5 ms·

I imagine you won't get much support with that comment, but you're absolutely right. Everyone responding to you is going to say mothers can't breastfeed. Bulls

by jere 14y ago

I imagine you won't get much support with that comment, but you're absolutely right. Everyone responding to you is going to say mothers can't breastfeed. Bullshit. Only perhaps 5% of mothers can't breastfeed because of medical conditions. 71% of babies in China aren't breastfed. Do you see a discrepancy here? Framing it in terms of being physically unable to breastfeed is disingenuous. Among other reasons, women aren't breastfeeding because they are being misinformed and marketed to by corporations. It really is ridiculous when poor families who have a free way to feed their children are putting in the time and expense to get subpar nutrition from overseas. >However, Save the Children said in its report that a quarter of mothers in China have received gifts from dairy companies, while 40% were given samples of baby formula from companies including Nestle, Wyeth and Mead Johnson. >The British group also found that 16 out of 35 food shops in six Chinese cities had promoted breast milk substitutes through salespersons, posters or gifts. >Save the Children said such marketing has resulted in the percentage of breastfeeding mothers in East Asia and the Pacific to drop from 2006's 45% to 2012's 29%. http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130304000020&cid=1102 http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=2013... >But even Wolynn, who is also a certified lactation consultant, seemed skeptical when I related Kelly's tale -- usually women struggle because they haven't had enough support in the first few days after giving birth, in his experience. "Very few women really can't breastfeed," he said. "That's very, very, uncommon." It's a "normal mammalian function," he said. Almost everyone can do it. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/health/medical-breastfeeding http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/health/medical-breastfeeding

rayiner 14y ago
He's totally not right. He's regurgitating intensely unscientific hippie bullshit (the technical term for it is appeal to nature fallacy). See the articles in my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5618299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5618299 > It really is ridiculous when poor families who have a free way to feed their children are putting in the time and expense to get subpar nutrition from overseas. Breastfeeding is only free if a woman's time has no value. This is especially relevant in poor families where women have to get back to working as quickly as possible to help support the family.
- jere 14y ago
  Most of the articles you have linked, as far as I can tell, say the case for breastfeeding has been overstated (fine, more controlled studies need to be done) but a benefit still exists. You are overstating your case. >(the technical term for it is appeal to nature fallacy). A couple hundred million years of evolution is just a hippie fantasy, I guess. If the evidence isn't there, fine, but I can't for the life of me understand how the null hypothesis among hackers is always natural = bad. >Breastfeeding is only free if a woman's time has no value. First, why couldn't they pump? Are you saying they don't have time for pumping, but they can afford child care and formula? These people are buying formula from overseas. From a quick search, it appears western families are paying $100-$200+/month (that doesn't include shipping) for formula and I'm not convinced poor Chinese workers are earning much (if any) more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > Most of the articles you have linked, as far as I can tell, say the case for breastfeeding has been overstated (fine, more controlled studies need to be done) but a benefit still exists. You are overstating your case. I didn't say there were no proven advantages to breastfeeding. I said that advantages to breastfeeding that have been proven are extremely tenuous (thin). There have been a ton of controlled studies on breastfeeding--it's not an area that's lacking in data. What the studies have proven is that, once you control for the fact that higher-income mothers are more likely to breastfeed, the benefits from breastfeeding are minor. >(the technical term for it is appeal to nature fallacy). A couple hundred million years of evolution is just a hippie fantasy, I guess. That's exactly what the "appeal to nature" fallacy is. > If the evidence isn't there, fine, but I can't for the life of me understand how the null hypothesis among hackers is always natural = bad. You're confused about what the situation is. It is not that "we don't know enough about the advantages of breastfeeding, so we'll assume that natural = bad." It's that "we do know about the advantages of breastfeeding, and they are tenuous, and therefore we should balance those minor benefits against the costs of breastfeeding." > First, why couldn't they pump? Are you saying they don't have time for pumping, but they can afford child care and formula? Most women produce less milk pumping than breastfeeding, and pumping enough milk during the day to feed the baby through the next day is a huge hassle because it's time consuming and you have to do it several times a day to get enough supply. Most women don't have the luxury of taking multiple 15-20 minute breaks to pump (especially in a country without worker protection regulations like China). Also, lactating in work clothes is a pain in the ass. > These people are buying formula from overseas. From a quick search, it appears western families are paying $100-$200+/month (that doesn't include shipping) for formula and I'm not convinced poor Chinese workers are earning much (if any) more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China These are obviously not people in China making minimum wage who are shipping in formula from overseas. These are middle class people. And for them, as for most working mothers in the U.S., child care and formula does indeed eat up most of the wages from working. Mother continue to do it because some money coming in is better than no money coming in, and because taking time off work to raise children is a career-ender. Employers treat a mother who took a year off to raise kids even worse, if that's possible, than someone who was unemployed for a whole year because they couldn't find a job (and see the recent HN thread about what a disaster long-term unemployment is even without the stigma attached to motherhood).
shanev 14y ago
Companies that market these products is what bothers me the most. I read somewhere that some women in Africa were feeding their babies Coca Cola because they thought it was healthier than breast milk.

by jere 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

He's totally not right. He's regurgitating intensely unscientific hippie bullshit (the technical term for it is appeal to nature fallacy). See the articles in my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5618299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5618299 > It really is ridiculous when poor families who have a free way to feed their children are putting in the time and expense to get subpar nutrition from overseas. Breastfeeding is only free if a woman's time has no value. This is especially relevant in poor families where women have to get back to working as quickly as possible to help support the family.

jere 14y ago
Most of the articles you have linked, as far as I can tell, say the case for breastfeeding has been overstated (fine, more controlled studies need to be done) but a benefit still exists. You are overstating your case. >(the technical term for it is appeal to nature fallacy). A couple hundred million years of evolution is just a hippie fantasy, I guess. If the evidence isn't there, fine, but I can't for the life of me understand how the null hypothesis among hackers is always natural = bad. >Breastfeeding is only free if a woman's time has no value. First, why couldn't they pump? Are you saying they don't have time for pumping, but they can afford child care and formula? These people are buying formula from overseas. From a quick search, it appears western families are paying $100-$200+/month (that doesn't include shipping) for formula and I'm not convinced poor Chinese workers are earning much (if any) more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Most of the articles you have linked, as far as I can tell, say the case for breastfeeding has been overstated (fine, more controlled studies need to be done) but a benefit still exists. You are overstating your case. I didn't say there were no proven advantages to breastfeeding. I said that advantages to breastfeeding that have been proven are extremely tenuous (thin). There have been a ton of controlled studies on breastfeeding--it's not an area that's lacking in data. What the studies have proven is that, once you control for the fact that higher-income mothers are more likely to breastfeed, the benefits from breastfeeding are minor. >(the technical term for it is appeal to nature fallacy). A couple hundred million years of evolution is just a hippie fantasy, I guess. That's exactly what the "appeal to nature" fallacy is. > If the evidence isn't there, fine, but I can't for the life of me understand how the null hypothesis among hackers is always natural = bad. You're confused about what the situation is. It is not that "we don't know enough about the advantages of breastfeeding, so we'll assume that natural = bad." It's that "we do know about the advantages of breastfeeding, and they are tenuous, and therefore we should balance those minor benefits against the costs of breastfeeding." > First, why couldn't they pump? Are you saying they don't have time for pumping, but they can afford child care and formula? Most women produce less milk pumping than breastfeeding, and pumping enough milk during the day to feed the baby through the next day is a huge hassle because it's time consuming and you have to do it several times a day to get enough supply. Most women don't have the luxury of taking multiple 15-20 minute breaks to pump (especially in a country without worker protection regulations like China). Also, lactating in work clothes is a pain in the ass. > These people are buying formula from overseas. From a quick search, it appears western families are paying $100-$200+/month (that doesn't include shipping) for formula and I'm not convinced poor Chinese workers are earning much (if any) more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_in_China These are obviously not people in China making minimum wage who are shipping in formula from overseas. These are middle class people. And for them, as for most working mothers in the U.S., child care and formula does indeed eat up most of the wages from working. Mother continue to do it because some money coming in is better than no money coming in, and because taking time off work to raise children is a career-ender. Employers treat a mother who took a year off to raise kids even worse, if that's possible, than someone who was unemployed for a whole year because they couldn't find a job (and see the recent HN thread about what a disaster long-term unemployment is even without the stigma attached to motherhood).

shanev 14y ago

Companies that market these products is what bothers me the most. I read somewhere that some women in Africa were feeding their babies Coca Cola because they thought it was healthier than breast milk.