Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

breastfeeding to ensure exclusivity of mother baby bond

52 replies

stitch · 26/08/2008 21:10

this is something i have come accross recently. particularly in big families where there are very controlling grandmothers, and mother baby either live with them, or are very dependant for childcare/ support etc.obviously the main reason is the 'breast is best idea' but ensuring that they are not sidelined was also an important reason for these women.
initially i thought this rather a control freakish idea. however following on from reading some of the threads on mn, with lone parents having to hand over babies to xp's and ow to look after, i'm beginning to wonder if it is actually a not bad idea.....

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

JT · 29/08/2008 09:39

this mother / baby bond thing

what does it mean for the future? I mean does it result in a lifetime of excellent relationships between mother and child? Is it actually worth (what seems to be, judging by some posts) a great deal of hassle and exhaustion?

Surely a baby has two parents and a wider family. Excluding people is not a good idea. Controlling grandmothers can be dealt with in other ways surely, why become a controlling parent - seems almost as bad.

InTheDollshouse · 29/08/2008 09:46

JT, the mother--baby bond is how the baby learns to form bonds with people. It's not about excluding people, it's about setting a strong foundation.

JT · 29/08/2008 09:54

so if, God forbid, the mother dies in childbirth who would teach the child how to form bonds with people?

It's ridiculous to suggest that only a mother could do that. Of course the mother baby bond is an extra special one, but to deliberately set out to exclude other family members from feeding a baby by whatever means is extremely selfish.

I agree with stitch's first assessment which is that it is 'control freakish'

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

Guitargirl · 29/08/2008 09:55

I agree with others, I stopped bf DD (now 20 months) about a month ago and I really think it was an important element of bonding for us. Am not saying it's like that for everyone, just speaking from personal experience. I also faced the pressure from others to 'give her a bottle' so they could 'have their turn' but I was adamant. There are so many other ways relatives can bond with the baby but I enjoyed the fact that this was something only I could do. May sound selfish, may sound controlling but it only lasts a relatively short time in the scheme of things and it's hardly doing the baby any harm is it?

JT · 29/08/2008 10:15

no it won't and neither would sharing

UpSinceCrapOClock · 29/08/2008 10:23

Do you think the whether or not the grandmother bf her children has a part to play in this, as perhaps seems to be in Ispy's case?

I'm very lucky in that neither my mum nor MIL have been anti-bf (although mum took a while to get used to the idea that I bf beyond 6 months, never really said anything nasty, just couldn't quite get her head round it I think with dd - has accepted it as normal now with ds!) Mum bf us til about 5 or 6 months, MIL bf her children for about a year (FIL's sisters bf for about 2 years) and neither have ever been on at me to give a bottle. Both grandmothers are perfectly happy to get involved / bond / feel close to their grandchildren through playing, carrying them and lying on the sofa with baby dd or baby ds sleeping on their chest.

SJ - I also exclusively bf dd for a long time because she wouldn't take a bottle / eat solids etc (she was about 10 months before she suddenly one day decided to start eating!) Tbh, I was starting to resent bf towards the end, then she when she finally started eating other food, that all vanished and I really enjoyed bf after that (probably because it was only 3 or 4 times a day/night). Dd also very much a daddy's girl too, so definitely hasn't affected their bonding!

catweazle · 29/08/2008 18:42

I was very thankful with my first baby that I was BF. The ILs would whip her off me as much as they could, and the only time they had to give her back was when she wanted feeding She was a real daddy's girl, so it obviously had no negative effects there- I always felt like a spare part.

With number 2 I really didn't take to him at first. I feel now (and did at the time) if I hadn't BF him I could quite happily have handed him to someone else to feed and not had anything to do with him at all It was only by having to interact with him while BF that I actually fell for him at all.

Certainly not selfish to do the best by your baby. If other relatives have a problem with that, tough.

I really don't get this obsession to have them overnight either. Fortunately that is one battle we've never been faced with.

tiggerlovestobounce · 29/08/2008 18:50

I dont know if I'm aware of anyone breastfeeding soley to keep exclusivity, but I have a few times seen uncertain bottle feeding new mums completely marginalised by family and in-laws. Women who seemed to desparatly want more to do with their babies but didnt feel confident enough to stand up to the family. In those cases I've felt that things would have been very different if the women has breast-fed.

belgo · 29/08/2008 18:54

I suppose I was quite proud of the fact that my babies needed me more then anyone else.

But I certainly didn't consider it as a reason when I decided to breastfeed.

And I felt just as bonded to my children after I had stopped breastfeeding them.

halogen · 29/08/2008 21:50

My MIL claimed that she couldn't breastfeed her children as her milk dried up after a few months. I suspect that she was probably on the receiving end of well-meaning advice to feed four-hourly instead of on demand etc and also probably didn't know that once breastfeeding is established you don't get the full feeling in the same way. It's sad, really. She said she would have liked to do it for longer but I'm not really sure she means this, for a variety of reasons. I think she was certainly a bit 'jealous' of my time with DD feeding. But she's my daughter and that time was very precious to me. Although it seemed to go on for ages at the time, it was really very short and she'll never need me again like she did then. I feel quite lucky to have had that experience with her.

InTheDollshouse · 30/08/2008 10:26

Goodness JT. If the mother died, then the baby would bond with whoever stepped in to be the baby's primary caregiver. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

JT · 30/08/2008 10:27

not nearly so much as you

minorityrules · 30/08/2008 10:39

Surely the bond is there no matter who feeds the baby, I have the bond with all my children regardless of how they were fed and the one who couldn't BF was my clingy one and the one who wouldn't go to anyone else, my longest BF couldn't have given 2 hoots who held him as long as they were entertaining

My kids have close bonds with all their extended family too, I don't think mum and baby is the most important relationship

InTheDollshouse · 30/08/2008 12:14

The point, JT, is that you seem to be assuming that a strong mother--child bond is detrimental to the child's chances of bonding with other family members. I am simply pointing out that it is not. A strong bond makes it more, not less, likely that the child will bond well with others.

