Breastfeeding, formula feeding, and lactivism.

[rivka]

I gave Alex two bottles of organic whole milk today, and she sucked them both down. So, God willing, I've bought my last-ever can of formula.

I've been looking forward to this transition lately, and looking back at her birth and the time that followed. So breastfeeding and formula have been much on my mind, both in general and in terms of our own failure.

I still grieve the loss of our breastfeeding relationship. Not every day, and not always intensely - but reminders do still make me sad. I very much believe that breastfeeding is best for both the mother and the baby, and in our case there were health factors (a strong family history of allergies and Crohn's disease) that especially indicated the importance of breastfeeding. It's what I always imagined doing. It's what my mother did. It's what all my friends do. It is what is considered normal and desirable in my social circle. I thought we were going to breastfeed. I never imagined that we wouldn't.

Sometimes when I read about nursing, my breasts ache.

I don't feel guilty. I look back at our situation: a poor suck, very large nipples, gastric reflux disease, antibiotic-resistant mastitis. No weight gain ever from unsupplemented nursing; eventually, no weight gain even when I supplemented with pumped milk. Significantly below her birth weight at one month old. Before-and-after-nursing weight checks showing an intake of less than half an ounce. A sick and miserable baby. A sick and miserable mother. The real threat that my mastitis would require surgery. The desperate horror with which I approached the baby scale. I don't know how we could have held out any longer. Honestly, I don't know how we held out as long as we did.

My only regret is that I didn't pursue one lactation consultant's suggestion of going to a speech pathologist. At the time, it didn't even make sense; subsequently I've learned that lactation consultants know a lot more about maternal problems with breastfeeding than they do about infant problems, and that speech pathologists do actually diagnose and treat sucking problems. But I don't know. I also remember that, at the time, the process of getting a referral from my pediatrician, convincing my insurance company to accept it, making and keeping appointments, and going through unknown new therapies seemed overwhelming.

My other regret is how ashamed I felt. How pulling out a bottle in public made me want to hide. How I felt obligated to justify myself to every breastfeeding mother I encountered. How I avoided social situations where I thought I would be likely to meet lactivists. How much I still look forward to the day when Alex drinks all of her liquids from a cup, and I can get rid of the damned bottles entirely and leave this whole issue behind me.

I still feel ashamed, although my shame is now mixed with anger. I think about how hard it will be for me to seek breastfeeding support with my next baby, because it will mean exposing myself to the awful, awful things that breastfeeding advocates say about formula and the women who feed it to their babies. And I think that there has to, there has to be a better way to promote and support breastfeeding, a way that doesn't make women like me feel unworthy of being mothers at all.

There has to be.

I'm not even talking about the extreme cases - the strangers in LJ communities shrieking about how formula is child abuse, formula is as bad as cocaine; the woman on mothering.com who posted that she refuses to allow children's books into her home if they have pictures of bottles. I'm talking about discovering, just as I began to supplement with formula, that two of my LJ friends belonged to a community whose userinfo declared that every breastfeeder was a better mother than any formula-feeder. Not "making a better feeding choice" - a better mother. I'm talking about the woman who left a comment in my journal comparing making mothers feel guilty about formula feeding to making them feel guilty about not using a carseat, and who then went back and posted in her own journal about how awful it was that my friends were telling me that Alex would be okay even if I couldn't breastfeed her.

There has to be a better way to promote and support breastfeeding.

Some lactivists are unapologetic about the fact that women like me are the eggs they need to break in order to make an omelet. Others insist that of course they support women who really can't nurse. But always implicit in that support is the right of the lactivist - or anyone, really - to judge whether you tried hard enough. Always implicit in that support is the responsibility of the formula feeder to justify herself, to make her case, to - if necessary, if it looks as though she's going to be found wanting - berate herself for mistakes and admit that she was wrong.

"Of course, if a woman really can't breastfeed - like if she's had a double mastectomy - " I saw one lactivist post. Another told a story about how she learned not to judge: she and her breastfeeding friends were talking to a new acquaintance at the playground, and when this mother pulled out a bottle, everyone got quiet and looked away. The new mother explained that she was the baby's aunt; the baby's mother had died of cancer shortly after birth; the bottle held donated breastmilk. The lactivist and her friends then realized that they had rushed to judgment. Implicit in this story: if the story had been any less tragic, they would have been perfectly justified in their shunning.

"We shouldn't say that formula is second best. We should say that formula is fourth best, after nursing, pumping and bottle feeding, and using a wet nurse or a milk bank." I tried to post back here about how awful that argument made me feel, but I wasn't really able to articulate why. Since then I've seen it brought out many, many more times, and my thoughts have coalesced.

