I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

Anthropological studies have shown that the natural weaning age for humans is 5-7 which is exactly the time human mammals loose their “milk” teeth.

I think the studies on breastfeeding benefits for women show longer is better.

In any case my goal has always been 2 years or as long as my DC is still willing. After 1 year the amount of time I spend pumping is greatly reduce. I go feed her once a day and maybe hand express/pump 1 other time for 10-15 min. I try to make up for the time I go to feed her by working while eating lunch.

I don’t know. Other mammals naturally wean while they still have their “milk teeth”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I'd like to point out that you can breastfeed to 2 years and choose not to pump at work after a certain time.

I bf my kids to between 1-2 years. But I only pumped until they got on solids around 6-7 months. After that I nursed at home and on days off, and I was fine with a formula bottle when I was gone.

So it's not like every woman who is breastfeeding past one is pumping three times a day.

It is 100% the people who have never breastfed who have opinions about how breastfeeding works and their ignorance as apparent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'd like to point out that you can breastfeed to 2 years and choose not to pump at work after a certain time.

I bf my kids to between 1-2 years. But I only pumped until they got on solids around 6-7 months. After that I nursed at home and on days off, and I was fine with a formula bottle when I was gone.

So it's not like every woman who is breastfeeding past one is pumping three times a day.

It is 100% the people who have never breastfed who have opinions about how breastfeeding works and their ignorance as apparent

No. I’m still breastfeeding my toddler and most definitely have opinions on it!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'd like to point out that you can breastfeed to 2 years and choose not to pump at work after a certain time.

I bf my kids to between 1-2 years. But I only pumped until they got on solids around 6-7 months. After that I nursed at home and on days off, and I was fine with a formula bottle when I was gone.

So it's not like every woman who is breastfeeding past one is pumping three times a day.

It is 100% the people who have never breastfed who have opinions about how breastfeeding works and their ignorance as apparent

Everyone on this thread knows this folks. There are certain posters fixating on the exceptions, and how this guidance impacts those exceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

Anthropological studies have shown that the natural weaning age for humans is 5-7 which is exactly the time human mammals loose their “milk” teeth.

I think the studies on breastfeeding benefits for women show longer is better.

In any case my goal has always been 2 years or as long as my DC is still willing. After 1 year the amount of time I spend pumping is greatly reduce. I go feed her once a day and maybe hand express/pump 1 other time for 10-15 min. I try to make up for the time I go to feed her by working while eating lunch.

I don’t know. Other mammals naturally wean while they still have their “milk teeth”.

The anthropological studies weren’t based on loss of milk teeth. Natural weaning age found in those studies and loss of milk teeth happened to coincide. In any case AAP doesn’t impose an upper limit it’s 2 years or longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

Anthropological studies have shown that the natural weaning age for humans is 5-7 which is exactly the time human mammals loose their “milk” teeth.

I think the studies on breastfeeding benefits for women show longer is better.

In any case my goal has always been 2 years or as long as my DC is still willing. After 1 year the amount of time I spend pumping is greatly reduce. I go feed her once a day and maybe hand express/pump 1 other time for 10-15 min. I try to make up for the time I go to feed her by working while eating lunch.

I don’t know. Other mammals naturally wean while they still have their “milk teeth”.

The anthropological studies weren’t based on loss of milk teeth. Natural weaning age found in those studies and loss of milk teeth happened to coincide. In any case AAP doesn’t impose an upper limit it’s 2 years or longer.

They were related since those civilizations were before most cooked food. Children had fewer options.

Extended breastfeeding after centuries of evolution in civilized societies is incongruent.

[Anonymous]

So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

I'm the first PP above. What's your take? What is the specific end goal of this guidance, in your mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

I'm the first PP above. What's your take? What is the specific end goal of this guidance, in your mind?

I think firstly it’s to highlight that the full conception through lactation cycle is not always exactly one year and nine months, and that the nursing dyad may continue quite normally well past that. It think it intends to highlight benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child. And I think— because it says so— that it intends to advocate for additional workplace and government policies that allow women the best chance at successful breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

I'm the first PP above. What's your take? What is the specific end goal of this guidance, in your mind?

