Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Talkeetna batik artist Barbara Holmes heard from the group behind the "got milk?" brand this month.
Holmes made the mistake of advertising T-shirts and "onesies" -- those snappable one-piece underclothes for babies -- hand-lettered with the words "got breastmilk?"
She whipped up 10 of the little things from her downtown Talkeetna home with an outhouse and no running water. She sold six at a holiday fair in the senior center two years ago, then moved on to other projects.
The letter from the board's Sacramento law firm showed up a few weeks ago.
My favorite part of the story?
The phrases 'got breastmilk' and 'got milk?' are similar except for the addition of the word 'breast,'" the lawyers wrote. "This difference is not enough to eliminate the likelihood that consumers will be confused about the origin of the products."
Oh man.
Oh man, oh man, oh man.
"confused about the origin of the products?"
ROTFL.
I love the mother's response...
"They say I'm going to confuse milk consumers," she said. "How can you get confused between a boob and a bottle of milk from the store? They're two different kind of jugs."
Looks like it might be time to get to work again ladies.
I've already emailed the news reporter with my information and asked him to pass it along to Barbara.
In the meantime, let's get moving on our own.
Go ahead and get in touch with the California Milk Processor Board.
Jeff Manning is the Executive Director. The board's phone number is (949)481-6620. Their fax number is (949)481-6680.
A recent caller asked about Mr Manning and was told he is no longer executive director. I've been trying to dig up the milk board's officers, but they've been harder to find than the Pork board's was. If anyone gets the new ED's name, please let me know and I'll update. As I'm posting between conference calls today.
As with the last time, here's my request. Spread the word. Pass it on. Let's let the California Milk Processor Board know that we're all fully aware of the difference between jugs containing breast milk and jugs containing cow's milk.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Getting ready to call it a night after another hectic day, but had to share a story from this morning...
Was on my way to the gym with the kids when I heard Emmitt laughing. I glanced over and noticed the guy in the car next to us had made some type of face at him. "That's sweet" I thought."
At the next light, I glanced over again and the guy was gesturing to me. I rolled down my window and he yelled "Hey, what does your license plate mean?"
(For those who weren't here when I showed it, it says "LACTVST")
"It says "Lactivist" which means breastfeeding advocate," I said.
"That's what I thought," he replied. "I called my wife when I saw it, she's an advocate too and says to tell you 'you rock!.'"
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Since I've already been accused (again) of being mean this week, let's also gear up to get me accused of being anti-breastfeeding. ;) (For you new readers, that's called me having a sense of humor. It in no way means I am mean or anti-breastfeeding. I can't speak to the former, but the latter couldn't be further from the truth.)
Moving on...
My friend Anna and I have both found ourselves in discussions recently where someone pulled out that old "well the average age of weaning world-wide is 4.5 years" stat when the subject of weaning came up.
I've heard this one bandied about myself several times, including once or twice during the recent weaner-gate fiasco. To be honest, this "stat" has always really bothered me. Not because I don't think mothers should nurse for as long as they and their children desire (I do), but because this stat gets used as a "you're a bad mother" stat for moms who choose to wean prior to age two (or at all, really.)
For your average American mother who chooses to breastfeed for whatever reason, but does not choose to arm herself to the teeth with stats and studies, or who does not hang out with mothers who practice extended or child-led weaning, this stat sounds crazy.
Here's why.
It says the AVERAGE age of weaning is 4.5.
Let's get a reminder of what average means. To get the average age of weaning, you would add up the ages of every child who naturally weaned and then divide that number by the number of children tallied. The average is the result of that division. For every child who falls BELOW 4.5, there has to be a child who lands ABOVE 4.5.
Now, take a moment and think of the conversations you've had with women who allow their children to wean on their own. If I think of my own friends and acquaintances (online, few folks I know offline nursed at all, let alone let their kids wean at their own pace) most kids stopped nursing sometime between 10 months and 3 years. I can think of a *few* instances where the child nursed until 4, but only one or two where someone nursed past 4.5.
Now, for every one of those children who self-weaned prior to age 4.5, there has to be a child who went an equal amount PAST 4.5.
In other words, there'd have to be a TON of nursing 6, 7, 8 and even 9 year olds running around in the world. In fact, there'd have to be an equal number of them as there are children who wean prior to age 4.
Anyone out there believe that to be true? Anyone?
Yeah, me neither. Which makes that stat sound like a total made up piece of crap to a mainstream mother who is weaning her child at 10, 12, 18 or even 24 months. It also makes the person spouting it look like they have an agenda. (Which they do, and that's ok, but when that agenda makes you lose credibility, it's not good.)
Now, I'm not a fan of using anecdotal knowledge to try and push back on "FACT." (See it done all the time with birthing and it drives me nuts.) So, I wanted to find out what the source of this stat was thinking *maybe* there are enough countries with longer nursing periods going on to actually make up that difference.
There's not.
Neither Anna nor myself knew where this stat came from and when we questioned the people throwing the stat around, we didn't get an answer from them either.
That number is totally, 100% made up.
In fact, I ran across a link today to Katherine Dettwyler's "A Natural Age of Weaning" article. This is the article that the 4.5 number seems to come from, which is funny because even Katherine Dettwyler says the number is "made up."
One often hears that the worldwide average age of weaning is 4.2 years, but this figure is neither accurate nor meaningful. A survey of 64 "traditional" studies done prior to the 1940s showed a median duration of breastfeeding of about 2.8 years, but with some societies breastfeeding for much shorter, and some for much longer. It is meaningless, statistically, to speak of an average age of weaning worldwide, as so many children never nurse at all, or their mothers give up in the first few days, or at six weeks when they go back to work. It is true that there are still many societies in the world where children are routinely breastfed until the age of four or five years or older, and even in the United States, some children are nursed for this long and longer. In societies where children are allowed to nurse "as long as they want" they usually self-wean, with no arguments or emotional trauma, between 3 and 4 years of age.
Dettwyler goes on to explain that she (and others) have spent a ton of time researching the weaning ages of animals (who don't have cultural matters weighing in on weaning decisions) and speculating on what the biological weaning age of children *might* be. They looked at issues like length of gestation verses length of breastfeeding, time it takes to double or triple weight verses length of breastfeeding, even introduction of molars to the length of breastfeeding.
Using those criteria, they decided that the "natural" age of weaning for humans was probably somewhere between 2.5 and 7 years of age.
While that's very interesting information, it's also a pretty big window.
Best I can figure, someone decided to split the difference, arrive at 4.5 and start touting it as a "fact." People heard it, believed it and passed it on.
Now, leaving apart the question of whether or not looking at how long other species nurse has anything to do with how long humans nurse, the reality is this is a completely made up fact that does nothing to promote the benefits of long-term nursing.
We do not help our cause when we "rely" on made up facts. Personally, I'd love to see this stat get tossed out the window and for more women to focus on the myriad of stats we DO have to promote breastfeeding and extended breastfeeding.