Here's the thing: I did pump. I pumped ten times a day when I first started formula feeding, and then dropped back to five or six times a day as my mastitis finally cleared. I got up in the middle of the night to pump. And the most milk I ever pumped in one day was eight ounces - about a third of what Alex consumed at that age. Using a hospital-grade pump didn't make any difference. And my milk supply dried up when Alex was four months old.

I've since found out that my situation is far from unusual. Most women can't pump enough to feed their baby pumped milk exclusively, and many of the ones who can are boosting their supply by taking a non-FDA-approved drug illegally shipped in from Canada, which has severe depression as a common side effect. It's particularly unlikely that a woman who had nursing problems from the start, and therefore never established her milk supply, would be able to pump enough to exclusively feed her baby. Most pumpers supplement with formula - or supplement formula with small amounts of breastmilk.

A wet nurse, or milk banks: milk-bank milk is not availble without a prescription, and typically the prescription needs to specify that the baby cannot tolerate formula or has some heightened medical need for breastmilk, such as prematurity. And even then? It costs $3 an ounce. $3 an ounce. The least formula that Alex ever took, when she was exclusively bottle-fed, was 24 ounces a day. She got up to 36 ounces a day before switching over to mostly solid foods. So even if I had been able to get milk bank milk, it would have cost me $72 a day to feed my baby.

So the "formula is fourth best" argument tells women who can't breastfeed that their second- and third-best options are things which, in all likelihood, are completely impossible for them. I've since heard from other women who can't breastfeed that some lactivists include another better-than-formula option in the list: "chimpanzee or other primate milk," which, for Christ's sake, give me a fucking break! As far as I can tell, that one's just down there for extra smugness, to push formula further and further down towards the unacceptable bottom of the mothering barrel.

How do people say shit like this, and live with themselves? I found out. Here's another thing I saw endlessly quoted in lactivist circles: "guilt is a sign of awareness that you're doing the wrong thing." And its corollary: "No one can make you feel guilty unless you know you are wrong." There it is: permission to say the most godawful things imaginable to another mother, secure in the knowledge that if it hurts her, it's her own damned fault.

There has to be a better way to promote and support breastfeeding. There has to be.

Comments

[pixel.livejournal.com]

"So to clarify, abandoning it does me the favor of not being lumped in with the loonies. There are other valid labels I also refuse to wear for the same reson."

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

That's your right, of course. It bothers me, though, for the reasons I stated. I don't *want* the crazies to be the only ones owning that word--it's a useful way to distinguish between people who happen to not have children, and people who have made a conscious decision not to have them at all. And the more people there are who refuse to use the term in a more casual way than an entire lifestyle, the more uphill that battle will be.

-J

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

it's a useful way to distinguish between people who happen to not have children, and people who have made a conscious decision not to have them at all.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The nutcases are choosing to use the term childfree rather than something like childless. The first term implies that children are a burden; the second term implies that children are an asset. When someone chooses one or the other of these terms to describe his/her situation, I'd say that a value judgment is being made.

[ailbhe]

achilded?

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

(LJ posted this in the wrong place the first time, oops.)

I think that might be misheard as "a child." :) As in, "Do you have children?" "No, I am achilded [a child]."

Back in the olden days, when someone would ask if I had any children and I said no, I often found their follow-up question to be very revealing of their assumptions. Some would assume it was because I was such a career-driven workaholic, others that it was because I couldn't get pregnant. Never did they assume that it might be my husband who didn't want kids--it was always me depriving him of his rightful heirs. One woman actually told me that if I didn't have a child, I would regret it. "I see a lot of women in their 50s without kids, and they are just the most miserable, lonely people." Ick.

[ailbhe]

That was a joke, mostly. But I do have a very "I am an alien" feeling about this whole thing, because I grew up in a country where contraception had been illegal until very, very recently; as a result, I knew a lot of people who had had children because they had no realistic choice, and I've seen what that did to, well, everyone involved. Most people survived ok. I have higher ambitions for humanity than "surviving ok".

Anyone out there doesn't want children, I'm happy to have their share if there's any sign of a population shortage.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I think you're mistaken about the generalization. When I refer to myself as 'childfree' rather than 'childless,' I am trying to make the statement "for me, not having children is a good thing, not a bad thing." I am NOT trying to make that statement about anybody else's choice, or about children in general. When people regard not having children as a lack, they are childless. When people regard not having children as a positive thing, they are childfree. That distinction is precisely what makes the term useful--it says something about how individuals view their individual situations.

-J

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

To use another example, I see 'childfree' as analogous to 'carfree.' 'Carless' implies that you wish you had a car, but can't afford one, or that you loaned your car out and are feeling the lack because you want to go grocery shopping right now, or whatever. 'Carfree' means that you've made a choice not to have a car, for whatever reason. It does NOT mean "anyone who chooses to drive a car is an earth-sucking scumbag" (even though there is a subsection of carfree people who are lunatics who would make statements just like that).

