Long-term, exclusive breastfeeding appears to improve children’s cognitive development, according to a recent report (Archives of General Psychiatry, May 2008).

Previous studies have reported that children and adults who were breastfed as infants have higher scores on IQ tests and other measures of cognitive (thinking, learning and memory) development than those who were fed formula.

However, the evidence has been based on observational studies, in which children whose mothers chose to breastfeed were compared with those whose mothers chose not to breastfeed. The results of these studies may be complicated by subtle differences in the way breastfeeding mothers interact with their infants, the authors noted.

Michael S. Kramer, MD, of McGill University and the Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial of a breastfeeding promotion program involving patients at 31 maternity hospitals and affiliated clinics in Belarus.

Between June 1996 and December 1997, clinics were randomly assigned either to adopt a program supporting and promoting breastfeeding or to continue their current practices and policies. A total of 7,108 infants and mothers who visited facilities promoting breastfeeding and 6,781 infants and mothers who visited control facilities received follow-up interviews and examinations between 2002 and 2005, when the children were an average of 6.5 years old.

Mothers who visited a facility promoting breastfeeding were more likely to feed their infants only breast milk at age 3 months (43.3 percent vs. 6.4 percent in the control group) and at all ages through 1 year. At age 6.5, the children in the breastfeeding group scored an average of 7.5 points higher on tests measuring verbal intelligence, 2.9 points higher on tests measuring non-verbal intelligence and 5.9 points higher on tests measuring overall intelligence. Teachers also rated these children significantly higher academically than control children in both reading and writing.

“Even though the treatment difference appears causal, it remains unclear whether the observed cognitive benefits of breastfeeding are due to some constituent of breast milk or are related to the physical and social interactions inherent in breastfeeding,” the authors wrote.

They noted that essential long-chain fatty acids and a compound known as insulinlike growth factor I, both found in breastmilk, could be responsible for the cognitive differences. On the other hand, the physical or emotional component of breastfeeding may lead to permanent changes affecting brain development. Breastfeeding also may increase verbal interaction between mother and child, which could improve children’s cognitive development.

“Although breastfeeding initiation rates have increased substantially during the last 30 years, much less progress has been achieved in increasing the exclusivity and duration of breastfeeding,” the authors concluded. “The consistency of our findings based on a randomized trial with those reported in previous observational studies should prove helpful in encouraging further public health efforts to promote, protect and support breastfeeding.”

The research was funded by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Kramer is the recipient of a Senior Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Co-author Dr. Platt is a Monat-McPherson Career Investigator of McGill Unviersity and a career investigator of the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec. Co-author Dr. Fombonne holds a Canada Research Chair in Child Psychiatry.

Source: Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, PA
http://tinyurl.com/49lobn

At present, the Government is preparing a new law: to protect women’s rights to breastfeed legally in public. This follows a high-profile case in which the National Gallery in London stopped a mother breastfeeding in one of its galleries and subsequently had to issue an apology. With inspiringly apt irony, the mother and child in question were in the same room as Tintoretto’s The Origin of the Milky Way, in which Juno breastfeeds Hercules.

This legislation is to roll out by the end of the year, following the lead of the Scottish Parliament, which introduced similar laws four years ago, so soon we’ll be able to lactate in the Tate, whip out our boobs in White Cube, utilise our mammaries in the Royal Academies. This is a huge coup for those of us who like to claim the moral high ground by breastfeeding, when the truth of the matter is that we’re just too slatternly to sterilise umpteen bottles a day, and find that the smell of Milton’s Fluid makes us pukey. But it also highlights the extraordinary fact that, until this law kicks in, it is actually illegal to breastfeed publicly in this country. Illegal. Indeed, it’s so illegal that there are two, separate, acts under which a breastfeeder can be prosecuted: public order laws, or laws of public decency. Conceivably, if a woman got busted* after a very long feed, one involving both breasts, the left one could be charged under the public order laws and get away with a light fine, while the right one, having offended public decency, could be looking at a seven-to-ten stretch in the pen.

