I hate the AAP

[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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

Funny, even when I type on my phone I don’t accidentally type racist dog whistles.

We live in a country where the government will buy you formula but won’t give you one minute of guaranteed time off to breastfeed an infant. Worship breastfeeding? Weak troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

Funny, even when I type on my phone I don’t accidentally type racist dog whistles.

We live in a country where the government will buy you formula but won’t give you one minute of guaranteed time off to breastfeed an infant. Worship breastfeeding? Weak troll.

Wow, I genuinely apologize, I had no idea that Pepe had become a symbol.of hate (and I definitely didn't even intend to type it).

I find it funny you think the "government" is the one that needs to "give" you time off to breastfeed an infant. It's your employer, and many are required by the government to provide pumping breaks. If you are referring to paid parental leave, there are a ton of organizations fighting for this, and it's clear the AAP didn't bother to coordinate with them or they wouldn't be calling for "maternity" leave, which places the burden of caring for a newborn entirely on the mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

Funny, even when I type on my phone I don’t accidentally type racist dog whistles.

We live in a country where the government will buy you formula but won’t give you one minute of guaranteed time off to breastfeed an infant. Worship breastfeeding? Weak troll.

Wow, I genuinely apologize, I had no idea that Pepe had become a symbol.of hate (and I definitely didn't even intend to type it).

I find it funny you think the "government" is the one that needs to "give" you time off to breastfeed an infant. It's your employer, and many are required by the government to provide pumping breaks. If you are referring to paid parental leave, there are a ton of organizations fighting for this, and it's clear the AAP didn't bother to coordinate with them or they wouldn't be calling for "maternity" leave, which places the burden of caring for a newborn entirely on the mother.

If the “government” should “give” formula to formula-fed infants (which they should) they should be equally in the business of making sure breastfed infants are fed. They’re very clearly not. So much for your allegation that we “worship” breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“dyad” implies the mother is equal to the infant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

Words matter. I greatly dislike the term “nursing dyad” because it dehumanizes the mother and implies her biological function is to feed the baby. We don’t call any other maternal function a “dyad.” How about a “diaper changing dyad”? A “formula feeding dyad”? The term “nursing dyad” takes away the woman’s individuality and makes her an instrument of feeding the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

Words matter. I greatly dislike the term “nursing dyad” because it dehumanizes the mother and implies her biological function is to feed the baby. We don’t call any other maternal function a “dyad.” How about a “diaper changing dyad”? A “formula feeding dyad”? The term “nursing dyad” takes away the woman’s individuality and makes her an instrument of feeding the baby.

No one else can nurse besides mother, unless you feel like including wet nurses or those that nurse other peoples children in emergencies or like now, formula shortages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

Words matter. I greatly dislike the term “nursing dyad” because it dehumanizes the mother and implies her biological function is to feed the baby. We don’t call any other maternal function a “dyad.” How about a “diaper changing dyad”? A “formula feeding dyad”? The term “nursing dyad” takes away the woman’s individuality and makes her an instrument of feeding the baby.

It’s how the medical literature addresses the nursing mother and child pair. If nothing else, it’s shorter. Being so anti breastfeeding that you get upset over the standard language that surrounds it in academic study is a really far bridge…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

Words matter. I greatly dislike the term “nursing dyad” because it dehumanizes the mother and implies her biological function is to feed the baby. We don’t call any other maternal function a “dyad.” How about a “diaper changing dyad”? A “formula feeding dyad”? The term “nursing dyad” takes away the woman’s individuality and makes her an instrument of feeding the baby.

It’s how the medical literature addresses the nursing mother and child pair. If nothing else, it’s shorter. Being so anti breastfeeding that you get upset over the standard language that surrounds it in academic study is a really far bridge…

No it isn't. It's a ridiculous term. We don't have to like it. Medical terms are allowed to be questioned. Sorry you can't handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

Funny, even when I type on my phone I don’t accidentally type racist dog whistles.

We live in a country where the government will buy you formula but won’t give you one minute of guaranteed time off to breastfeed an infant. Worship breastfeeding? Weak troll.

Wow, I genuinely apologize, I had no idea that Pepe had become a symbol.of hate (and I definitely didn't even intend to type it).

I find it funny you think the "government" is the one that needs to "give" you time off to breastfeed an infant. It's your employer, and many are required by the government to provide pumping breaks. If you are referring to paid parental leave, there are a ton of organizations fighting for this, and it's clear the AAP didn't bother to coordinate with them or they wouldn't be calling for "maternity" leave, which places the burden of caring for a newborn entirely on the mother.

If the “government” should “give” formula to formula-fed infants (which they should) they should be equally in the business of making sure breastfed infants are fed. They’re very clearly not. So much for your allegation that we “worship” breastfeeding.

How exactly do you propose the government do this? Should they hire an army of temp workers to run around to different businesses to cover for women while they pump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

Funny, even when I type on my phone I don’t accidentally type racist dog whistles.

We live in a country where the government will buy you formula but won’t give you one minute of guaranteed time off to breastfeed an infant. Worship breastfeeding? Weak troll.

Wow, I genuinely apologize, I had no idea that Pepe had become a symbol.of hate (and I definitely didn't even intend to type it).

I find it funny you think the "government" is the one that needs to "give" you time off to breastfeed an infant. It's your employer, and many are required by the government to provide pumping breaks. If you are referring to paid parental leave, there are a ton of organizations fighting for this, and it's clear the AAP didn't bother to coordinate with them or they wouldn't be calling for "maternity" leave, which places the burden of caring for a newborn entirely on the mother.

If the “government” should “give” formula to formula-fed infants (which they should) they should be equally in the business of making sure breastfed infants are fed. They’re very clearly not. So much for your allegation that we “worship” breastfeeding.

How exactly do you propose the government do this? Should they hire an army of temp workers to run around to different businesses to cover for women while they pump?

The government could guarantee paid leave for new mothers. Like every other civilized country on the planet does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

Funny, even when I type on my phone I don’t accidentally type racist dog whistles.

We live in a country where the government will buy you formula but won’t give you one minute of guaranteed time off to breastfeed an infant. Worship breastfeeding? Weak troll.

Wow, I genuinely apologize, I had no idea that Pepe had become a symbol.of hate (and I definitely didn't even intend to type it).

I find it funny you think the "government" is the one that needs to "give" you time off to breastfeed an infant. It's your employer, and many are required by the government to provide pumping breaks. If you are referring to paid parental leave, there are a ton of organizations fighting for this, and it's clear the AAP didn't bother to coordinate with them or they wouldn't be calling for "maternity" leave, which places the burden of caring for a newborn entirely on the mother.

If the “government” should “give” formula to formula-fed infants (which they should) they should be equally in the business of making sure breastfed infants are fed. They’re very clearly not. So much for your allegation that we “worship” breastfeeding.

How exactly do you propose the government do this? Should they hire an army of temp workers to run around to different businesses to cover for women while they pump?

It’s really not that hard to accommodate a pumping mother. They are short intervals and everyone copes. My kids are adopted so the issues of breastfeeding and pumping were never mine but I totally supported my co-workers who pumped as did everyone.