Breastfeeding and early attachment: Why our culture is so against it.

To honour World Breastfeeding Week, I have include an extract from Chapter 3, The Socialisation of Mothers (The Shepherdess: A Guide to Mothering without Control) available in November 2012.

It has been well-researched that close attachment  is better for us and our children. Why then is society so against us mothering this way? Why, when we mothers have perfectly good working breasts, do we use an inferior milk product, fake teats and a plastic receptacle to feed our babies? Why are we encouraged to use cots and prams and other ‘mother eplacements’ rather than hold our children close day and night? Is there something wrong with breastfeeding? Is there something wrong with being close? Apparently, in our society, there is. If we do breastfeed we shouldn’t do it for too long because it requires us to be there for our baby. Breastfeeding makes it rather clear that we are not physically separate. The fact that our baby lives and grows on our milk means they are still dependent on us for life and development. Breastfeeding demands of us a greater commitment and responsibility than bottle-feeding. Furthermore, the mutual dependency, both physical and emotional, fostered by the nursing relationship bonds us to our child. We continue as one.

In our culture nursing is primarily seen as a way of providing an infant with food. Why should we be tied down when our baby can get food from a bottle or a jar, which anyone can give to them? Formula and baby foods were not invented to provide our babies with food that was better than our milk, but rather to allow us to not have to breastfeed so we can do other things. More important things apparently. We are commonly pushed back into work rather than being encouraged to be home mothering our babies ourselves.

These products have made it possible for us to become separate from our babies, which is seen as a good and necessary thing. Our inventiveness has given us the ability not to be natural mothers. Why does society view a baby’s need for closeness day and night as a problem? Why do we think it is a good idea to train our babies not to request to be picked up, held, cuddled, rocked, suckled, even though these things are completely natural for a human child? Is it because our society wants mothers to be doing something else, perhaps?

Separation

In our society, we do not see anything wrong in leaving an infant without their mother.  This is because our society is based on theseparateness of individuals rather than on their unity with each other. We do not see it as strange that we separate from our newborns, so they can sleep alone, that they don’t drink from us and they aren’t constantly held by us. We do not find it peculiar for us to not always be present for our babies and to leave them in the hands of strangers, whilst we go to work.  We have been socialised into believing that our baby’s need for constant closeness isn’t a need at all, but a desire, a whim and if we give in to that whim then we are weak and doing them a disservice.

Why should we respond to our baby’s crying if our baby is fed, clean and not in pain? Our baby has to learn that they can’t control us, that they can’t get away with using their sobs to manipulate us by being ‘overly-demanding’.  We are told time and again – don’t feel guilty, Mum, don’t give in, don’t go in the room. Suppress your instincts to respond and remember you’re doing it for them – for their own good. You’re teaching them discipline. You’re saving your baby from becoming spoiled, from being dependent on you. Your baby needs to learn to be independent of you. Don’t, under any circumstances, pick up your baby, or you will ruin everything – for yourself, for your husband, for everyone. That’s what all the experts say, so it must be right. Of course, often this approach works and our baby eventually learns not to cry and to go to sleep alone, which proves that they weren’t really upset after all, doesn’t it? It proves that they were just being manipulative, right? What is really happening is that our baby learnt that their cry does not bring a caring response, that their crying has no power. Our baby learnt that their needs will not be responded to so they must ignore their own feelings and accept the ‘rules’. What do we learn? We learn that our baby is trainable and if we ignore their requests we can make them easier to manage. We learn that it is best to bury our natural instincts that make us want to respond to our baby – to nurse, to hold, to comfort. We learn to become more physically and emotionally separate from our child and further detached.

