Lactivism by Courtney Jung

The book «Lactivism» Courtney Young was published on 24 November 2015. Lactivism is the promotion of breastfeeding and the fight against alleged to be discrimination against nursing mothers. There’s even an article in Wikipedia with references and pictures (not those about which you thought). Courtney Young in the beginning makes a reservation, that she is not against of lactivism that her two children, she breast-fed for several years (!), so to accuse her of bias difficult.

Her goal in writing the book «Lactivism» was to investigate and describe what is happening in the field of breastfeeding and whether it is natural and beneficial for all, as it is presented by doctors, various organizations, the Internet and aktivitami. I think there will be more books on this topic, as fields for research there is no end.

So, Yang starts the book with a history of breastfeeding through the ages. It was, of course, always, but not all women have always breast-fed children. For example, preserved the bottle for artificial feeding period of Alexandria, and that of the 4th century BC More common than artificial feeding was the use of nurses. In Europe women did not breast-fed children if they could afford to pay for the services of the nurse. Breast-fed children women of the lower classes. Interesting fact: Jane Austen and all her siblings, their mother was sent to a nearby village to nurse to a year and a half. In 1867, the year Henri nestlé invented a mixture for artificial feeding, which could be prepared at home, and then founded the world famous company Nestlé, which produces of a mixture now.

From the mid-20th century in the United States reigned the concept of scientific motherhood: doctors said that we need to do, the mother was performed, mixtures were fed all, but strictly every 4 hours, not on demand, and on schedule. In short, such a detached objective approach to nurturing the new generation. It is worth remembering that the Union of mothers is often simply not possible to stay long with the child at home. Children were in a crèche and an after-school program. Among the parents of my friends, for example, normal practice for mothers to breast feed for 3 months, and then take him to daycare and go to work. No one is shocked and the woman was not considered a “bad mother.” The mixture was the only alternative, besides they perfectly fit into the scientific approach to motherhood.

In America, however, was the cell of protest. One of them was a group of religious Housewives, who founded in 1956, the year La Leche League (LLL). At the time LLL practiced and called for natural motherhood, completely the opposite of a universal scientific approach. The founder of the League believed that women need to make decisions concerning children not listening to medical advice. The promise of the League was that male doctors (when doctors were mostly men) can’t know what a woman feels, so she needs to merge with nature and she will tell you what to do and what is natural.

For the founders of the League was natural: breastfeeding, co-sleeping (not my husband, but with the child) and lack of contraception. In the end, the seven founders of LLL gave birth to a total of 56 children. Their ideal was the mother who sits at home and does not protect, breastfeeding as long as possible, and devotes all her family, not using pacifiers, not lock children in the arena and attends the Catholic Church. The role of the husband supporting the family and providing sperm to conceive subsequent children.

It’s funny but not even that, and the fact that in the protest call against the doctors with LLL merged their conceptual enemies — feminists. They also believed that women should make their own decisions regarding their pregnancy, birth and all things related to reproduction. However, it is the reproductive issue revealed the difference between the LLL and the second wave of feminism. In 1973-m to year in the United States legalized abortion, and before the League the question arose of how to react to this and whether it is necessary to speak. LLL, as we remember, originally a Catholic organization, even against contraceptives, of course, they considered abortion evil. LLL officially banned its participants to publicly Express their opinion on the subject.

All this time, the League and the feminists opposed the mass opinion that mixes the best choice for the child. Most continued IV. But in 1970, the year put an end to the rule of mixtures. Became available, child mortality for all countries and developed countries was horrified of what is happening. Suddenly it became clear that die each year 11 million infants under one year of age. In Africa and South-East Asia mortality was particularly high. Figuring out the cause, scientists made an incredible discovery: in the blame mix. Mix kill children — that was such a typical headline of the Newspapers at the time.