And ladies, let’s face it: after breastfeeding, your bosom-area looks like it’s done time in the slammer anyway. Whenever I take my bra off now and check myself in the mirror, my breasts look knackered. But be this as it may, I can assure you of one thing: there’s barely a mother in this country who knows that it’s illegal to breastfeed in public. I did a quick text-round of all my 24-hour post-partum people and they were amazed that the third most physically crucial aspect of motherhood - after hoiking the baby out into the world, and then not leaving it on a cliff edge while having a fag - is prosecutable. For many, it’s been like finding out that it’s illegal to put your child on a swing, feed it carrot sticks and hoummos or beat it with a spiky oaken paddle named “Mr Whackbum”.

“The logical conclusion of this legislation is that the British believe a woman should not leave her house - not even once - until her baby is weaned,” said one friend, on her mobile phone from Beachy Head, between drags on a Rothmans.

Of course, in many ways, it’s quite heartening to find out that it’s still illegal to breastfeed in public. It’s almost comforting. Women tend to blame themselves for everything. British mothers had, therefore, presumed that the reason why England has the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world - only 25 per cent breastfeed up to six months (frankly, worms do better, and they don’t lactate) was simply All Our Fault. We didn’t have the commitment, the selflessness or the nerve to get the big boys out and feed the little boys (or girls) in public. Because it takes nerve to breastfeed in public. There is a lexicon of Acceptable Public Breasts, and those who have a baby on the end don’t make the list. You can have statue breasts (classy tits), native tribeswoman breasts (educational tits) and 18-year-old girls looking down at their Nuts tits with a combination of pride and surprise (tits somehow fundamental to the continuation of the smooth running of this country). But a hurriedly bared wet nipple at a bus station in January being waved, semi-despairingly, at a wailing child just doesn’t make it into this pantheon. These breasts - the useful breasts - must be kept hidden.

I’m apt to blame this baffling aesthetic and moral schism on a gigantic as-yet untackled seam of rampant misogyny. It bears all the hallmarks of The Patriarchy, ie, a world tilted in favour of perky tits, normal women made to feel bad. Damn you, The Patriarchy! I shake my fist at you, again! Indeed, I keep meaning to replace the F11 key on my Mac with a “Patriarchy Alert” button so that when I press it all my open windows fly off the screen, leaving me to stare at an inspiring and soothing screensaver picture of Mary Wollstonecraft.

So what will it take to increase breastfeeding rates in this country, other than stopping it being illegal in the 99.99999 per cent of the British Isles that isn’t the lactating mothers’ front rooms, of course? For myself, I was a constant, militant, public breastfeeder - but I can’t now, three years later, remember quite why. Briefly analysing it, I would say it was probably a combination of: 7 per cent having a mother who contentedly breastfed eight children, in turn, for the first two years of their lives; 12 per cent being a rock-hard, ice-cool feminist warrior queen, like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, but wearing a purple, white and green hat; and 81 per cent wanting the crying, screaming baby to just shuuuuuut uuuuuup before we set off all the fire alarms in Boots.

To be honest, I brought a geeky aesthetic to the process, in that I often pretended my breast milk was a killer laser beam. Once I’d built up a sufficienthead of pressure, I’d jet my milk lasers across the room, “taking out” objects/people while making the “zzsswhoompf” light-sabre sound from Star Wars. Perhaps we could get more women into breastfeeding from that angle, encouraging them to use lactation for the purposes of pugilism. That way, until public breastfeeding is made legal, at least they could pick off disapproving art gallery security staff, one by one, with their mummy-guns.

*Hahaha. I’ve just noticed that; that’s quite clever.

Source: Times Online, UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article4182468.ece

Re: Sharing bed with infant can be fatal, warns top coroner, June 5.

I was most dismayed to read this story. Not because I fear for the life of my baby, but because the coroner’s conclusions are not supported by the existing research on the topic.

There are no documented cases of a healthy, nursing mother smothering the baby she sleeps with. Many more babies die alone in cribs than with their parents.

The problem is quite clearly not with “co-sleeping” and bed-sharing in general, but with “unsafe sleeping environments.” There is a great deal of difference between a safe, planned co-sleeping environment, and “couches, armchairs” and “surface(s) cluttered with … objects.”

The article mentions “controversy,” but offers little information from the other side. There is a casual reference to an “author” named James McKenna. Professor McKenna is the director of the “Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Laboratory” at the University of Notre Dame. And what does he say about sleeping with your baby? “During my many years of studying infant-parent co-sleeping/bed-sharing, I am unaware of even one instance in which, under safe social and physical conditions, a mother, aware that her infant was in bed with her, ever suffocated her infant.”

