INCREDIBLE How Negative Society Affects When Kids SELF-Wean!

The original title of this post is- Isn't It INCREDIBLE How Our Negative Society Affects When Our Children SELF-Wean? What Else Could Social Attitude Influence? it was changed because of the way ecohuddle cuts off the titles when they are too long.

Continuously in the research I've done I've found it interesting how much the negativity towards breastfeeding in our society seems to effect the age children wean either because they are truly self weaning for some reason or because the parent thinks they are during a prolonged nursing strike and offers the breast less and less instead of continuing to offer the breast multiple times a day regardless of whether the child feeds or not until the feedings pick back up (through no fault of the parent, but because breastfeeding for the human normal range of time is so abnormal in our society the parent is unaware of what to do, even if they have support for general breastfeeding).
 

I don't think it's any coincidence that natural self weaning age, the age of immmune system maturity, and the age of realisation of true self (instead of associated self with the main care giver) all coincide and are between 3 & 6 years of age depending on the child. those three things coincide in such a way that for humans naturally a child truly beginns to become independent as a person at the exact same age as their immune system finishes developing and the exact same age they naturally self wean.
 

The average age of self weaning in most countries where breastfeeding is seen as the normal is 4.2 years old. However, you can just read through posts all over sites that are majority US based like cafemom and see even that for some reason in our country it's years (plural) earlier. We are all human, so why is the age difference so pronounced between countries where breastfeeding is the norm and our own? The only real difference is the acceptance as a society that's lacking. Yet, look at what a huge difference that has! It's incredible and sad all at the same time. It shows what a large influence social attitude has on our lives even in areas where we may strive to be as natural as possible, without us even realising the influence is so pronounced on our personal decisions.
 

Just imagine too. If a negative attitude has this HUGE of an effect in then what sort of an effect would a social wide positive one would  have in other areas, like preserving our earth or changing our health system to be more beneficial (think about our live fetal mortality rate going from the 6+ it is now down to 2 like Singapore and Japan or even lower).
 

Just food for thought.

Edited by KayMMIV - 12/24/09 at 9:38am

That is misrepresentation of fact as well as misfact. First breastfeeding is not effective birth control at all for the majority of women (in fact quite contrary to this belief that breastfeeding will keep you from becoming pregnant you are more likely to become pregnant with multiples when breastfeeding), second many European countries that are NOT 3rd world countries have extended breastfeeding norms. Of course they also don't see breasts the same way as America does.

The main reason for 3rd world country extended breastfeeding is seen as a benefit would be nutrition as well as the immune help. Birth control has nothing to do with it as said before it's not effective in that area. Now while nutrition may not be as big of a deal in 1st and 2nd world countries the immune support still is. A child's immune system is not normally fully developed until 3-6 years of age (sometimes earlier, which might have been the case with why Jen's baby self weaned early. and sometimes later) and until that point the immune support gained through breast milk remains important. This can be seen even in America in studies that have overwhelmingly shown that breastfed infants, toddlers and preschoolers are sick less often and recover faster when sick. This can especially be important for children with chronic diseases.


Edited by KayMMIV - 12/24/09 at 10:06am

I agree and I'm sorry for your experience- although I do believe that the op posit experience in America is times again more likely- but you experience also proves the point of the post as well for the area you were in when considering the experience of most of the moms- since extended breastfeeding was more normal so most kids breastfed past the norm for American babies to self wean. The point of the post is mainly to express the difference in social views as is plain to see and the effects that has. I was careful not to implement or gear it towards any individuals either in speaking tone or information given but instead a societal whole. Thank you for sharing your experience. Human nature being as it is there will always be stigmatism for practically any decision and there will always be the need of many human individuals to make themselves feel better by making others seem inferior. The point of the post is the over all general attitude of a society and the effects that has on the norm of what happens, regardless of what an individual might be trying to do, in the majority of cases. The breastfeeding situation was to illustrate that with an obvious and easily proven point. The point was not to discuss individual situations or how they are treated (as that will obviously only bring up negative feelings and experiences), but rather to discuss as a whole how social attitude affects the norm of situations and what a positive attitude could accomplish.


Edited by KayMMIV - 12/24/09 at 10:05am

i've edited in the original title of the post as it seems more important then I though originally at explaining the reason for the post and discussion trying to be provoked.

