Goodbye Mimi

Any day now could be the last time I'll ever breastfeed. It's such a bittersweet time.
On the one hand, I've been looking forward to the last breastfeed for about a year, because it's just a bit uncomfortable feeding a growing toddler/pre-schooler. On the other hand it'll be the end of mothering small children, and in a way we're still hanging on there in that respect.

We haven't nursed in public for a long time now, and only very occasionally in the presence of good friends. That's ok, I appreciate that it's not the norm to nurse beyond a year, and the few negative comments I got did hurt so we kept it hidden. But I'm too defiant to keep it hidden good and proper, after all, I'm not a blogger if it wasn't for a certain happiness to share what matters to me.

All in all I breastfed just over 5 years, and considering the rubbish start to it I had, when I literally kept going just for one other feed, and repeat, I am happy and somewhat proud of this achievement. Not in a way that should make anyone feel less than good about themselves, but there's no harm in feeling good about something.

Snowflake sure was attached to her mimi, This recommended weaning approach of "don't offer, don't refuse" would probably mean she'd still be exclusively breastfed. I had secretly hoped for self weaning but it became pretty clear that this child won't self wean. We've been trying seriously to fully wean for about a year (a process that took a month with Cubling). This is what she says about mimi: "It's so yummy, it tastes like chocolate, cheese, yoghurt and strawberries". Tonight, for the last time ever, I fed her to sleep. This magic moment when you watch your baby relax all muscles and surrender to sleep.The calmness, oneness, the being in the moment of it.

She hadn't asked for mimi in 4 days but I needed at least one last feed that was a proper closure, rather than the reluctant, half asleep 4am one that was the previous potentially last feed. Of course I don't know if this was it for good, but we're not far off.

While I'm a bit nostalgic about moving on, it's the right time too. This child of mine is growing up, she is independent and really doesn't need this particular comfort anymore.

I'm holding on to the memories, lest I forget, recalling them in these last suckles.
Syringe feeding her colostrum in hospital, my mucussy c-section baby.
The frst proper milk feed, still in hospital, and her milk drunk face captured on my phone.
The amazement when I realised that breastfeeding could be pain free. The anger when I realised that something could have been done about the pain I'd experienced 3 1/2 years earlier and that it was only now that I found out about tongue tie and lip tie.
Waking up due to fullness and this tiny moany cry right beside me, instead of sleeping through and possibly waking up to her never waking up again.
Feeding her through her illness, keeping her nil by mouth twice pre-op, and the comfort that those hospital feeds brought us both. When it seemed that her health is outwith my control, it gave me something I felt I could do for her.
Feeding her in almost every place imaginable.
Feeding her through smaller illnesses, when she regularly refused all other food, she never refused this, which was reassuring.
Walking out of the GP surgery after a tirade of how I should stop breastfeeding instantly (she was 10 months), without a word because I knew there was just no point in arguing.
That first feed to reconnect after nursery pick up when I returned to work. That last feed before leaving her, in the nursery chair (she never took the formula offered, and opted to wait for my milk on my work days)
Being confused by people saying how it's so hard for me to be still breastfeeding when actually, it's not.at.all. Breastfeeding was never a sacrifice I made, and somehow people still saw it as such.
Being amused at my beloved Mr Cartside telling everyone who cared to listen, regardless of how well we knew the person, how she's still breastfeeding, at 1,2 and then 3 years of age, and secretly enjoying how uncomfortable this disclosure made some people (and understanding their discomfort).
Far too many breastfeeding discussions initiated by me in the office (although I really didn't mean to)
Learning so much about the politics of breastfeeding and infant nutrition and how we as a society are being conned for profit.
Developing and expanding an interest in infant nutrition, and realising how critical an area this is for the nation's health.
The delight when Save the Children took up the importance of breastfeeding in the first hour after a baby's birth and took on Danone and Nestle. And developed a proper breastfeeding policy (too late for my babies but it's there for those soon to be born).
The chuckles had when my request for a room suitable for private expressing in the new office was passed on to the project manager responsible for setting up the new office. It was clear she (!) had never considered the idea of expressing milk and that someone would do this at work (surely, working mums don't breastfeed? They do? Really? How bizarre)
And of course the endless cuddles while feeding, the smiles while feeding, the relaxation and time out it gave me, the excuse to sit down and stop and admire my miracle baby.
The pride when my then 3 year old told the nursery that while the baby they were role playing with had a bottle, her own baby drank mimi. Even a 3 year old can challenge the normalisation of bottle feeding.
And here's hoping that my youngest, who won't see me nurse another baby, may remember in some way how nice mimi was and pass it on to the next generation.

And that's only the memories of my youngest's breastfeeding journey.

Lip tie

I'm raging mad.
Today I found out about a condition in babies which can cause a poor latch when feeding, and lead to serious difficulties with breastfeeding. It's called upper lip tie. Like tongue tie, it can mess up latch and lead to poor milk tranfer, lack of weight gain in baby, pain for mum and suffering for both.

Guess what, both of my girls have it. The severe type at that. That's the one where the tie goes from in the middle of the top front teeth to the upper lip.

Now, when I was a new mum, breastfeeding wasn't at all off to a good start. I really struggled, and having had a good friend who was also a health visitor and had drummed into me to get support for every.single.feed in hospital, I sought support. Midwives, volunteers, health visitors, support groups, online forums, books. I did it all. And still I was in agonising pain for 8 weeks, and still my baby never seemed satisfied. I have pictures of her with eyes so tired of crying, crying that was put down to colic. I had to call Crysis even, I didn't know what to do anymore. We had days where she cried for hours and nothing would soothe her. At 12 weeks I caved in and supplemented with formula, I could not see my baby be hungry any longer.

At no point was tongue tie/lip tie mentioned or indeed checked. I only found out about tongue tie when my second was born. And only now, I found out about lip tie.

Lip tie does not necessarily lead to difficulties breastfeeding, but it may because it can restrict the movement of the mouth and lead to a shallow latch, which in turn means milking the breast doesn't work so well. I had no major issues with my younger girl, she fed frequently and was also slowish gaining weight but she was always happy after feeds and clearly not going hungry. There was also clearly a lot of output the other end. As for me, I had no pain or soreness at all with her. Both have the exact same severity of lip tie -so in one case it made life really difficult, in the other it didn't have an impact (though I wonder if it may have had an impact on her reluctance to take to solids).

So in this anger at the omission of the medical profession to look my baby in the mouth instead of praising how well I was doing and ignoring the obvious signs of something not being right (my instinct had always told me, but I didn't know the tell tale signs of insufficient milk transfer then), here's my shout out to anyone who ever struggles with breastfeeding: read up on tongue ties and lip ties, and how to remedy. It might be what's wrong and it often goes undiagnosed. The snip is quick and easy.

