http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/exclusive_breastfeeding/en/
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/moms-need-more-support-to-breastfeed-exclusively/
http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/30/bring-back-the-binky-study-finds-pacifiers-actually-boost-breast-feeding/?xid=gonewsedit
I've been spending the last few days trying to catch up on sleep (Mace is due for his growth spurt, so he's eating all the time ...) so we'll see if I can manage to get this written up without coming across as too harsh/opinionated/judgmental/crazy/etc. I'm just going to write and post and not think about it any more. Maybe I'll write more in the future.
The World Health Organization recommends that babies be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life, and that breastfeeding continues for the first year of life, up to two years and beyond.
That sounds great. It's certainly a noble goal.
But honestly, is it realistic? At all? Are they REALLY surprised and disheartened that by 6 months, only 14% of babies have been exclusively breastfed? To me, that actually sounds like a really high number. In my last post, I calculated that you could spend 40 hours a month breastfeeding. Honestly, how many women want to do that? Exclusively?
I feel like the WHO is so caught up in the "exclusive breastfeeding" thing that they fail to take into account the women who are "mostly breastfeeding" or "still breastfeeding". Their babies are still getting the benefits of breastfeeding, although maybe not as much (or something; I haven't done an extensive study on it.) I think it makes women feel overwhelmed (it's overwhelming for me, a stay-at-home-mom) and puts a lot of pressure and guilt and whatnot on women who supplement with formula.
I have unopened formula in my pantry. Just in case. And I have some pumped milk in the freezer. Sometimes I'm afraid to think about the formula, because I've got the WHO in the back of my head chanting, "Exclusive breastfeeding! Exclusive breastfeeding! No formula!" and the constant refrain from the crazies in the online breastfeeding world going, "Formula undermines breastfeeding! Formula companies are El Diablo!!" Okay, no, I don't want to go into the politics of Nestle here, thank you.
Yes, 7 weeks in, Mace is exclusively breastfed, and has taken a few bottles of expressed milk. I don't want to mess with formula yet because that means I'll have to reheat the filtered water from the fridge, since I think Austin tap water tastes like dirt and I don't think it would be fair to make Mace drink it. =p I'm too lazy for that. If Mace won't eat right before I want to go somewhere without him, I'll express what I've got into a bottle (for my own comfort!) and Mark can give it to Mace to tide him over. I have yet to need to be away for more than 3 hours yet. But!! Formula is not evil. And ZOMG the WHO is going to be so disappointed in me if I ever feed Mace formula because then I'll be part of that 86% of women who don't exclusively breastfeed their kid for 6 months. Big. Freaking. Whoop.
Then we come across this article, which states, "Moms need more support to breastfeed exclusively".
I think the best way to express my reaction is, "Holy/Good/What the #*$*??" As if being a mom wasn't hard enough, now we need more "support" to breastfeed exclusively. Like, it shouldn't be our choice what we do, we need even more pressure to meet this ideal. Then you look at the comments and everyone says, "Mothers need longer paid maternity leave. Mothers need more support for pumping." ... Sure, it's great we want to set up all of these support systems for moms, but these all look like support systems for working moms.
I feel jealous. I feel left out. I feel discriminated against. I sacrifice financially to stay at home, because I feel like I'll do a better job raising my own kids than a day care would. I like having control over my kids' lives and influences. I like teaching them. But ... where's my handout? Where's my paid maternity leave? Oh, wait - I don't have a paid job. Working moms get child care tax credits. I'm my own child care, and I get nothing. I can go back to the gym after 6 weeks of leave, but I don't get paid for anything. Ever.
We all feel like we're sacrificing. We all want more support. But honestly, it kind of ticks me off that everyone is up in arms about working women and health care and maternity issues and stay-at-home moms get glossed over. Because we're privileged or something, and we don't have to sacrifice, and we don't know what sacrifice is, and we don't understand the economic issues working moms face. You know, if I just lived with my husband and we weren't married, I could collect food stamps and my kid could get discounts for preschool. But because I happen to be married to someone who earns a decent amount of money, I pay taxes and get nothing (beyond what everyone gets.)
...
