La Leche League's "Erasing of Mothers" Saga Continues

[notidentifying22]

One More Thing is the latest and reportedly last post from mothersformothers.com (MfM) explaining how La Leche League's draconian search for the identity of the writers on the MfM website has become too high of a risk to continue publishing. There is a new site discussing the issues that MfM is encouraging people to check out. Lucy Leader Substack. All of the MfM articles will find a home on the archives of this substack.

Thanks OP, so sad that such a women-focused institution has become so toxic

So sad that all our things are being sought out and destroyed from within.

So many organisations in the US have been captured in this way, but since men don't have breasts and don't lactate I'm particularly horrified that LLLI has. They were such a help and support to me when I had my DS in the US, but to be GC in America is far harder than it is here and many more, otherwise cool, fun, interesting women are fully TWAW. It's very sad.

I'm not a mother so haven't breastfed. According to my mother, she could have done with the sort of help the League provides with me. My two sisters both breast fed, one two at a time, and I suspect she could have done with their help. So I am appalled to read about this. And what is the Stalinist board threatening the samizdat mothers of MfM with that they have to go into hiding on line?IT is beyond belief.

The resemblance to the McCarthy era and the Chinese cultural revolution era are so very obvious. What's different from this wave of authoritarianism and cancellations is that it centers on only one sex as the wrongthinkers, and, perhaps, that the people doing the punishing are attacking the vast majority. Though the fact that the vast majority consists of female people is, of course, the real reason why all this is happening.

Yes, it is unprecedented for La Leche League, which has always welcomed and encouraged Leader input.

Agreed. It's a real War Against Women and a movement for men's right to our bodies and spaces.

The loss is immeasurable. The takeover so drastic. The current BOD members who are gender warriors stated in their board election material that they were joining to change LLL to include everyone. However, we all know only women can breastfeed; only women can give birth.

LLL has always stood for a mother's right to breastfeed at home, in the workplace, and in public. When I see the virtue signaling that the Board is doing I lose faith in us as human beings with so many putting their woke status ahead of the safety of women and babies. Trying to score points in the academic world for forcing language on a volunteer breastfeeding organization has to be one of the worst things a person could commit to. (from a comment on one Board member's election papers hoping she would be recognized as turning the ship around by her academic colleagues).

I think it is selfish to come into an organization with the stated goal of making it a political organization by attempting to get it to bend to one's own personal beliefs. LLL has been amazing, eschewing the mixing of causes—from cloth v. disposable diapers, home v. hospital birth, not taking a stand on abortion and now for the BOD to promote the integration of men who really have no business attempting to breastfeed, I stand astounded. All people can be treated with respect, but by definition birth and breastfeeding are both sexed activities. And that is why the gender warriors have attacked LLL. A trophy win. And a loss so complete for women and babies.

I can see why you would cuckoo an organisation if you needed its resources but to do so essentially to just to control language is bizarre. When they get bored of this they’ll just leave presumably and LLL just falls over.

The democratically elected globally representative yet Stalinist LLLI Board?
Interesting.

The LLL Leaders running the website in question actively sought to damage La Leche League - it is entirely reasonable for LLLI to try to stop that and uphold their ability to support Leaders, mothers, parents and babies.

As I hear it there is frequently only one name on the ballot and very few Leaders vote. Leaders standing for roles are not allowed to speak about why other Leaders should vote for them so any who do vote can only go off knowing the candidates personally or knowing someone who knows them. It is pseudo democratic I suppose.

<one name on the ballot and very few Leaders vote.>
If only one candidate stands there is only one name on the ballot - nothing stopping more people standing, right? And nothing stopping Leaders voting.

Each DCE (DCE = leadership body for Leaders in specific regions) runs its own elections. Negative campaigning is not permitted and there are good reasons for that. However many DCEs host online meetings with candidates for Leaders to attend, or invite questions they will put to candidates. And all candidates will have references and a candidate statement shared with Leaders in that DCE.

Not really pseudo-democratic at all. However, if you have concerns speak to your administrators, or write the LLLI Board - cos they're probably not checking mumsnet threads for your opinions.