I'm angry that I was sent to baby massage class to help with the colic (or improve my bonding with baby), rather than remedy what was really wrong. There was lack of output the other end, a baby who looked forever tired and kept falling asleep at the breast but who would never stop suckling because she wasn't full. I nursed 12 out of 24 hours for 6 months. I was exhausted. I was in pain. I told so many people and nobody, yes, nobody took it seriously.

What is beyond me is why babies aren't check as a matter of course. It only takes a minute, and can avoid months of suffering.

Postscript: Here are some of the best resources on lip tie I found online. Lip tie doesn't have to mean difficulties with latch, but it can, especially because it can come hand in hand with a posterior tongue tie (which is hard to spot and often overlooked).

http://thefunnyshapedwoman.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/introducing-maxillary-labial-frenulum.html
http://www.plus2point4.co.uk/2011/07/19/breastfeeding-with-a-lip-and-tongue-tie/
http://mothernurturebreastfeeding.com/tongue-tie-lip-tie-and-frenotomy/
http://www.brianpalmerdds.com/pdf/Bfing_Frenum03.pdf

Wondrous Weaning

My kids may be well past their weaning ages, but if there's one thing I remember vividly it's that weaning was a daunting mountain for me as a first time mum and that the information out there wasn't really in line with what I was looking for. I was concerned with low weight gain, and when presented with having to prepare purees, there was a whole range of vegetables that I'd never cooked in my life. As an almost vegetarian household I also had to make decisions about if, how and when to introduce meat to my child's diet. I remember the patchy information provided by the health visitor team, which effectively presented us with leaflets and 3 purees of varying consistency, and gave an opportunity to buy a masher and puree tool at discount prices.

I'm much more relaxed this time around, but weaning was still a worry. By now I'd heard of baby led weaning and when Snowflake refused the spoon, I didn't worry and just let her eat whatever I was having. She didn't eat much and still doesn't, but she delights in food now and gets utterly excited about the announcement of "dinner time".

In a way I felt a bit let down both times around with the support available at this critical time in a baby's life.
Put it into context, we are experiencing an explosion of childhood obesity, with 30% of primary aged children in Scotland being overweight or obese. It's not just about kids being a bit heavier than they should, obesity leads to shorter lives, and these short lives are not as fun filled (with a family history of obesity and obesity related illnesses, I know this all too well).

So it strikes me that a bit of support and information that makes sense at this crucial stage might be a good idea. I did a bit of research on what's been proven to be the good and the bad in weaning for later life health and found out some interesting facts that even after 5 1/2 years of being a mum were new to me.

The risk of obesity and overweight is increased significantly if a baby is breastfed for less than 4 weeks AND solids are introduced before 16 weeks. This increases the risk of obesity a staggering 6 times. There is also an increased risk of obesity if a baby is formula fed AND solids are introduced after 6 months, though not as pronounced. So for the formula fed infant it's important that solids are introduced no earlier than 17 weeks and no later than 26 weeks. For breastfed babies, there is no significant increase of obesity risk depending on when solids are introduced.

Now we all know the guidelines to introduce solids no earlier than 17 weeks but ideally no earlier than 6 months. However, a whopping 51% of infants in the UK are introduced to solids before they are 16 weeks (this statistic is quite recent, Bolling et al.: 2007). This means that half of our children are put at a six fold risk of obesity from when they are not even 4 months old.

Then there's the interesting subject of protein. I won't go into the details because you'll just get all bored on me, but the bottom line is that a weaning diet rich in protein significantly increases the risk of obesity and overweight. Protein would be dairy and meat. So a diet rich in Carbohydrates is much better, and it's important to keep protein intake below carbs intake (= too much cow's milk can be bad): "Children who were overweight at 5yrs consumed significantly higher protein as a percentage of energy than non overweight children." (Scaglioni et al.: 2000)

Third up is earliest weight gain - which may be linked to protein intake. Infants who cross growth centiles upwards are hat significantly higher risk of obesity and overweight. This is particularly prominent in the first weeks of life, but the effect carries on through the first year: "Emerging evidence therefore strongly supports the first few post-natal weeks as a critical window for programming long-term health in both humans and animals" (Singhal/Lanigan: 2007). Researches aren't clear what causes this upward movement, and as it's observed mainly in formula fed infants, it may be something to do with formula being too rich in protein (although there are another few suggested causes, such as breast milk ingredients keeping insulin receptors happy and formula fed babies not being able to fully self regulate food intake). Anyeay, I wish I'd known this one earlier, it would have spared me all the worry of both my girls moving downwards on their percentiles... All I was concerned about was to get them up as high as I could, and I'm sure this is an instinct most parents share.

I also looked into the approach to weaning and how this may make a difference. There is one small study that indicates that spoon fed babies tend to be at higher risk of obesity than infants who feed themselves (baby led weaning). However the study is so small and the difference between the groups not big enough to allow for any conclusions. At the same time, the results, even if limited, indicate that baby led infants choose carbohydrate rich foods above protein rich foods which may indicate that they make food choices which are healthier for them.

So the bottom line is that it's most important to ensure solids are not introduced before 17 weeks and that most of the energy of the weaning diet comes from carbohydrates and not from protein. For formula fed babies, it's better to introduce solids before 6 months (but no earlier than 17 weeks), while for breastfed babies it doesn't matter.

References:
1.Rebecca Kendall. Weaning: Risk Factors for the Development of Overweight and Obesity in Childhood - A Systematic Review (2011)
2. A. Singhal and J. Lanigan. Breastfeeding, early growth and later obesity (2007)
3. Susanna Huh. "Timing of Solid Food Introduction and Risk of Obesity in Preschool-Aged Children" (2011)
4. E. Townsend and NJ Pitchford. "Baby knows best? The impact of weaning style on food preferences and body mass index in early childhood in a case-controlled sample (2012)

So Breastfeeding is Harmful Now

I've been following with mild interest the whole debate about the Time cover (for those who don't know, it features a very tall 3 year old standing on a stool and breastfeeding, both mum and toddler look straight into the camera and apparently this pose has tickled the nation because, let's face it, we don't do breastfeeding beyond 6 months, do we now, and above all we don't take pictures of it because it's just gross, isn't it?)

I was actually not particularly bothered or interested; just amused by the furore which in itself speaks volumes of course.

But what tickled my funny bone was a throwaway comment about the "attachment parenting crowd" in the Daily Mail. Not that I take the Daily Mail particularly seriously, but if a medical Dr a) claims that breastfeeding a child beyond 12 months is potentially harmful and b) uses a label to dismiss and patronise people, I can't let it go uncommented.

So, Attachment Parenting. I've always had an issue with the term, simply because it creates two types of parenting approaches - and the attachment parenting one seems to be the unusual one, the hippy, earth mama type of parenting, that is even from the onset weird and ever so slightly incompatible with our modern world.

