Activists support World Health Organization recommendations only when it suits them

As a mother of an intact three year old, I have tried to do what is best for him. I breastfed him for the first 4 months of his life. I learned more about circumcision and realized how horrible it was, so I kept him intact. It actually wasn’t my right to mutilate his penis in the first place, since it is his body and his choice. We did the whole co-sleeping thing for the first 4 months as well as letting him sleep with us later on when he wanted to. I didn’t do all the attachment parenting stuff, but I did what I was able to do. Parenting isn’t easy, and kids don’t come with instructions.

I don’t think I visited the WHO’s website even once during all my research while I was pregnant and during the years that have followed my son’s birth. The site is basically comprised of just the opinions of a few people, and who is to say that any of it is backed by fact or science? Why do I bring this up? It just hit me today that activists like to point out recommendations made by the WHO, but they discount them when they don’t agree with them.

To give an example I will reference two hot topics: circumcision and breastfeeding. While I am only passionate about fighting circumcision, I have unfortunately gotten involved in a few heated debates on breastfeeding. Not because I don’t agree with it, because I do, but because there are activists who will attack everyone who doesn’t agree with their extremist views on the subject. This even includes other breastfeeding mothers. Apparently, the WHO recommends breastfeeding until the child is at least 2 years old or longer. Because they put the “longer” in there, extremists can interpret that for as long as they want, even up to 6 years old. When I researched breastfeeding, I found the more doable goal of 6 months, since that is the most important for the baby’s brain development and growth, and even the WHO agrees with that time frame. But again, who came up with that 2 years? As far as I know it could be a group of extremist breast feeders who want all women to be like them. Yes, there are many studies on the subject, but who is to know if the same people did all of them?

I know that from fighting against the atrocity that is infant male circumcision, the proponents yell pretty loud and have many connections. After all, their biased and bogus findings are on the WHO’s recommendation for circumcision. Anyone who has researched those studies and read the results and looked at the graphs knows that 60% decline in HIV due to circumcision is total manipulated hype, but there it is in black and white on a supposedly reputable organization’s website. So again I ask you, if they can post rubbish to recommend circumcision, how does anyone know they aren’t posting rubbish to recommend breast feeding until the child is a toddler or older?

On top of that it is hypocritical for an activist fighting against circumcision and for breastfeeding to use the WHO recommendation for one and discount the other. If you use a site to back your argument, you can’t ignore that site when it also posts rubbish. As far as I’m concerned, if a site will post rubbish to back something as horrid as mutilating genitals, then nothing they recommend means a damn thing. Just sayin’.

Breastfeeding stalkers?

I haven’t written about breast feeding in a long time, but I can resist no longer.  Like I’ve said before, I support breast feeding.  I nursed my own son for as long as I could (four months) before switching him to formula. I wanted to go at least six months, but it didn’t work out that way.  :(  So yeah, I know it’s what is best for a baby.  And while I don’t completely understand the extremists who nurse their toddlers in a busy mall for all to see, I also don’t completely understand why other people openly and apparently viciously show their disgust with it.  I’m somewhere in the middle of that argument, but when I take a stand is when I hear that some of those breast feeding mothers will follow (stalk) people who show their disapproval, basically forcing them to watch them breastfeed.

I’ve heard many justifications and been attacked myself for my views on public breastfeeding.  While I do agree that mothers should be able to nurse their babies in public, nursing toddlers is not about them eating when they no longer totally subsist on your milk.  When you whip out your boob to let your three year old nurse, you could easily have given him a juice box and some crackers.  That child will not go hungry if you do not nurse in public, which is the argument for nursing an infant in public.  We are a civilized (somewhat) society, many of whom do not want to see a woman bare chested with a child attached to her tit.  I’ve seen pictures of a pig lying on her side with all her piglets nursing with the comment that no one bats an eyelash or cared that she did it in public.  If any human doesn’t mind being compared to a pig, she’s got bigger issues than being attacked for public breast feeding.

Believe it or not, no matter how many nurse-ins you do or how many people you force to watch you nurse, indiscreet public breastfeeding of a toddler will never be accepted.  If you want to nurse until your kid is in school, fine.  Just don’t expect everyone to watch it.  It may be a basic right that every animal does, but there are plenty of basic rights that we all do and they aren’t all in public.  Don’t compare humans to animals in the wild.  They do everything in public, including birthing their babies, urinating, crapping, having sex and nursing.  All of those except nursing are done in private with humans, but that isn’t to say nursing shouldn’t be in private. After all it is supposed to be a bonding time between mother and child, and how is that possible when it’s done in a crowded public place?

So the next time you are in a mall and someone glares at you and then walks away, let them.  Don’t disrupt your baby, who is hungry, by following that person, so you can make sure he/she has to watch.  I’m pretty sure harassment is against the law.  Just remember that your rights end where someone else’s rights begin.

Attachment parents who circumcise? wtf?

One of the strangest things I’ve encountered on twitter (well other than the circumcision fetishists) are the parents who brag about how they are all about attachment parenting and yet they circumcise their sons. Why is this strange to me? Well, let me explain. Breastfeeding mothers want to give their babies the best, which is the milk they produce. There are some extremists who will tell formula feeding mothers that they are feeding their children poison and that they are bad mothers because of it. Other examples of attachment parents are letting your child sleep in the your bed until they decide they want their own bed, or wearing a baby so he/she is never put down to cry, or not allowing them to cry at all. These parents feel that anyone who allows his/her child to cry or forcing the child to sleep in his/her own bed is a bad parent. These attachment parents will even do the organic only bit and refuse to feed their child anything that isn’t organic. These parents want the very best for their children, BUT some of these same parents will think nothing of handing their newborn baby boys over to a doctor to have his foreskin crushed and sliced off his body. THAT is very strange to me.

How can anyone claim to want the best for their son but will deny that child the right to his whole body, or the right to decide if he wants his foreskin or not? It is proven that circumcision can damage a baby’s brain forever. So no matter how much you hold that baby or nurse him, he will always know you allowed something very important and extremely sensitive to be forcibly removed from him without his consent. Shame on you! Shame on anyone who could do this to their innocent baby.

What’s better:
A mother who formula feeds and keeps her son intact
or
A mother who breastfeeds and circumcises her son?

The first case, hands down!! That intact boy will still thrive on regular food, and he won’t have the trauma of genital cutting to deal with. Of course the ideal situation would be a mother who breastfeeds and keeps her son intact, and I can only dream of a day when all baby boys are so lucky!

Onion News Network pokes fun at extremist public breastfeeders

I have to say that I laughed out loud when I saw the following video.  Be aware that it is a total spoof, no matter how real it may seem:

Advocacy Group: Mothers Have Right To Expose Milk-Engorged Breasts In Public

This issue of public breastfeeding is a hot topic, especially after I was attacked for my opinion that all women needed to be discreet if they chose to do so.  This video takes it to an extreme, showing how over the top the freedom to let these women do what they want can go.  There actually are women as extreme as the actress in the video, who would go to Taco Bell at 2 in the morning merely to prove a point. It wouldn’t be for the benefit of the baby, of course, only to further their cause.  What is that cause?  To make it acceptable for women to subject their breasts to those around them, no matter where they are.  And if you dare tell them not to, you’re not only taking away their rights, you are a misogynistic anti-breastfeeding bigot.  Imagine with that attitude, they are surprised they are having problems with their endeavor.

I know that posting this might inspire them to come back and verbally attack me again, but I don’t care.  I have the Constitutional right to free speech, and they will not take that away from me.