Here's the policy governing elections to the LLLI Board if you're interested -
www.llli.org/about/policies-standing-rules/psr-board-elections/

@notidentifying22 - you say I think it is selfish to come into an organization with the stated goal of making it a political organization by attempting to get it to bend to one's own personal beliefs. You also talk about 'gender warriors' taking over. It can make it sound like LLLI Board members were not involved with LLL before they were elected. When in actual fact, and you probably know this having studied the applications of numerous Board members, they have all been LLL Leaders for a long time, and have deep concern for the breadth of LLLI's needs and challenges.

@Interloper7 so why is this happening? It’s clear it’s not in the best interests of any baby to try to fulfil its nutritional requirements from a male-bodied ‘breast’ feeder

What is this that you see happening?
The policy a minority of Leaders are objecting to is about how LLLI handles language in its publications. It states We recognize that the language we use can make a difference to those who will seek LLL support and to those we reach. With this in mind, publications produced for LLLI use a variety of terms to describe Leaders and the people we serve. You can read the rest here
www.llli.org/about/policies-standing-rules/psr-language-in-llli-in-publications/

Yes, dictators often pull the wool over the people's eyes, so to speak. Stalin used a variety of methods, including: propaganda, purges, show trials, religion, and his main methods were fear and terror. While the Board has certainly not been quite this tyrannical, the methods of propaganda (Leaders who question language changes are transphobic), purges (removing Leaders from committees and Leadership due to personally held beliefs), religion (the establishment and promotion of transgenderism beliefs), show trials (requests for re-education or threats of discreditation for Leaders who ask questions), create fear and are reminiscent of this type of "leadership".
I wonder why you believe that Leaders "actively tried to damage LLL?" Maybe what they were doing was to try to get the BOD to address their concerns about the harm caused to mothers and babies by the language changes. The changes deny biology and tie Leaders tongues. When no response or demonstration of a willingness to listen became the way Leaders were treated, and then they were gaslit and ignored, perhaps they tried to get the Board's attention the only way possible—by going public. It's too bad the Board appears to have silenced Leaders. It seems to have backfired. But indeed the saddest part is that the Board didn't invite Leaders to come and meet to try to work out this issue with any openness or seeking to understand. Letters were patiently written for years by Leaders, answered by boiler plate responses. LLL social media gender warriors are repeatedly allowed to disparage gender critical Leaders online. LLL is sadly changed and may never recover. But it's not a website that caused this. No, the site is a symptom of what appears to be a dysfunctional BOD. It is time to put the past behind and reach out to Leaders in an open and caring way. Trying to silence Leaders is not the answer. The answer is to try to understand and seek common ground.

Thank you for your response. The Founding mothers of LLL had deeply held personal beliefs, just like many of those setting LLL policy today do. However, the Founders were wise to not mix causes with any political, cultural, or religious movement, no matter how deserving it might be. Yes, many BOD members have been involved in LLL for decades and it is even more of a disappointment that they are not able to discern the right course of action by mixing causes with the transgender activist agenda. That should be reserved for their personal lives. Just as Mary White was able to come to an understanding about the need to not make LLL pro-life, it's time for the Board to remove their personal beliefs that go against the mission statement.

Well said OP 👏👏👏

@Interloper7 The MfM pieces, now archived, describe Leaders being expected to assist male-bodied people feed their (?) baby with support from a cocktail of drugs. I’ve also read complaints (sorry, can’t reference) of male-bodied people joining zoom LLL meetings, and Leaders feeling unable to eject them. That’s what I was referring to.

@notidentifying22 Nice analysis of what dictators do, and your extrapolation to LLLI Board behaviour, even though you concede it has 'not been quite this tyrannical', is wild. You are misinformed and are spreading misinformation - and that's a real shame because I'd imagine some people will read your spiel about purges and show trials and believe it. It's a load of rubbish people!