The problem with this is that secure attachment is vital for every.single.child. Secure attachment develops in the first year. If it doesn't, the child will have serious difficulties in later life, this includes low self esteem, mental health issues, anger issues, will have a higher risk of addictions, a higher risk of neglectful parenting and a higher risk of being involved in antisocial behaviour and crime. Children lacking secure attachment in the first year cost our society, but they're also suffering from it big time. And setting the balance right later is costly and very difficult, sometimes even impossible, to achieve.

The bottom line is that we should all have a massive interest in ensuring we have securely attached children. It's in the interest of the child, and society as a whole.

Attachment parenting is therefore not an unusual leftwing approach to parenting but should really be mainstream to ensure secure attachment happens in the first year of life. And that's based on research and evidence, not on opinion.

Now, you don't need to breastfeed to have a securely attached child. It arguably makes it a tad easier but you can have a perfectly attached child and formula feed. But responsive care, not leaving to cry, and yes, not crying it out or controlled crying is part of it. It doesn't mean that controlled crying WILL harm a child, just that it may and does harm many children. So I wouldn't touch it as a matter of principle. Still, health visitors regularly recommend crying it out or controlled crying to encourage a baby to sleep through the night and every time I hear it I feel like shouting, and handing out some hard fact research how it can damage the newborn brain and how were really and truly don't want to do it because we can't turn back the clock once the damage is done.

Like not letting a child cry herself to sleep, breastfeeding beyond a year is seen as odd, when really it's the biological norm. I honestly don't understand why mums are so consistently pushed towards early weaning. My own GP told me to stop breastfeeding when Snowflake was just 10 months. She stood up and lectured me as if I was a stupid child needing a lesson. I let her and just left without a word. The look on the face of another mum when I explained that a sleep over wasn't in the cards for us at 20 months old still feeds rather a lot at night that spoke volumes of how that was a state of affairs that was totally beyond her ken. The constant questions at work why I don't want to go on training or meetings that involve overnight stays in some part of the UK, the feeling of being a broken record by saying that I don't think I should wean before age 2 for the convenience of my work if my job can be done without overnight stays.

The statement that breastfeeding beyond 12 months can be harmful really got me though. It's of course factually wrong. What is right is that not breastfeeding a 1 year old increases risks of various illnesses, just as not breastfeeding increases the risk of anything from cot death to obesity in later life. So the opposite is true. But we never talk about this do we?  I supplemented with formula from when Cubling was 12 weeks. I could not find any information on why that would be harmful, and I was sure that as long as I continued to breastfeed it was just as good. It's only now that I know it wasn't and I'm rather angry that this information was not available to me in spite of having read far and wide about breastfeeding. I'm also angry that the feeding issues I had with her never got addressed although I visited a clinic weekly.

I am all for choice. Women aren't stupid, and it's up to anyone to make their own choices. But misinformation doesn't lead to informed choices. And stigmatising breastfeeders and/or those who won't let their babies cry to sleep as "attachment parenting crowd" will once again out us as the "others", make us a laughing stock of parents, when actually we do what is the biological norm and what has the best developmental and health outcomes. How many mums will have stopped breastfeeding early because of the social and cultural pressure to do so? How often have I had to justify myself for feeding beyond a year, or hear dismissive comments or see "the eye roll"? How often have I been criticised for not teaching my child healthy sleeping habits (when in fact waking during the night is proven to be healthier than sleeping through)?

It's a mad world. Oh, and don't call me an attachment parent. I'm just a mum (who is still learning a lot about how to be a better parent than she is because I may not leave my child to cry but I'm not a perfect parent).

PS: I've left out any reference to co-sleeping. There is a pattern in that co-sleeping is vilified as a cot death risk when on closer inspection, it actually reduces the risk of cot death if practised safely. Another topic where parents are told they are harming their child when in fact they are not. I'd also recommend reading The Analytical Armadillo's take on the Daily Mail article which quotes some research evidence which I was too lazy to quote.

Moral superiority gone wrong?

The other day, on a breastfeeding themed facebook page / blog that I follow and admire (Analytical Armadillo), the ethics of the Optigrow Infant Feeding study and the process of recruitment of babies for it was questioned.

I was interested because we took part in this study and I had my own dilemma about whether or not it was a good thing to be part of it. To summarise, the study is based at a University and is testing a formula milk which has a different composition to current formula milks on the market, being higher in protein and lower in fat contents which, in this respect and this respect only, makes its composition closer to that of breastmilk. As feeding formula milk carries a higher risk of development of type 2 diabetes and heart disease in later life, as well as obesity, it is hoped that the development of this new formula may reduce this risk. For the study, babies are recruited in the first 24 hours of life and the criteria are that baby is either exclusively breastfed or exclusively formula fed. If recruited in the second group, baby will get randomly either normal or new type formula for a year. Exclusivity of feeding either breastmilk or formula milk is required for the first 10 days for the purpose of this study.

The thread on the Analytical Armadillo facebook page started out with concern about the ethics of recruitment. I chipped in my own experience - partly because I'd been through the process and partly because I was rather keen to see this topic explored what with my own thought process about the study. The concern in the thread was that someone from the Optigrow study was going around a postnatal ward offering free formula for a year and that this undermined breastfeeding at a very crucial and vulnerable time.

Now, it is no secret that I'd like to see higher breastfeeding rates because there is no question that they are low, and in fact very low in socially deprived areas of the country. I'm also very critical of the marketing strategies of formula companies, which claim that their formula is closest to breastmilk and similar rubbish. I'm also very aware that the discourse around breast is best is misleading, with its wording of "benefits of breastfeeding" rather than "risks of formula feeding" (the former implies that formula feeding is normal and you get a benefit if you breast feed, while the latter implies that breast feeding is normal and the poorer health outcomes in baby and mum when formula feeding are a risk to both).

Furthermore, I'm acutely aware that our culture around parenting favours formula feeding. New mums are expected to be yummy mummies, to continue their pre-baby lifestyle, to demonstrate they take it all in their stride. "Me time" is a big thing that apparently every mum should have every day, and which includes an expectation that mum has a right to spend time away from baby. The expectation is so strong that I felt more than awkward when receiving an invitation for a night out when my youngest was 6 months and I had to decline because there was no way I could have left her at home even for a few hours. Mums are expected to return to work after no more than 9 months of maternity leave (which translates to 7-8 months after birth of baby) and a return to work of course means that many will move over to formula at that point. The demands of being a mother to a newborn are downplayed and there is little recognition of parenting being a full time job in itself. I have elaborated on this because this culture is significant as it favours the bottle. The bottle is freedom from baby, it allows others than mum to take on the feeding and caring aspect more readily and I'm pretty sure that this is the main reason why many new mums who can breastfeed but choose not to from the start do so.