Incidentally, if you didn't follow the above link to read Dettwyler's piece, I'd strongly encourage you to give it a read. It's quite interesting on many levels, but also brings up a very important point. Dettwyler points out how few studies actually distinguish the benefits of nursing beyond the age of two. In other words, in studies of the impact of long-term breastfeeding, everyone who nurses longer than two years gets lumped in together. Prior to the age of two, things tend to get broken down into blocks of 1, 3 or 6 months.
Wouldn't it be great to see some REAL data come out that actually looks at the difference between nursing to three years as opposed to two? Or to three and a half as opposed to three? And so on? To really break things down into smaller chunks? A study that examines the composition of milk beyond that second year to find out how the immunities change and what other properties of the milk might change?
Personally, I think it would be interesting information. In terms of the breastfeeding movement, I think it would give CLD and extended nursers some GREAT, factual information they could use to educate nay-sayers about their choices.
To moms who have thrown out that number as a "fact," I'd encourage you to let it go, or at least to clarify how the number came about. To other moms who have had it used against them, here's your info to refute the claim.
And once again, this post is NOT about discrediting breastfeeding or giving reasons why moms should NOT nurse for as long as they wish. It's about promoting the FACTS and not the fiction.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Regulars here know it's nothing new for someone from the Lactivist movement to come in and call me mean or harsh. I knew what I wrote on Thursday wouldn't be popular, but I strongly felt it needed to be said.
I just finished writing a response in the comments of the original post that further clarified my line of thinking and I realized it probably needed to be it's own post.
I'm a little surprised by your harsh criticism to be honest. Some of the other options you mentioned sounded like great ideas, but to call nursing mothers "pouting" because an "apology" was given does not make sense to me, and is offensive.
and
I appreciate the suggestions for other actions. I just don't feel it's appropriate to call names when people in Lubbock are finally standing up for something as important as the right to breastfeed in public. Let's help each other out with suggestions, not call each other names!
Here's my response.
I completely stand by my statement that to have a "protest" of something that has already been "remedied" is pouting.
I realize that those who attended in Lubbock are very happy with the outcome. I think that's fantastic.
But I also look at these issues on a broader scale. A victory in Lubbock that makes it harder to win a victory somewhere else does NOT advance the movement as a whole. Until women start looking at these issues on a national and even international level, we're going to have a hard time building a cohesive movement that really incites change.
See, while the women who were involved in Lubbock were glad to go, those outside the area are going to see the news of this and say "wait, why were they protesting something that was already remedied? sounds like a bunch of women who just want to raise a ruckus.
That hurts the movement as a whole and contributes to the stereotype of lactivists as "shrieking harpies with too much time on their hands."
(I have no doubt those who attended are glad they went. It's a great experience and provides a nice feeling of empowerment. I won't doubt that at all...but feeling good and causing change are not the same thing.
To note, once it was planned and started to spread, I have no problem with women gathering together to nurse, despite the fact that the city already apologized.
We had this happen last year on the east coast when a woman was told she couldn't nurse in a shop selling party supplies. Some women jumped the gun and planned a nurse-in before the woman had a chance to work her way through management. By the time the nurse-in was due to take place, management had apologized and taken action to put new policies and training in place.
A nurse-in there would have been much like the one that took place in Lubbock. A protest after things had been resolved.
Thankfully, the women at that nurse-in reversed course. They called the management to see if they could change focus to a "nursing rally" that was a celebration of the management's positive changes. In other words, instead of a protest, it became a "we're happy to do business with you because you are willing to change your ways for something better."
They issued new press releases, management came on site for the event, a big party was had and the press was quite positive on all sides. It was a fantastic way to salvage what could have been another eye-roller to those outside the movement.
I would have fully supported something like this in Lubbock. It would have been a great way to accomplish the benefits of yesterday's nurse-in (drawing attention, sparking debate, showing power in numbers and mobilizing nursing moms) without also bringing on the negatives (making the movement look like people who can not be pleased no matter what.)
Beyond that, the "press release" that was issued via Mothering was appalling. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm sorry, it's true. I didn't make it more than a paragraph in before I was shaking my head in sadness.
The content was all over the board, it was completely unprofessional, it had no focus. It basically looked like a giant rant from a random person on a message board.
As a marketing professional AND professional blogger (not this site, my day job) it killed me.
We can spend all day talking about the passion and sincerity with which this event was planned, but passion and sincerity do not win over the general populace. There's a reason marketing and PR professionals exist. It's because they know how to frame a message to appeal to the most people.
There are quite a few of us in this movement with the experience and knowledge to put those types of releases together. (In fact, the media kit that was put together entirely by volunteers for the Delta nurse-in was VERY impressive.)
Had someone simply asked, I would have been happy to call on my contacts to help put together a press release. I have no doubt that dozens of other lactivist moms with marketing and PR backgrounds would have done the same.
This movement has GOT to get beyond the idea that any action is good action. It's not. The wrong type of action can hurt the movement as a whole. It's fantastic to see women getting motivated and wanting to do something. I love that, I encourage that. But we've also got to encourage a more organized, logical approach to these things.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
It's been awhile since I've had a chance to sit down and write a post on lactivism and what's been happening in that realm. I've been keeping an eye on what's been happening in Lubbock since I first got an email from a woman there last month.
If you hadn't heard, the city manager's office of Lubbock, Texas decided to censor an upcoming art display at the city owned Buddy Holly Center because it included pieces by Lahib Jaddo showing a breastfeeding mother and a nude pregnant woman.
Now first, I'd like to point out that in my humble opinion, it was probably the nude pregnant woman and not the fully clothed nursing mother that got the artist banned. Personally, I would have liked clarification on what actually prompted the uproar on the part of the city planners, but since they didn't share, I'll give lactivists the benefit of the doubt and look at this as if the breastfeeding was the (or even A) issue.
ETA - A Lubbock resident has pointed out in the comments that BOTH paintings were specifically banned. Thanks for the clarification. Disappointing, but not surprising.
When this first happened, I had an email from a woman who lives in Lubbock asking me about organizing a nurse in. Here's part of my response to her:
I'd actually suggest you shy away from a nurse-in. Nurse-ins are at risk of becoming yesterday's story. They were effective when they were used sparingly, but these days they're being called for any and every reason. That means if we, as breastfeeding activists want to continue to attract news coverage, we need to come up with more creative alternatives.
So, here's what I'd suggest. Have you considered approaching some local art galleries (even smaller, independent ones) about doing a "childbirth and breastfeeding" show? I've heard of one or two state breastfeeding coalitions doing this to raise money for charity. It might be an interesting approach. Especially if you can get the original artist on board as a headliner and find a charity (there's a milk bank in Austin) to partner with. You've already got great media leverage if you play this as a 'response' to the short sightedness of the city planners.
As you know, I tend to think nurse-ins should be reserved for the times when they are the most effective option...generally after quite a few other avenues have been explored first. Nurse-ins also need to take place with clear and concise goals. Otherwise you are simply protesting, you aren't seeking resolution.
There's a point to protesting of course, but it's the seeking of resolution that brings about real change.