I believe the Leaders who ran that website actively tried to damage LLL because, among other actions, they called on people not to donate to LLLI (LLLI relies on donations to be able to support Leaders and run programs),
they sought to exert pressure to reverse democratically agreed policies, and to stoke fear and moral panic. I'm so happy they failed. Again, policies and approaches not being changed do not mean individuals were not listened to. It just means people did not agree with you. LLLI policy and approach reflect that of the majority of DCEs. What you are doing, in seeking to enforce a minority view on a global organization, is undemocratic.

There is no 'transgender activist agenda', that's more fearmongering nonsense.
You really need to provide some evidence for all these accusations.

@waterwitch that website said a lot of things, didn't mean they were true though!

You asked about 'Leaders being expected to assist male-bodied people feed their (?) baby with support from a cocktail of drugs'. Here's the thing - Leaders may receive requests for support from mothers/parents who have induced lactation/sought to increase their supply with the help of various drugs. This is not limited to trans women. And it's not a common occurrence. Regardless, LLL doesn't make any judgment about this use of medications. Just as LLL doesn't make judgments regarding other medications, recreational drugs, alcohol etc that any nursing parent, including mothers, uses. It's really a strawperson argument, a distraction. The vast majority of non-binary and trans parents seeking support from LLL have exactly the same anatomical and hormonal profile as breastfeeding mothers.

Complaints of 'male-bodied people joining zoom LLL meetings, and Leaders feeling unable to eject them.' - unfortunately cis men, with intent to disrupt, do occasionally try to access LLL support including meetings. That's been a thing for decades. If you're a Leader, there is advice for Leaders in the Leader's Handbook. And any Leader has support they can access in their Area if they do experience disruption or have safeguarding concerns.

@Interloper7 Nobody here, or at MfM appears to be complaining about female-bodied people, regardless of how they identify/present. You seem to accept that transwomen would also be included in a breastfeeding support group - as highlighted by MfM. Accepting male-bodied people in the group would be a problem for many women, even though you suggest this is ok. I haven’t yet seen any evidence to suggest males are actually able to feed a baby, or that this is safe (for the baby)
Further, a regular feature of these discussions is the ‘it’s only a tiny number’. However, once there is the potential for male-bodied people to be in the room
a) lots of women won’t even want to take the risk, so self-exclude
b) other male-bodied people feel it’s acceptable, and Leaders no longer have clear direction and confidence the organisation will support them - hence the problems on Zoom
A number of people (including, but not exclusively the MfM posters) report these issues, you suggest this isn’t true. What makes you so sure?

Everything Waterwitch said plus if you are accepting men can feed babies then you have betrayed the dyad. Mother and baby should be together. That is what is best for both of them, it is what they are primed for by evolution and what complex physiological and psychological processes in the bodies and minds of both mother and baby have been primed for by pregnancy and birth. When there has been a traumatic birth experience, breastfeeding and skin to skin cuddles can heal some of that trauma. There are measurable changes in hormones and vital signs and myriad health benefits to mother and baby from being in close physical proximity. How can any supposed breastfeeding organisation be supporting third parties to interfere with that process, that physical and psychological need for the dyad to be together in the early post partum period?

How many people typically vote in these elections?

Only I know from my involvement in the Labour Party and local union organising that positions can be won by a literal handful of votes - most members simply don’t bother to vote on internal elections, barely notice that these elections take place.

i5’s worrying because the people who do stand are often not particularly representative of the broader membership (who are often too busy doing actual voluntary support work to take up organising positions).

it makes organisations surprisingly easy to capture, and yes, once the political ‘toy’ is broken, those who broke it lose interest and wander off.

@waterwitch and @PomegranateOfPersephone
I don't know if you are LLL Leaders - if you are, then you will know that there has been no change in who can attend LLL meetings. They are open to anyone who needs breastfeeding support and information. Check the Leader's Handbook if you're unsure, including suggestions for how to manage meetings and publicising them if you want to restrict them to nursing parents only because of the specific communities you serve (ie no partners and support people).

Issues with zoom meetings - yes, they exist, cases recently discussed in Leader spaces involve cis men. Leaders involved have received support to handle them. If any Leaders feel they are not receiving adequate support they need to take that up with their Area/DCE admins/Leader department.