So if we want to improve breastfeeding rates overall, we are up against a culture that makes it difficult to breast feed, we are up against marketing and advertising that sell us formula as the next best thing, and a discourse around breastfeeding that implies that formula feeding is in fact the norm. As a consequence. there are places in Glasgow where breastfeeding rates are as low as 8% at the 6-8 week postnatal appointment. The highest rates I could find were 68% at 6-8 week appointment, in the most affluent areas, which is still low in my view, considering 95% of women can breastfeed (and do in many countries).

This leaves us with between 32% and 92% of new mums who formula feed 8 weeks post birth, and rising the older the infant gets. Anecdotally, of all the parents I know (and I know a lot, as we attend many playgroups and most of my friends have had babies, and almost everyone I know intended to breastfeed) I only know one person who breastfed longer than I did (I stopped at 23 months with my first, falling short of WHO guidelines). The point I'm trying to make is that in reality, a lot of babies are fed on formula milk whether we like it or not.

Considering the facts, improving formula to reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease must be a good thing because it would benefit the long term health of up to 92% of babies in some parts of the country, while we work on changing the culture that makes new mums choose formula over breast.

The response I received to this point was:

"Lactating mums need to STOP giving formula manufactures access to their children/milk! Would you give your business information to your rival company? Yes they need to make better formula for the TINY % of babies/women for whom BFing is not a possibility BUT whilst they are aggressively marketing formula as a life style choice and comparing it to BM and violating the WHO code they can do it without help from us!! Grrrrr!"

I take offence at this statement. I did not sell my baby to anyone. I considered carefully the ethics of the study and decided that from a pragmatic perspective, bearing the health outcomes of babies in mind, it was a good thing to take part in it. I'm not naive or stupid, I made an educated and informed decision.

Secondly, the statement argues that there are deserving babies vs undeserving babies (the "TINY % of" babies where mum can't breastfeed vs the babies of mums who choose not to breastfeed). Nevermind that many mums who end up not breastfeeding didn't choose this but struggled so bloody hard that it became an impossibility for them, the bottom line of this statement is that if you choose not to breastfeed your baby should rightly be exposed to risky formula even if less risky formula exists.

Now, you can argue about the ethics of the study as much as you want, but how about the ethics of this statement? Do we have two classes of babies? It's about the baby's health not the mum-who-chose-not-to-breastfeed's health! (and I reiterate that most mums who choose not to breastfeed didn't do this lightly and that usually there's a very good reason for this choice, ignoring this is plain patronising towards these mums).

At the same time I'm open to discussing the ethics to this study and I'm really keen to find out more. The two points in question are: the ethics of recruitment and the agenda of those who fund the study. Let's start with the second point: It has been mentioned that it's in fact funded by formula producers. It wouldn't surprise me because let's face it, state funding is being cut left right and centre, and a lot of academic studies depend on private investment. And private investment can only be obtained if there is something in it for the investor. So, formula producers are the likely investors. Of course there is a conflict of interest but I would still maintain that for the sake of the greater good (=health of babies) we shouldn't categorically dismiss any study that is funded by formula manufacturers. Instead, we should make sure that the study is scientifically sound, peer reviewed and that in the case of introduction to the market of the new "closer to breastmilk" formula, the marketing of this formula is factual, and that advertisement is controlled.

As to the recruitment, I can only speak for myself. I was approached because I was exclusively breastfeeding. The mum opposite me was mix feeding and did not get approached. When approached I was extremely tired after 3 consecutive sleepness nights (2 spent in labour followed by one with a mucusy post c-section baby). The researcher recognised that this did not constitute an ability to sign a consent form. She noted my interest and insisted on consent from dad, and returned hours later after I had had some sleep. At no point was the fact that there would be free formula mentioned to me. I cannot see therefore that anything in the recruitment process undermined my intention to breastfeed.

Quite the contrary - I was open to mixed feeding due to my previous experience of breastfeeding. The study required exclusive breastfeeding for 10 days. Somehow this gave me some goal to work towards, and once I'd reached it it was going so smoothly that in fact my baby didn't touch a drop of formula. As to the claim that apparently the first 10 days of the life of a baby and how it is fed seem to have a disproportionate influence on the risk of developing obesity, diabetes and heart disease - well, I don't know if this is true, but the study claims that because this is so, they "only" need exclusive breastfeeding for the first 10 days for the baby to qualify for the (breastfed) control group. This statement at no point translated to me as "after 10 days you can give baby a bottle".

To me, this process is good enough. It was made clear that I could leave the study at any time (and I was close to it because the recording of feeds really got on my socks). There are elements in the forms to be completed which I would change (e.g. for recording feeds in a 24 hour period, there are only 10 lines, and a breastfed baby is likely to feed more often than that). It may be that the process was less ethical in other postnatal wards and that clearly needs to be addressed.

The bottom line for me though remains the same. Refusing to allow the development of a healthier formula is patronising and morally wrong. Health inequalities between the richest and the poorest are a rift that divide and blight our society. Anything that can help to improve the health of our future generation is a good thing. Even if formula companies pay for it. We need, however, to hold them accountable and make sure the information gained is used in the best possible way.

Institutionalised

Quite out of the blue it dawned on me that this is it. This was my year of maternity leave, most likely the last one. Where did it go? Flying by is an understatement. It is odd how different I feel about returning to work this time around. How different I feel about leaving my children with caregivers. I hardly recognise myself, my feelings have changed so much.

In some fairy dream land, my imaginary plan had been to have my kids in Germany, where you get 3 years of (partly) unpaid leave each (which you can take any time and split between parents and take in chunks etc pp). Oh the luxury, to spend the early years with your children and still have a job to come back to.

Of course, life never works quite according to plan and I have only myself to blame for not following it through, one reason being that I actually quite like Scotland. And my job.


Still, as I count the hours before I'll leave my kids with competent caregivers who are still "only" that, caregivers, I wish I'd have more time. The older already nags me with complaints that she doesn't want to go back to nursery and rather spend time with me. The younger, oblivious to everything, gives me smiles and demands nursing as if there was no tomorrow.

Ahead of me is also the juggling of work and childcare demands, time slipping away and every minor traffic hiccups translating to having to catch up on work in the evenings, or not being able to take breaks. As a user of a council nursery (and I know that's as lucky as winning the lottery) there are also in service days and holiday weeks to consider, time off work that I simply don't have (did I find a babysitter recently? She'll be getting more work it seems). It's back to the rat race - just this time not for the money but for the sake of juggling what is often more than wrongly referred to as work life balance (there is no such thing if ever someone asks. If you work and have kids, the balance goes out of the window first).

The nagging question is that of "Is it worth it?" The constant rush, stress, all for a negligible bit of extra money. Is it really worth it?
My answer now, 4 1/2 years into motherhood, is quite different to what it was 4 years ago when Cubling started childcare. I'm no longer sure at all. The resounding yes is almost gone. And if it wasn't for the kind of job I have, the satisfaction I get out of it, the team I work with, the organisation that is more supportive of their employees than most, the answer may well tip towards the "no".

