experience* in an office. (BTW, I was the lone unsuccessful bfer- believe me I know about supply issues and tried everything under the sun to rectify them.)
" if the underlying problem was that her supply was simply inadequate, breastfeeding instead of pumping wasn't going to change that. "
actually, it could have, because a baby is much more efficient than even the most-expensive pump. the underlying problem of inadequate supply can be linked to pumping and supplementing; it's not just hormones. and nursing will do a lot more to increase your supply than pumping, unless you are pumping after/during feedings. pumping INSTEAD of nursing can diminish supply. pumping while/after nursing can increase it. the reason for this is that babies are better suckers than pumps.
can you please tell me where you are getting your information? see, i'm quoting babytalk, the cdc, and the hospital where I gave birth. i'd like to know where you're getting the information that it's only low-quality pumps that aren't as good for breastfeeding as infants, that supply has only to do with hormones, etc. i'd like to read this for myself, please.
"the efficiency of a baby's suck is no more guaranteed or uniform than the volume of a woman's supply."
can you prove it? the hospital told me otherwise. the doctors who have been to medical school, the nurses and lactation consultants with their experiences and degrees, they all told me otherwise. where are you getting this information?
"my breastpump was just as efficient as my "vaccum" firstborn, and much moreso than my "sipper" second."
that doesn't mean this is the norm. ;)
"is a shame that so much distorted and inaccurate information about pumping is bandied about"
yeah. the center for disease control and babytalk magazine are both so evil. and don't even get me started on the doctors at my hospital! i can't believe i listened to them. thank you for making me see the light!
i think you are the one bandying about distorted/inaccurate info about pumping. ;)
so, you can use your experiences to tell others here that they are not in the majority, and when you share yours, we must assume that you are the norm. can you prove it? prove that your case is the most likely scenario.
and it's misinformation like that pumping IS as good as nursing that causes problems, not acknowledging that nursing is more efficient.
Pages