The person I originally emailed with was interested in the idea of the art show, but by the time she'd responded to me, someone else was already planning a nurse in. I see now from an announcement on Mothering that the nurse-in is planned for tomorrow.
I see two problems with this on the strategy front.
1.) The nurse-in has no clear and stated goal. The announcement says "A clarification that breastfeeding pictures are not indecent or inappropriate, would be greatly appreciated," but that's closer to a "please sir, may I have some more" than an actual demand or goal.
2.) The city manager has already apologized to the artist and has invited her to exhibit at the Buddy Holly Center.
So...well...the problem has been solved. So why have a nurse-in and protest a decision they've already reversed and apologized for?
Isn't that called pouting?
Wouldn't it be far more productive to get the artist to return and to do a ton of positive press (and perhaps invite nursing mothers to the gallery event) around the reversal?
We have GOT to get past this "let's do a nurse-in" mentality if we want to push this movement forward. Nurse-ins have their place, but remember folks, they are NOT our first line of defense.
It's time to start thinking strategically and to start getting creative. It's time to remember that one tactic only works so many times before it gets boring. That means you can use it sparingly or you can start coming up with new tactics.
So tell me, if you were the queen of the lactivist universe (wouldn't that be a funny title on a business card?) what would you have done in response to the Lubbock situation?
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Last week, I made a post about the fuss being raised over the removal of a breastfeeding video that had been posted to YouTube by the League of Maternal Justice. The video montage featured images of nursing mothers to a soundtrack of "Beautiful" by Christina Aguilera.
Just wanted to make a post saying I had an email from Kristen at LoMJ saying the video had been reposted by YouTube with apologies saying the deletion was a mistake.
Now, was it an honest mistake, or is this a quick response to negative press? There's no way to know. It's odd, because the video was reposted even with the Aguilera music as the soundtrack meaning YouTube reposted a video with a clear (and known) copyright violation.
That makes my gut say the move sounds like a response to negative press. On the other hand, no other breastfeeding videos were removed and some were far more graphic or controversial than this one.
I don't think we'll ever know for sure what happened, but from the sounds of things, breastfeeding videos are just fine with YouTube.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
The post is a press release claiming YouTube has "banned" a breastfeeding advocacy video they uploaded. Here's a snippet:
A mom-produced internet protest video attacking Facebook's banning of breastfeeding pictures was itself banned by the popular video sharing service Youtube after gaining recognition as the top-five most discussed of its day. A group of moms called Youtube's action hypocritical and harmful, and pointed to dozens of sexually explicit and harmful videos currently allowed on the service. The moms also pointed to a number of state laws specifically stating that public breastfeeding was not inappropriate.
The video is available for viewing on the League of Maternal Justice site and is well worth watching. It's basically a compilation of images of mothers nursing their children.
The video is no longer available on the YouTube site. Running a search for the direct name of the video brings up an error message:
Now, I'd note the text used here. It says "this video has been removed due to terms of use violations."
When I read that, my first thought was not "YouTube hates breastfeeding moms!" it was "hmm...let's go look at the terms of use." After all, YouTube removes videos all the time. (Especially lately when they've been under intense fire for copyright issues.) My second thought was "hmm...isn't that Christina Aguilera singing the soundtrack?
If you look at the YouTube TOS, you'll find the following under Section 6: Your User Submissions and Conduct:
B. You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.
Now, I didn't figure the LoMJ has purchased licensing rights to Christina Aguilera's "Beautiful" which runs as the soundtrack to the video, so it made perfect sense to me that the song might be the issue. Obviously, the LoMJ isn't the only group swiping music or video and posting it without owning the rights, but based on the amount of traffic the video had generated (more than 90k views according to the LoMJ's press release) it probably got in front of a review panel a lot more quickly.
Wanting to get the full story, I dropped an email to Julie and Kristen to ask them about the music issue and to see if they'd heard anything else from YouTube. They told me they'd received an email notice citing "inappropriate content" as the reason for the video's removal. The email didn't state what the inappropriate content was and it mentioned nothing about copyright infringement, so the duo assumed it was the breastfeeding that was the issue.
I can see how they might jump to that conclusion, but I'm not sure I agree with them. "Inappropriate content" could be defined as anything that violates their terms of service, including copyright issues. Since YouTube is pretty well known for letting almost anything be uploaded in terms of content, I'm going to take the logical route and assume it's the song.
Remember, as much as breastfeeding moms are used to being stomped on, it pays to take the time to make sure it's the breastfeeding that's the issue. Nothing makes the movement lose credibility faster than jumping to conclusions and going to war against those who were never opposed to us in the first place.
Julie and Kristen tell me they plan to recut the video with new, properly licensed music and to upload it again. If it's removed a second time, they'll let me know. If I find out YouTube IS removing content simply because it contains imagery of breastfeeding moms, I'll be one of the first in line to join the fight. Until then, I say we all calm down and wait to get confirmation of what the issue really is here.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Thinking about the whole weaner-gateincident. Thinking about this blog. Thinking about the movement. I've been reading the lectures, tirades and "educational" posts aimed my way by other self-proclaimed lactivists.
...and I've realized something.
This blog isn't for them.
You see, what I'm hearing is that women are up in arms about my comfort level with the idea of nursing my child long term. They're up in arms about my desire to gently wean using "don't offer, don't refuse." But mostly, they're up in arms at my use of the term "lactivist" when it doesn't match up with their own narrowly defined definition of the word.
And I've realized...I don't care.
I don't mean that to sound as harsh or as callous as it does, because I care about these women. I care about any woman who becomes a mother and strives to do the best they can for their child. I want to see women equipped to breastfeed as long as possible. I want to see an environment where those choices are supported.
But ultimately, I'm not sure that's what MY blog is here for.
I've been sitting here asking myself if I have anything left to give to the breastfeeding community with this blog. When I started The Lactivist, it was the only breastfeeding blog out there. Several more popped up in the next few months, but even a year ago, there were only half a dozen of us. Now? There are quite a few breastfeeding blogs out there. I think that's fantastic! But it left me wondering if my time had come to retire and move on. After all, there were plenty of other people ready to step in and take my place, right?
Perhaps.
Then last week's incident showed me something. It showed me that I DO serve a valuable niche and that I DO still have a lot of work to do. That's not to say that many of the new breastfeeding blogs aren't fantastic. They are. But we all have our own styles and our own pet topics and our own way of looking at things. And I think there's still some value to the way I do things.
You see, breastfeeding has long been divided into two camps.
There are the "I'll give it a try and see what happens" and the "YOU MUST BREASTFEED" camps...and there really wasn't much in between.
Without realizing it, I'd been crossing the divide between those camps.
My goal here was to share an honest and open account of nursing a baby and a child. It was to share the advice I couldn't find back when I was an exclusively pumping mom and to share the journey of a woman who had become an ardent breastfeeding supporter without ever having been a nursing mom. Being able to share my experiences over the last fourteen months as I experienced nursing for the first time has been amazing.