Transitions are never easy and I know from experience that a new rhythm will emerge, that things will settle down, that I will settle down. For now though, I'm in inner turmoil and reluctant to hand over my kids. It is me who has separation anxiety.

I once read someone label the start of school as institutionalisation of a child. At the time, I chuckled as it seemed over the top and a bit funny. I'd no longer chuckle now. I know what she meant. And aren't we all institutionalised and following the rhythm of what that institution imposes on us? The 9-5 rhythm of work, the in service days of schools, the nap routines of nurseries. Be wary child if you don't fit in, if you'd rather not have your mum leave you alone, if you are a nurseling at 10 months.

It is the way things are and I accept them as it is beyond me to change them so I try and make the best out of it. But I cannot be made to like it.

This is not a Guilt trip

When the most recent research findings about another outcome difference between breastfeeding versus formula feeding hit the headlines, the reaction was once again predictable. There were those who rejoiced in yet another reason why breastfeeding is good for your baba and those who complained how it guilt tripped parents who didn't/couldn't breastfeed or how breastfeeding is once aspect of parenting and surely so many other parenting choices will have an impact on child behaviour.

There was even voices that pointed out how useless the research was, how it was a waste of money because it wouldn't make a penny of a difference to mums in their choice whether or not to breastfeed.

Now, unlike others who seem to have made up their mind that this piece of research was a waste of money, I believe that as with all research, only time can tell if it was or wasn't good value for money - but hey, that's what research is about! If you questioned every research project in relation to value for money and usefulness, there is a real potential that no research, no progress, would ever happen. It's bad enough that a lot of research has to be funded privately and thus often by people with dubious agendas - but the bottom line is that we need a variety of research to learn, to further ourselves, to progress.

So why is research on impact of infant feeding criticised and always ends up opening a can of worms? Why is there a problem with presenting facts? And, above all, why does anyone feel guilt tripped by the reporting of facts?

It's all about that elusive mad woman in the attic. Guilt. Mother's guilt more precisely because when did a dad last feel guilty about working full time, or his child not being breastfed?

Why do people feel guilty in the first place? Personally, I feel guilty when I've done something knowingly that I shouldn't have done while I had the option of doing something different, i.e. when I chose to do the wrong thing against my conscience.

Now, let's look at the choice between breastfeeding and formula feeding: as far as I can tell, there is a limited number of scenarios and where guilt does or doesn't come in:
a) mum wants to breastfeed, sometimes desperately so, but encounters difficulties, doesn't get the right support and stops. Guilt factor? There shouldn't be one. Mum should be angry about lack of support, and complain.
b) Mum can't breastfeed. This is rare, but for medical conditions or some situations, this might be the case. If you can't breastfeed, why would you feel guilty about it?
c)There is the situation where the mother, in full knowledge of all facts, chooses to formula feed, based on her individual circumstances and with very good reasons.
Guilt? Why? Sometimes life isn't as ideal as we wished it was and we weigh up risks and benefits and come to an informed conclusion that's fine, isn't it? Done, dusted.
d) Mum just doesn't want to breastfeed for one reason or another. Maybe she finds it yucky (yes i've heard that). That is society (culture/peer group) who's given mum that idea, again, mum's not to blame, it's very hard to oppose peer group pressure. Maybe she wants to keep going out/party/continue a life pre-baby or even doesn't want to be tied down to the baby all the time (which admittedly breastfeeding does) - or more likely conforms to peer group pressure to not be seen tied down by baby. Even I feel this pressure to just continue as usual, I see the looks I get when I used a lunch break to feed my baby, the apologetic "she doesn't take a bottle" that I still offer in explanation as if I had to justify myself. It's hard to breast feed exclusively, even if you're in a generally supportive peer group, how hard must it be if you're not? Again, mum shouldn't feel guilty if she gives in to this pressure.

So why do we feel guilty? Why do we read into every presentation of facts that demonstrates why it's better to feed human milk to human babies, rather than modified cow's milk that anyone formula feeding should feel guilty?

Research findings present us with facts. I don't get why fact finding is criticised. To claim that it won't have an impact on infant feeding choices is presumptious in my view - if we had figured out exactly what impacts on infant feeding choices, we wouldn't have those unbelievably low breastfeeding rates in some parts of the UK that I've quoted before (just as a reminder, there are various areas in Glasgow where rates are as low as 8% at the 6-8 week checkup - compare this to 95% in some countries). Now, these rates are too low by any standard and we absolutely need to do something about it. It's not about guilt tripping those who've made their choice - that's done and no research will change those choices or bring back the lack of support or whatever else that led to them, but it's about our future generations, it's about all those mums-to-be out there who are making their choice now and in future.

In a climate where everything non-statutory is being cut, breastfeeding support is waning and becoming more than patchy. And if there's one thing that's needed, it's quality support. It's vital that at least some voice out there keeps the importance of infant feeding on the agenda because there is an established link between low rates of breastfeeding and health inequalities in later life. Of course this is not just due to breastfeeding, and of course other parenting choices impact too (such as quality time spent with child every day, such as healthy weaning diet, such as access to exercise) but we can't exclude breastfeeding just because it doesn't sit well with us and formula has become oh so convenient like ready made meals. And as long as formula companies are allowed to market their product in rather questionable ways, shouldn't information marketing/promoting human milk be welcomed at the very least as a healthy balance? And how about we mums take a stance to market our product, regardless of how we fed our kids? It's cheap, convenient, high quality, no risk and tastier. Nevermind the feel good factor of being able to supply all your child needs. How come it's ok for formula companies to take airspace, advertising space in neonatal packs and the like, when research demonstrating the goodness of human milk is criticised? How come that at prenatal breastfeeding workshops facilitators are accused of being pushy when all they do is provide information and allow debate, and sometimes are even accused of being breastfeeding nazis (Breastapo is the word that I take real issue with. Nothing excuses using the evil of the Nazis in a wordplay on those promoting breastfeeding. Nothing.).

Back to the whole guilt issue. Guilt is a personal feeling. Information doesn't make us feel anything. It's neutral. How we respond is our personal choice. So to everyone who feels guilty, nobody is making you feel guilty or trying to do this, honestly. Unlike the suggestions on many platforms, news media or blogs, the research is not publish to make people feel guilty or to hit them with the breastick. Often, guilt is a sneaky feeling that turns something which should have an outward direction inward towards and against a person. Thus, instead of feeling angry with the lack of support to succeed in breastfeeding, we feel guilty for not managing. It's destructive at worst (PND anyone?) and unproductive at best.

How about we just stopped feeling guilty? How about we replace it with responsibility, knowledge and confidence?