There is an admission that “further research… is warranted.”

Pediatrician Dr. William Sears, a widely respected parenting expert, writes that “not only is sleeping with your baby safe, but it is actually much safer than having your baby sleep in a crib. Research shows that infants who sleep in a crib are twice as likely to suffer a sleep-related fatality (including SIDS) than infants who sleep in bed with their parents.” Canadian breastfeeding authority Dr. Jack Newman devotes a section of his book to encouraging nursing mothers to sleep with their babies, titled “You will not roll over on your baby.”

If 12.8 per cent of parents can be persuaded to admit to routinely sharing their beds with their babies we can easily conclude that: a lot of parents are co-sleeping; a lot of parents will be unnecessarily frightened by these unscientific reports; and given 41 deaths, advice on how to keep babies safe in beds is called for. Dramatic warnings of fatal bed-sharing must emphasize the usual causes of intoxicated parents, excess bedding, and other obvious hazards. It should be made quite clear that of all the worries that accompany a new baby, murder via maternal cuddles is not something that need be one of them for parents taking basic safety precautions.

It should also be emphasized that cribs are just pieces of furniture, not magical life-sustaining apparatuses. Many infants who die sleeping die in cribs, bouncers, playpens, etcetera. “Little, wee vulnerable” children are not somehow protected by sleeping alone and it takes a strange agenda to suggest otherwise.

Source: Ottawa Citizen, Canada
http://tinyurl.com/3l5o8f

Children are almost twice as likely to die before adulthood if they have a father over 45, research has shown.

A mass study found that deaths of children fathered by over-45s occurred at almost twice the rate of those fathered by men aged between 25 and 30.

Scientists believe that children of older fathers are more likely to suffer particular congenital defects as well as autism, schizophrenia and epilepsy. The study was the first of its kind of such magnitude in the West, and researchers believe the findings are linked to the declining quality of sperm as men age.

A total of 100,000 children born between 1980 and 1996 were examined, of whom 830 have so far died before they reached 18, the majority when they were less than a year old.

The deaths of many of the children of the older fathers were related to congenital defects such as problems of the heart and spine, which increase the risk of infant mortality. But there were also higher rates of accidental death, which the researchers believe might be explained by the increased likelihood of suffering from autism, epilepsy or schizophrenia.

Most research into older parents has, until now, focused on the risks passed on by older mothers. But the new study, published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, was adjusted to take account of maternal age and socio-economic differences.

The research also found higher death rates among children of the youngest fathers, especially those below the age of 19. However, the study said these differences were explained by the risks of teenage motherhood and poorer diet and lifestyle.

Previous research using the same data found that older men were four times as likely to father a child with Down’s syndrome, while other studies have found that the genetic quality of sperm deteriorates as men age.

More than 75,000 babies in Britain are born to fathers aged 40 and over each year, or more than one in 10 of all births. This includes more than 6,000 born to fathers aged 50 or over. The average age of fathering a child in this country is 32.

Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology – the medical specialty dealing with male reproduction – at the University of Sheffield, said: “A lot of people know that there are risks for the child that come from having an older mother, but children of older fathers also carry an increased risk. These sorts of results provide another good reason to have children early, when possible.”

Dr Pacey, who is secretary of the British Fertility Society, said scientists were unsure exactly what impact the ageing process had on the quality of sperm, making it impossible to detect defects before conception.

Dr Jin Liang Zhu, from the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, which carried out the research, said: “The risks of older fatherhood can be very profound, and it is not something that people are always aware of.”

The mother’s age still has the bigger impact on child health, however. About one in 900 babies born to women under 30 have Down’s syndrome – a figure which reaches one in 100 by the age of 40. The number of over-40s giving birth in Britain each year has doubled in the past decade to 16,000. The risk of miscarriage rises sharply with age.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom
http://tinyurl.com/4jl4jy

Darling, that was wonderful: British couples reveal the quantity of sex after parenthood may be down but the quality is up

Do people’s sex lives start to fizzle out after they have children? Does their arrival mark the end of romance and the start of fantasising about other sexual partners - or even a night of uninterrupted sleep?

Shining a light on this deeply private area of couple’s lives is not always easy. So when we posted a questionnaire on Times Online, we were not entirely sure what to expect.

