Jennifer Lopez is making big news after her April 5th People Magazine spread featuring her newborn twins. Is it because of the over-the-top ornate nursery? Her husband’s pink shirt? Or the very idea of her running down her driveway in high heels and evening wear pushing a pram for kicks? No, it’s because she said she chose not to breastfeed the twins. She gave a two-sentence explanation, “My mom didn’t breast feed and I think that was the thing for me. You read and figure out what’s the best thing for them.”

That opened the hatches and all hell broke loose. Just Google “Jennifer Lopez” and “breast feeding” and you’ll see a ton of links to blogs about what a bad example she’s setting for mothers everywhere. She’s being criticized for not only choosing to bottle feed, but also for her so-called “excuse.”

I’ve never been a fan of J.Lo. For a long time, I referred to her only as, “That Bitch Who Stole Ben Affleck,” of course that ended and the official title went to Jennifer Garner. But, I feel obligated to speak up in defense of J.Lo. now (Who knew I’d ever be pitying her?), because her rings and perfect hair don’t mean anything in the world of motherhood.

I’m a three-time breastfeeding failure. I made honest efforts with two of them (the first and third). The middle I just bottle fed from the start, because I was so anxious and frustrated after my experience with trying and failing with the first child and my run-ins with the zealous “lactivist” members, I didn’t even want to try. It still pains me that I failed with the two. I know with my whole self that I tried to the best of my abilities. That’s not to say that some other mother couldn’t have tried for longer and maybe been able to work through the same issues. But, I know that I made my personal best effort, and that’s the best I can do.

After all those years of mulling over the feelings and facts from my own standpoint, I can say that it doesn’t matter what reason a woman gives for not breast feeding. Often that reason is torn apart and criticized or it’s just not even true. When asked why I didn’t breast feed (and I’ve been asked in casual conversation countless times), I’ve found myself lying. It is such a raw and personal experience, and sometimes the truth is too revealing, leaving you too vulnerable to spit out to some doctor you’ve known for exactly three minutes, or some casual acquaintance at the park who may be genuinely interested, or may be looking to “re-educate” you about how you really could have succeeded if only this or that happened. She’ll tell you next time you should make sure you do this or that differently so you can “do things right” next time (with the implication that it’s all “wrong” with the current kid). Furthermore, some information is better not unleashed into a small, tight group of mothers who you have to see all the time and your kids have to associate with regularly. So, personally, I take Jennifer Lopez’s explanation with a grain of salt. Maybe it’s true, or maybe it’s not. The explanation was simply, from my experience, a two sentence statement to be read: This is what I chose, now leave me alone.

Maybe there should be some anonymous information bank somewhere, and women can leave detailed accounts of their experiences so that some big committee can examine it and use it to make changes to increase breastfeeding rates. Wouldn’t that be more constructive than bashing Jennifer Lopez on a blog?

Now, I know that breast feeders get bashed too. I’ve read some truly sick things in regards to public breast feeding and extended breast feeding. I know that those who choose to breast feed have their own battles, and I support them in their rights. But, really, so does everyone else. They have the World Health Organization, they have the American Academy of Pediatrics, and they have lawyers through LLL to help them with legal battles when their rights are being trampled. Being a breast feeder in today’s world is not a lonely choice. You can name a dozen celebrities off the top of your head who have breast fed and gone unblogged. But, you get this one and the world goes crazy.

Jennifer Lopez obviously loves those babies more than life. They will be raised in ridiculous opulence, given every privilege that a child could hope for. That such a deal is being made about her feeding method is disgusting. There are children born addicted to crack, with parents who abuse them impulsively or with premeditation. There are layers of festering illness that permeate family dynamics that we can’t even begin to understand. But, this woman’s feeding method is what is dominating our attention. And that’s supposed to make some sense?

I feel for Jennifer Lopez. I know what it’s like to make the unpopular choice, the choice that does not have science and world-wide medical establishments backing it. I know what it’s like to be asked to explain that choice and then suffer cruel criticism for the choice and the explanation. But, the truth is, while those who succeed at breastfeeding may be giving their children some health advantages, those of us who have treaded the territory of making the other choice get an earlier indoctrination into motherhood. This is the reality of it. You will make unpopular choices. You will choose your own sanity over the “right” thing sometime during your tenure, and later realize it was the best decision you could have made for everyone involved. You will also receive bad news at some point, and wonder whether you were the cause of it because of some choice you made on behalf of your child. Your idea of “right” will differ from someone else’s idea of “right” and you’ll question everything. This is motherhood. Get used to it.