I don't know what any of that has to do with the WHO and breastfeeding, but I had to get that off my chest. I'm doing fine on my own, I think, but given the chance, I'd love to hop on the gimme gravy train. The least they could do is give the same benefits to both working and stay-at-home moms. Instead of giving "child care" tax credits, give the same tax credits to everyone so we can spend it on day care, or dance classes, or preschool, or whatever! Why does the government feel the need to discriminate and push women into the workforce and push couples away from having children?
I guess I'll have to save my thoughts on pacifiers for later. I already spoiled it with the link at the beginning of my post. ;)
Okay, posting without proofreading ... GO!
(Sorry if I've offended someone with my ranting.)
Keep in mind the WHO recommendations are for everyone, everywhere...including women in third world countries who will be financially forced to water down formula if they use it. They're still good guidelines for first-world Western women whenever possible of course, but they can't base their universal guideline on the limitations of feeding cultures in the US; a culture which severely limits the support and acceptance women need to begin approaching that goal.
ReplyDeleteNow, working moms pay more into the system through taxes and such, so I'm not going to resent them for getting paid maternity leave...especially since, in the long run, paid PARENTAL leave (hey, Dad's should get it too!), is good for companies, good for families, and in turn good for society.
That said, at-home parents need more support too. In Alberta, we get it. Lucy starts preschool this September and it looks like we'll qualify for the stay-at-home child care subsidy. It will cover almost the entire cost of preschool tuition. We also get the CTTB. Both of these benefits are based on income. Not based on income however, is what we call "Harper Bucks" and every family, no matter their wealth, qualifies. It's $100 p/month p/child under the age of 6. It's intended to help with child-care costs, but you can use it however you want. We usually use it to buy Lucy's clothes and such, since we don't often use a babysitter (especially one that isn't Spencer).
The new healthcare rules going into effect will help SAH moms too (and working moms, and non-moms). I especially love that breast pump rentals and lactation consults are now going to be covered without a co-pay.
There's still a lot more that could be done to support families that have a SAH parent. And I think, if the economic experts looked at it, that in many cases SAH parents are not a drain on the economy.
I think a lot varies from state-to-state as well. For example, I think in Ohio, if you're a SAH parent to a child(ren) under 6 you do not have to work to qualify for food assistance/WIC/Medicaid/other social assistance programs. But if I recall correctly, that was not the case in Utah.
Granted, most of these programs are only for low income families, which I think is fair. But I would like to see some tax credits provided to families when one parents is at home caring for children not yet school-age. That credit could be a percentage of the total family income. So, and this is just an example:
For every child being cared for at home under 6 you get 15% of your income tax free, up to a cap.
Make $20,000 and have two kids? 3000 tax free. And at that income, since you're also probably getting social assistance, then we probably don't need to give you a higher percent tax free.
You make $50,000 and have two kids? 7500 dollars of your income is tax free.
You make $300,000 and have two kids? I don't think you need 45000 dollars tax free. You should probably be capped at 7500 or so.
And I don't know if 15% is the right number to use, but I just picked one to illustrate the idea.
Hah! Everything you've said is stuff I want to talk about in a future post at some point. (Thanks for taking the time to respond.)
DeleteI really like how in Canada they do paid parental leave. That makes a lot more sense than maternity leave, because it doesn't discriminate against working vs. non-working moms. Both provide benefits to society and women should be able to choose one or the other without being discriminated against.
I read a proposal (did I link to it anywhere?) about just increasing the child tax credit to $5000 (or something crazy like that) and getting rid of all the childcare deductions and whatnot. That way parents can choose to do whatever they want for their kids without the government saying "X is better, so we'll subsidize that instead of Y." Oh, yeah, because history shows the government knows best, right? You wouldn't be able to pay less than $0 in taxes for that (you wouldn't pay no income taxes, then get an additional tax refund ... I'm pretty sure it never works that way with taxes ... ?)
One thing I like about the treat-everybody-the-same thing is that then it doesn't put pressure on people's earning potential. (insert rant about welfare based on income here) (but it's easier to base it on income than needs because needs are subjective, etc.)
Yeah, pretty much ... Canada is more attractive every day. ;)