Gun control, Goddammit

I've seen many many Facebook posts today admonishing people for treating the Newtown, CT, tragedy "politically."  Lots of finger wagging going on -- aimed at those who have made their views known in the wake of such senseless horror.

Here's the thing.  People are allowed to be sad and angry at the same time.  And people are allowed to feel that if the system in this country were different, then perhaps such senseless, brutal tragedy might not have happened.  Folks are wailing and moaning and gnashing their teeth about how they feel angry and powerless and asking "What can I do?" and "How do we stop this?"  But, clearly, there is something we can do.  And that something involves politics and social change.  So if you are busy admonishing people for making this horrific event "political," suck it up, buttercup.  This is political, because it is social.  And we (I) have a right to be angry.  Because 20 mothers are waiting right now for their babies' bodies to be released from a crime scene.  And this could have been prevented.

Here are some facts: The July, 2011 US census lists the US population as 311,591,917.  The same US census lists the percentage of population that is under 18 years of age as 23.7%.  That means the total number of legal adults in this country is approximately 237,744,633.  The total number of non-military guns in the US is 310 million, according to CNN (August 2012).  So, statistically, every adult in this country owns 1.3 guns.  (Never mind that more than half the country doesn't own any at all, so those that do have 'em own well over 1.3 a piece.)  And the fact is that United States has a staggeringly high number of gun-related deaths per capita than other industrialized nations.  (I'm sure you've seen the memes and the West Wing episode touting this point.)

Look at it this way: What if every American were limited to ownership of one handgun for self-defense and one rifle for hunting.  Say you had to have a valid hunting license to get the rifle.  That'd be a start, right?  Gun owners, you get to keep your precious guns to protect yourselves or slaughter animals in the name of "sport."  But stockpiles and automatic weapons are out of the realm of possibility.  How far would Adam Lanza have gotten if he tried to bust into that school with a single handgun?  Yes, people would have gotten hurt, and even killed, but I'd bet my life that he never would've made it as far as a classroom--and he certainly wouldn't have been able to mow down 20 babies with a single handgun before someone stopped him.

And here's the other thing.  Mental illness needs to be legitimately addressed in this country.  Now.  If a heart malfunctions -- or a kidney, or a pancreas -- we take steps to treat the problem.  If a brain malfunctions, the owner of that brain is shunned, avoided, labeled and ostracized.  Why, why, why is mental illness not met with the same assertive public health initiative of anti-smoking or healthy eating campaigns?  Why do people still not recognize -- or even ignore -- the signs that someone's brain is misfiring?

Will every person with a mental illness pick up a gun and seek to harm others? Of course not.  But if we stopped rolling our eyes and saying "that dude's weird" and started getting involved and trying to make sure that those who are too ill to help themselves get some fucking help, it'd go a long way to stopping this terrifying and tragic behavior.

I can't count the number of people who've said today "What kind of a person can do this?"  The answer is, simply, "a very, very sick one."  No normal person mows down little babies in a classroom.  Or people in a movie theater.  Or students on a college campus.  Something is terribly, tragically wrong in your brain if mass-murder is your answer.  And everyone else damned well better believe that somebody, somewhere noticed that something wasn't quite right with Adam Lanza. And James Holmes. And Seung-Hui Cho.

So please, for the love of whatever you believe in, stop pointing fingers at people who are correctly angry and advocating for social change. Social change, in the form of responsible gun control and serious education about mental illness, is what will stop these kinds of tragedies from happening.  And if nothing changes, you know, then nothing will change.  And this will happen again.  And more parents will be mourning the loss of their children.

Suck it up, buttercup.