Then It Got Ugly
Right now, I'm under attack. I'm under attack by mothers who are upset that I'm not pushing "the party line" of their "Lactivist party." They tell me I should be their poster-mom and should reach every single nursing ideal there is. They tell me it's my job as "The Lactivist" to sit on their pedestal while they check off every achievement on the nursing mom's list of accomplishments. They tell me I owe it to them because they need the support.
Now I hate to be the one to break it to them, but it's not my job to be your poster girl. It's not my job to tow your party line and it's not my job to make you feel good about yourself.
It's my job to advocate breastfeeding and to help mothers equip themselves with the information they need to make it as far as they can. I do that by sharing my experiences in an honest and open manner. I do it by not setting up false expectations. I do it by admitting I'm NOT the perfect mom. I do it by showing that even "The Lactivist" has days where she wants to scream at the idea of her child latching on for their eleventy billionth nursing session. I do it by being "so ready to be done" and yet continuing to nurse until I can gently wean my son. I do it by saying "Holy cow, it was totally worth it!"
Why? Because that's reality for many nursing moms.
The day I stop being honest on this blog is the day I need to close it down. Because the day I stop being honest here is the day I become irrelevant to each and every one of those nursing moms who struggles to do what they know is best for their child while balancing the needs of the rest of their family.
If You're Committed to Child Led Weaning, You Rock! (Even if you don't know it)
If you are a nursing mom who has nursed past two years of age and plans on child-led weaning, you don't NEED me. You may want to have my example, but you don't NEED it. You're already "there." You have already shown more spunk and determination than the greatest majority of nursing moms will EVER manage. You've certainly shown more spunk and determination than I have. That's something to be immensely proud of. It's NOT something to turn into a nice little chip you can attach to your shoulder.
You don't NEED anyone else's approval. Not your friends', not your family's and certainly not mine. You may think you do, but deep down, if you really think about it...you don't. You're strong and you're amazing. And I commend you.
The Internet is a vast place and there are legions of discussion forums these days that will support you. Believe me, I've spent my fair share of time in discussion forums with mothers who nurse well past the toddler years and on up into the early school years. Those communities are out there. If you aren't finding what you think you need here, then go looking for them. They'll welcome you with open arms. They'll fill the void you wanted me to fill.
So who am I here for?
I'm here for the mom who thinks they may want to breastfeed, but isn't sure.
I'm here for the mom who wanted to breastfeed, but wasn't able to.
I'm here for the mom who got kicked out of a restaurant for daring to think her child could enjoy a meal there too.
I'm here for the mom who has found herself EPing and has no idea how to keep going.
I'm here for the mom who thought it was "weird" to nurse a one year old, until her nursling turned one.
(and yes, I'm also here for the mom who thought it was weird to nurse a three year old, until her nursling turned three.)
I'm here for the mom who finds herself with a freezer full of milk her child will never manage to drink and who wants to know about milk donation.
I'm here for the mom who is at her wits end and needs to know it's ok to be frustrated.
I'm here for the mom who wants to keep going, but needs to take care of her family and wants to learn how to gently wean.
I'm here for the father who knows nothing about breastfeeding, but wants to learn to support his wife.
I'm here for the grandmother or grandfather who remembers when breastfeeding was "for poor people and hippies" but did it anyway.
I'm here for the grandmother or grandfather who formula fed and wants to learn how to support their children in a new choice.
I'm here for ANYONE who wants to learn how to promote breastfeeding by educating and uplifting nursing moms.
I'm here for ANYONE who is tired of seeing other mothers be put down for their choices so someone else can feel better about theirs.
I welcome anyone to this blog who wants to be part of a community that's honest and open. One that shares the joys and the pains. That's what I do here. I may not reach your ideals and I may occasionally tick you off. I'm ok with that. Most of my readers are too. If you aren't, then this blog isn't written for you.
And I'm done apologizing for it.
With all that said, I'm done with this topic folks. I'll still be here talking about breastfeeding, weaning, milk donation, lactivism and any number of other issues. I'm happy to carry on the conversation in the comments sections of these posts, but I'm through making posts defending my right to be who I am or trying to explain my position and my reasons to those who clearly have no interest in hearing them.
So here's a challenge.
Hate my blog? That's ok, stop reading. Feel free to tell others to stop reading.
Love my blog? Keep reading and let other moms in on the secret that there's a place to go to learn about breastfeeding and get honest and open support without judgment.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. ;)
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
(I started this as a comment in response to Beth's post on the "Can You Believe in..." thread and quickly realized it would get lost in the comments. It needs to be a post of it's own, especially considering how much of the negativity these last few days comes from my comment about nursing toddlers. )
It's interesting to me how willing people are to take things out of context.
Beth just posted that she would no longer be linking to my blog because of the things I've said this week. While she's welcome to link to or not link to whomever she wants, she's taken my statements out of context twice. Thus, I feel the need to make corrections.
First, you'll note that I did not say "nursing a toddler is weird." I said "the idea of nursing a toddler weirds ME out."
There is, in fact, a distinct difference between the two. I have friends I've met through this blog and local parenting groups who nursed until their children were 2, 3, 4 and even older. I've hung out with women who were nursing four year olds. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. If mom and baby are happy, I'm happy.
If someone speaks up against them, I point out the benefits of extended nursing and explain the progression of nursing a child. Once you ask people "at exactly what age does it get "weird" most find they can't really answer it.
It's easy to look at a four year old and say "wow, that would be really weird to nurse a kid that old." But when you start to think about the fact that a child grows older one day at a time, it's easier to see how women nurse for so long.
I never breastfed Elnora. Breastfeeding tanked for us very early on and I ended up exclusively pumping for 14 months.
Until after Emmitt was born, I did not know anyone (outside of contacts on this blog) who had breastfed past a few weeks.
So to me, with no cultural context or example of anyone nursing beyond "infancy" the idea of nursing past six months seemed "weird."
Then I found myself nursing a six month old. A six month old who had aged one day at a time and there was NOTHING weird about it. In fact, it was beautiful.
And so we continued on with no end in sight.
Today, I find myself nursing a 14 month old and you know what? There's not a single thing weird about it. Not one. It's completely natural.
I look at Elnora, who just turned three and I think "wow, that would be so weird to be nursing her. She seems so old."
But I know that if I continued to nurse Emmitt and he got older one day at a time, each day would pass without being "weird."
One day, I'd be sitting here nursing an 18 month old and then a two year old and then a three year old. And it wouldn't be weird. It would just "be."
But without that experience, and with only a child who I've never breastfed to compare with, yes, it seems weird to me.
You want to think that's a horrible thing to say? That's fine. You're quite welcome to think anything of me that you like.
But let's stop and think about the word "weird" for a second.
I went and checked Google to call up some definitions of the word weird. Here's one that popped up.
strikingly odd or unusual
Now, let's look at the definitions of two more words.
odd: beyond or deviating from the usual or expected unusual: not commonly encountered
Hmmm...my use of the word weird in the context of my life sounds pretty spot on to me.
Now if I'd said "gross" or "disgusting" or "wrong" I could understand people being upset with me. I'd understand them questioning me as a breastfeeding advocate.