Modern Mothers

The biggest sadness of all this is that we modern mothers do love our children desperately and want to give them the very best. However, we have been socialised to believe that in order to do this we must reject and ignore our innate human instincts. Our culture tells us that the best way to raise our child is to direct their behaviour and development in order for them to be normal, healthy, happy, good citizens. As modern mothers we are encouraged not to be guided by nature, biology or instinct, but by the voices of society.  The ‘right’ way to rear children in our society has absolutely nothing to do with what we need or what our children need and everything to do with what society needs. It always involves imposing on our children the necessity to give up their requirement for nurturance as soon as possible and denying us the opportunity to nurture our young the way nature intended. We ignore our instincts and become driven by our need to preserve our separate identity under the influence of our husbands, relatives and infant care experts. As a result, we begin to treat our baby not like a baby. We are encouraged to change our baby to fit who we are (or what society wants us to be). Therefore, we must train our baby to become something other than a human baby in order to ‘fit in’.

From childhood on, we are socialised not to believe in our instinctive knowledge. We are told that parents and teachers know best and that when our feelings do not concur with their ideas, we must be wrong. Conditioned to mistrust or utterly disbelieve our feelings, we are easily convinced not to believe our baby whose cries say ‘You should hold me!’, ‘I should be next to your body!’, ‘Don’t leave me!’ Instead, we overrule our natural response and follow the fashion dictated by baby care ‘experts’. The loss of faith in our innate expertise leaves us turning from one book to another as each successive fad fails. It is important to understand who the real experts are. The second greatest baby care expert is within us. The greatest expert of all is, of course, our baby who is programmed to signal to us, with their own unique sound and action. The signal from our baby, the understanding of the signal by us and the impulse to obey it, are all a part of our species’ character. Our socialisation as mothers has damaged part of the signal – our impulse to obey. Our conditioning leads us to question – should I teach my baby that I am the boss so they won’t become a tyrant? Although our babies begin by letting us know by the clearest signals what they need, if we ignore them they will eventually give up. At what cost did we get a compliant baby? As this is what contemporary Western civilization relies upon, it is little wonder why the relationship between parent and child has remained steadfastly adversarial.

This is an extract from Chapter 3, The Socialisation of Mothers (The Shepherdess: A Guide to Mothering without Control) available in November 2012.

Breastfeeding: Are we suffering from ‘failure-acceptance’?

An interesting and very brave article here about ‘failure acceptance’ for breastfeeding women. My opinion: that most women, if they were properly educated on the benefits, would never consider formula and would perservere harder during the rough times with breastfeeding. However, the reality is that when things don’t go well the medical profession commonly spout inaccurate information and produce fear in mothers that leads them to turn to the bottle. ABA and LLL should be the first port of call when things get difficult. For the minority who do turn to the bottle because it is ‘easier and they have other priorities’, I would say there is nothing more important than your baby and meeting their needs. A baby needs the breastfeeding relationship for attachment and nutrition. What do you think?

 

 

Why is the medical profession so uneducated about the benefits of extended breastfeeding?

As an advocate of extended breastfeeding for the benefit of mothers and children, I was pretty miffed to read this article today  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2146870/Breastfeed-year-old-Thats-just-selfish-wrong.html.  Dr Cannon’s views, of course, are nothing new but it got me thinking about how scary it is that our medical profession are so ill-informed and, therefore dangerous, when it comes to providing advice regarding extended breastfeeding. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but this article is just frittered with falsehoods that I will address one by one.  In this article, Dr Ellie Cannon says:

1.  ”There is little evidence of any health benefits beyond the age of one. Breastfeeding babies is natural and normal – but in my opinion, breastfeeding your child up until three or even later is unnecessary.”  Wrong, wrong, wrong. According to Attachment Parenting guru Dr Sears,  The World Health Organization (WHO) officially recommends mothers breastfeed until three years of age. (Yes, you did read that right!) Even the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends mothers should breastfeed “at least until one year of age and then as long as baby and mother mutually want to.”  They make these recommendations because of the wealth of evidence of health benefits for extended breastfeeding for mother and child.  For mum it reduces the risk of uterine, ovarian, and breast cancers and they have a lower incidence of osteoporosis later in life.  For children,it reduces the chances of gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, heart disease, and on and on and on. Likewise, the babies nursed the longest scored the highest on the IQ tests.