So far nearly 1,700 men and women have answered questions that range from how often they have sex and how long it lasts, to how many children they have and whether the children have affected the quality of their sex lives. Many also wrote at length about their own experiences.

David Thompson - the only one of those we contacted who agreed to give his real name - spoke with lyrical nostalgia about a long walk in the woods with his girlfriend. The weather was perfect, no one else was around and they had nothing on their minds but each other; so they made love beneath the trees.

Now aged 37, Thompson is married to his girlfriend and a father of three. “Making love spontaneously outdoors is something we would never do now,” he said. “We’re too busy running after the kids, making sure they don’t beat each other with sticks.”

His experience seemed typical: most of the respondents to our survey agreed that having children meant having less time for love-making. Yet despite recent reports about the rise in sexless marriages, the overwhelming majority still had a sex life – and few complaints about its quality.

“Frequency has gone down because we are both constantly tired and frazzled with the demands of our jobs and looking after the family,” wrote a married mother of two, who said she had sex two to three times a month. “But quality has gone up, as we have got closer after the birth of our child . . . We trust each other more and so are more open with each other.”

In all, 1,675 respondents - 54% of them male - filled in the survey on the Times Online’s Alpha Mummy blog. While not strictly scientific - because the respondents were self-selected - it painted a reassuring picture of what happens to romance after having children. The majority of parents said they had sex more than once a month; and 63% said the frequency of their love-making ranged from several times a week to two to three times a month. For 46%, love-making sessions lasted 20-45 minutes, while 34% made love for up to 20 minutes and 3% for more than an hour.

Tiredness was the chief reason given for having less sex now than before having a family; causes of this included the sheer physical energy needed to look after children, disturbed nights, early starts, pressures at work and general stress.

One pregnant mother, who has one child, said the reason why she was having sex only two or three times a month was, in fact, nothing to do with having a baby. “Running our own business does more damage,” she wrote. Other reasons for less frequent sex included sharing a bed with children or sleeping in separate beds - in some cases so that fathers were not woken up when a baby needed to be breast-fed.

One mother of three complained that it was hard ever to escape from children - “I’m worried about little hands opening bedroom doors,” she wrote.

Sex with his wife was described by one father as “quick, covert, much like a military strike . . . My daughter seems to have been born with a built-in radar which informs her any time my wife and I try to get close . . . even if she’s in the other room . . . at two in the morning”.

Some parents said they stole private moments while the children were playing in the garden or when the nanny was on duty. “We have to make the most of the opportunities, but the quality seems to get better with age and experience,” wrote a father of three, who described sex with his girlfriend as “better than ever” after 13 years together.

It was striking just how many parents had a positive view of their sex lives - whatever the frequency. “The sex we have is really great. It is maybe not as saucy as it was when we first got together, but it is more effective in that we both know what the other likes and what works for us both,” said a mother of one, who has been with her husband for eight years. They still have sex several times a week: “Although sometimes I am tired and think I can’t be bothered, afterwards I always think how much fun it was and am so pleased that I made the effort.”

Another mother, who has three children, said: “Being constantly tired and busy with activities after school made it hard to feel ‘in the mood’. Once the kids were older and more independent, we could return to more intimacy, and now that the kids have left home it is great.”

Some in long-term relationships admitted that the ebb and flow of their sex lives did not necessarily have anything to do with having children.

“We thought children affected our sex life when they were very little; but looking back, it was better then than now,” wrote a mother of two, whose relationship has so far lasted 11 years. “It may be our age, or we may have just got lazy.”

According to Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent University and author of Paranoid Parenting, mothers in particular can find parenting a desexualising experience. After a baby is born, he said, “there’s a sense that the baby becomes the priority; the body is given over to the child. And that is sometimes slightly contradictory to the woman as a sexual being”.

Esther Perel, author of Mating in Captivity, says that there can be a tension between “the erotic and the domestic. Family life thrives in an atmosphere of consistency and stability. The erotic crumbles under routine”.

Several respondents recognised these strains in their relationships. “I believe that my partner saw me as a mother/housewife rather than as being a sexually attractive, interesting woman,” said a mother of one.

And a father wrote: “Being in the birthing room was very traumatic for me. Taking second place to our child hurt our sex life . . . I think we both withdrew from the sex part of the relationship.”

