2000
Subj : Re: This Train Just Went Splat!
To   : alt.tv.er
From : Dropping The Helicopter
Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 18:07:56

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er

npardue@indiana.edu wrote:
>  > Not true either, unless your grammar is screwed up.  All children do
> 
>> wean from their mother's breast sometime between those two ages.
>> However, a great many of them, given the oppurtunity, do it of their
>> own accord, not by being 'weaned' by the choice made by another person.
> 
> 
> 
> 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".

>  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.

> (IOW, if YOU feel that your YOUR family and YOUR child, you
> chose to wean, that's 100% cool. But why 'should'  it be the same for
> every family?
> 

Because people are the same.  They're the same now, they're the same as 
they've been for tens of thousands of years.

> 
> 
>> But that doesn't mean it's wrong. If no-one is being
>> harmed by it, what's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is harmful.
> 
> Give me a reason. Why are you're personally feelings about something
> proof that they are right for everyone.
> 

"We hold these Truths to be Self-Evident"

> 
> 
>> But it's not a parental responsibility.  Do parents 'teach' children to
>> walk?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, parents do teach children to walk.
> 
> 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.

???

> 
>> Do they force them to talk before they're ready?
> 
> 
> 
> though not forced, it is a skill that parents need to teach their
> child.
> 
> Again, they don't 'teach them' in any active way.  Parents model
> talking for their children by talking to them ... and the children
> start speaking when they are ready.
> 

So I guess we can eliminate elementary school, at the very least. 
That's good I guess.

> 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.

> 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"?

> There is no physical/mental issue (in most
> cases) that leads a child to breastfeed past the age of 2. (Your cut
> off) ... or even 6. It's an entirely normal varient. (Just as speech
> is, to a large extent.  I used to work with preschoolers (age range 15
> months to 5 years).  Speech (and most other attributes) varied widely.
> Some 2 year olds were extremely verbal with a wide vocabulary.  Others
> were barely talking at all. All normal.
> 

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.

> 
>> Should a
>> parent take away a child's teddy bear because mom has arbitrarily
>> decided that "A child of X years should no longer use a teddy?"
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

 >  We're talking about
> preschool/early school-age kids.Would you take a teddy away from a 5
> year old ... if you had decided, for yourself, that it's ok for a 4
> year old to use a teddy, but 5's shouldn't be allowed? So on the kid's
> 5th birthday, you toss the teddy in the trash?  (SHaina used a teddy at
> this age. She slept with it and sometimes carried in with her.  When
> she started kindergarten the teacher told us that kids couldn't bring
> comfort objects to school.  We explained that to her and she was ok
> with it. But should we have removed it from her entirely?  Was there
> any reason to refuse to let her sleep with it? She eventually did give
> it up on her own. She's 13; doesn't sleep with a teddy bear.
> 

What you should have done is taken it from her and replaced it with 
breastfeeding.  The latter is totally fine and natural regardless of how 
old the child is (according to latest USENET research anyway), while 
teddy bears are somehow equivalent and yet unnatural.

> 
>> (Even
>> though, the day before, the child was of appopriate age?) Why is a the
>> parent's responsbility to make this decision?
> 
> 
> they are the parent, its their job to raise the kids.  I read a quote
> somewhere recently that makes a lot of sense "parents aren't raising
> kids,
> they are raising future adults"
> 
> 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?

>  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.

> 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.

> Yes, you guide children in their development.  You make decisions for
> them when they are unable to decide for themselves, or when their
> choices are harmful or when it's necessary for the wellbeing of the
> family/society at large.

....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 

883

anything about that, and you know it.  Let's keep the discussion to what 
it is really about: breastfeeding for an arbitrary amount of time, and 
in particular approximately six years.

> 
> 
>> Nope, it doesn't hinder development.  There is zero evidence that
>> children who are breastfed past age one suffer in any way or have their
>> development 'hindered.' There may be some cause and effect in place,
>> but it goes in the other direction -- children who choose to/need to
>> breastfeed longer are children who are less 'mature' for their age than
>> others.  But forcing them to wean won't make them more mature.
> 
> 
> 
> one of my nephews wanted to keep nursing when my sister was done (he
> was
> about 15 months old).  he used her as a pacifier to fall asleep.  he is
> not
> emotionally harmed because he was forced to give it up (though the
> first
> several nights he did scream and cry a lot) and he has no lasting
> effects
> from this experience.    i would be interested to see the proof that
> breastfeeding an older child is not damaging because in my experiences,
> I
> seen the opposite
> 
> I'm not following this story.  Your sister wanted to stop. That's fine.
> Braestfeeding requires two people.

"One to lie and one to listen".

>(Remember the AAP guidelines "as
> long thereafter and mother AND baby wish." So she weaned him. He was
> fine, she was fine.  Now, please use this story to explain to me how he
> would have been harmed if your sister had NOT chosen to wean him at
> that age?  What damage would have been done if they had continued
> another year, or two ... or however long it was until one or the other
> wanted to stop? (Hint -- 'using mom 'as a pacifier' is not a problem --
> unless it is for that particular mother. 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?

.

0