I'd understand them being up in arms.
But because I've been honest about the amazing progression in beliefs I've had in the three years since I first became a mother, I'm suddenly unworthy to advocate for breastfeeding rights.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Now, let me point out that I've never said I'm weaning Emmitt because I think he's too old to nurse. In fact, the ONLY way in which age plays into this decision is the fact that he is over twelve months which makes him capable of making the transition away from breastfeeding without needing to use formula.
Now, on to point two.
Beth wrote:
After everything you have written on this blog, after all you have done to stand up for a woman's right to breastfeed, this is how you really feel? You truly feel that women lose their right to their body when they breastfeed?
Honestly, this leaves me wondering if Beth has *really* read and digested my posts on this blog. I've actually been pretty clear from day one that I feel it's essential to give mothers the space to make the decision that is best for their FAMILY.
In fact, I in no way said what Beth quoted me as saying. What I actually said was this:
How can you possibly think you'll encourage more mothers to breastfeed by telling them that the day they begin a nursing relationship, they lose their right to their body and themselves?
In other words, I don't for a MOMENT believe a nursing mother loses the right to their body when they breastfeed. However, I DO feel that many of the women who have been jumping down my throat for daring to wean think this way. When I read comments like "You OWE your child two years" and "You HAVE to nurse for two years" I hear women saying that a mother must nurse no matter what the cost. That the child's right to breastmilk supercedes any and all other issues in life.
Not only do I not believe that, I think it's that type of thinking that has made the battle to increase breastfeeding rates so difficult.
You want women to nurse to two years or longer? Fantastic! Equip them to meet that goal. Equip them by understanding that not every mom can nurse on demand for two years, nor should she have to. Help her to realize there's middle ground. There is not "nurse on demand" and "don't nurse at all." There's also "set limits." Give moms the honest and real information that will help them meet those challenging goals without sacrificing their ability to be a good mom.
You want to send women running to the other side of the fence with complaints about "those breastfeeding harpies?" Try telling them what a bad mother they are because they aren't willing to make sacrifices you know nothing about. I don't care how hard your life is. By it's very definition, there's only one woman in the world who has "the hardest life." Everyone else? There will always be someone with a bigger sob story. Since you don't know where on the spectrum other people fall, I'd suggest you reserve your judgement for something else.
You want to make a difference in the world and help more women breastfeed their babies for longer periods of time? Try having a little more compassion and exercising a lot less judgement. Try offering up education and advice based on real life and the place a woman is in at a particular point in time.
I didn't start this blog to make everyone in the world happy. I started this blog to share my honest thoughts and opinions on the life of a nursing mother. My hope was that as I grew and learned things, I could share them with other moms who would grow and learn as well.
If people have a problem with what I'm doing here, they're welcome to read other blogs or to start their own. I never claimed to be the one and only place on the Internet to go for talk about breastfeeding. I only claimed to be one woman doing things the best way I know how and as long as men and women continue showing up here to read what I have to say, I'm going to keep saying it.
So I suppose the one really great thing that came out of all this was the motivation to keep going and the realization that it doesn't matter one lick if I'm still breastfeeding or not.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
I'm finding the thread on what defines a lactivist to be pretty interesting. While the majority of posters seem to agree a lactivist is anyone who does their best to promote and support breastfeeding, there have been a few lengthy responses outlining some pretty extensive requirements for the title.
A few of the comments (and several of the posts on the forum) have branched off in a different direction and I felt like they warranted a post of their own.
The crux of the points being made is that I've always said (and continue to say) I believe in and support child led weaning. To many, the fact that I'm gently weaning my son rather than waiting until he gives up nursing on his own means I must have been lying about my position on child-led weaning.
I find this interesting.
I believe child led weaning is a wonderful thing for mothers who desire to nurse for as long as their children wish to continue. The benefits of breastfeeding do not end on any particular day. Both mother and child benefit physically from each and every day of nursing. Additionally, I know many moms who find nursing to be an invaluable tool when it comes to soothing a fussy or tired child, or helping a child "reorganize" when they get stressed out.
I have and will continue to stand up for the right of any mother to nurse her child for as long as the two of them wish to nurse.
Now with all that said, many have taken issue with a comment I made on that discussion forum. To paraphrase, I said "child led weaning is a wonderful thing, but it's not for me."
Many have taken that as a personal slam. Me saying they're strange, or wrong for practicing child led weaning. A few have implied that by saying that, I'm making it clear that I'm not one of those "weirdos" who nurses until their child hits college.
So let's break this down. As you know, I'm nothing on this blog if not honest.
The idea of nursing a toddler weirds me out. I've said that quite a few times in the past. I've noted that I'd originally planned to breastfeed for six months. (That holds true for both Nora and Emmitt. I had planned to switch to EPing when Emmitt turned six months.) Then I started nursing Emmitt and six months came and went quite quickly. Suddenly, nursing a six month old didn't seem so odd.
At eight months, things were still going quite well. In fact, they were going well enough that I posted here that I'd decided to aim for 18 months, but was open to going longer than that as long as things were going well. I still couldn't picture nursing a talking toddler, but I was willing to give it a shot.
Then we hit nine months and things started going down hill fast. That was five months ago and nursing hasn't improved one iota. It's not horrible, but it's not fun either. I dream of being done. I dream of wearing real bras and of being able to sleep through the night sometime because Greg is capable of getting Emmitt settled. I dream of being able to take care of a business meeting without staring at the clock so I can get home in time to nurse.
And so, I decided to gently wean my son.
Why?
Because I believe that breastfeeding, while an amazing thing, is not something a woman should be forced to do. Child-led weaning is wonderful when both participants are willing participants. We would never dream of forcing a child to continue nursing when they wanted to quit. Yet somehow, we're ready and willing to raise eyebrows and purse lips when a mother decides she's done. Rather than respecting the dyad and their own individual dynamics, we've elevated the baby's rights over the rights of the mother. This despite the fact that the mother needs to be in an emotional state to tend to baby, herself and often a spouse and other siblings.
Do I believe in child-led weaning? Absolutely. But ONLY when the mother in question desires child led weaning.
Think about it this way. I believe in the benefits of regular exercise, a diet of whole foods and getting eight hours of restful sleep a night.
I haven't managed to pull that off either. :-P
So I ask my readers...does the fact that you don't do something yourself remove your ability to claim to believe in and support it?
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
The majority of them are not at all happy with me. Quite a few have declared you can't be a lactivist unless you practice child-led-weaning.
It's an interesting read. I responded at the forum, so no sense for a big long post here.
Curious to hear your thoughts.
I'm most curious to hear what YOU personally define as a Lactivist. What are the criteria? What disqualifies you?
Here's mine:
"I believe anyone who believes in, supports and promotes breastfeeding and the value it provides to mother and child is a Lactivist."
