World Health Organization: No long-term benefits to breastfeeding

I have breastfed. I still breastfeed my 19-month-old. If it was up to Tycho, I'm sure we'd be breastfeeding until elementary school (despite my plans to cut him off entirely by at least three -- good thing he doesn't understand that yet!). I enjoy it, he enjoys it, it's a mutually-beneficial relationship, and I'll be sad when it's gone.

But is breast "best"? According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the answer is a resounding "NO".

The WHO recently published Long-term effects of breastfeeding: a systematic review by Bernardo L. Horta and Cesar G. Victoria, both MD, PhDs from Universidade Federal de Pelotas in Brazil. While this study serves mostly to supplement one done under the same name, published in 2007, this 74-page research paper touts the benefits of breastfeeding in the first six months, but also resoundingly shows that there is no evidence for long-term health benefits of breastfeeding.

I bolded that and made it huge because, as a breastfeeder and, even more, as a relactation-er, while breastfeeding for any length of time is a worthy goal that should be socially accepted and assisted to ensure a mother's success (provided it's what she actually wants to do), I did it NOT for the health benefits, but for that mutually-beneficial relationship.

And I strongly believe that, regardless of how you feed your child, you also have the same right to have that mutually-beneficial relationship.

Most people who read this blog (and, for that matter, even have access to the internet) are, I assume, from an industrialized society of some sort, one that has clean water and access to healthy, scientifically-sound, entirely safe and effective infant and toddler formulas. Considering this, any benefits to breastfeeding are small and short-term, so there's no reason for any mother who chooses formula-feeding to feel guilty at all.

And for chrissake, can we stop with this "liquid gold" mantra? It's just milk. Sure, it's your milk, and as someone who relactated, I can appreciate how much each drop matters to a mother. But it is just milk. This nomenclature serves only to humiliate and vilify mothers who feed their babies infant formula, whether by choice or by circumstance.

You're doing great, mama. Absolutely wonderfully. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, and know that you have the WHO (and me!) on your side. ♥

Indigo Children and the "Don't Say No" generation

via

Everyone wants to think their child is special, out of the ordinary, even gifted. Often, these terms are attached to children by way of their parents, who would like the rest of the world to see their children the same way and to treat them accordingly.

Bet you all can tell where this post is going! :)

I've been informed recently by a friend that there is such thing in the New Age community as Indigo Children, defined as children believed to possess special, unusual, and sometimes supernatural traits or abilities. The term, coined in the 1970s by self-professed psychic Nancy Ann Tappe, comes from her supposed ability to see auras and her noticing that those born after around 1978 exhibit what she called "indigo auras". Some traits of indigo children include thing like:

1. They are born feeling and knowing they are special and should be revered.
2. An indigo knows they belong here as they are and expect you to realize it as well.
3. These children are more confident and have a higher sense of self-worth.
4. Absolute authority, the kind with no choices, negotiation, or input from them does not sit well. The educational system is a good example.
5. Some of the rules we so carefully followed as children seem silly to them and they fight them. Rigid ritualistic systems are considered archaic to an indigo child. They feel everything should be given creative thought.
6. They are insightful and often have a better idea of method then what has been in place for years. This makes them seem like "system busters."
7. Adults often view an indigo as anti-social unless they are with other indigos. Often they feel lost and misunderstood, which causes them to go within.
8. The old control methods like, "Wait till your father gets home," have no affect on these children.
9. The fulfillment of their personal needs is important to them, and they will let you know.

(via...  yeah, highly reputable source, right there)

It should be noted that, according to Tappe, at least 90% of children under the age of ten are, in fact, indigo children.

It comes as no surprise to most people that I'm not one of your typical New Agers (and yes, in some ways, I do fit this mold), notably in that I am a strong proponent of rationalism, the scientific method, and the academic establishment. While there are some philosophies that rub me the wrong way, most of them are harmless, and affect no one but the believer (and maybe that person's faithful followers).

The idea of "indigo children" in particular really gets my goat. I get that people want to think that their children are special; shit, I'm guilty of wanting that once in a while. Placing the moniker "indigo child" on them, though, seeks to separate them from their peers, notably because of unproven "abilities" or "traits" that, in reality, are byproducts of being children.

In designating children as "indigo", parents willingly and blindly believe that their child is special not only to them, but to the entire world, and thus deserving of myriad rewards by society as a whole. In other words, it creates a sense of entitlement.

Let's take the original list, for instance. There are at least five instances of entitlement in that list alone, not the least of which are "knowing they are special and should be revered" and "they will let you know" that "the fulfillment of their personal needs is important to them". Most of these traits are exhibited in children as young as my own, and he's not even two yet. By their very nature, children are entitled little demons people.

The bad thing isn't noticing these traits, but treating them as something that sets them apart from their peers, something to be encouraged. It creates a generation of, to be quite frank, incredibly bratty children and permissive parents.

Indigo children and "yes-parenting", I've noticed, tend to go hand-in-hand. You know those types of parents: They say their children are expressing themselves through scissors if they cut through your laptop charger, that they're precocious and curious about things if they rifle through and destroy the contents of your purse, that they're outgoing if they jump all over your furniture and torture the dog. There's no discipline, no rules, and most of all... no criticism or repercussions of their special snowflake's actions.

Matt and I are quintessential "no" parents (him more so than me, I'll admit). Saying "no" to children isn't a bad thing; rather, it teaches children important lessons such as how to deal with disappointment, time management, work-play balance, and the art of the argument. You can ask my parents how well the last one in particular went over in their experience!

Saying "no" is especially appropriate for younger children, notably because they have no sense of self-discipline and need it from outside sources... the parents! Discipline has be relabeled instead as "Positive Guidance" to deter parents away from the negative connotation that "discipline" brings with it, but the idea is the same: To guide a child with gentle discipline, acknowledging the child's feelings, and letting them know that "no" is not a four-letter word.

Your children may be special to you, but on the whole, your children are not special to the world. Treating them as such does a great disservice both to them and to society, who has to then deal with grown adults who are incapable of and unwilling to self-discipline themselves, instead seeing the world as their oyster and how dare anyone get in their ways.

...

On another note, having to do with misplaced labeling of children: It concerns me that parents are willing to tack on the title of "indigo child" to children who may in fact have a disorder such as ADD/ADHD, autism, or even narcissism, and who let them go without treatment appropriate to that disorder. I understand that these other labels are medical and scary and, on a New Age level, negative... I get that. It's far more appealing to call them a more positive-sounding "indigo child" and just let them be.

But doing this delays or even prevents proper diagnosis and treatment, and is to their detriment.

(And don't even get me started on Jenny McCarthy's involvement, what with her "crystal child" and her being an "indigo mom" and other such malarkey.)

So please, talk to your doctor if your child appears to have signs or symptoms that point to such a disorder or with any other concerns. You may be doing your child a great disservice refusing treatments that may help him or her lead a normal life.