The two words are useful, as is the distinction.

-J

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

Yes, I see what you're saying now. I misread your comment the first time.

[pixel.livejournal.com]

"Except that using the term 'childfree' to mean 'free of children' implies that children are some sort of burden. One does not 'free' (for the way you seem to be using it) ones self of happy wonderful things. I haven't heard of someone freeing themselves of a comfortable living, or freeing themselves of a nice place to live, or freeing themselves of a loving relationship. People free themselves of debt, or of stress, or of a car (in situations where the car is a hassle or problem, rather than in situations where it is vital/needed).
So you are assigning a value judgement to not having children, even if that value judgement only applies to yourself and not to other people's child choice.

And that is a lot of why I don't want to use the term. Because it is a term with assumptions behind it, and I refuse to have those assumptions piled on me due to a label. The fact a lot of the childfree peopel are raving loonies both adds to and essentially re-inforces that choice."

[ailbhe]

Children *are* a burden. One with a lot of rewards, but still a burden. So's owning your own home, or a car, or having a regular exercise regime.

[pixel.livejournal.com]

"I wasn't stating they weren't. But describing them as such describes children only in terms of the negatives and not in terms of the positives so many ppl seem to derive from them. Same as 'childless' only takes into account the positives of having a child w/o the negatives.

My housemate never wants to own a house, she loves the fact that renting means not having to fix things, or mow the lawn, or figure out how to pay for a new roof or any of that. She doesn't decribe herself as 'housefree' though."

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

She doesn't decribe herself as 'housefree' though."

She well might if having a house were such an assumption within her society that people tended to make the generalization that anyone who didn't have a house must desperately want one. And especially if a term--houseless-were used to describe anyone who happened not to own a house.

-J

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I haven't heard of someone freeing themselves of a comfortable living, or freeing themselves of a nice place to live, or freeing themselves of a loving relationship.

Well...sure. But presumably, people don't make a conscious choice not to take on those things, either. And that's what the word 'childfree' was created to connote: someone who's made a conscious choice not to take on raising children as a part of their life. The point of that coining was to make a deliberate contrast with the term 'childless', which carries with it connotations that don't apply to *anyone* who's made a deliberate choice not to have children.

I guess I'm not sure what your objection is to making a "value judgment" about your own choices.

-J

[pixel.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm not sure what your objection is to making a "value judgment" about your own choices.

"This entire discussion would never have taken place if you hadn't objected to my initial personal 'value judgement' on not wanting to call myself 'childfree'.
So you tell me, what is your objection to me making a 'value judgement' about my own choice?"

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I thought I had explained that in another comment, but rereading the comment, I see that it was badly phrased. Here, then, is my objection with slightly more elegant phrasing:

Refusing to call yourself 'childfree' further encourages the redefinition of a highly useful term from "person who's made the conscious choice not to have children" to "crazy person who hates children."

I think this redefinition is extremely unfortunate, because the term was created to serve a useful purpose--to make a deliberate contrast with the common term 'childless.'

This redefinition becomes infinitely more likely when people don't merely refrain from using the word to describe themselves, but also make loud public statements about disavowing the use of the term to describe themselves.

I didn't want anyone to read your public statement and walk away from it thinking that it was okay to associate the term 'childfree' with the very limited subgroup of crazy child-haters. So even though I didn't think it was likely that I would convince you, I still felt it necessary to speak up in an equally public way.

-J

[pixel.livejournal.com]

1) this is the first and only time I have made a statement of this sort publicly regarding the childfree community. It was made because I felt that it was relevant to Rivka's post and that her friends were clueful enough to understand that 'way to large a percentage of that group' is not the same as 'all'. Apparently I was wrong.

2)Refusing to call myself 'childfree' does not 'further encourages the redefinition of a highly useful term'. It doesn't matter one bit. Because previous to the statement here I had never voiced that opinion anywhere. My friends and partners know to varying degrees my lack of interest in children and that really is all that matters. Not calling myself 'childfree' does no more to harm that term then the fact I don't happen to call myself polish-american harms that term.

3)I know Rivka fairly well, and have met and interacted with some of her friends. And frankly I am willing to give them the benifit of the doubt that they are inteligent rational enough thinkers. Such that they are not so mindless as to, from reading one comment which uses no absolutes to decribe a group and in fact is careful to not say 'all' or even 'most', come away thinking that statement defines the whole group.
In much the same way I am willing to bet Rivka didn't think they would come away from her post thinking all breast feeding mothers are rabid anti-formula loonies.

