Subj : Re: This Train Just Went Splat! To : alt.tv.er From : npardue Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 12:29:59 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er > parents have to make some choices for their kids. breastfeeding should > be > one of them. > Why? Why 'should' it be. Because "Parents" are the "grown ups". The "grown ups" have the inherent responsibility to make "choices" that children are not equipped to make for themselves. So it has always been, and so it always shall be, regardless of any silly fads and muddle-headed thinking like "child-directed parenting". ALL decisions? So how exactly do children learn to make choices if they never have the opportunity to do so? Parents do make decisions for their children when those decisions are important to life/limb/society. But kids can certainly make choices on their own. > It CAN be, if the parents decide that, but > explain to me why, from any viewpoint, it SHOULD be, in a general > sense? Because small children are simply not able to make most decisions for themselves. Let's take the apparently "abnormal" situation of a 6-year-old child that has not breastfed for years: Mom: "What do you want to eat for dinner, Child?" Child: "ICE CREAM! I WILL ONLY ACCEPT A 100% ICE CREAM DIET!" Mom: "Ok Child, you got it! The last thing I want to do is parent!" Explain to me how that is any different than your position. Well, let's see .... Maybe because a 100% ice cream diet is not healthful. A child who lives entirely on ice-cream will get sick. By contrast, there is nothing unhealthful or harmful about a young child breastfeeding. However, this really isn't a rational comparison, since I can't imagine any real child who has been raised with a variety of foods ever saying that. Now, it is certainly possible that little Johnny may one day decide that he doesn't like chicken, or peas, or whatever. And then the parent has a choice. He can insist on Johnny choke down the chicken or peas. He can force the chicken and peas down little Johnny's throat. He can send little Johnny to his room and tell him he'll get no more food until he eats his chicken and peas. Or he can offer little Johnny something different, but equally healthful for that meal, recognizing that food fads are common and temporary for little kids. Or he can say, "Ok, well eat your potatoes and salad then," and not make a big deal about it. (And, 99% of the time, the next time chicken and peas appear on the dinner table, Johnny will eat them happily enough.) > Oops, guess I fell down (no pun intended) on that one. Shaina didn't > walk until around 15 months. Maybe if I'd 'taught her', she would have > learned earlier. > No, parents don't 'teach' a child to walk. Children learn it on their > own, when their bodies and emotions are ready for it. So a child that somehow survived all alone in the woods would, according to "The Naomi Effect": - Learn to walk. - Learn to speak. - Learn language. ??? Where did that one come from? The child would learn to get around in the way that works for him. (I don't know enough human anthropology to know for sure if walking upright is a natural behavior for humans but, given that all human societies DO walk upright, I'd guess that it is.) And, assuming he had someone to communicate with, he would learn to communicate in some fashion. Children learn to talk by being exposed to speech and language. They learn to walk by seeing other people walk and practicing on their own. And they learn to eat by being offered food and seeing other people eat. Where was it ever suggested that children should not be offered food, or should be prevented from seeing people eating? So I guess we can eliminate elementary school, at the very least. That's good I guess. I guess you don't know much about kids if you think that they don't learn to talk until they go to elementary school. > and yes, some parents force their kids to talk before they are ready. > if > your child was 4 and not talking yet, would you take them to a doctor > to see > what's wrong or just assume that aren't ready yet and don't force the > issue? > Absolutely. You take them to the doctor. WHAT!?!??! "He's just not ready for it!" If you're going to flip flop every time you get backed into a corner, you've lost the debate Naomi. Ha, ha. > Becuase, in most cases, a > child who isn't talking by 4 has an actual physical or mental problem > that needs to be dealt with. But in most cases, a child who's 24 and still breastfeeding "just isn't ready"? I didn't say that. (Or are you really claiming that all 24 year olds are really just tall 6 year olds who shave?) .. At some point we all agree, yes even you Naomi, that it becomes abnormal. Most of us also agree that 6 years is too long to be breastfeeding. Depends on who you are defining as 'most of us.' A random of survey of people on the street probably WOULD agree with you. A majority of people who are knowlegable about child development and breastfeeding issues probably wouldn't. > it a 12 year old needs a teddy bear everyday because they are unable to > cope > without one, yes, parents need to phase it out and give the child other > coping skills > Well, we aren't talking about 12 year olds. You