2.”The attachment parenting crowd argue this is the way parents have been doing things for thousands of years. I’m not an anthropologist, but I do know that we’re living in an era when these things are not the norm.”  Well, that is the point isn’t it, that what is the ‘norm’ isn’t actually biologically normal.  And no you are not an anthropologist, but Katherine Dettwyler is.  A world renowned one at that, and she argues that, “In terms of the benefits of extended breastfeeding, there have been a number of studies comparing breastfed and bottlefed babies in terms of the frequency of various diseases, and also IQ achievement. In every case, the breastfed babies had lower risk of disease and higher IQs than the bottle-fed babies. In those studies that divided breastfed babies into categories based on length of breastfeeding, the babies breastfed the longest did better in terms of both lower disease and higher IQ. In other words, if the categories were 0-6 months of breastfeeding, 6-12 months, 12-18 months and 18-24+ months, then the 18-24+ month babies did the best, and the 12-18 month babies did the next best, and the 6-12 months babies did the next best, and the 0-6 months babies did the worst of the breastfed groups, but still much better than the bottlefeeding group. This has been shown for gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, heart disease, and on and on and on. Likewise, the babies nursed the longest scored the highest on the IQ tests”.

3.”no health professional would officially recommend co-sleeping, as there are concerns the baby is at increased risk from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome“. Um, yes they would and they do - in abundance.  A 1997 Pediatrics article outlined a study that observed night-time breastfeeding behavior in mother-infant pairs. The study found that co-sleeping led to increased breastfeeding. Because breastfeeding has been shown to have a protective effect against SIDS, then co-sleeping, which facilitates breastfeeding, might be protective against SIDS.
Another article published in Pediatrics suggests that co-sleeping has protective effects against SIDS because of an increase in the infant’s arousals and the mother’s responsiveness when the pair is co-sleeping.  Just this week, an announcement was made to the press that SIDS was reduced by breastfeeding – Queensland-based author of the SIDS review and safe sleeping expert, Adjunct Professor Jeanine Young, said consistent findings of studies over the past 15 years showed that along with maternal and infant health benefits, breastfeeding helped reduce the risk of SIDS. 

4.”The worry of many developmental psychologists is that extreme breastfeeding dampens this natural stage of a child’s development and serves only to indulge the mother: it gives her attention and a purpose“.   This is just utter hogwash.  Most developmental psychologists view attachment as incredibly important for optimum emotional health.  Dr Penelope Leach (Your Baby Your Child, 1995), conducted an anonymous survey of 150 infant health professionals and infant mental health professionals from 56 countries who were members of the World Association for Infant Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. When asked what level of attachment they considered  to be the best from birth to 36 months, the majority said that from the infant’s point of view it was ‘very important’ for babies to have their mothers available to them ‘through most of each 24 hours’ for more than a year and ‘ideal’ for infants to be cared for ‘principally’ by their mothers for durations averaging 27 months’. 

5. “Children are sexually aware from a young age. They become interested in body parts and what they do. Breastfeeding a child old enough to walk over to his mother and open her shirt creates a confusing message about personal boundaries and our bodies.”  Honestly, I don’t even know where to start with this one.  Are there really still intelligent people in the civilised world who would believe this?  Maybe so, but I like to think that most parents know that affection, love, closeness, and attachment doesn’t ‘confuse’ a child, and there are no sexual overtones at all.  All they feel is love and connection with their parents.  Why would adults, particularly a medical professional, try to turn something so beautiful into something ugly.  As Dettwyler says, “Extended breastfeeding is NORMAL for our species.  Another important consideration for the older child is that they are able to maintain their emotional attachment to a person, rather than being forced to switch to an inanimate object such as a teddy bear or blanket. I think this sets the stage for a life of people-orientation, rather than materialism, and I think that is a good thing. I also can’t imagine living through the toddler years without that close loving connection to a child going through enormous changes, some of which are very frustrating to the child”

In conclusion, the evidence shows clearly that there are overwhelming benefits to both mother and child to practice extended breastfeeding.  What would be nice is for the medical profession to become better informed about this, especially when they are writing about it in the popular press and have great influence on new mothers.   My arguments on this subject are developed much more eloquently and in much greater detail in the Chapter – The Socialisation of Mothers in my book, The Shepherdess.