I should add that the producers of mixes in that time behaved very carelessly. The same Nestle was used by not entirely honest means of propaganda under the guise of nurses ran into the hospital their employees who have just given birth mothers to push free samples of the mixtures and pushed speech about their use. When this all came to light and after countless attacks by the media, under the pressure of public opinion, the world Health Organization (who) adopted the international code of marketing of breast-milk substitutes. It prohibits manufacturers of mixtures of, essentially, everything. Any information the communication of companies with their mothers chopped off. The emphasis is on communicating to mothers the importance of breastfeeding, which should highlight everything, starting from doctors and ending with the state. As a result, the who recommends to breastfeed exclusively to 6 months and introduction of complementary foods up to 2 years. There is only one small detail. The mixture was not to blame for infant deaths.

Most babies die in Africa and se Asia. For the preparation of mixtures need clean water. In developing countries, mothers often have no access to clean water and even there is no way to boil. They bred the dry mixture with water from rivers, lakes, water from the tap, the same water is also “sterilized” bottles after feeding. I think it is not necessary to explain the consequences of drinking unboiled water from a stagnant pond in a tropical climate. Add to that the fact that mothers are saved to the mixture. Diluted the mixture several times larger volume of water than it should, which led to child malnutrition. But is this the header will touch the hearts of readers? No. Nestle — baby killer. Here’s what sells well and attracts new readers/viewers. It’s sad that still activity rests on the harm and mortality from mixtures, without even thinking a little to grasp the meaning of history and to understand the reasons.

All events led to an incredible rise in the popularity of breastfeeding. In 1992, the year William Sears published The Baby Book that describes the basic principles of natural parenting (attachment parenting). Volaski, togocel, SS, and “eat food” is all it is. You can thank Mr. Sears for what he gave the world these phenomena.

La Leche League, meanwhile, had not relaxed and actively recruited mothers in their ranks, and then making them our lactivist, which in turn started to brainwash their friends and relatives. The popularity of LLL has reached a global scale — now that her unit is in 68 countries. It is important to understand that the popularity of breastfeeding has spawned a demand for such things, which previously did not exist at all or in such quantities. Special clothes for breastfeeding (dresses, shirts, sweaters, outerwear), clothes for nursing, various wipes-pads-creams, vitamins, and teas that promote lactation.

Breast pumps, bottles, sterilizers, stylish bags for carrying breast milk in bottles. Special pillows and bedspreads. It is only in theory breastfeeding is simple and natural process, requiring no cost. In practice, it is impossible without buying an incredible number of devices which a year later will rot in the garbage. Young calculated that if the mother is breastfeeding only, without the use of a breast pump, the cost of the initial purchase of type of clothing, linen and napkins, will be $ 785. The turnover on the market of breast pumps only in the United States in the near future will reach 1 billion (!) dollars.

Market related products will be two times more. Of course, all these companies benefit from the incredible support of the mythical benefits of breast milk. They even allocate for research of the benefit grants, and considerable. You can guess what conclusions the researchers who are paid by the manufacturers of breast pumps. These findings then happily pick up activity and use for their own purposes, simplifying the statistics to a level that anyone can understand it.

The author researched what is happening in America. They have their own specifics. The US has no paid parental leave. Under ObamaCare adopted a law requiring each pregnant woman be given one free breast pump. After birth, the woman takes the unpaid leave, all vacation and sick leave, and an average of 6 weeks after giving birth she returns to work. Every third woman does not go to the hospital after the birth, and immediately goes to work. The idea of the US statesmen not to interrupt the contact of the mother and baby so early, every mother giving the breast pump and the employer is obliged to create conditions for pumping breast milk.

In practice, it looks ugly. Mother forced to lock up almost in the toilets to Express milk, other staff at this time they have to replace (by law), in fact start to make fun of and even fun (what could be funnier than a breastfeeding woman?). This whole hideous system born out of the unwillingness of employers to pay maternity leave, and the state in turn does not want to put pressure on the business. Besides, a working mother generates more dollars than sitting in the decree, and it is beneficial for the economy. So I get the opposite of what it wanted to achieve the League and feminists.