IAteDavinaForDinner · 30/08/2008 12:30

JT said: "to deliberately set out to exclude other family members from feeding a baby by whatever means is extremely selfish. "

"I agree with stitch's first assessment which is that it is 'control freakish'"

The point a lot of people who are critical of the exclusivity offered by BFing are missing is that the exclusive BFing relationship is normal. For the baby, it's not "normal" to have all and sundry feeding it.

In some individual situations it can be described as of benefit to the mother, when others can relive her of the task of feeding, but I absolutely loathe this idea that people who BF are selfishly excluding relatives. People who BF are doing what's normal.

MadameOvary · 30/08/2008 12:37

Threads like this make me feel glad I have almost no extended family and no PIL's!

I love bf DD. DP will give her a bottle of EBM if there is one, but mostly its just the two of us, which is fine.

Bumperlicious · 30/08/2008 12:47

I agree with everything that has been said here (except for JT, sorry).

My mum hated the fact that I bfed, for a lot of reasons, but one of them was the fact that she couldn't take her off by herself. In actual fact I gave my mum a bottle of EBM to feed dd and she said "God, it even looks disgusting" But that's another story all together...

I really think that there is no harm, and in actual fact a lot of positives to a strong tie with the mother, after all, that's how mother nature intended it. Being bfed (even up til now at 14 mo) DD has an excellent relationship with her dad, and is a very friendly, confident child who will go up to almost anyone.

I was fortunate that DD took bottles from a fairly early age though, as it can be incredibly draining on the mother if she has no choice. I must admit that once DD started having on or 2 bottles of cow's milk (from about 10.5 months as I was back at work PT and could no longer express) it was sooooo liberating to be free of that exclusive tie and know that I could go anywhere for almost however long I liked. That felt good, but I probably wouldn't have appreciated it as much without 10 months of DD needing me at least within 4 hours unless I could express.

JT · 30/08/2008 14:21

drama - I assumed no such thing. I do not believe that bonding is learned only from the mother, I thought that was clear from my post. (by the by I also do not believe the bonding process happens only at feeding time!)

Davina - you can breastfeed exclusively but you can also (if you want, if your family wants) share the feeding on a few occasions if you express - nothing lost I'd say and much to be gained.

Bumper - no problem

Let's face it if a new mother was so inclined she could insist on exclusively bottle feeding, allowing no other member of the family to be involved, I'd find that selfish too.

To conclude my posting on this thread (why oh why did I ever start? stitch, its your fault!) I feel sad at what appears to be a lot of tense and unhappy relationships in some families, happily I had/have no such problems with my dm, dd and dgs's.

halogen · 30/08/2008 18:09

Some babies won't take a bottle, though, no matter how much you try, once they are used to breastfeeding. I know. I had one like that.

And I really don't see how breastfeeding is selfishly excluding other members of the family from bonding. As you say, the bonding process doesn't happen exclusively when feeding.

Gobbledigook · 30/08/2008 20:45

okay i said i wouldn't but

the thread is about excluding people intentionally, deliberately with aforethought!

you think that's normal, I don't.

Gobbledigook · 30/08/2008 20:45

sorry that wasn't gobble its Jools, I'm on her computer!

Bumperlicious · 30/08/2008 22:33

I think it is perfectly normal to feel so protective over your child you don't want your relatives, esp ones you might not necessarily like, pawing all over your new baby, taking them away from you. It's just a protective instinct, I think that's all it mostly is. Nothing more sinister than that.

MamaMaiasaura · 30/08/2008 22:40

It appears according so some posters that I am selfish then by exclusively bfing ds2 and not expressing to 'give someone else a go'. Ds2 is not a toy, he is a baby who is very settled, happy, social and content. He has fantastic relationships with the rest of his family.

So why on earth should i express in order to let someone else have a go? I mean they are soley dependent on milk for a relatively short period of their lives, why screw around with expressing just to satisy anothers desire to feed your baby.

I think it is the other people who are being selfish.

In regard to not expressing to be able to be exlusively breastfeeding.. well therefore it excludes the rest of family in that respect. What is the problem with that? I had pressure from a sister and mum to express to give dp a go at feeding. Dp thankfully is a sensible chap and felt that it was unfair on ds2 to mess around with feeding.

Caz10 · 30/08/2008 22:42

"The flip side is that breastfeeding makes alot of people feel angry and jealous and excludedin a way that they cannot articulate."

moondog why do you think this is?? I have certainly found it to be true, and don't understand it, but it really fascinates me

this is my 1st baby and 1st of any of my friends to bf for any longer than a few weeks, so all new territory.

Bumperlicious · 31/08/2008 09:47

Caz I would say the primary reasons are:

couldn't bf themselves so upset and jealous
didn't try or gave up early and feel it is an indirect criticism of their parenting
GPs or other relies wanting more time with GCs
Uncomfortable with the sight of bfing, there is something about being pg, having a baby and bfing that draws attention to intimate, but natural processes, i.e. you are pg so obviously had sex, gave birth so obviously have a vagina and are bfing so, yep, there are your boobs. Makes people uncomfortable
bfers can be quite evangelical, in a way that FFers generally aren't so that can make people uncomfortable or angry, or bored!
Older mothers forgetting what a big deal it was when they had LOs

Not saying any of these reasons are right or wrong, or justified etc. just answering Caz's question, that's why I think people get upset and angry.

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread