5 ms·

BS. I can't produce milk but I can do everything else. So in the middle of the night when the breast is done if baby is unsettled I can take care of this, whic

BS. I can't produce milk but I can do everything else. So in the middle of the night when the breast is done if baby is unsettled I can take care of this, which can take ages. Sharing this exhausting and sometimes excruciating workload is a big part of parenthood here. It is also ultimately highly rewarding; editing this as she's just about fallen asleep in my arms, gorgeous thing.

Retric 8y ago
I am all for a 50/50 split if both parents want to work or even a stay at home dad. But, it's more than just breastfeeding. Giving birth is hard from a few weeks and arguably months before to a few weeks and or months after. That naturally tends to taking a few months off and hey infant needs a lot of care so when not extend that a little. Add a second pregnancy at 1-3 years after the fist and it's easy to end up with a stay at home mom. Now, this is far from the only pattern, but it is common for real biological reasons.
- sundvor 8y ago
  I'm not even saying it's a 50/50 split because unless you're exceedingly well off, or perhaps consulting from home, it is not going to be that initially - if you want baby to be breastfed, which is ideal whenever possible, someone's got to bring in the income. I merely took objection to the exclusionary term that is motherhood, because in this context I deal with screaming babies a lot - as a father. That is not "motherhood", it is "parenthood". Unless it's all about single women bringing their babies up alone? I saw no reference to that in TFA. It's a bit like craftsman vs craftsperson, not that I really wanted to go there. But there are real reasons for using more inclusionary terms even when the traditional "feel more natural" (to the speaker / author) or whatever.
  - brownbat 8y ago
    > breastfed... is ideal whenever possible The AAP and WHO both endorse this position, and I can't find a reputable leading health org that argues otherwise. The more I read about the basis of the claim though the more confused I get. Parenting advice sites all point out that it helps child immunity. But the underlying studies are based on the ingestion of immunoglobulin, which doesn't even survive digestion. So essentially it protects the esophagus against waterborne illnesses, ie, mainly those no longer common in the developed world. That definitely makes sense in terms of evolutionarily-relevant child mortality threats, but that context is always omitted. Or you get claims of improved cognition, then find meta-analysis that can't reproduce any results after five years. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/23/peds.2016-1848 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/the-case-against-breast-feeding/307311/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/the-cas... Parenting guidance seems full of replication crisis issues, even in the medical literature. That's been the most eye opening thing about becoming a parent... people's strong interest in parenting makes it hard to explain the poor state of the data on the topic.
    - kaitai 8y ago
      That's not the whole story (re: immunoglobulin). You're right in broad-brush strokes. The abstract at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12850343 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12850343 has some quick notes on the broader context. For immunoglobulin in particular, when you say "doesn't survive digestion," you're missing the substantial amounts of IgA (ok, milk sIgA) in the intestine. There it will bind with lots of bad stuff, preventing said bad stuff from causing an immune response. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257684/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257684/ is one place to read about this.) You also must consider all the leukocytes in breast milk. Both maternal and infant infections cause huge increases in leukocyte production. There is a theory (hard to test) that babies like to stick their hands in mom's mouth while breastfeeding so that mom gets baby germs, and then mom will make appropriate leukocytes. Bizarrely, baby backwash (into the breast! while feeding!) also leads to maternal immunological response. Fun fact: breast milk from the same mom can vary in color dramatically (from blue to white to yellow) and a lot of that has to do with the contents, with yellow in particular generally having a high leukocyte content.
      - sundvor 8y ago
        Highly interesting, thanks!
      - brownbat 8y ago
        That's fascinating and good info. I'm a little biased. We got a lot of information pushing us not to supplement from health professionals and organizations, and nothing on the risks of failure to thrive or the case for supplementation. We had a calorie deficit no one caught, because measuring breast milk consumption is opaque, and no one talks about low consumption with the same fervor. They should though, it's an issue that drove an entire industry of wet nurses before formula (who were in turn criticised as unnatural in their day). They say breast if possible, but never detail how to tell the difference between just doing the hard work, or just banging your head against an immovable wall. This inconsistency in advice, even though calorie deficits are incredibly dangerous, and more clearly so,[0] worries me there's a bias against technological development that keeps us from giving advice about both risks (or really much at all about the more important risk here). [0] insofar as there are conflicting metaanalyses on breastmilk, but the signal is far stronger here, no one is publishing research suggesting failure to thrive is no big deal.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > Add a second pregnancy at 1-3 years after the fist and it's easy to end up with a stay at home mom. It's 2018, you have the power to control when you (or your female SO) get pregnant (you have had this for quite a while, actually). There's no logical reason to "oops, now I'm a stay at home <whatever>".
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    I'm not OP, so I can't read their mind, but I don't think they meant that the second baby happens on accident. Instead, what they're saying is that if you want to have kids and not have them spaced out too much, it ends up making a lot of sense for the woman to become a stay at home mom in situations where the family can afford it.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      I see, yea that could make sense in many situations.
    - Moru 8y ago
      When giving birth at the hospital the nurses was all saying "See you in 1-3 years!". It's nothing uncommon indeed. After that ordeal our thought was more like "In your dreams!". No, it wasn't one of the fast, uncomplicated births, it was more like suddenly getting overrun by doctors and other white robes, whisked away into operation and then a very broken back for six months.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        Not sure where you’re at now, but a common experience is that the memories of how difficult childbirth and newborns are start to recede and then you’re ready to have another go.
        sundvor 8y ago
        This. The brain is exceptionally good at repressing bad memories. The effects of lack of sleep on memory / brain function might play a big part of it. (Just speculating from personal experience, I have no formal knowledge).

Retric 8y ago

I am all for a 50/50 split if both parents want to work or even a stay at home dad. But, it's more than just breastfeeding. Giving birth is hard from a few weeks and arguably months before to a few weeks and or months after. That naturally tends to taking a few months off and hey infant needs a lot of care so when not extend that a little. Add a second pregnancy at 1-3 years after the fist and it's easy to end up with a stay at home mom. Now, this is far from the only pattern, but it is common for real biological reasons.

sundvor 8y ago
I'm not even saying it's a 50/50 split because unless you're exceedingly well off, or perhaps consulting from home, it is not going to be that initially - if you want baby to be breastfed, which is ideal whenever possible, someone's got to bring in the income. I merely took objection to the exclusionary term that is motherhood, because in this context I deal with screaming babies a lot - as a father. That is not "motherhood", it is "parenthood". Unless it's all about single women bringing their babies up alone? I saw no reference to that in TFA. It's a bit like craftsman vs craftsperson, not that I really wanted to go there. But there are real reasons for using more inclusionary terms even when the traditional "feel more natural" (to the speaker / author) or whatever.
- brownbat 8y ago
  > breastfed... is ideal whenever possible The AAP and WHO both endorse this position, and I can't find a reputable leading health org that argues otherwise. The more I read about the basis of the claim though the more confused I get. Parenting advice sites all point out that it helps child immunity. But the underlying studies are based on the ingestion of immunoglobulin, which doesn't even survive digestion. So essentially it protects the esophagus against waterborne illnesses, ie, mainly those no longer common in the developed world. That definitely makes sense in terms of evolutionarily-relevant child mortality threats, but that context is always omitted. Or you get claims of improved cognition, then find meta-analysis that can't reproduce any results after five years. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/23/peds.2016-1848 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/the-case-against-breast-feeding/307311/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/the-cas... Parenting guidance seems full of replication crisis issues, even in the medical literature. That's been the most eye opening thing about becoming a parent... people's strong interest in parenting makes it hard to explain the poor state of the data on the topic.
  - kaitai 8y ago
    That's not the whole story (re: immunoglobulin). You're right in broad-brush strokes. The abstract at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12850343 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12850343 has some quick notes on the broader context. For immunoglobulin in particular, when you say "doesn't survive digestion," you're missing the substantial amounts of IgA (ok, milk sIgA) in the intestine. There it will bind with lots of bad stuff, preventing said bad stuff from causing an immune response. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257684/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257684/ is one place to read about this.) You also must consider all the leukocytes in breast milk. Both maternal and infant infections cause huge increases in leukocyte production. There is a theory (hard to test) that babies like to stick their hands in mom's mouth while breastfeeding so that mom gets baby germs, and then mom will make appropriate leukocytes. Bizarrely, baby backwash (into the breast! while feeding!) also leads to maternal immunological response. Fun fact: breast milk from the same mom can vary in color dramatically (from blue to white to yellow) and a lot of that has to do with the contents, with yellow in particular generally having a high leukocyte content.
    - sundvor 8y ago
      Highly interesting, thanks!
    - brownbat 8y ago
      That's fascinating and good info. I'm a little biased. We got a lot of information pushing us not to supplement from health professionals and organizations, and nothing on the risks of failure to thrive or the case for supplementation. We had a calorie deficit no one caught, because measuring breast milk consumption is opaque, and no one talks about low consumption with the same fervor. They should though, it's an issue that drove an entire industry of wet nurses before formula (who were in turn criticised as unnatural in their day). They say breast if possible, but never detail how to tell the difference between just doing the hard work, or just banging your head against an immovable wall. This inconsistency in advice, even though calorie deficits are incredibly dangerous, and more clearly so,[0] worries me there's a bias against technological development that keeps us from giving advice about both risks (or really much at all about the more important risk here). [0] insofar as there are conflicting metaanalyses on breastmilk, but the signal is far stronger here, no one is publishing research suggesting failure to thrive is no big deal.
craftyguy 8y ago
> Add a second pregnancy at 1-3 years after the fist and it's easy to end up with a stay at home mom. It's 2018, you have the power to control when you (or your female SO) get pregnant (you have had this for quite a while, actually). There's no logical reason to "oops, now I'm a stay at home <whatever>".
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  I'm not OP, so I can't read their mind, but I don't think they meant that the second baby happens on accident. Instead, what they're saying is that if you want to have kids and not have them spaced out too much, it ends up making a lot of sense for the woman to become a stay at home mom in situations where the family can afford it.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    I see, yea that could make sense in many situations.
  - Moru 8y ago
    When giving birth at the hospital the nurses was all saying "See you in 1-3 years!". It's nothing uncommon indeed. After that ordeal our thought was more like "In your dreams!". No, it wasn't one of the fast, uncomplicated births, it was more like suddenly getting overrun by doctors and other white robes, whisked away into operation and then a very broken back for six months.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Not sure where you’re at now, but a common experience is that the memories of how difficult childbirth and newborns are start to recede and then you’re ready to have another go.
      - sundvor 8y ago
        This. The brain is exceptionally good at repressing bad memories. The effects of lack of sleep on memory / brain function might play a big part of it. (Just speculating from personal experience, I have no formal knowledge).