(More) Breastfeeding statistics

Benefits of breastfeeding  (follow-up to previous post)



For Baby
1.  Protects Against Infection
2.  Protects Against Illnesses
3.  Protection From Allergies
4.  Enhances Development and Intelligence

For Mother
1.  Delays Fertility
2.  Decreases risk of Breast Cancer
3.  Decreases risk of Uterine Cancer
4.  Decreases risk of Ovarian Cancer
5.  Decreases risk of Endometrial Cancer
6.  Emotional Health (less anxiety)
7.  Decrease Insulin Requirements in diabetics
8.  Decreased Osteoporosis
9.  Promotes Postpartum Weight Loss
10. No bottles and formula to organize, sterilize and carry everywhere.
11. Less expensive

For Society
1. Optimum Child Spacing
2. Improved Vaccine Effectiveness
3. Financial Savings to Government and Families (Food Expenses, Medical Expenses)
4. More Ecological (Less use of natural resources [glass, plastic, metal, paper]; less waste in landfills.)
5. Less Child Abuse
(Source: http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_more.html)

Benefits of bottle feeding
1. More sleep for mom
2. Mom can eat/drink what she likes
3. Mom can go out (leave baby with sitter)
4. Baby needs fewer feedings
5. Mom knows how much baby is eating
6. Mom doesn't have to deal with latch issues, sagging breasts, episodes of discomfort
7. Allows others to "bond with baby."

Breast milk: Never been recalled

OK.  I've had it.  I'm really, really, REALLY tired of hearing phrases like "breast vs. bottle feeding is a personal choice."  Really tired.  In fact, it pisses me off.  I mean, of course, on the surface, it's a personal choice. But so is whether to eat.  Or breathe.  Or walk.

In the United States, according to the CDC, only 17% of mothers do "some breastfeeding" (as opposed to exclusive breastfeeding) up to their child's first birthday.  Only 14% breastfeed exclusively to six months of age.  This despite the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that babies be breastfed to 12 months, and exclusively breastfed to 6 months.  Let me rephrase: The single most respected agency on child wellness in the country recommends that babies eat only breast milk until they are at least 6 months of age.  But only 14% of American moms are exclusively breastfeeding at the 6-month mark.  

In Sweden, 99% of mothers initiate breastfeeding while they are hospitalized after giving birth.  In the US, only 62% breastfeed in the hospital.  Now, in fairness, this has to do with uninformed nurses, lack of lactation consultants and other such issues, as well as that pesky "personal choice."  But it's an alarming statistic, nonetheless.

The formula industry in the US is a nearly four-BILLION dollar industry.  And the United States has one of the worst breastfeeding rates in the world.  If you have an ounce of common sense, think about that.  Think about corporations and big business and marketing and capitalism and put two and two together.  Think maybe there's a correlation?

Americans tiptoe around this issue like it's a frigging landmine.  "It's a very personal decision," we say, "Every mom does what's best for her."  We shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.  It's none of our business.  Unless, of course, you breastfeed.  Then you're called a "breastfeeding Nazi."  Because, apparently, it's a terrible thing to advocate for the choice that is healthiest for babies.  Don't believe me?  I just Googled the term "breastfeeding Nazi" and got 642,000 results.  Google "formula-feeding Nazi" and let me know what you get.  (You get articles about breastfeeding Nazis.  That's what you get.)  

So those of us who breastfeed are crazed fascists, I guess?

Here's an eye-opener for ya: formula-fed babies have two to five times the rate of SIDS, twice the death rate from diarrhea, six to ten times the rate of necrotizing enterocolitis, higher rates of respiratory illness, leukemia, asthma, and more.  Post neonatal infant mortality rates in the United States are 26.6 percent higher in formula-fed babies than those who breastfeed. We’re not just talking about fewer ear infections here.

Formula feeding woman do not get routinely harassed in public.  Breastfeeding women do.  We get asked to leave restaurants and museums and other public places.  We get censured by judges, for Christ's sake.  We get verbally attacked and harassed.  We get dirty looks.  All despite the fact that forty-five states, the District of Columbia and the US Virgin Islands have laws that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location.   

All despite the fact that breastfeeding is a normal, natural, beneficial thing to do.  We "breastfeeding Nazis" open our mouths.  That's what makes us "Nazis."  We speak up and we advocate.  And we do it because even now, in 2012, in the good ole US of A, we are censured for our choice.  We are humiliated and browbeaten.  And we are in the minority.

Because, even though that's what these boobies were put there for, somehow, it's "indecent" to feed my child when s/he's hungry.  Because boobs are sexual, right?  Well then, clearly, baby bottles are dildos.  Clearly.  If you're going to try to tell me that it's indecent to use the part of my body that was anatomically created/designed to feed my children, then I'm gonna censure you for sticking a vibrator in your kid's mouth.  It's what they're there for.  And if YOU think it's somehow sexual, then you have a filthy mind.  Suck on that.

So we need to be very polite and tentative about the whole breast- vs. bottle feeding issue with formula feeders, lest we hurt their feelings.  But with breast feeders it's continual open season.  Do I have that right?

When my daughter -- my first child-- was born, I was nervous about "NIP" (nursing in public).  I shrouded my "unseemly" breast and smothered my child under blankets when she was hungry.  In July.  I didn't want to offend anyone with my "personal choice" to give my child the best possible food/immune-booster in the world.  With the birth of my son and my increased confidence in breastfeeding, that insecurity went right out the window.  If my kid is hungry, I am going to feed him.  And if you don't like it, you can put a blanket over YOUR head.  Or go eat your lunch in a toilet stall.

 

I was gonna cite a whole bunch of statistical facts on the issue of breast- vs. bottle feeding, but I'll spare you the agony.  (I'll stick 'em in a separate post for those who are interested.)  Trust me when I say I've done my research.  "Pro"s of breastfeeding are pros for the baby (immune boosters, bonding, etc.), for the mom (decreases in risks of various cancers, etc.) AND for society (lower medical costs, lower contribution to landfills, etc.).  Every single pro of formula feeding is a pro for the mom only (more sleep, more able to leave the baby, no saggy boobs, etc.).

Now, don't get me wrong.  It's a wonderful thing to have formula out there for the moms who are unable to breastfeed.  And there are women who can't.  (I'd love to imagine that those moms would seek out milk banks before resorting to formula, but milk banks aren't necessarily easy to come by.  Shame on us for that, too.)  If your body is unable to produce milk, you do the best you can and formula is "it" in many -- or most -- cases.

But here's the thing.  And I'm almost sorry if this offends you.  Almost.  Your JOB, when you decide to become a parent, is to put your child's needs before your own.  That is the essence of parenting.  Your child needs you to protect and defend him or her.  Looking at the statistics above, breast milk is a defense.  When you take on the role of parent, you take on the responsibility of parent.  The reasons that most people choose to bottle feed (breastfeeding is hard, it's painful, no-one else can feed her ... he had trouble latching, blah, blah, blah) are selfish reasons.

After the birth of my daughter, I went back to work.  And I sat in a "nursing room" (thanks to the awesome company I worked for) and pumped breast milk three times a day.  And I hated every fucking second of it.  It made me uncomfortable and it hurt sometimes and it sucked up all my breaks and my lunch hour.  I. HATED. IT.  But I never once -- even for a millisecond -- thought about stopping.  Because it was the right thing to do for my daughter.

People would lambaste me if I suggested not putting your kid in a car seat.  They'd crucify me if I said there's no problem with smoking around your kids.  Because statistics (and laws) say those things are dangerous.  Well, statistics say formula feeding is dangerous, too, if you compare to the statistics for breastfeeding.  And laws reserve the right for moms to breastfeed in public.  But somehow, they're not the same thing.  Somehow, as parents in this country, we choose what's best for our babies unless we are choosing the MOST vital thing -- what we are putting into their bodies on a daily basis.

Yes, it can be hard.  And frustrating.  And uncomfortable.  It can force you (and your husband or partner) to look at your body in a new, almost frightening way.  It can force you to put yourself out there and endure the reactions of closed-minded ignoramuses.  I've done it.  I know.  It can also be beautiful and tender and personal and special.  And I, personally, treasure every second of it.  Because it is he right thing to do for my babies.  And, if you think about it, in the grand scheme of things, breast-feeding is done with and gone in the blink of an eye.

(Sources: kellymom.com and babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2009/02/09/5-Things-That-Make-You-a-Breastfeeding-Nazi-And-5-Things-That-Dont.aspx)