But, what I hope from new mothers is that they won’t get so defensive of their methods that they cross the line and become malicious to other mothers who make different choices. We should give each other the benefit of the doubt, and assume that unless we’re shown otherwise, that other mother loves her child as much as we love ours. She’s as bright and caring as we are, and she’s reached her decision with as much thorough deliberation as we reach ours. And whatever that deliberation consisted of is none of our business. Because babies don’t need to be rescued from formula. They don’t need to be saved from baby-carriers or strollers and put in Maya wraps instead. Cribs are not cages. There is a very clear line in our legal system as to what constitutes abuse, and it is only insulting to those suffering from actual abuse to be focusing so much of our collective hostility on these differences of parenting practice. It’s almost like we’re looking for an excuse not to get our hands dirty with the real issues. And, ironically, so many of the little girls suffering this very minute in those real abusive conditions will be mothers themselves someday, and when asked what could have been done to help them succeed at breast feeding, they’ll give some flippant, unrelated answer, but they may be thinking You could have helped me fifteen years ago, instead of ranting about what a horrible mother Jennifer Lopez was.

Okay, so our site logs lead me to it…a breastfeeding.com thread in which a link to an Imperfect Parent column sparked many tangents on a debate board. Kelly Cunningham’s essay, “Don’t Even Bother: The Case Against Childbirth Education Calsses” was the target of scoff in a thread entitled: Everything wrong with birth in our birth culture. Basically, the old “natural birth vs. assisted birth” debate made for old-school debate fodder when it took a surprisingly sharp turn into the bowels of maternal control and rage, accusing doctors who intervened during the sacred process of birthing and interfering with their birthing desires, as a crime and psychological significant of being raped.

Then they argued as to whether it was rape or assault and who had actually been raped and who was qualified to categorize it as “rape”.

Yep. They call it “birth rape”.

So to all the fine, imperfect people out there, can medical intervention be classified as “rape”, if it is against the implied, specific or vague birth plan of the mother? If you wish to read where the “birth rape” started, go to page 33, post #323.

An analysis by STATS.org, a non-partisan organization based out of George Mason University, is starting to question the campaign towards spinning statistics in order to guilt mothers into breastfeeding.

Why, you ask?…because it is highly political. Breastfeeding represents certain political, social and moral ideals while formula represents corporate America and women succumbing to the pressures of American society with short maternity leaves, an industry that contributes to environmental pollution and the sexualization of a woman’s breasts.

STATS.org offers some perspective in one of breastfeeding advocacy’s statistical weapons, a scare tactic about childhood cancer:

One notable addition to the list of ills which breast-feeding guards against, notes Orent, comes from a 400-page HHS Agency for Health Care Research and Quality study. It concludes that childhood leukemia is reduced by as much as 19 percent for breastfed babies, as compared to non-breastfed babies.

But given that there are approximately 30 leukemia cases in a million children, a 20 percent reduction due to breastfeeding avoids a risk of 1 in 150,000 that your child will develop leukemia; of these, 50 to 80% survive, depending on the type of leukemia. In other words, insisting that all women breast feed (and for more than six months) would save less than one life in 300,000.

While one could easily argue that saving one child’s life in 300,000 is something that our society should strive for, the actual stats are likely not to be statistically significant.

STATS.org goes on to ask us to consider this:

In other words, driving safely is more than twice as risky for death than not nursing and getting leukemia as a result.

And then, if you are genuinely concerned about risk, there are the approximately 203,000 kids who were injured as passengers in 2005. Yet, it’s hard to imagine any newspaper running an op-ed warning mothers to avoid letting their child inside a car, and chastising the government for being in league with the auto industry to suppress the risk.

If certain women wish to shape PUBLIC POLICY based on statistics, shouldn’t it be presented accurately and with fairness? Honestly, the whole idea of government mandating breastfeeding or creating social and political policies or possible tax breaks to women who breastfeed coupled with using propaganda to “punish” corporations leaves me contemptuous towards those who wish to force their agendas on me (or women on a whole). Women deserve better. Women deserve accurate information and they deserve to have a choice in the matter.