I think firstly it’s to highlight that the full conception through lactation cycle is not always exactly one year and nine months, and that the nursing dyad may continue quite normally well past that. It think it intends to highlight benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child. And I think— because it says so— that it intends to advocate for additional workplace and government policies that allow women the best chance at successful breastfeeding.

So it's not always exactly one year. Is it two years? Is it abnormal after two years?

As far as the "workplace and government policies go", I am a little perplexed. The "right to breastfeed in public" exists in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. "Maternity" leave is thankfully not a thing in the US, here we have PARENTAL leave, obviously not enough of it but advocating for women only to get paid leave after the birth of a child is regressive and promotes discrimination against women. In general, the advocacy for government and workplace policies seems very nonspecific and an afterthought in the policy statement. As far as "highlighting the benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child", well, I invite you to read the policy statement and see how much space is spent on benefits to the child vs the mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

I'm the first PP above. What's your take? What is the specific end goal of this guidance, in your mind?

I think firstly it’s to highlight that the full conception through lactation cycle is not always exactly one year and nine months, and that the nursing dyad may continue quite normally well past that. It think it intends to highlight benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child. And I think— because it says so— that it intends to advocate for additional workplace and government policies that allow women the best chance at successful breastfeeding.

Why is the “nursing dyad” (barf) elevated above all other aspects and labor of parenting, and other material aspects of family wellbeing? I believe it’s because breastfeeding occupies a place in some people’s mind as a symbol of utopia and idealized life. That’s why they over-focus on it to the exception of other more important things. It’s about attaining a perfect image of motherhood, and at its heart, as noxious as other myths of motherhood that distort public policy.

A woman is not half of a “nursing dyad.” She’s a person with autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

I'm the first PP above. What's your take? What is the specific end goal of this guidance, in your mind?

I think firstly it’s to highlight that the full conception through lactation cycle is not always exactly one year and nine months, and that the nursing dyad may continue quite normally well past that. It think it intends to highlight benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child. And I think— because it says so— that it intends to advocate for additional workplace and government policies that allow women the best chance at successful breastfeeding.

Why is the “nursing dyad” (barf) elevated above all other aspects and labor of parenting, and other material aspects of family wellbeing? I believe it’s because breastfeeding occupies a place in some people’s mind as a symbol of utopia and idealized life. That’s why they over-focus on it to the exception of other more important things. It’s about attaining a perfect image of motherhood, and at its heart, as noxious as other myths of motherhood that distort public policy.

A woman is not half of a “nursing dyad.” She’s a person with autonomy.

When it comes to nursing it takes two to tango. Hence the word says. If the baby does’t to nurse - no nursing. If the mother doesn’t want to nurse - no nursing. Breastfeeding only exists in a dyad of two autonomous individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

I'm the first PP above. What's your take? What is the specific end goal of this guidance, in your mind?

I think firstly it’s to highlight that the full conception through lactation cycle is not always exactly one year and nine months, and that the nursing dyad may continue quite normally well past that. It think it intends to highlight benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child. And I think— because it says so— that it intends to advocate for additional workplace and government policies that allow women the best chance at successful breastfeeding.

So it's not always exactly one year. Is it two years? Is it abnormal after two years?

As far as the "workplace and government policies go", I am a little perplexed. The "right to breastfeed in public" exists in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. "Maternity" leave is thankfully not a thing in the US, here we have PARENTAL leave, obviously not enough of it but advocating for women only to get paid leave after the birth of a child is regressive and promotes discrimination against women. In general, the advocacy for government and workplace policies seems very nonspecific and an afterthought in the policy statement. As far as "highlighting the benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child", well, I invite you to read the policy statement and see how much space is spent on benefits to the child vs the mother.

I have. And I would ask which AAP recommendations you are comparing against that have more stated benefits for the mother? It’s not room sharing. It’s not screen time. It’s not solids introduction. I’m not saying it’s only about benefits to the mother, I’m saying it’s inclusion is a welcome shift in an area where typically it’s not considered at all.