To think that "97% of women can breastfeed" is a load of crap

It took me 14 days. I thought it would happen immediately and baby would latch, I'd be able to feed him, life would be fine.
The first night home was the worst of my life. He screamed and screamed and I tried to feed him, tried to express, tried and cried for hours until the shop opened and he could get some formula. It broke my heart and I felt like a failure, as it was something I really wanted to do. I'm sure many would give up after a few days but there was just a strong pull for me to do it. I was so happy when it finally worked out for us. Second baby, no bother at all!

I know alot of women who admit they didn't breastfeed because they didn't want their boobs to droop. I have teenagers now and I have no droop, probably too small tbf 😂 nipples still face forward though! I also know of one mum who wouldn't breastfeed her son as it was 'incest.' yeah, I'm sure my reaction was the same as yours will be reading it. Absolutely weird mentality but that just about summed her up with everything.

Isn't it also the case that since caesarean has been more common, fewer obstetricians are experienced in delivering breech babies? So it's difficult to really compare.

Many years ago when I was expecting my first baby my GP asked if I planned to breastfeed. I said I hoped to if I could. He smiled and said it was odd that women in England often said that but in the poor part of India where he came from the assumption was you would be able to and it was overwhelmingly true. I don't know if our belief plays a part in it or maybe that seeing most of our female relatives doing it influences us.

I did and the local maternity hospital collected my surplus milk for months. The same GP told me if I was a cow I'd be a prize winner. I think it was a compliment.

It probably was about that (during or shortly after) given the number of children women used to give birth to. Not obviously all during the first.

There are studies ongoing into whether low levels of breastfeeding in a population account for high levels of autism in those populations. Would explain why the UK and US has seen an explosion of autism since formula arrived on the scene

Maybe, but historically many babies did die.

Lots is known. This is a picture of two Victorian working class families. The top pic shows the children spaced out leaving gaps for children who had died. The second pic shows the large, intact family. The mother in the top pic formula fed. The bottom one breastfed.

If a malnourished mother breastfeeds, the baby gets the nourishment. Nature is brutal like that.

They didn't all die from vaginal birth though, did they?

Some died from haemorrhaging or eclampsia or infection or a whole lot of other reasons. We can now treat those things.

I had a C-section and will never know if I COULD have given birth vaginally- baby had flipped in utero during labour and was at an awkward angle so it seemed like the best option. If I'd have REALLY wanted to give birth vaginally, maybe I could have. I can't say that I couldn't because I didn't actually give it a chance. I know there's some associated health risks- my daughter is asthmatic which could be caused by that but I decided the risk of not having a C-section was greater.

You think a 1/3 of the female population died in childbirth. Are you serious?

Also I think in the past breastfeeding used to be a shared thing among women - so women without sufficient milk used to get their babies fed from others

True but they rarely starved to death. One of mine would likely have died in the days before antibiotics, as he constantly got lung infections and bronchitis. Best case scenarion he'd have been a sickly child unable to go to school for long periods of time. He's now a strapping, sporty adult.
Illnesses are why babies and children died, not starvation, except in a starving population. Women's bodies prioritise producing milk over all but the most essential processes in our own bodies, eg they used to say that each baby cost the mother a tooth, because the calcium needed was diverted to her milk.

I've also never given birth, but I'm not sure about your evolutionary explanation because I presume that in the old days babies whose mothers couldn't breast feed would have been breast fed by another woman rather than just dying.

I thought a third of women used to die in labour historically? So it's very unlikely 90% can give birth vaginally - we have giant heads relative to other animals. Evolution decided a 2/3 success rate during birth was worth it for the advantage of our giant heads/brains.

Where do you get the data that 90% can give birth vaginally?!

People think this, but milk "not coming in" until later doesn't actually matter. Colostrum is enough until the milk comes in.

I always say I “couldn’t” breastfeed, but if there was no such thing as formula I would have had no choice given the alternative would have been to let my baby die. I think the issue is that it’s about support/education for women but we live in a society where if it’s really difficult we don’t have to press on. Which is good IMO

I can believe it. If you've ever read Working Class Wives, from about 1910ish so a little earlier, they talk about the experiences of poorly nourished mothers breastfeeding.

Yanbu

I don't think 97% of women can breast feed. I also don't think it matters which you choose for your baby.

Having a c section can delay milk production and make it difficult from the outset.

Medication might make breast feeding prohibitive.

My point is that it’s not just determination. There is luck involved as well

There was a tendency for the wealthy to hire someone to bf their babies, wet nurses. And there were all sorts of concoctions given to babies with often not great results.

I don’t see the problem with the stat. It’s quite easy to understand what it’s saying and in the context of our peer group; with mothers who mostly didn’t breastfeed so have very misguided knowledge on it - it’s a much needed stat.

80% are getting some breast milk. Many will be mixed feeding.

Not a truth I recognise. Was hard at the start but after that easy. And I introduced a bottle too at 6 months and expressed so her dad could feed her in night and then weaned off the breast entirely at 13 months, very easily.

I pumped at least every 2.5 hours for two weeks for my prem baby. If she hadn't been my second i wouldn't have managed but I had breastfeed my first and knew just how often a tiny baby will feed, I knew every 4 hours during the day and no pumping from 11pm til 7pm (what one of the nurses suggested!!l) was not mimicking how often a baby feeds and wasnt going to lead to a good milk supply.

Yes they would have died. All mine would have. Infant mortality was high throughout history.

if you'd bother to read the thread you'd see there is a whole conversation about this aspect of it.