In my opinion, the zeal to empower women and lead them into certain social choices is in actuality, setting them back many years. Present the truth and let women decide. Nobody should be influenced by false representations, especially by their own government.

The World Health Organization recommends you nurse a toddler until 2 years old, basing that off of available resources of third world countries. In countries where adequate nutrition is accessible, is this necessary or could it even be harmful if based strictly on societal taboos? Should our society be more open to the potential nurturing advantages of extending breastfeeding?

Food for thought…

If a child in a third world country remembers drinking milk from his/her mother’s breast, surely that memory would be one of thankfulness for the meeting of needs such as nourishment and possible survival. If a child from a developed country remembers drinking from a mother’s breast, can or will he/she feel the same way?

In some cases, there are mothers who continue to nurse children who have turned 4 or even 5 years old, which is old enough to enter kindergarten, believing their children will reap nutritional benefits.

“The idea of breast-feeding a child until they’re a preschooler is still fairly restricted to a small group of women, or at least, it’s kept in the closet,” said ABC News parenting contributor Ann Pleshette Murphy.

The practice of extended nursing has sparked heated controversy because some disagree about when it is no longer appropriate to breast-feed children.

Some critics say breast-feeding too long could potentially stunt child development. Read the rest…

I can’t wait until men start crying “reverse discrimination” based on South Carolina’s Breastfeeding Action Committee’s interference support on the behalf of a mother who is fighting for sole custody of her 8 1/2 month old baby, on grounds that she’s breastfeeding.

As unpopular as my opinion’s going to be, that has never stopped me from voicing it, so here it goes:

1) having kids is unpredictable and usually involves an equal partner, whom you make a commitment with and who is half of the makeup of your childs DNA (usually)

2) breastfeeding moms are no guarantee of superior parenting skills, it wouldn’t surprise me if Andrea Yates breastfed her children

3) The “Breastfeeding Action Committee” bases what’s best for babies based solely on breastfeeding, a overly-simplistic assumption based on little information

4) There are safe alternatives to breastfeeding in South Carolina, including expressed breast milk

5) A father has rights too. If you don’t want a man in the picture, have some sperm donated.

6) Pump for a few days or a week, it won’t kill you or your baby

7) Work out a compromise, you go to the baby a few times a day and nurse, and have Dad bring the baby to you a few times a day to nurse

This claim can only take you so far and last for so long. The baby in question is now 8 months old. A few days off from a moms breast is not going to kill him.

9) This sounds like an excuse

10) This quote from the mom, “That’s what women were made for.  They’re made to nurture babies.  That’s why women have breasts,” Garris told News 2’s Jenny Fisher,” makes me want to point out that she should speak for herself. I don’t believe that is what women are for. I think I’m much more than a milk provider, and in my case, it wasn’t breastfeeding that defined my reason for existence, since I didn’t do it for very long anyway. I’d rather not be a woman if my only reason for being “made” was to milk a baby.

From WCBD-TV/DT NBC - Charleston, NC:

The South Carolina Breastfeeding Action Committee is stepping in to monitor this custody case…and another one.  They say babies need breast milk.  Allison Lanford Smith, a SCBAC representative says, “The long-term health benefits of breastfeeding decrease obesity, diabetes and asthma.”

SCBAC wants legislation passed, allowing breast feeding moms custody of their children, unless the child is in danger.  Currently, three states focus on breastfeeding when judges rule on custody disputes.  They are: Maine, Michigan and Utah.

The committee says the effort does not limit the father’s role in his child’s life.  Jenny asked Landford Smith, “Why couldn’t the baby’s father say, ‘Why don’t you pump your breast milk and I’ll give the baby that?’  He could easily argue that she does not need custody to breastfeed the baby.”  Landford Smith said, “Right.  I understand that.  It’s easy for mom’s to breastfeed at work, because it’s just several hours in a day, but when it’s at night, for several days at a time, with another parent, it’s very difficult for a mom, with a breast pump, to keep up her milk supply.”

Carl Garris declined to talk with us, but Melissa Garris says she wants legislation to make sure other nursing moms don’t go through an emotional and costly battle for their babies.