Child's food or how not to become obese

As parents, the learning curve is steep and it doesn't stop when you think you may start to have it sussed out, like 4 years in or something like that. Recently, food has been very much on the agenda, and three very different trains of thought seem to be converging.

There is an interesting contradiction in the whole business of feeding children. If you're a breastfeeding mum, all your parents' eyes are on weight gain and you are damning yourself (even if health professionals don't) if it doesn't follow a chart. Oh the worry I had with Cubling. So much so, that once we started solids, I made sure it was a very high calorie version and she went from skinny to very chubby in just 3 months.

Then there's the whole debate of increasing levels of childhood obesity, so much so that a recent topic on Call Kaye was a debate on whether gastric band operations should be offered to children as young as 14. An interesting point was made by a caller who deplored that weight gain in children was no longer checked regularly, so that obesity is often caught when severely bad eating habits are very strongly established and exercise is becoming less of an option to tackle the surplus energy the body is given.

There are many reasons for childhood obesity, and while some are known (we all know what foods are good and which ones aren't, don't we?), some others are more elusive.

Reason 1: This is one that I only found out about recently, due to taking part in the Optigrow Infant Feeding Study. Apparently, baby's metabolism is set in the first 10 days of life. If fed on formula, the risk of later obesity is much higher than if fed on breast milk. What annoys me is that nobody ever informed me about this. All the breastfeeding information I got from the NHS was summarised into benefits, which were all nice but not very convincing.

When you decide which way you would like to feed your baby, it's presented as a choice where you weigh up pros and cons. The thing is though that many reasons to breastfeed are not really explained in detail. I usually don't trust reasons that don't give me an explanation. The "why" is important to me and convinces me. I'm still finding out more about the benefits of breastfeeding, and realise more and more that there are two reasons why people do not breastfeed: New mothers often don't know enough about the benefits and make an uninformed choice, or they do not get enough support. Then there's the group who does get all the information and support and makes an informed choice - which is fine. It's just a shame if breastfeeding isn't happening for lack of information and/or support.

Now there's a new "urge" to breastfeed to reduce levels of obesity, which have long term health impact and also cost the NHS money. Low breastfeeding rates translate to health inequalities in later life. In principle, this is all good and well, surely there's room for higher levels of breastfeeding (in some parts of Glasgow less than 10% of mothers breastfeed at the 6-8 week appointment) - but it takes more than an "urge". I saw a request on Netmums for a young mum to be for baby stuff, including bottles. I responded and offered a few things (including bottles) but also said that breastfeeding would be cheaper. The response by the friend was, oh she's only 17, she doesn't have a clue. I understand that, I didn't have a clue really at more than twice the age and the NHS breastfeeding workshop at 38 weeks of pregnancy was much too late to really have an impact on feeding choices (and the support to tackle my breastfeeding problems was well meaning but didn't actually improve things). I just feel that nobody should feel they don't have a clue about what should be the normal way to feed a baby, and I'm still mad that even with all the information I did get, I didn't know enough when I first became a mum.

Then there's the issue that breastfeeding support workers and initiatives are getting their funding cut. Urging to breastfeed without the support is simply not enough. I won't happen. Without the support I had, I would have given in after 2 weeks. I didn't have great support, but it kept me going at least. Cut that, and your breastfeeding rates will plummet.


Reason 2: There is an ever growing availability of unhealthy and cheap fast food, particularly in the poorer areas. When I started weaning, everyone told me that making your own baby food was way cheaper than jars. I still doubt that. I also doubt that I can make a dinner for the price of a ready made meal. Convenience food, unhealthy snacks, fast food, are all over the place, ever in your face and it's hard to say "no" even if you are health conscious. My suggestion to tackle the problem: tax the nasty ingredients. There is currently no tax on sugar, making sugary foods very cheap. The only thing that keeps me from buying yet another chocolate bar (and eating it within seconds) is price. I know I wouldn't buy it if it doubled in price. Same goes for ready made meals and the like.

Reason 3: People have lost the skill to cook. When I was a child, my mother cooked most things from scratch. I was fortunate to learn some skills from her, though I didn't show much of an interest and could have learned so much more. Later I learned from my au pair families and thanks to a great hall of residence where we cooked together occasionally. Yet still I'm not particularly confident that I can cook from scratch. Which is why I'm all in favour of basic cooking skills being taught at school - not as an elective subject but for everyone. Because really, what better life skill can there be than being able to feed yourself?

Reason 4: And this is where I got caught in the act: Creating negative food associations. Call it the battle of the dinner table. For months, nay, years, we've been battling at dinner time. Cubling takes forever to eat, and only threats or promises of desert will make her finish her dinner. This is with food she likes and with food she doesn't. She's not a particularly fussy eater (apart from refusing to eat fruit), she just won't feed herself. We've tried it all. Or have we? I once read that the principle of feeding kids should be that the parent controls WHAT comes on the plate, and the child controls HOW MUCH they eat. On Call Kaye it was pointed out that children don't actually overeat on decent food, they only do so if sweat/fatty food is offered and also if the parents insist on the child finishing the plate. Oh I'm so guilty of the latter. I hate wasting food. I still have that growth chart worry from her breastfeeding days. The comment also firmly put me into Cubling's shoes: How did I feel when coerced into eating food? I had to finish my plate too, made to eat meat, and what good did it do? I'm an overweight, chocoholic vegetarian now! How did it happen that I just copied the food politics that I hated when I was a child?

By age 4 apparently, bad food habits are created. But we can change, can't we, after all, she's only just 4. So it's back to basics: I offer, she eats or leaves. All without coercion, with calm and fun. Hopefully we can still patch the bad start, and do it all so much better with Snowflake...

How about you? Is your dinner table a battlefield?
And what do you think is the best way to tackle rising levels of childhood obesity?

(Brownie Point if you spot the movie reference in the title ;) )

Friendship is...

Being able to ring her doorbell after 2 years and one new addition to the family each, and rather than coo over our prospective new baby girls, being able to ask for a pump without her even batting an eye.

And I couldn't help but wonder what the neighbours and the decorator were thinking if they noticed me standing at the sink relieving myself of rather a lot of excess milk.

(in case this is a scenario to put you off breastfeeding - I'd like to counter it with 101 reasons why breastfeeding rocks, just to set the balance right. I've not had a nursing strike in 2 1/2 years so am rather perplexed myself by the situation)

It's not cutting it

Admittedly, I'm not exactly on top of all the news at the moment. So when the big cuts were announced I neither managed to look in depth at the emergency budget nor in depth at the recently announced budget (though it's still on my to do list). It was a bit of a surreal experience, this maternity leave bubble. Everybody talking about cuts, and all that I feel of it was debates on the radio. Of course I knew that the voluntary sector would be hit hard, but how exactly, and when, seemed a bit more elusive.