References:

http://www.parenting.com/article/ask-dr-sears-extended-breastfeeding—-handling-the-criticism.

Penelope Leach (Your Baby Your Child, 1995)

Katherine Dettwyler, The Natural Age to Wean, http://www.kathydettwyler.org/detwean.html

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/13703909/cot-death-risk-lower-if-baby-is-breastfed/

Breastfeeding a 3-year-old is NORMAL for our species

Some online are calling it “perverted” and “dangerous” to nurse a 3-year-old, but “it’s normal for our species,” says Katherine Dettwyler, a professor of anthropology at the University of Delaware in Newark.

“It’s not perverted, it’s not sex, it’s not women doing it for some perverse need,” she says. “It’s normal like a nine-month pregnancy is normal.”

Dettwyler, who has published studies on breast-feeding, found that most children around the world are breast-fed for three to five years or longer.

What is Progressive Parenting?

‘The Shepherdess’ parenting philosophy is based on Progressive Parenting.  The progressive parenting theory has its roots in attachment theory, which was originally proposed by John Bowlby who stated that an infant has a tendency to seek closeness to another person and feel secure when that person is present. Attachment theory encourages parents to listen to their babies cues and respond. It argues that any training or controlling over a baby by following a routine (such as controlled crying or sleep training) is damaging to the child and the connection they have with their parents.   Backed up by the latest research in the fields of sociology, zoology, anthropology, child psychology, neurology and psycho-history, Progressive Parenting extends the AP philosophy past the early years, and argues that parents need to continue to follow their child’s cues and unique needs, avoiding all form of discipline and punishment including time-out, rewards, praise, shame, and smacking.

Every day I help parents who want to be more progressive in their approach to move away from control and closer to connection.  Is it easy?  No, not always –parenting is a tough gig no matter what style you adopt.  No denials here.  But what this approach does promise is more joy and harmony with your brood than you ever imagined possible.  Won’t kids end up as unruly monsters?  Let’s be clear here –  parents should keep their kids safe and encourage respectful, socially acceptable behaviour.  But there are ways to do that without being controlling to the extent that children don’t have choices and options.  Children are still learning and figuring out their world and to do that they don’t need their requests denied and to be punished when they make mistakes; they need guidance and feedback. They need information and support. They need patience. They need to be listened to, validated and respected. They need a supporter rather than a dictator, an ally not an adversary. A wing-man. A partner. A friend.  They need doors opened to them rather than closed. They need a guide, not a policeman. They need a shepherdess.

So I encourage you to come here and ask questions, share your stories, concerns, problems and tips with us and maybe I will use them in my next book!  Here’s to progressive parenting and more peaceful homes around the world!

- The Shepherdess

WHY I THINK THE ‘MOMMY WARS’ FUELLED BY TIME COVER IS A GOOD THING

The now infamous TIME magazine cover has generated an unprecedented amount of press coverage for attachment parenting. Many in the pro-camp are disgruntled that the ‘Are You Mom Enough?’  tagline has pit moms against each other.  Personally I think the tagline is entirely appropriate. The fields of sociology, anthropology, psycho-history, and biology all point towards this method of parenting being entirely biologically normal and necessary for optimum infant well-being. However, this intelligence is relatively new and, as yet, attachment or progressive parenting is not socially normal – yet.

