18 Comments
User's avatar
Pam Smith's avatar

I wouldn’t have been able to breastfeed my babies without the support of other women.

Expand full comment
Go Lucy Go's avatar

Me neither, Pam. Mother to mother support was essential to me too.

Expand full comment
alewifey's avatar

"The milk from the person who gave birth to her” So they even use she/her for a hypothetical random baby—of indeterminate sex—but they can't call Mothers Mothers?

That can't be a coincidence.

Expand full comment
Ix Qik's avatar

I wondered why LLL didn’t go with the sex neutral pronoun ‘it’ to refer to the baby.

(Tongue in cheek)

Expand full comment
alewifey's avatar

They could've at least made it a theyby, just to be consistent

Expand full comment
Meau Terwyl's avatar

It might be a good idea if you read the book before you comment. The word 'mother' is used over and over again.

Expand full comment
alewifey's avatar

Doesn't excuse the erasures. Only Women can nourish babies from Their bodies, so there's absolutely zero reason or excuse to EVER substitute a conspicuously de-sexed expression for either one. For the same reason why there's no reason to ever deviate from "She" or "Her", and why even ONE gratuitous singular "they/them" ANYWHERE in a volume about breastfeeding would be a sign of deeply insidious political capture.

Expand full comment
ThinkPieceOfPie's avatar

"Why can't you just be nice? What does it cost you?" This is a good example of how that argument doesn't hold true. It costs A LOT: the words "women" & "mothers" have to be re-defined, and babies' nourishment must be sacrificed in the name of validation. Sorry, reality is a TERF.

Expand full comment
Go Lucy Go's avatar

Disrupting the mother-baby unit has been reported time and time again to have serious physical and emotional consequences for both Mother and Baby. I cannot understand how the ideology behind this movement justifies the potential damage of muddling definitions. This is so heartbreaking, but I thank you for speaking up, Lucy Leader.

Expand full comment
Meau Terwyl's avatar

So, how about adoption?

Expand full comment
Go Lucy Go's avatar

Yes — How about adoption? Do you propose that this is the ideal for both mother and child?

I love that a baby whose mother cannot keep him/her, for any reason, can get a second chance in life. I do not think that the disruption of biological mother-baby bond is ideal or we should all strive to give our babies that experience. Do you?

Expand full comment
Just plain Rivka's avatar

“Interference for any reason at all in the establishment of early breastfeeding nearly always undermines achievement of the WHO recommendation of six months of exclusive breastfeeding.” This is great stuff. I know that’s not the point of the article. Still.

Expand full comment
Linda KG's avatar

I would have not been able to breastfeed toddlers without the ongoing support of La Leche League.

Expand full comment
Barbara Higham's avatar

I certainly won't be buying a copy from a charity that treats its volunteers so poorly. Just a note, the previous edition (the 8th) was published in 2010 not 2018

Expand full comment
Lucy Leader's avatar

Yeah, whoops sorry about the date error, this has been corrected!

Expand full comment
Meau Terwyl's avatar

I fully understand. And yet, Lucy is still a Leader. No morals, no integrity. Who knew.

Expand full comment
Skipperdog's avatar

Of course the three keeps are in the book still - you are wrong. Pages 91-94.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Oct 30
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Meau Terwyl's avatar

Please define womanly. Please describe 'womanly' activities that go beyond crocheting, wearing a dress, and speaking with a soft voice.

Expand full comment