Now however, I've experienced cuts even in my little bubble, and without particularly looking out for them. I'm not surprised but still very disappointed. Services for Refugees and Asylum Seekers were first to go - the housing contract Glasgow City Council held wasn't renewed, so rather a lot of support services are on the way out. This is hitting refugees hard - as well as everyone working in the sector. The cuts affect support for the most vulnerable, support for English language tuition and thus affects integration.

In another area, I tried to apply to volunteer as a breastfeeding peer supporter. However, the programme is stalled because the NHS has withdrawn their training element from the programme. So there you have a service which is actually all big societyish with volunteers doing the work, but the necessary training to enable them to do a good job has been cut. Again, it hits the vulnerable in our society, but also society as a whole because low breastfeeding rates are linked with poorer health in later life, increased risk of obesity and general health inequalities. It's short sighted and will in fact incur a delayed cost.

I have strong views on the suggested privatisation of forests and libraries. Again, I think it's the wrong approach. And the list goes on of course.
This is not to say that I'm all opposed to cuts, or opposed to all cuts. Muddling Along Mummy stirred up a bit of a debate on those who seem to think unrealistically that we can just not have any cuts at all.

However, I think we need to start with the right vision and not cut where it's quick and easy, but which will incur additional costs in the future.
So how about we look at what is costing the country money?

1. Crime. Crime is expensive because of the justice system, more so than the actual damage (though that counts too), and it also costs our society morally (in the sense that people feel insecure and don't use public spaces - a real detrimental effect on communities). Prison doesn't get rid of crime. I'm not suggesting that prison is wrong, just that it doesn't actually do anything to remediate the problem, however is important to show there are consequences to wrong behaviour.

2. Addictions. And I include tobacco and alcohol in this - alcohol in particular costs us an awful lot of money. The damage caused by people who are drunk, the violence caused by drink both outside and in the home, the consequences addictions have on the children of addicts.

3. Poor health that is caused by lifestyle choices. Most of us know what is good and bad to eat, yet bad food is cheap and convenient and it takes knowledge, real effort and conviction to make healthy choices.

4. Unemployment/worklessness.

All of these are linked to inequalities though it's a chicken and egg situation. Social inequality causes higher crime rates, poorer health and addictions, which in turn cause social inequalities. It's a vicious circle and I don't pretend there are any easy solutions out there because if they were, we'd have made appropriate choices.

There are two factors though which I strongly believe will make a sustainable positive difference to alleviate the malaises of our society. One is to aim to make our society more equal because it has been demonstrated that societies are happier and have less violence, crime, addictions and health problems if the gap between rich and poor is not as wide as it is in the UK (the widest in Europe, and it even beats the U.S. which surprised me).

Secondly it's about the early years and good and responsible parenting, as well as a recognition by all parents that they are the people who will set up their children for life. Hence it's absolutely essential to support parents to do a good job. I'm not talking about pushy parents here, just about parenting that respects the child, that gives the child love and attention, and ambitions. Education will then add to this foundation, but education cannot bridge the attainment gap caused by growing up in poverty and deprivation; in fact school has been shown to increases the attainment gap. I'm not suggesting that poverty has to lead to low attainment at school, just that children growing up in poverty are more likely to be low achievers at schools, that there is a very real link, for many reasons. Some to do with the parents, some to do with the environment and lack of facilities. It's complex as all of these issues.

With these two principles in mind, it may become clearer why libraries, breast feeding support (breast feeding is a health indicator of deprivation - some areas of Glasgow have breast feeding rates of only 8% at the 6 week check-up) and children's centres (in England, we don't have Sure Start centres in Scotland) in my view are cuts that are very wrong. I would go further and propose a whole reassessment of value of professions. Because, if a child care worker earns less than a car mechanic, does that not show that we value cars more than children?

I do want to propose alternatives though. There is a lot of waste of money, resources in all walks of the working life. Business trips, special VIP treats etc to me are spitting people in the face who are unemployed and struggle to make ends meet. Most larger organisations have an inflated management structure - and managers are paid more than the actual front line staff. I also very much believe in a progressive tax system (ours is regressive at the moment due to the effect of VAT). While I realise that there are too few high earners and thus taxing them more doesn't change the world, it would contribute and make our society more equal.

On top of that, waste is also in physical resources. How much paper is wasted, how much stuff produced that we don't need? How about taking this age of austerity as an opportunity to reduce and reassess what is needed from what is not? If everybody cut out their waste of resources in their professional and personal lives, surely it would be a revolution of sorts?

What we cannot do is talk big words of big society and then withdraw the necessary support for this. If I, as a volunteer, want to provide a service (that really should be provided by a statutory body in the first place) it is simply stupid to withdraw the funding needed to provide a few hours of training.

Oh yes, and bring on fuel duty. If it can be cut, the deficit can't be all that bad. Fuel is not going to become any cheaper any time soon unless we build a few more nuclear power stations. Better get used to the real cost of fuel and prepare sooner rather than later that we have to rethink our worship of the car.

Proudly poking legs

I'm proud. Proud of my baby and me. And this unashamed, glorious, giddy pride comes from not having been there before. So don't shoot me if you didn't manage to/couldn't breastfeed. I feel the pain. Today though, I feel the joy. The joy of these chubby legs, the joy of a baby that is clearly bursting out of the carry cot (and we only used it a handful of times!).

Snowflake is 24 weeks and exclusively breastfed. I never thought I'd be able to say this. Yesterday she had a cooked carrot and the nappy tells me she did manage to swallow some (to my surprise). We will soon be weaning onto solids (not just yet, she still ejects foods offered to her so not quite ready yet but I'll keep offering). Today though I want to celebrate the two of us for having made it so far.

With Cubling, we supplemented on and off, from 12 weeks, and when I returned to work (she was 23 weeks) I tried to express but didn't get enough for the two bottles she needed on my working days, so she had formula daily. Breastfeeding was hard, she fed long and often. I stuck to it through pain, blood and tears. There were many weeks where I gave it just one more day, one more feed. I was so ready to give it up. I now know that part of the problem must have been latch, possible some problem with her palate, and that she most likely never fed efficiently.

What a different story this time: Snowflake feeds quickly, if frequently - but you know, frequently is not bad if it doesn't last an hour! I'm more than happy to feed every 2-3 hours (or hourly while she had bronchiolitis, so she wouldn't bring up her feeds) if it only takes 10 minutes and I see a happy baby after the feed. I had no pain, no problems apart from early clusterfeeds. Before Snowflake was born, I vowed not to be so hard on myself about the breastfeeding malarky, to supplement when needed, surely mixed feeding can't be that bad (I now know why exclusive breastfeeding is actually better than mixed feeding but didn't 6 months ago).
Well, I didn't need to. Bottles and teats are unused (ok, I used the bottle once and gave her expressed milk). So are the just in case cartons of formula. I even threw expressed milk away, because I knew I didn't need it.
It was easy, convenient and I can't stop poking her Speckbeinchen (porky legs), knowing that I grew every cell of them.