That's all the qualifiers I have. I don't care if you're a man or a woman, breastfed for a day or eight years. If you're out there doing what you can to do help make sure more women have the means to breastfeed, you're a lactivist in my book.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
In a press release issued to announce their purchase of Ameda, Evenflow also says:
Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The WHO Code was created in 1981 as a guide for marketing practices of infant formula, bottle and nipple manufacturers to ensure that breast milk substitutes, feeding bottles and nipples are not marketed inappropriately.
As part of its pledge, Evenflo will immediately take the following three steps: 1) discontinue all bottle/nipple advertising directed to consumers; 2) change our feeding packaging to align with WHO Code guidelines; and 3) remove bottle/nipple images from our Web site. At the same time, Evenflo will continue to innovate in its core bottle and nipple products, and work closely with retail partners to ensure broad-scale availability for moms who do not breastfeed or do not breastfeed exclusively. Ameda already meets all the requirements of the WHO Code.
This is absolutely fantastic news. Evenflo becomes the first U.S. bottle manufacturer to be code compliant.
Want to do something positive to impact corporations and the support of breastfeeding? Consider switching your products to Evenflo products. More importantly, send Evenflo a letter to let them know what you switched and WHY. Even more importantly than that...send a letter to the company you switched FROM letting them to know as well.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Aside: That may be my record for most uses of parenthesis in a post title...
Now that I'm nursing a toddler myself (Emmitt's over a year and he walks, I guess that makes him a toddler, right?) I'm interested in seeing how my thoughts and opinions have changed over the years.
I remember when I had wrapped up pumping with Elnora (at 13 months) and was writing this blog. My best friend and her cousin were over and somehow the subject of toddler nursing came up. As someone who swore she'd only nurse to six months while pregnant with my first, I had to laugh when I heard those familiar phrases pop out of their mouths.
"If they're old enough to ask for it, they're too old to nurse." "If they can walk, they should be done breastfeeding." "I just don't get that, nursing a two year old is gross."
They weren't being malicious, they were mostly just repeating things they'd heard over the years. Neither had kids and I was the first of their friends to venture into baby rearing and breastfeeding.
It was funny to find myself defending toddler nursing and trying to educate them on a few points.
"Well, Elnora didn't talk until she was around two, so I guess that was her cut-off age?" (said with a wink.)
"Then again, she walked at 10 months, so I guess I should have weaned sooner? Would have sucked to have had to pay for formula those last two months."
"Did you ever stop to think that you don't just suddenly nurse a two year old. You nurse a baby who grows older day by day. On what specific day does it suddenly become "gross?"
They thought about it for a minute.
"But it just seems so weird!"
I pointed out that sure, it was weird, because we don't see it very often. Then again, it happens far more often than they'd ever imagine and really...there's NOTHING wrong with it.
It struck me as funny to hear how my own opinions had changed. I still couldn't picture myself nursing a toddler, but I had absolutely zero issues with it if someone else was doing it. (I get a little uncomfortable with the idea when the kid is approaching school age, but hey, to each their own.)
That's why I was interested to read a post over at Compulsive Writer this week called "Nursing Toddlers is the New Black." In it, occasional Lactivist commenter Azucar shares her own experience of nursing a toddler and points out that she did it long before Gwen Stefani made it "cool."
When I told my mom and dad that I was planning on going until El Guille was at least two they were pleased. I kind of joked with my dad that at least Guille would stop by the time he went to school. "Why? The longer, the better." said my dad, quite seriously. School age is a little over the line, for me anyway. My in-laws weren't as openly supportive. My mother-in-law thought it was a little strange, but she's a really good person who believes that I'm the mother and I make the best decisions for my babies. I love her for that.
Some people think that when you're nursing a toddler it's like nursing a newborn: every two hours and time intensive. It's not at all. For us, we nursed twice a day, occasionally three times, from age 16 months to 22 months. At 22 months, he refused to sit still and wanted to play first thing, not nurse. Hey! Fine by me! We kept our bedtime nursing for the next seven months. He gradually slowed down, dropping a session here and there: he went to every other day, to twice a week, then once, and then it was over. El Guille weaned himself: no tears, no drama, and no big deal. So much for the "If you don't wean before a year they'll NEVER stop" crowd. He stopped when he was ready, and that's what I wanted for him.
It was a great post, I found myself nodding along in agreement. I may not feel like long term toddler nursing is for me, but I do wish people were a little more understanding of the choice and respected the mothers who decide to follow their children's cues on the issue.
She wraps it up with a great point:
Here's the deal: until moms start coming out of that back bedroom and telling other people, extended nursing is going to seem strange. There's nothing wrong with nursing into childhood, it's how humans were biologically designed. I know it's not for everyone, but it is natural. I want other women to understand that it's ok to listen to your heart and make decisions that might seem unusual to other Americans.
I've honestly been amazed to find out how many people I know who have nursed toddlers in the last year or so. When I was growing up, the only time I'd ever heard of it was the "crazy mom" down the street who was a LLLL and nursed her boys until they were 3 or 4. I stand by my opinion that she was a little "off" though I no longer think the toddler nursing is cause for that judgement. ;)
It's been especially interesting to learn about extended nursers in my industry. My regular readers know I travel quite a bit speaking at conferences and seminars and teaching small businesses about online marketing. My work with the Lactivist has led to a ton of interesting discussions with folks I've known professionally for years. I remember doing a radio interview last year and finding out that the wife of someone I respect immensely was still night-nursing their 2.5 year old. I've had emails from readers of my industry site sharing their stories and of course conversation about "what I do for a living" has led perfect strangers to share their own stories.
Heck, one of my regular commenters here (Hi Abby!) is a woman I've known through church for years. I had no idea she was a staunch breastfeeding proponent or a supporter of toddler nursing until she showed up here and started sharing her thoughts.
It's out there. People are nursing well past a year. Not very many of them, but far more than you'd imagine.
So what about you guys? How many of you still have issues with toddler nursing and are willing to fess up? How many of you have found yourself supporting it (or doing it) after years of spouting off lines like I listed above?
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
I have no doubt that many of you have been wondering why I haven't mentioned Sophie Currier or her fight to gain time to pump during her medical boards.
The reality is, I simply haven't felt prepared enough to write fairly about it. By that, I mean I didn't feel I had enough information to argue for or against her. Even now, I've heard a million different arguments on both sides and have a hard time keeping everything straight. As you guys know, I try not to jump on issues with my gut, so in a case like this one, it can be difficult for me to form an opinion I'm willing to share publicly.
Now it may seem like a clear cut case. A mom needs an accommodation to allow her to pump. She should get it, right?
Well, perhaps. I'm cautious enough in my long term lactivist thinking to know there can be more to the story. So questions popped into my head...
1.) Is she the first pumping mom to take the test? Have there been others? Have they found the existing breaks to offer enough time? Why is she the first to petition for more time?
2.) How long is the test? How many breaks are allowed?
3.) What is her flexibility in terms of when she can/must take the test? Can she schedule it at a later date? Could she have taken it in the past? Did she take it in the past?
4.) How would her being given extra time affect the people around her. Would it give her an unfair advantage?
The list went on and on.
As you know, it's been a busy summer. One that has left me with far less time than I'd like to research such things. So for the most part, I've watched and listened and waited to form an opinion. I've had a little more time in the last week to read about the issues surrounding the case, and while I still have some mixed feelings, I'm a little more confident in my opinion.
I bet, based on the thread earlier this week, that many of you think I'm going to say she shouldn't have been given more time.
Many of you would be wrong.
My first reaction, when I heard about this incident (a while before it hit the press actually...Ms. Currier did seek to work things out before going public) was outrage. How idiotic to not allow a mother time to pump during this test. Quickly though, my critical thinking side kicked in and I found myself wondering why Ms. Currier was the first person ever to ask for or need this accommodation. After all, surely she's not the first lactating mother to sit for the medical boards, right?
That last one was answered pretty easily. It doesn't really matter if she's the first person to speak up about it. We all know that plenty of folks "suck it up" even when they shouldn't have to because they're afraid of rocking the boat. (haven't we spent the last two days discussing this very thing? While I support sucking it up in regards to "wants", I don't think a job always qualifies as an automatic "want.") I've heard from more than one women in the medical field that there are many unspoken rules and expectations and that women who "expect" anything perceived as "special" are labled as troublemakers. That leaves me not quite ready to dismiss the need for more time simply based on the idea that other women said they had enough time to pump.
I've also learned that not everyone pumps like I did. Some women genuinely need more time than others.
My second reaction was to laugh at the irony. The medical board...the people who are supposed to value and promote breastfeeding...were telling a mom she should just wean her daughter so she could pass the boards and become a doctor.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
There's a pro-breastfeeding shirt that reads "I make milk, what's your super power."
It's always bothered me.
Always.
I see the humor in it. I understand why so many moms like it. But there's something about that shirt that really bothers me.
Maybe it's because I don't see milk production as a super power. I simply see it as part of being a mom. In fact, I feel downright uncomfortable with the implication that breastfeeding makes me "special." That somehow, I'm able to do things other people aren't.
It's a theme I'm seeing pop up more and more in the past few weeks.
In fact, there seems to be a new lactivist tide rising and it worries me.
But I'm SPECIAL!
Lately, I'm seeing the idea pop up that being a breastfeeding mom some how confers special rights on a mother. I've actually had several emails in the last month or two from mothers who are upset that they were not allowed to take their breastfed baby some place. To note, I'm not talking about being denied the right to breastfeed in a place where a baby could be bottle fed. I'm talking about someone who gets upset when they can't go anywhere they want with their breastfed child.
You know...bingo halls, bars, day spas, and so on.
These moms are upset that a business would dare deny them the right to bring their breastfed baby with them.
I've responded to each to point out that if the business allowed breastfed babies, they'd have to allow ALL babies. After all, to do otherwise would be to discriminate against bottle fed babies.
Unfortunately, these moms don't seem to be bothered by that.
In fact, most responded to argue that the discrimination here is against THEM because as a breastfeeding mother they can't go to this business or facility unless they bring their babies with them. They go on to point out the language of the law here in Ohio.
A mother is entitled to breastfeed her baby in any location of a place of public accommodation wherein the mother otherwise is permitted.
According to these mothers, that law gives them the right to breastfeed their child whether the child is allowed on the premises or not.
In fact, one mom told me she never even dreamed her child might be considered a violation of the rule. After all, she can't go there without her baby, and she's allowed to nurse wherever she is, so it must be ok to take the baby, right?
Well, no. It's actually not right. (To note, I'm not a fan of that form of the law and have said as much. I prefer the wording that includes the phrase "mother and child are permitted to be" because it makes this issue crystal clear.) That said, the Ohio wording of the law still does not back these mothers.
One thing I've learned in my time here at the Lactivist is that most people (myself included) have a hard time understanding the finer points of the law. I've had to spend a LOT of time asking questions and seeking clarification on the subtleties of legal language. I've had to learn about how where a law resides (civil code, health code, etc...) can have an impact on how it's interpreted. I've also had to swallow the very difficult truth that the greatest majority of breastfeeding laws in the United States do NOT protect a mother from being kicked out of a business for breastfeeding.
So let's break this law down a bit to understand WHY it doesn't mean you get to take your breastfed baby anywhere you want.
First, the law does not confer ANY rights on the child. While you may *think* the word child is implied by the very fact that a mother cannot nurse unless she has a child to nurse, the truth is no legal rights are given to the child by the wording of this law.
Second, the law actually has nothing to do with conferring rights on mother or child to BE anywhere. The law has to do with their actions. It makes it legal for a mother to breastfeed her child wherever she may be. It does NOT give her, or her baby, the right to go where they are otherwise not allowed to be. That law would actually be part of what are called "public accommodation laws." Most states DO allow businesses to "discriminate" against children based on issues of safety. (Can't take your kid to a bar, along with you to your job at a steel mill, have them in a casino, etc...)
Some states also allow businesses to "discriminate" against children for other reasons. Think of the retirement community that does not allow children or the high end spa that says no one under 16 is allowed.
To the best of my knowledge (and those I asked), I do not know of any instance in which a breastfeeding law was interpreted to create the right to bring a baby into a space they are otherwise not allowed to be.
One or two of the moms I spoke with plan to fight the companies that told them they could not bring their breastfed babies along with them. I can't say I believe they'll win.
I also don't think they should.
See, here's the thing. Breastfeeding does NOT give you the right to trounce over pre-existing rules. Not when those rules have nothing to do with breastfeeding. Your baby isn't exempt just because only you can feed him or her. YOU are not exempt just because you have to take care of your child. While it may be poor customer service to tell you your child isn't welcome, it's FAR from discrimination.
Lest you think I'm unsympathetic to the needs of a breastfeeding mother, let me remind you that Emmitt would not take a bottle or sippy until a few weeks ago. That meant I spent 11 months being the ONLY person who could give him breast milk. Since he's a frequent eater, it's also meant that he has to go with me everywhere. This means I get to go less places.
That's life. I deal with it.
I've mentioned in the past that Emmitt travels with me to the conferences I speak at. I've also mentioned that at smaller shows, he's stayed with me during networking events and that I've even nursed him while discussing business with attendees. However, several of the shows I go to have a "no one under 18 rule." I actually happen to know the folks who run these shows. They're kind enough to allow whoever travels with me to meet me in the speaker's room when I'm between sessions, but I am NOT allowed to have Emmitt anywhere at the show. Not in the back of the room, not outside the door of the room, not in the hall near the rooms, not in the expo hall. NO kids allowed.
Does it make my life less convenient? Yes, by a lot. Is it how life goes? Yes. I count myself lucky that Emmitt can be in the same city as me at these events. I'm not going to complain if I have to walk an extra 5 or 10 minutes to get to him.
If I would interpret the breastfeeding law as liberally as some of the women I've spoken with, I should be able to carry Emmitt into the room where I speak and deliver my presentation while nursing him. That's great if it's a lactation or childbirth conference. Not really so appropriate or realistic when you're speaking to a room of 1000 about marketing.