I think many don't care what others do, but not most- as can be shown just now by Jennifer's experience as well as almost every day experiences with the population and judgement when you live outside the norm. Although again the point is not necessarily that others care what others do, but the effects that a social view point can have on what happens and on the result of situations. Imagine if the overwhelming view of society was that recycling was essential to the economy instead of the way our country views recycling. I do not remember the country (i tried to google it but no luck coming up with it) but I believe I've seen it talked about perhaps on this site where the feeling was just such and almost EVERYTHING is recycled just as a by your way this is how things are deal, there is virtually no waste that goes to landfills or such there. If a negative social view can have such amazing consequences then imagine a positive one and what could be achieved.

lol, you should visit cafemom and just browse the site sometime, breastfeeding or not breastfeeding is one of THE topics :s

I agree with for personal business that people SHOULD keep their nose out of it (one of the reasons I made sure this was a general societal post, not featuring or inviting individuals to be featured, but discussing societal issues- which the negativity of breastfeeding views is definitely a societal issue) but unfortunately the majority of people do see it as their business to comment on everything from how you discipline your kid to weather you should or shouldn't be breastfeeding your child in public or at all. I disagree that breastfeeding information should not be something we should be interested and involved in- as the societal view and misinformation to me is not personal business, but public business. The choice the parent makes is personal business, the societal view, pressure and misinformation is public business. 

Misinformation about breastfeeding in the US is just as rampant as misinformation about giving birth is and that in the US leads to 3 times the live infant mortality rate of other countries and causes us to be 46th down on the charts with a worse rate then some 2nd world countries have. The other leads moms to feel bad for either wanting to breastfeed their child for more then 6 months (or at all, I can't tell you how much crap I got for choosing to breastfeed Tristian, it was non-stop and ridiculous and very downtrodden in general- especially with a new baby) or on the flip (because of the appearance of battle lines that seem to be drawn) feel bad for not doing so. Clear information and acceptance of parents being informed and making informed decisions I feel would at least help alleviate these issues on both sides. 

Rampant misinformation about any health situation to me is serious and very public business.


Edited by KayMMIV - 1/1/10 at 7:11pm

what source did you use? here's the cia's for the last two years

https://www.cia.gov/library/public
ations/the-world-factbook/


180 United States 6.26 2009 est.
181 Cuba 5.82 2009 est.
182 European Union 5.72 2009 est.
183 Italy 5.51 2009 est.
184 Isle of Man 5.37 2009 est.
185 Taiwan 5.35 2009 est.
186 San Marino 5.34 2009 est.
187 Greece 5.16 2009 est.
188 Ireland 5.05 2009 est.
189 Canada 5.04 2009 est.
190 Wallis and Futuna 5.02 2009 est.
191 Monaco 5.00 2009 est.
192 New Zealand 4.92 2009 est.
193 United Kingdom 4.85 2009 est.
194 Gibraltar 4.83 2009 est.
195 Portugal 4.78 2009 est.
196 Australia 4.75 2009 est.
197 Jersey 4.73 2009 est.
198 Netherlands 4.73 2009 est.
199 Luxembourg 4.56 2009 est.
200 Guernsey 4.47 2009 est.
201 Belgium 4.44 2009 est.
202 Austria 4.42 2009 est.
203 Denmark 4.34 2009 est.
204 Korea, South 4.26 2009 est.
205 Liechtenstein 4.25 2009 est.
206 Slovenia 4.25 2009 est.
207 Israel 4.22 2009 est.
208 Spain 4.21 2009 est.
209 Switzerland 4.18 2009 est.
210 Germany 3.99 2009 est.
211 Czech Republic 3.79 2009 est.
212 Andorra 3.76 2009 est.
213 Malta 3.75 2009 est.
214 Norway 3.58 2009 est.
215 Anguilla 3.52 2009 est.
216 Finland 3.47 2009 est.
217 France 3.33 2009 est.
218 Iceland 3.23 2009 est.
219 Macau 3.22 2009 est.
220 Hong Kong 2.92 2009 est.
221 Japan 2.79 2009 est.
222 Sweden 2.75 2009 est.
223 Bermuda 2.46 2009 est.
224 Singapore 2.31 2009 est.

here's a copy of the list up to the US for 2008, we were 42nd from the least that year.

