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.

I hate labels, and who doesn't?

The one and only German blog I follow (I know, it's sad, but I haven't found any that keep my interest) is 123windelfrei. It's an attachment parenting blog and has really well written and researched posts. The most recent post is about pressure exerted by some mothers on others, and how some seem to believe that if only you do everything according to the Attachment Parenting book, all ills will be avoided and your child will be picture perfect. Only that, of course, there are no guarantees, and Attachment Parenting doesn't work.

At the same time, a comparison was made that implies you are an Earth Mama if you breast feed, wear your baby, and co-sleep. Which made me defend my choice to wear baby, highlighting why it works for me (no pushing of pram after c-section, so it gets me out and about above all).

I thought a lot about this blog post (do read it if you read German), and how I came to even read her blog, as well as the label of attachment parenting and earth mama. And many other labels for that matter.

As to AP, I didn't even know the term until Cubling was about 6 months old. I don't follow AP, I do have the Sears book but only skim through it on occasions. However, I've learned what works for baby - in Cubling's case this was carrying her (she would scream in the pram, honest, we tried!) and I ended up cosleeping because it allowed me to get some rest and cope with her 2-3 hourly wakings so I could still function at work. I breast fed until she was almost 2 years (I weaned her at that point). Now, I wear Snowflake to sleep, breast feed and happy to co-sleep should this prove the only option to get sleep (so far it's not needed). I do not believe in crying it out just because it felt wrong to me. Basically, I've tried things and stuck with what worked and that happened to be rather close to AP (Incidentially, I don't do EC and wouldn't even consider doing it, and apparently that goes with AP).

Similarly, when I think about what is good for me (I am selfish!) and for my children, and how to contribute towards a future world that is fair and has resources for all, I try to make choices that work towards it. I consider what is important, what makes sense, and I try to look at everything from different angles so I don't end up in a dead end. I'm looking into creating a more sustainable lifestyle, into which changes are doable for us and acceptable for us, and I blog about it in the hope of discussing it with a wider community and maybe even inspiring others to think along new avenues - as I do when I read other blogs.

And yet I react against any implication of being labelled. And maybe many people hate to be labelled and shy away from making changes, choices or talking about it for fear of being labelled. I'm not an earth mama, just selfish and trying to get sleep and peace, and a happy child above all (like all of us). As far as the bigger picture is concerned, I'd like to have food in 40 years time, I'd like to have a planet that hasn't gone into chaos and where people can live and make a life without fighting for food, oil and other resources. I'm not a green warrior, honestly.

What bothers me is the discourse that puts labels on us and as a consequence alienates people from one another. Take AP and what 123windelfrei found when she was told by a mum that she must have done something wrong if her child developed cavities. There are no guarantees of course, but following AP religiously, and believing it to be the solution for everything is just plain wrong. It then becomes an ideology and you'll get people like me, who previously were quite happy with the label, suddenly backing off and not wanting to ever be labelled with it again. As a consequence, people may also end up changing their ways, e.g. stop co-sleeping/breast feeding a toddler (or stop "admitting" to it) just to avoid being labelled, thus de-normalising such practices (which to me is the greatest danger of all).

Similarly I'm at odds with other labels. I'm exploring the Transition idea at the moment, to great detail in fact. It's a perspective on things that I share and that inspires and motivates me. It's outlook is positive, realistic. Both many people practicing AP and involved in Transition, however, are at odds with my view on vaccinations and I find it truly difficult to be sat at a table with people who all agree on the evil of vaccinations when I see it as a blessing.

So again, the label doesn't cut it for me because we are diverse and who will ever fully fit the label and all that comes with it? Exactly, nobody. So let's not be so categorical, let's discuss and yes, even argue (I love a good argument as long as it's good natured). Just somehow I feel that labels do more harm than good. I'd rather describe myself as a mum who breast feeds (for a variety of reasons, not out of ideology), co-sleeps (because it works for me and I love cuddling my girls), and carries her baby (because she's happier that way and will sleep, and I can get on with chores or playing with the big sister while my hands are free). I'm not an attachment parent, I'm not an earth mama or an eco warrior, even if I use cloth nappies (I actually use them mainly because they are cheaper and nicer though I won't pretend that it doesn't feel good to pat my back about reducing my contribution to landfill).

Let's label each other less, and listen - and in the end do - more. Let's do this gently and with generosity towards each other.
Sermon over.