4) I was careful to at all stages state that this was my decision regarding my actions and in no way stated or implied that anyone else should follow them. You on the other hand have repeatedly responded to my personal decision by telling me how it was a poor choice and that I was somehow ruining the phrase 'childfree' for everyone else.
I was making my own personal value judgement based on my own personal experiences, and your responses have basicly consisted of 'you are fine to do that if you want, but here is all the ways you are wrong and how your actions are going to do horrible things for the use of the word 'childfree' everywhere.' Which frankly, is quite rude and has a distinct attitude of 'I somehow know better than you what you should think and how you should act'.

So now, I have at this point basicly been hassled by you for not calling myself 'childfree' to a much greater degree than I have ever been hassled by anyone (up to and including my mom and grandparents) regarding actually having kids or not.
I have been told by you that leaving the word 'childfree' out of my self definition and mentioning this ONCE in a comment in a single post is going to cause all sorts of problems for people who decide to identify as 'childfree'.

My experiences with the looney fringe of the 'childfree' movement have consisted of comments about how annoying/stupid/poorly-behaved all kids are (extrapolated from one or a few experiences), and how people who raise kids can not possibly enjoy/understand anything of any depth simply because of the kids.
And now my experiences with you, who identify as childfree have been that of telling me that I am causing all sorts of problems for everyone who uses the word 'childfree' (extrapolated from one comment in one post), and being told that while I am totally free to make my own decision, that I am inacpable of nderstanding how that decision could completely muck things up for everyone. And the latter done in such a way as to imply I am thereby foolish for not publicly embracing the word as part of my self definition.

Frankly after all of that, I am more inclined now to believe the percentage of loonies is higher than I thought, and to now actively and publicly seperate myself from a community & self-definition whos' apparent moderates are willing to hound me and deride my choices so.

Good day to you."

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's an awful lot of words you've put into my mouth there.

Hope you feel better now.

-J

[pixel.livejournal.com]

My statement:
by telling me how it was a poor choice

Your statements that cause me to say that:
doesn't do anybody any favours
I think this redefinition is extremely unfortunate
But I do think it's unfortunate

My statements:
that I was somehow ruining the phrase 'childfree' for everyone else
how your actions are going to do horrible things for the use of the word 'childfree' everywhere.

Your statement that caused me to say that (emphasis mine):
Abandoning this useful word because some of the people who use it to describe themselves are batshit crazy doesn't do anybody any favours.
And the more people there are who refuse to use the term [...].
Refusing to call yourself 'childfree' further encourages the redefinition[...]
since it further encourages the redefinition[...]

My statement:
has a distinct attitude of 'I somehow know better than you what you should think and how you should act'.

Your statements that caused me to say that:
it's certainly your right to make that call. But I do think it's unfortunate, since[...]
That's your right, of course. It bothers me, though[...]
So even though I didn't think it was likely that I would convince you[...]

[rivka.livejournal.com]

If you guys want to keep this going, could you please take it to e-mail?

[pixel.livejournal.com]

"My apologies. I will stop any futher comments now. IF you wish to delete my comments or the entire thread based off my inital comment, please do. I didn't mean to invade your journal with this from my initial comment. However I clearly have, and wish to apologise for keeping it going."

[rivka.livejournal.com]

If you guys want to keep this going, could you please take it to e-mail?

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Nah, I'm done. I should have probably stopped after I'd said what I wanted to say, but I always have found it hard to resist talking back to brick walls.

Sorry for cluttering your journal.

-J

[pixel.livejournal.com]

"Or to meta this and boil it down to the core of my issue. I prefer if at all possible to deal with people as a one-on-one basis, without a lot of assumptions in both directions due to labels.
Thus I am extremely hesitant to align myself with specific labels or groups.
If there is a group/label that I essentially agree with, and can find a common consensus with a large percentage of, then I am willing to use that. If I have issue with a lot of a group/label, or if their primary public face is something I dislike having associated with me, or dislike in and of itself, I will try very hard to avoid having said label applied to me.

I am willing to call myself poly because of this. I am willing to use BDSM, kinky, etc. to apply to myself because of this.
I am unwilling to be called childfree because of this. I stopped calling myself a furry because of this.

So saying I should call myself 'childfree' for the sake of saving that label requires me to align myself with a group/label/outward appearance that I strongly disagree with in an effort to pry that label away from just those people."

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

I understand why you don't want to call yourself 'childfree,' and like I said, it's certainly your right to make that call. But I do think it's unfortunate, since it further encourages the redefinition of a highly useful term from "person who's made the conscious choice not to have children" to "crazy person who hates children." And when it becomes not just something you don't just refrain from calling yourself, but something you make public statements about *not* calling yourself, that's when I feel the need to step up and defend the term.

-J