To wonder why people get so inflamed over breastfeeding on here?

[DaisyLovesMetronidazole]

I'm not bashing Mumsnet in general - I think it's a great site.

I fully understand the benefits of BF. I breastfed all of mine for 18 months. It was great.

Some of my friends did it for longer, others not as long, others not at all.

On here, as soon as someone says something less than 'Mumsnet Mainstream' about it, they seem to get jumped on a lot more heavily than anyone flaunting even very controversial opinions on other matters. In the other thread, I'm guessing almost 50% of replies involved telling the OP to fuck off.

Is anyone else confused at all, or am I completely alone?

That was to ccl btw
There are no benefots of breast feeding

I think, generally speaking, if the child is as tall as you, its time to stop bf

I ff both of mine, btw. I would have liked to bf but it didnt work out for us.

I support other mums, whatever their feeding choices/needs.

A friend of mine bf her twins til they self weaned at 3 years.

Worked for them.

Crazycat I'll have to have a look on te internet when I can (on phone now so harder) but have read stuff in books before but will try and find some links tomorrow

I do generally find bf children cope with illnesses better, teething and I have almost always found that the babies/young toddlers I know who suffer from things like gastroenteritis/croup etc are ff. Just my personal observations. The benefits of breast milk are just... fabulous!

I get inflamed about breastfeeding because people are so bloody rude about it all the time, in real life and on here.

I can't tell you how many people have made comments about bf past a certain point, saying its weird, disgusting, unnecessary etc etc. We're just meant to put up with that. Are we allowed to say a negative word about FF? Never!

Lol becarooo!

Crazycatlady, why don't you just go to the WHO databank and read it for yourself?

Stealth - what I'm trying to get at is that I'd love to know how cows milk and breast milk compare nutritionally and health wise for a child aged, say, 1yr plus. I've never been able to find a comparison despite Googling my arse off and asking on here.

I'd really like to know, because I find BFing quite an effort, but do it because I have been told repeatedly how it's the best choice for my children, despite the claims presented to me being quite 'woolly' at best, and past the age of 6 months, completely absent!

I always find it strange that people unquestioningly accept there are benefits to drinking cow's milk after 12 months, but don't consider there might be any to human milk.

"there is no actual evidence that extended breastfeeding has any benefits for the child"

Other than that the child has a better quality of life if its being fed in a manner it finds emotionally and physically satisfying.

And some new evidence that breastfeeding beyond the end of the first year may have significant benefits in terms of a child's mental health in later childhood.

Have to say, I have a problem with the term 'extended' breastfeeding. It begs the question 'extended from what'? What counts as 'normal' breastfeeding in the UK? 4 weeks? Because that's how long the average baby is breastfed here.

OP - I find this subject fascinating for various reasons, but mainly because I think that a huge injustice has been done to mothers and babies in the past 60 years in the UK, in the near wiping out of breastfeeding as a normal part of women's and babies' lives, at the hands of health professionals and the formula industry. I see the almost wholesale switch to formula feeding as an incredibly radical and experimental development in human nutrition. I'm amazed that so many people take it for granted and don't question how we've arrived at this situation, or where we go from here.

I appreciate the majority of women have no interest in the social, economic or political concerns underpinning this issue, and simply see it as an individual lifestyle choice, including those who also, paradoxically, have very deep and painful feelings about the whole subject because of their own difficult experiences with it.

Yep - it's a minefield! Makes people very angry and passionate. Even people who claim to find the whole thing a bore and an irrelevance can be found airing this view repeatedly on every thread that crops up on the subject. Some sort of compulsion to keep repeating 'I don't care! Honestly I don't!' Strange.

"I always find it strange that people unquestioningly accept there are benefits to drinking cow's milk after 12 months, but don't consider there might be any to human milk."

Actually there are thousands of mums who think formula is important for babies beyond the end of the first year - those mums who are buying toddler milk.

It doesn't seem right that there's a growing market for toddler milks, while there doesn't seem to be much change in public opinion about pointlessness of breastfeeding beyond the end of the first year.

CCL, I haven't 'googled my arse off', but I just spent 5 mins on google scholar. I think you'd find plenty of studies supporting the WHO's recommendations if you did that. Or, as I said, look at the WHO databank.

Very insightful post spud I agree.

I do find the socio-economic history of bf very interesting....historically, women only bf if they were too poor to hire a wet nurse/ff. Today, it is far more likely that babies from middle and upper class households are bf whilst those from the lower classes/less well off are more likely to be ff.

I also think that it was the 1950s - with the introduction of hospital births as routine rather than home births - that saw the real damage done to bf rates as babies were taken from their mothers to hospital nurseries and ff every 4 hours. It became the norm. IMO It was only during the 1970s and 1980s that the tide started to turn with the beginning of the natural birth movement and more understanding of the processes involved in pregnancy and birth.

on MN there seems to be no happy medium

i.e I am pro BF, but not hugely comfortable with BF beyond a year.

you cant say that here, you just get CANED. But I am not comfortable with it

its either FF from birth OR BF till they are 2 on MN

dunno.....maybe its just me that thinks that

porca, I see a lot of that kind of thing too.

I respectfully disagree on the BF beyond a year thing, but have no issue with the fact that it makes you uncomfortable. :)

You will get jumped at if you dont follow the belief of the mumsnet bf brigade. They have a very vocal leader, they all bow their noses into the ground for. Her words is the gospel, and anybody daring to voice an opinion, or an experience that does not fall into line, should be decapitated. At least verbally.

I hide the breastfeeding topic for that reason.

I BF my children, but I think FF is equally valid and don't feel strongly either way. I do think BF at four is deeply disturbing though.

you see daisy we respectfully agreed to disagree!!

i once got fucking flamed for mentioning my BF cover, I got really upset as IT MADE ME BF FOR LONGER, SHOULD NOT THE LACTIVISTS LIKE THAT!
but with DS2 I have veered a bit more into the lactivist camp I must say....

Hang on.

This is all far too civilised for a BF thread.

Allow me.

YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF CUNTS.

'I do think BF at four is deeply disturbing though.' WHY?

I think it because kids that age dont really need that much milk, they get their nutrition from food.

i think that they will get teased by other kids and its not fair on them

i think the mum will be getting shit from all quarters at that stage and is it really worth it? for a couple of feeds?

and if they are constantly BF at 4 year old, well then that kid is drinking more milk that their non BF peers, ergo its more emotional than nutritional

thats my opinion, anyway.

tether

About time!!!!!