And after this proud pat on the back, let the weaning mess begin.

Night wakings, bonding and being a second time mum

Being a second time mum really is a different experience.
There is a significant benefit in a) having been there before and b) having had a high need baby first. b) translates to something along the lines that nothing shocks you and you're prepared for the worst and you rejoice if it's not that.

It's partly about knowing what it means to have a baby and partly about roughly knowing yourself, your weaknesses and your parenting preferences. I'd like to stress that these are very personal preferences, it's not about thinking this is the only or better way, just it's what suits me. I'm confident explaining why I favour co-sleeping and carrying baby in a sling, while acknowledging that it may not suit other parents.

I don't really miss not going out. This time, there's no massive lifestyle change that I find difficult to accept. I enjoy being at home much more, and appreciate what I can do. There isn't a baby crying and a set of parents unable to soothe this crying baby. I know exactly what's wrong with Snowflake whenever she cries. Well, apart from car journeys when there's nothing wrong really but let's leave that aside.

When Cubling was 4 1/2 months, she woke every 30 minutes at night and I was losing the will to live. It was cruel, I was on edge, I might have shouted, cried and cursed being a mum. Oh it was ugly.

Now Snowflake is 4 1/2 months and she wakes every hour at night. I'm tired, but I'm no where near that sleep deprived state that could lead to exploding mummy any second. That doesn't mean I like being woken up every hour, or more, because Cubling is a bit poorly and wakes rather a lot too, so between the two, well, there's not much sleep to be had.

I'm not as worried about night wakings because I know that they will stop. Time passes quicker this time anyway and I don't have to go back to work as soon, all of which helps. Oh, and Cubling does occasionally sleep in giving us all a lie in. So it's manageable.

I don't obsess but I still wonder if I'm doing the right thing. I let Snowflake fall asleep on my lap in the evenings, where she will mostly settle beautifully. Whenever I try to move her to the carrycot, she wakes and cries and can't be settled. I know I could insist but it's so much easier just to feed her back to sleep, and see, I can type, knit, watch TV, surf the net and all that while she's on my lap. It's not so bad.

I know there are different reasons for such frequent night wakings. The nature of baby sleep, her sleep association (being fed to sleep), teething, developmental spurts, and some may say readiness for solids. We could consider a dummy but I simply don't feel it would improve things - after all, the dummy needs sterilised, located and plugged in. The real thing is always there and won't get lost so easily, so do I really want to introduce a dummy? I may just wait a little longer, hoping this is just a phase.

In the back of my mind I know that habits can be changed and I'm not worried about creating habits if they work. She can have better nights, and if I persisted, she would probably sleep in a bed without being right next to me, after all that's what she does during the day at least sometimes.

Truth is, I'm not too bothered by it, just a tiny bit, not enough to make a concerted effort to change anything just yet. I still feel uneasy if she sleeps in a different room from me, part of me loves having her on my lap in the evenings, knowing she's fine, and warm, and happy snuggled into me.
Before long, I'll miss those cosy evenings.

Recently, I read a blog post on bonding and it made me wonder if there is actually a difference in how I bonded with my babies,* because with Cubling, there were moments where I rejected her relentless need for touch, with Snowflake there aren't any such moments. Of course, Snowflake is not a high need baby, so I'm not comparing like with like. But maybe there is truth in my translation of this blog post that because breastfeeding went so much better this time than last, the early bond is a better one. And I worry that Cubling's continuing clinginess is a result of that slightly disturbed bond, tainted by those moments where I was at the end of my tether (and yet I know it's relative, compared to other babies she got so much more touch - I never forced the pram on her, responded to her need to be carried etc). Then again, if it's about clinginess, it's not my behaviour that caused it, it's always been there so maybe the closeness is just what Cubling needs to feel secure.

* I should stress that I did bond with Cubling and feel very close to her. The difference is just that I feel that the early bond is less complicated with Snowflake and that I'm a much happier parent than I was after Cubling was born

The Normality of Breastfeeding

I live in a place where breastfeeding is the exception rather than the norm. It came as a surprise to me when I was first presented with this fact, about 10 years ago, when a friend of mine had a baby and was the only new mum in the 13 bed ward who was breastfeeding. I also remember being asked in a questionnaire why I chose to breastfeed - and that my reason (because it's the normal way of feeding a newborn) was not an option.

It makes me wonder if the low breastfeeding rates in certain places may be related with formula feeding being perceived as the norm, and if re-establishing breastfeeding as the norm may lead to improved breastfeeding rates.

One example where formula feeding was established as the norm was when someone decided to base the growth charts on formula fed babies. This has since been changed - so this time around, Snowflake is measured against growth charts of breastfed babies (and following her line spot on) while Cubling was measured against formula fed babies (and kept dropping as time went on, giving me a lot of worry if I was doing the right thing). Although these charts gave me worry with Cubling, I never questioned them. But now that I'm more relaxed about weight gain, and can see my own different attitude and how the new chart gives me confidence that things are going well, I realise how crucial this change is. Hopefully it will give confidence to many breastfeeding mums, and more than that, demonstrate that the norm against which baby growth is measured is that of a breastfed baby.

At nursery, Cubling has been learning all about babies. It's been a great theme, just at the right time. She comes home and continues the role play with her favourite teddy (she's not into dolls as such, her teddy is her baby, it's a girl and her name is Snowflakes middle name). She tells me all about why babies cry, that they can't walk yet, that they visited the baby room and how proud she is that she has a real baby at home. She'll change nappies, wipes teddy bums, dresses teddy for bed and outdoors. And she's filling up bottles to give milk to teddy.

Mummy cringes. All my nursing and my daughter at 3 years already fills up bottles (of the breast pump at least, but bottles they are nonetheless).
I cringe even more because when I dropped Cubling off at nursery one day, and Snowflake was crying (I didn't get the timing of feeds right), a nursery teacher passed and asked Cubling if her baby sister needed a bottle.
Bless Cubling, she just retorted by saying "no!" and pointing to her breast.
What it shows though is that at nursery, the message given out to our youngest is that the normality of baby feeding is the bottle (filled with formula, why else would you measure milk?) - possibly out of a false sense of prudishness (I'm guessing). It's an opportunity lost, an opportunity to re-establish the normality of breastfeeding in an area of Glasgow where the rates are bound to be doddling around the 10% mark.

And I'm particularly disappointed because this is a nursery that prides itself in its eco status, it's environmental awareness and does generally so well in these areas. Shouldn't this not also translate into some gentle encouragement of the message that breastfeeding is normal? It's not about promoting breastfeeding, just about treating it as the norm, to which there will always be exceptions.

Have you experienced situations where breastfeeding wasn't/isn't treated as the norm? Should I take this up with the nursery?