are. You're refusing to set any limits at all. Nope. I'm refusing to set arbitrary limits; limits based on a calendar. I'm saying to look at the needs of the individuals involved. > Yes, of course it's a parent's job to raise the kids. Yes, of course it's a parent's job to raise the kids. ....as long as they give the child the breast whenever he wants it? Never said that. Please quote where I did. > But that doesn't > mean they MUST micromanage every aspect of the child's development. Actually it pretty much does. I don't know how much more micromanaging you get than changing a diaper. Good point. In some societies babies don't wear diapers. In ours they do. There are valid health and societal reasons for using, and changing diapers. Leaving wet/soiled diapers on a child leads to rashes and skin breakdown. Having feces and urine scattered on the ground can spread disease, not to mention being smelly. There are no negative health issues (for the child or the society) involved in breastfeeding. > You know, it used to be believed that you had to start out a child > 'right' from birth, or they would be ruined for life. That if you > didn't start potty training at 2 weeks, the child would NEVER learn to > use the toilet. That if you fed an infant at night he wouild NEVER > sleep through, so infants were expected, from birth, to sleep from 10 > p.m. to 6 a.m. That if you didn't feed on a strict 4 hour schedule; if > you, God forbid, picked up a crying child between normal feeding times, > he would become a spoiled monster. In a somewhat earlier era it was > believed that you had to swaddle babies tightly in linen or their limbs > wouldn't grow straight, and that you had to prevent babies from > crawling or they'd develop 'animal-like' characteristics from moving > around on all 4's. And I even read that it used to be believed that breastfeeding indefinitely was considered ok and not-at-all wrong. Do tell? Where did you read that? ....like when they want to breastfeed after they're old enough to vote. > But since breastfeeding past the age of one > (where the mother is willing to continue) fits none of these > catagories, WHY is it necessary for the mother to impose a calendar > based schedule for it? Naomi, I can't help but notice your debating trick of trying to frame this discussion as "breastfeeding past the age of one". Nobody's saying anything about that, and you know it. Actually, someone has. The post I'm responding to said that breastfeeding was undesirable after age 1, and 'definitely wrong' after age 2. You, on the other hand, are the one who keeps tossing out comments about 'breastfeeding when the child is old enough to vote' and 'having an 18 year old hanging off your tit..' Let's keep the discussion to what it is really about: breastfeeding for an arbitrary amount of time, and in particular approximately six years. Fine. What *I'm* saying is that breastfeeding through toddlerhood and into early childhood is not, in any known sense, harmful in and of itself. (Though certainly some parents with other issues MAY breastfeed their children, and so the breastfeeding issues may become wrapped up inside the bigger picture.) I cannot set arbitrary age limits because *I* know that all children are different and have different rates of development and different needs. (And their parents also have different needs, so may or may not opt to wean the child at some point in this time-frame.) It's rather pointless to extend the discussion to be talking about breastfeeding 12 and 18 year olds because, so far as I am aware, that is simply not a real issue so is not worthy of debating. ALL children do wean themselves, always at some point that most of us would consider to be 'early childhood.' Breastfeeding is comforting > for young children. Not a damn thing wrong with that. [One of my > concerns when I weaned Shaina was that she had always nursed to sleep. > The day I dropped the last feeding she went to sleep on her own and > that was that. A few children (like your nephew) take a little longer > to make the transition. Six years longer? Read the post. That isn't what I was saying. Some children who are weaned by the choice of the parent (as in the case of my daughter, and this poster's nephew) wean easily without any particular trauma. (It's impossible to know, of course, how long that child might have opted to continue if the parent hadn't forced the issue.). Others find it very stressful and take some time to get over it. Now, IMO, if a child is particularly traumatized by the effort, and there is no pressing reason that mom needs to wean right then, it's best to continue a little longer and try again at a later date. (It's interesting that many toddlers go through spells when they seem to need the breast a lot more. Often the mother will panic at that point and decide that she'd better wean now, because the child is getting 'too attached', or nursing 'too often', and they worry that it will only get worse. The result is that weaning is even more traumatic for the child (and the mother ....). Usually, if she would wait a few weeks/months, the clingy spell will pass, and then, if she still wants to wean at that point, it goes much more easily and smoothly.) Naomi > .