One father of two, who had been in a relationship for five years, said: “After the second child, desire just disappeared and never really came back to full strength - and it’s been three years.” The couple’s love-making - two to three times a month - was, however, “great when you get it”.

Another father said that his love life had dwindled to having formulaic sex several times a year: “It was never the right moment so I gave up trying . . .”

On the other hand, many felt that pregnancy and parenthood had put renewed energy into their relationships. “It’s great now because she’s pregnant and has a sex craving,” said a father who has sex about once a week.

Perel said this was not uncommon. “There are lots of women who actually discover through pregnancy, through birth, nursing and bonding with a child, a whole new sense of themselves as women - physically, sexually and sensually.”

The iron bonds of parenthood can often reinforce a relationship, according to Furedi. “Having kids and having some very positive shared experiences bring people together,” he said. “A good sex life for a couple depends on there being a kind of bond, a friendship - it’s what gives you confidence to relax.”

What can be done if the sexual spark between a couple has simply fizzled out? Scheduling time to be alone together is vital, advises Suzi Godson, author of The Sex Book. Perel advises going out for a meal, dancing - anything that the couple will both enjoy. “Just don’t talk about the kids,” she says.

However, one desperate parent asked: but what else is there to talk about by that stage in a relationship?

Source: Times Online, UK
http://tinyurl.com/5a5wbp

Prolonged, exclusive breastfeeding appears to give children a cognitive advantage over formula-fed kids, increasing IQ by three to four points on average and boosting later academic performance, a Canadian study suggests.

The research by McGill University is not the first to link the method of infant feeding to brain development, but the size and the design of the study lends weight to the idea that breastfeeding actually causes an increase in intelligence.

“Our study provides the strongest evidence to date that prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding makes kids smarter,” said lead investigator Dr. Michael Kramer, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at McGill.

Kramer and his team evaluated about 14,000 children in 31 hospitals and clinics in Belarus starting in 1996, following their progress until they were 6 1/2 years old. Half the mothers were exposed to an intervention that encouraged prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding (experimental group), while the other half continued usual maternity hospital and out-patient pediatric care (control group).

Mothers who visited a facility promoting breastfeeding in the former Soviet country were more likely to feed their infants only breast milk at age three months (43.3 per cent versus 6.4 per cent in the control group) and at all ages through 12 months.

By the time children reached an average age of 6 1/2, those in the breastfeeding group scored higher on tests measuring verbal intelligence, non-verbal intelligence and overall intelligence. Breastfed children also performed significantly higher academically than formula-fed children, found the study, published in the May issue of Archives of General Psychiatry.

The children’s cognitive ability was assessed by IQ tests administered by their pediatricians and by their teachers’ ratings of their performance in reading, writing, mathematics and other subjects.

“I think that what this says is your average mother in a developed country like Canada who succeeds in breastfeeding for the duration and the degree of exclusivity achieved by the women in our experimental group … can expect her child to be a few points higher in IQ.”

The average jump in IQ is not so crucial when it comes to the individual child, Kramer said. “But if you consider for the whole population shifting the mean (IQ score) up three or four points, that means fewer difficulties for kids at the lower end and more Einsteins and Mozarts at the high end.”

Still, Kramer stressed that women who are unable to breastfeed or choose not to for a variety of reasons should not feel guilty or worry their child will be less intelligent as a result of being formula-fed.

“I think this (prolonged, exclusive breastfeeding) is a goal that’s achievable by the vast majority of mothers,” he said. “Those who cannot - and there are some who cannot - and there are some who could but don’t want to, have other ways of stimulating their children and improving their IQ, like reading and playing with their children.”

“And it might even be that the effect that we’re seeing is not something in the (breast) milk but has something to do with the nature of the contact, the physical contact or with what transpires between the mother and the baby verbally or emotionally at the time of the feeding, and that maybe is transposable to other feeding modes.”

Putting the study’s findings into context for parents, Kramer said “the difference of three or four IQ points is not going to make a difference between a child finishing school or being a success or a failure.”

“This is not the difference between mental retardation and a genius.”

Commenting on the study,Dr. Jack Newman said that while the research does not prove without a doubt that breastfeeding raises intelligence levels in children, there are sound reasons for believing it could.

For one, breast milk contains naturally occurring omega 3 and 6 fatty acids and a compound known as insulin-like growth factor I, all of which have been linked to increased cognitive ability.

“It may be the breast milk itself, although it could be all the things that are associated with it,” he said, referring to the physical and emotional contact inherent in breastfeeding.

The co-founder of the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic and Institute in Toronto also said many women who are unable to breastfeed feel terrible guilt, but he believes too often they have been failed by the medical system.

“Whether every mother can successfully breastfeed is an issue, but in fact most of the mothers who have difficulty with breastfeeding shouldn’t have problems with breastfeeding,” he said. “Most mothers produce plenty of milk and if they got the help and the advice that they should be getting they would not ‘fail.”‘

The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, although a mother can continue to breastfeed along with giving solid foods until the child is two years or more.

Source: The Canadian Press, TORONTO
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmevM3DMQG78F-YAQcLYU4FdwOrg

Science has finally caught up with what mothers have been saying for years: they are super-women with super-powers thanks to an influx of hormones during pregnancy and labour to enable them to cope with the demands of child rearing.

Neuroscientists have discovered that women’s brains are rewired during that period, making them faster, more robust and less stressed than before.

Professor Craig Kinsley, a neuroscientist at the University of Richmond, Virginia, found the lifelong transformation is caused by an influx of hormones, including estrogen and oxytocin, to the brain.

The revolutionary findings could lead to a new world of chemical therapies to transform “bad” mothers or those who are not maternal into “super mums”.

Professor Kinsley said, if females with a deficit of the brain chemical oxytocin can be identified, then “when they are first interacting with the baby you can give them a boost of oxytocin at a critical time”.

Sydney career woman Kim McGee supports the study results.

She said she was never “overly maternal” and had no burning desire to have children. However, two babies later, she has surprised herself at how much more efficient and smarter she has become.

“Even my husband says: `You’re very different’,” Ms McGee said.

“In a way you have more energy as you have two other people who are solely relying on you.”

Ms McGee said caring for two young children was hectic but she had learned to juggle it with full-time work in the finance industry.

“I think that the more women have to do, and the bigger the challenge, the more successful they are at it,” she said.

Professor Kinsley’s research was inspired by his wife’s ability to automatically tackle new tasks with the birth of their daughter. His wife went from being “ambivalent” about children to becoming a “super mum”.

“It was some biological change,” he said.

Laboratory tests on rats showed that the “reservoir of hormones” released enhance a mother’s ability to care for and protect her offspring.

These improvements in behaviour last a lifetime until a woman is in her 80s, he said.

“Our work is showing that, when a female becomes pregnant, her brain is changing dramatically. This is an important developmental period in her life.”

In the experiments, young mother rats showed better maze negotiation skills and memory, and decreased levels of stress and fear.

Professor Kinsley said it suggests the power of motherhood, of how it makes the brain more plastic and flexible, enabling it to respond to the demands of survival.

Dr Karleen Gribble, of the University of Western Sydney, said the influx of oxytocin during labour decreased a woman’s stress levels, making her more responsive to the baby.

“Mothering changes your brain, and part of the way it is changing is via the impact of a hormone like oxytocin,” she said.

Dr Sarah Buckley, who has researched the impact of oxytocin on mothers, said the hormone “reorganised the structure of the brain”.

“A lot of things women do in early parenting such as breastfeeding and holding the baby helps to keep oxytocin being released in a mother’s brains,” Dr Buckley said.

Source: NEWS.com.au, Australia
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23603717-5007185,00.html

Returning to work after maternity leave is one of the most difficult aspects of raising a baby, the results of a new nationwide survey of mothers indicate.

Of those surveyed, 29% cited returning to work after maternity leave as the most difficult aspect of raising a baby, while over half cited it as one of the most difficult aspects.

Not surprisingly, sleep deprivation was found to be the second most difficult aspect of having a baby. Other concerns faced by new parents included worrying about the health of a child and searching for quality childcare.

The results indicated that there are still a number of issues which parents would like to receive further information on. Altogether, 37% of respondents said they would like more information on child development, 30% wanted more information on caring for a sick baby, while 20% wanted more information on weaning.

When it came to the issue of bottle or breastfeeding, an almost equal number of respondents were in favour of each option. A significant number meanwhile opted for a combination approach, suggesting that many mothers no longer feel tied into making an ultimate choice and feel comfortable practising both bottle and breastfeeding.

However when it came to choosing the method of feeding, people with influence, such as healthcare professionals, family and friends, were found to play a large role in the decision making process.

Among those who chose to bottlefeed their child, the most important factor behind the decision was the return to work.

Meanwhile a number of factors were found to influence the decision to breastfeed, the main one being the health and wellbeing of the baby. Some mothers also opted for breastfeeding in the hope of developing a closer bond with their child in the early stages of life.

The survey was conduced by SMA Nutrition in association with Rollercoaster.ie

Source: Irish Health, Ireland
http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=13443

As a young migrant worker, Lei Gailing sought her fortune in China’s fast-industrializing and freewheeling south. She found a steady factory job and a less stable boyfriend, then became pregnant.

That decision carried implications that Ms. Lei never fully anticipated, marking her as something of a social outcast in a country that still strictly controls population growth and makes few concessions to women like her.

Today, at 41, Ms. Lei says she has no regrets, even after facing a life of bitter twists and turns: pretending to be divorced at one point to avoid bringing shame on her son and ultimately marrying a much older man in an effort to obtain the basic identification her boy needed to go to school or receive other social services.

For all this, Ms. Lei, who now lives with the older man in Beijing in what she describes as an abusive relationship, said she would do it all over again for her son. “I look at him today, and know it was worthwhile,” she said, tears forming in her eyes. “He is so lovely, I cannot regret it.”

In a society where until quite recently premarital sex was often punished, the issue of single motherhood has been slow to enter the public arena. But now, a new awareness of the issue is raising questions about the status of women in China, as well as other rights issues like the hukou, or residency permit, a central tool of population control passed down from the Maoist era that restricts movement by linking people to the towns of their birth.

The Chinese government has long maintained that the Communist Party liberated women in 1949 along with the rest of the country. But in an era of rapid modernization, China has lacked anything like a broad current of thought about women’s rights.

“When we argue that a woman owns the uterus, and it’s her right to decide whether to deliver the baby or not, people won’t buy it,” said Yuan Xin, director of psychology at the Consulting Center of Nankai University. “If you are a woman, your personal choice is monitored and supervised by a lot of others, and they expect you to do what everyone else does.”

Official statistics on the number of single mothers are unavailable in China. But with premarital sex now commonplace and women’s earning power growing, particularly in the wealthy cities of the east, experts believe their numbers are rising fast, albeit from a small base.

“This is of great significance,” said Li Ling, a professor of arts and sciences at Beijing Language and Culture University. “It’s hard for me to judge other people’s choices, good or bad, but it means a lot that women are making such decisions on their own, as a matter of choice. In Chinese tradition, women don’t have such rights. We are only the bearers of offspring for our husbands’ families.”

In many ways, Xie Jing, 33, a newspaper reporter in Shanghai, is typical of an emerging generation of single mothers who are professionals and whose choices on child-rearing are eased by their financial security.

Ms. Xie said that she became pregnant while she was engaged, but that her fiancé’s ambivalence over the unexpected news prompted her to set her own course. When her former fiancé asked her, “What is the point of having a child if we are no longer together?” she had a ready answer: raising the child alone.

“My quality of life isn’t so bad, so I don’t want to lower myself to staying with another person just for the sake of being together,” Ms. Xie said. “If that means I have to sacrifice a lot, so be it. But I am in a good situation now with my baby, and I’m not willing to lose it.”

Her son was born two years ago in a partly foreign-owned hospital, where registration of the pregnancy with a neighborhood committee — standard in most of China — was not required. Ms. Xie lives with her parents, who are retired and help take care of her boy. To all but her closest friends, she explains that the father is overseas on a three-year assignment. Her son bears Ms. Xie’s family name, and the father was told that if he did not accept legal responsibility as a parent, he would be kept at bay until the boy turned 18.

Asserting herself in this way was made easier by virtue of Ms. Xie’s residence in Shanghai, a wealthy city by China’s standards with relatively liberal provisions for awarding residency permits. “I checked out Shanghai’s Public Security Bureau’s Web site, and discovered an item indicating children born outside of marriage could apply for hukou,” Ms. Xie said. “The staff was mean to me when I applied, but there were written rules guaranteeing the rights of my child, so there was nothing they could do to prevent me.”

Every province and major city has some leeway in how it applies those rules. But for peasants and working-class mothers without much education, money or standing, choices can seem limited.