181 United States 6.30 2008 est.
182 Cuba 5.93 2008 est.
183 Isle of Man 5.62 2008 est.
184 Italy 5.61 2008 est.
185 Taiwan 5.45 2008 est.
186 San Marino 5.44 2008 est.
187 Greece 5.25 2008 est.
188 Monaco 5.18 2008 est.
189 Ireland 5.14 2008 est.
190 Canada 5.08 2008 est.
191 Jersey 5.01 2008 est.
192 New Zealand 4.99 2008 est.
193 United Kingdom 4.93 2008 est.
194 Gibraltar 4.91 2008 est.
195 Portugal 4.85 2008 est.
196 Australia 4.82 2008 est.
197 Netherlands 4.81 2008 est.
198 Luxembourg 4.62 2008 est.
199 Guernsey 4.53 2008 est.
200 Liechtenstein 4.52 2008 est.
201 Belgium 4.50 2008 est.
202 Austria 4.48 2008 est.
203 Denmark 4.40 2008 est.
204 Slovenia 4.30 2008 est.
205 Korea, South 4.29 2008 est.
206 Israel 4.28 2008 est.
207 Spain 4.26 2008 est.
208 Switzerland 4.23 2008 est.
209 Germany 4.03 2008 est.
210 Czech Republic 3.83 2008 est.
211 Malta 3.79 2008 est.
212 Andorra 3.68 2008 est.
213 Norway 3.61 2008 est.
214 Anguilla 3.54 2008 est.
215 Finland 3.50 2008 est.
216 France 3.36 2008 est.
217 Iceland 3.25 2008 est.
218 Macau 3.23 2008 est.
219 Hong Kong 2.93 2008 est.
220 Japan 2.80 2008 est.
221 Sweden 2.75 2008 est.
222 Singapore 2.30 2008 est.

also- while I agree maternal choices is always going to have an effect on the numbers further research shows that the common practices we use in birthing are disproven and, and not used by countries like Japan because of this. For example, when I was dealing with extreme gestational hypertension they wanted to do a cesarean, even though reserach clearly shows that a cesarean increased the risks of complications and death during birth and recovery from gestational hypertension over carefully monitored vaginal births. Another example, despite thousands of studies over two decades and statistics showing clearly that vaginal births after cesareans are safer, including this being the official guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and should be the routine it is still nearly impossible to find a hospital that will allow a woman with a previous cesarean to try for a VBAC, most routinely are forced into another Cesarean because it's 'safer' despite every fact we khave saying the opposit. The most common reason for a repeat cesarean remains being because the women has had one before. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that no region in the world is justified in having a cesarean rate greater than 10 to 15 percent. In 2007 ours was 31.8 according to the cdc.

And this data just deals with cesareans, there is data like this across the board for practices used in the US., from our birthing position forced in most hospitals (bithing on the back actually increased the destress of the baby, raises mothers blood pressure, increases risk of failure to progress because the human body is meant to birth in an upright forward position so the pelvis can not open up correctly on the back and the baby has to up and over, instead of slide down) to regularly administered drugs that clearly show increased mortality and complication risks, to not allowing women to eat and drink even though again research shows this to greatly increase the risks (imagine running a marathon only allowed ice chips and no substance). 

So to me it's not just that there's room for improvement, the room for improvement is clearly outlined and shown but for some reason American conventional medicine refuses to follow where the overwhelming research and studies take us.

A good solid place to start research on this subject is with the book Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities by Henci Goer. It has clear easy to read info and cites credible research and studies. It's a good jumping off point. Another good book also by Henci Goer along with Rhonda Wheeler is The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth. It lists the info as a guide book to help women make informed decisions about their births every step of the way divided into applicable categories. It also clearly lists research and study citations w/ credible source. There are many other good books on the subject, but these two I have found have very thorough info with easy to look up yourself references, so you aren't just having to trust the author knows their stuff. They are good jumping off points, but not end alls. 
 

I agree, I wish it would be updated, but still I've found most of the info is solid (unfortunatly that it is so, since give the time that's lapsed there should have been major improvements in the health industry when it comes to using out of date birth practices, but there really hasn't been) but that's the reason I see it as a good jumping off point, but that's why it shouldn't be an end all. As far as agreeing or not with Russ, I was trying to say almost exactly what you just did earlier, plus the fact that I think any time when misinformation becomes the common belief it should be a public interest issue.

Like I said I agree that maternal choices will always have an affect on the issue. However I think it's undeniable that when you are using practices that for decades have been shown to increase mortality risks for mom and baby with no actual benefit outside of capitalism or caregiver convience it's undeniable that has an effect on the numbers as well, and since we are aware of those facts and clearly aware of what to do to change that why haven't we? Why are we still doing things we know risk mom and babies life with no benefit for no reason whatsoever except money or tradition? Things that facts have fror decades told us need to change? If the majority of the problem is elsewhere fine, then lets find that out for sure by not using the practices we know increase risks to mom and baby with no benefits to mom or baby.