Our current society tells us we should be put the mother before the child: heaven forbid that a mother should feel guilty or inferior! That’s why I think every mother should ask themselves every day if they are mom enough. It’s not a popular view, I know. Every mommy support site out there will tell you to ‘not beat yourself up’ when you have been less than kind to your child, and never to judge one other. Just remember though that behind every mother who is condoned in this way there is a small child behind the scenes who maybe is left to cry-it-out, is being constantly yelled at, or is denied the breast or the warmth of his parents at night. I’m not just picking on women here – the whole of society has to step up to the plate. We moms weren’t meant to do it alone and we need a heap of practical and emotional support to parent this way and dads, grandparents, aunties, uncles, neighbours and friends need to help us to undertake the most important job in the world – and for the world. So maybe the question shouldn’t be if we are mom enough but if we are all human enough to truly meet the needs of our young?

More Celebs Following Progressive Parenting Principles

More and more celebs are following progressive or attachment parenting principles. “Gossip Girl” star Kelly Rutherford and “Big Bang Theory” actress Mayim Bialik both made the headlines recently when they revealed publicly that they breastfed their toddlers; Rutherford even more so because she revealed her stance on the subject back in 2008. Bialik, who, in addition to being an actress and mother, is a neuroscientist, did extensive research on the subject and wrote a book about it: “Beyond the Sling: A Real-Life Guide to Raising Confident, Loving Children the Attachment Parenting Way.”

“Brangelina” are allegedly ‘unschoolers’ and, along with Kevin Kline,  Kylie Bax and a host of others, they have openly admitted to co-sleeping with their kids for as long as they want. 

Angelina Jolie told Esquire magazine:  “Rightnow, Pax is sleeping in our bed. It’s kind of nice, him immediately knowing and feeling comfortable with us. Mad slept with me until Brad and I got together. They’re fun to sleep with. We have family sleep on Sundays. Everybody sleeps together.”

New Zealand model Kylie Bax told Woman’s Day magazine, after the birth of her second child, Dione Nefeli, “We have four people in the bed now!” (Her other child is daughter, Lito, 3.)

Kevin Kline, his wife Phoebe Cates, and their children, Owen, 16, and Greta, 13, still share a bed.  He told OK! Magazine,  “There is a theory that a child has to teach itself to go to sleep, and if every time it cries, you whisk them out of their bed — the jury is still out on that. But our kids still sleep in our bed”.

There are also a wealth of celebs caught on camera ‘wearing’ their babies, such as Julia Roberts and Naomi Watts,making the practice more acceptable.

The media, however, still depict extended breastfeeding and co-sleeping as “extreme” or “humorous”.  I loved the recent comedy Grown-Ups, but was pretty ticked off by the supposed joke about the older-than-average child still being breastfed by their mother as being crazy and unstable.  As a mother who tandem feeds a 3.5 year-old and a 2-year-old I don’t find it crazy, but totally natural and logical.  Hopefully, with more celebs following this parenting style the media might start portraying mothers following this style in a more positive light and not as a source of ridicule.

Time Magazine Cover of Breastfeeding Mum to a Three-year-old Causes Outrage

I was delighted to read this, but then equally saddened (although not surprised) that it caused outrage.  What is most interesting to me, particularly as a mum who tandem fed a 3.5 year old and a 2 year old, is when this mum says how she has given up trying to reason with the people who are appalled.  Those who think it is perverse, weird, selfish (I know – what is that one about!), and generally just icky I do still try to reason with, but I must admit I have yet to get anywhere.  Most just politely agree to disagree.

I am convinced, though, that in fifty years (or maybe less) as we begin to understand far more about child psychology, breastfeeding until our children are ready to give up will be the norm.  The idea of mother-led weaning will be unusual.  Here’s hoping!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/time-magazine-cover-of-mum-breastfeeding-three-year-old-son-is-sure-to-raise-some-eyebrows/story-e6frf7lf-1226352688465