Zhong Yu, 23, a music teacher in Chongqing, one of China’s largest cities, said she considered getting an abortion when she recently discovered that she was pregnant. Abortion is legal, widespread and freely available in China, but she could not afford the hospital fees. She hid her situation from her family, and by the time she had saved enough money, she was five months pregnant — too late, she believed, to end the pregnancy safely.

Today Ms. Zhong calls the father, who has no fixed job, a “vagrant” and says she was silly to have become involved with him. “But when I saw my child, I thought no matter how hard my life will be, I will bring him up,” she added.

Ms. Lei, the mother in Beijing, also had few resources and, partly because of that, a difficult path. After returning to her village to give birth, she went to Beijing to look for work and a husband, leaving her son behind with her mother. But fearing he would be taunted as a bastard in the village, she brought him with her to Beijing when he reached school age.

In the capital, Ms. Lei faced new problems. Without a father she could not establish a hukou, or residency permit. In 2006, Ms. Lei described her plight on the Internet, drawing the interest of a Chinese journalist, who wrote about her. Soon afterward, men began contacting her with marriage inquiries.

She agreed to meet one of them one day under a highway overpass. He had described himself as 60, but looked at least 10 years older, she said. The man, a retired and widowed engineer with a mentally disabled son, said he needed an heir to continue his family line, and she needed the help of a man to register her son so he could attend school. Out of their mutual needs came a marriage of convenience.

“He needed a kid and I needed a home,” Ms. Lei said. “My kid needed to go to school, so we pooled together a family. There was no contract of any kind.”

They married, but their hasty pact quickly unraveled. The man balked at registering the boy in his name out of fear he could be breaking the law. Now, Ms. Lei said, he is cold toward her child and mean to her. For now, the boy, Jirong, 7, attends a neighborhood school that has looked the other way over his lack of a residency permit.

“Most people in this situation would have given away their child to others for adoption,” Ms. Lei said. “Almost no one would choose to bring up the child on her own.”

Source: New York Times, United States
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/world/asia/06china.html

The age-old battle between wives and their mothers-in-law is the reason women go through the menopause, researchers have concluded.

The younger women were more single-minded and selfish than their mothers-in-law and the behaviour led to the older women losing the ability to breed eventually.

The evolution of the menopause is thought to have started about 50,000 to 300,000 years ago and took place because it was the female of the species who left home to find a breeding partner.

The daughter-in-law had no blood relatives in the family she moved in with. The only genetic investment she had was with her own children. By contrast, mothers-in-law had to choose between having more children or helping to raise their grandchildren. With food often difficult to find, the mothers-in-law tended to avoid competition with their daughters-in-law and to help with the grandchildren instead.

The evolution of such behaviour led eventually, researchers suggest, to the older women losing the ability to breed. The menopause developed as a means to avoid competition between women.

“When more than one female breeds, every mouth you feed is one less for your own,” said Michael Cant, of the University of Exeter, who carried out the study with Rufus Johnstone, of the University of Cambridge. “One of our unique characteristics is we share food among family members but having another female producing a baby means the offspring are competing for food and helpers for many years.

“If it comes down to a choice between breeding and helping with other children, the younger woman has nothing to gain by helping because she’s not related to anyone in the group. But the older female can help to rear her grandchildren. It gives the young female the advantage. She’s going to breed no matter what.”

Humans are the only primate to have the menopause and it has long been a puzzle to scientists as to why it developed when so many other social animals, such as chimpanzees, meerkats and wild dogs, continue breeding into old age. Even long-lived creatures such as elephants breed into their sixties and baleen whales have been known to give birth in their nineties.

The “grandmother theory” was proposed 50 years ago to argue that women lived well beyond the age of fertility because they were programmed to help with their children’s offspring. The theory has won widespread support but has troubled some researchers who argued that the genetic benefits were too limited when measured against the cost of losing the ability to have children.

The researchers argued in their paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that there is surprisingly little overlap in the ages of motherhood and grandmotherhood.

Such rigidity suggests, said the researchers, that the “fertility schedule” is hard-wired into the genes.

Dr Johnstone said of the study: “It should open up new avenues for research on menopause and fertility in humans and provide new insights into the evolution of menopause in the two other species in which it occurs under natural conditions – killer whales and pilot whales.”

Source: Times Online, UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3656046.ece