Heck, if we're going with liberal interpretation, I would have been able to nurse Emmitt in the kitchen of the cafe I used to work as a barista at. Doesn't matter if the health code says no one under 18...he's nursing.
I suppose Rosie the Riveter could have taken her breastfed baby on the factory floor with her. Safety comes second, right?
My point is that not only do these moms lack the legal right to do what they are demanding, they also miss the common sense factor. There are REASONS why businesses have "no children" rules. Sometimes it's about the ambiance, sometimes it's a genuine issue of safety. Either way, there IS a reason. (And that reason is rarely "we don't like to see breastfeeding.")
Even beyond that, consider the reverse discrimination that would occur if these exceptions were made. Does anyone REALLY think it's ok to say "no kids, EXCEPT breastfed ones."
Really? Anyone? I'd love to hear your reasons why.
As the mother of both a bottle fed (exclusively pumping) and breastfed (refusal to take a bottle) child, I can tell you that it would NOT sit well with me. Not at ALL.
This new tide of lactivism reeks to me of "I breastfeed and that makes me special." While I have the greatest respect for moms who put the time and effort into breastfeeding, I firmly believe that this attitude is bad. Bad because it leads to a sense of entitlement and bad because it leads to hard feelings with moms who cannot breastfeed. Mostly though, it's bad because it hurts our movement. It takes us from a legitimate movement fighting for equal rights to a fringe movement that wants the world to revolve around us.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
I've never been a fan of Bill Maher. (Uh oh, here we go again, with me shocking all my readers who won't believe that I'm actually a conservative Republican.)
While I understand that liberals and "progressives" find him amusing and think the vitriol with which he attacks Bush and conservative causes is amusing, I find him unimaginative and trite. (Oh and did I mention crass?) I've had things I care deeply about insulted by him enough to not be surprised anymore.
My liberal readers on the other hand, may be surprised.
Maher talked about breastfeeding in public on his HBO show this past week and it was NOT pretty. (Nor amusing, though Drew Carey seemed to think so.)
The overall rant was that
A.) Maher shouldn't have to see a child breastfeeding when he's out in public
B.) Moms that want to breastfeed in public are lazy
C.) Breastfeeding in public is no different than masturbating in public
D.) Breasts should only be seen in public if they're on display for his pleasure
E.) Lactivists are petty little women fighting for a stupid cause (Hmm...that one sounds familiar...)
Interestingly, Maher seems to have lived under a rock for the past decade, at least in terms of breastfeeding in public. He claimed that last weekend's Applebee's nurse-in was the "first ever" nurse-in. Umm... ok. Way to do your research there Bill.
Some choice quotes from his tirade:
"I'm not trying to be insensitive, your baby needs to eat, but so do I. If I'm at Applebee's, I'm already a little nauseous. Let's not add to it!"
"Breastfeeding a baby is an intimate act and I don't want to watch strangers performing an intimate act...unless I'm paying for it."
"There's no important principle at work here other than being too lazy to plan ahead or cover up."
"It's not fighting for a right, it's fighting for the spotlight. When you go all Janet Jackson on everyone and get to drink in the "oohs" and "ahhs" from other customers because you made a baby. Something a DOG can do."
"This isn't about women taking their breasts out in public, as much as I like that. It's about how petty and parochial our causes have become. How activism has become narcissism."
"There is a place where breasts and food go together...it's called Hooters."
Want to see for yourself? Here's the clip. (Note, you'll need to "fast forward" to where there are 2 minutes and 51 seconds left on the clip to skip to the breastfeeding in public commentary.)
(Special thanks to Sara at Suburban Oblivion for pointing this out.)
My take?
Maher is the perfect example of the title he tries to thrust on lactivists. I can't see how it's anything OTHER than narcissistic to be a professed fan of Hugh Heffner and Playboy, but to take issue not only with the LEGAL right of a woman to nurse her child in public, but the very idea that mothers are willing to stand UP for that right.
In other words, it's just fine for Bill to enjoy breasts when and where he pleases, but heaven forbid a baby try to.
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Reports are in and it seems there was quite the turn-out at the nationwide Applebee's nurse-ins this past Saturday. According to Birth Without Boundaries, more than 2000 breastfeeding supporters showed up at more than 100 restaurants in 44 states. That's a pretty hefty turnout, especially when you consider the Delta nurse-in garnered around 800 supporters at roughly 36 airports.
On the down side, Applebee's showed that they seriously don't get it by issuing a public statement that included the following:
We ask that mothers who nurse their children in our restaurant do so in a respectful manner.
Funny, that doesn't sound like an apology to me, it sounds a lot more like "well SHE started it!" It also makes it clear they don't understand that Kentucky state law doesn't give them the right to define their own version of "respectful manner" and enforce it. Kentucky law simply says that a mom can feed her baby.
Besides, as with the discreet argument, who the heck gets to define what a "respectful manner" actually is?
The good news is that many Applebee's restaurants were supportive of the moms that showed up for the nurse-ins. Some even report that the managers came out to speak with them and brought drinks and cookies. I'm not surprised. Even if the corporate office doesn't get it, I have no doubt that many Applebee's around the country are managed by men and women who respect and support a child's right to eat. I say kudos to the managers who were so supportive last Saturday!
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
There's been a new Yahoo group set up for those who wish to help plan their local nurse-ins against Applebee's on Saturday, September 8th.
Now, normally I wouldn't get behind a national nurse-in for an incident that seems to center around the practice of a particular franchise owner...
...but...the word coming out of Applebee's corporate offices have NOT been anywhere close to reasonable. In fact, one mom received the following response in her voice mail after calling the Applebee's International Guest Relations Manager:
"I am calling with the corporate response you requested - and the corporate response to the breastfeeding in Lexington, Kentucky is that Applebee's and its franchisees love having families dine together at our restaurants. We believe that this franchisee made a reasonable and lawful request of this guest in order to promote a pleasant and comfortable experience for all of its guests."
This now seems to be the standard response being given to callers.
With that being the case, I think I can probably back this one, though I don't have the time to put toward organizing one myself.
Mother Nurture is doing an excellent job of compiling information about the Brooke Ryan / Applebee's incident at her site. If you are interested in pitching in, you can find the resources you need there.
(Sorry to lay low here, but A.) I'm swamped with work, B.) I'm visiting family and C.) I haven't had time to research this story enough to have a solid position on it.)
Looking for The Lactivist? She's retired. But you CAN still find Jen blogging. These days, she's runs A Flexible Life. Join her for life, recipes, projects and the occasional rant.
Someone sent me the address yesterday via email, but I only just had the chance to confirm that it was publicly available. (I don't like to post private email addresses to this site, but if the email address or phone number is publicly available, it's fair game in my opinion.)
As always, I'd ask that if you send a letter, you read it over a few times before you send it. Keep in mind that strongly, yet politely worded discourse tends to garner a better response than an all caps message from a "shrieking harpy." Let's educate while standing up for our rights instead of simply yelling and stomping our feet in anger.
Also, keep in mind that Scanlon is NOT the CEO of Applebee's, but rather of a different company that owns and operates several Applebee's franchises.
