Saturday, June 17, 2006

A NEW TYRANNY FOR MOTHERS COMING

Formula feeding moving towards becoming "child abuse".



Warning: Public health officials have determined that not breast-feeding may be hazardous to your baby's health. There is no black-box label like that affixed to cans of infant formula or tucked into the corner of magazine advertisements, at least not yet. But that is the unambiguous message of a controversial government public health campaign encouraging new mothers to breast-feed for six months to protect their babies from colds, flu, ear infections, diarrhea and even obesity. In April, the World Health Organization, setting new international bench marks for children's growth, for the first time referred to breast-feeding as the biological norm.

"Just like it's risky to smoke during pregnancy, it's risky not to breast-feed after," said Suzanne Haynes, senior scientific adviser to the Office on Women's Health in the Department of Health and Human Services. "The whole notion of talking about risk is new in this field, but it's the only field of public health, except perhaps physical activity, where there is never talk about the risk."

A two-year national breast-feeding awareness campaign that culminated this spring ran television announcements showing a pregnant woman clutching her belly as she was thrown off a mechanical bull during ladies' night at a bar - and compared the behavior to failing to breast-feed. "You wouldn't take risks before your baby's born," the advertisement says. "Why start after?"

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, has proposed requiring warning labels, on cans of infant formula and in advertisements, similar to the those on cigarettes. They would say that the Department of Health and Human services has determined that "breast-feeding is the ideal method of feeding and nurturing infants" or that "breast milk is more beneficial to infants than infant formula."

Child-rearing experts have long pointed to the benefits of breast-feeding. But critics say the new campaign has taken things too far and will make mothers who cannot breast-feed, or choose not to, feel guilty and inadequate. "I desperately wanted to breast-feed," said Karen Petrone, an associate professor of history at University of Kentucky in Lexington. When her two babies failed to gain weight and her pediatrician insisted that she supplement her breast milk with formula, Ms. Petrone said, "I felt so guilty." "I thought I was doing something wrong," she added. "Nobody ever told me that some women just can't produce enough milk."

Moreover, urging women to breast-feed exclusively is a tall order in a country where more than 60 percent of mothers of very young children work, federal law requires large companies to provide only 12 weeks' unpaid maternity leave and lactation leave is unheard of. Only a third of large companies provide a private, secure area where women can express breast milk during the workday, and only 7 percent offer on-site or near-site child care, according to a 2005 national study of employers by the nonprofit Families and Work Institute. "I'm concerned about the guilt that mothers will feel," said Ellen Galinsky, president of the center. "It's hard enough going back to work."

Public health leaders say the weight of the scientific evidence for breast-feeding has grown so overwhelming that it is appropriate to recast their message to make clear that it is risky not to breast-feed.

Ample scientific evidence supports the contention that breast-fed babies are less vulnerable to acute infectious diseases, including respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, experts say. Some studies also suggest that breast-fed babies are at lower risk for sudden infant death syndrome and serious chronic diseases later in life, including asthma, diabetes, leukemia and some forms of lymphoma, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Research on premature babies has even found that those given breast milk scored higher on I.Q. tests than those who were bottle-fed.

The goal of a government health initiative called Healthy People 2010 is to get half of all mothers to continue at least some breast-feeding until a baby is 6 months old. Though about 70 percent of new mothers start breast-feeding right after childbirth, just over a third are breast-feeding at 6 months and fewer than 20 percent are exclusively breast-feeding by that time, according to the 2004 National Immunization Survey. Breast-feeding increases with education, income and age; black women are less likely to breast-feed, while Hispanics have higher breast-feeding rates.

For women, breast-feeding can be an emotionally charged issue, and a very personal one. Even its most ardent supporters acknowledge that they have made sacrifices. "It's a whole lifestyle," said Kymberlie Stefanski, a 34-year-old mother of three from Villa Park, Ill., who has not been apart from her children except for one night when she gave birth. "My life revolves around my kids, basically." Ms. Stefanski quit working when her first child was born almost six years ago, nursed that child until she was 4 years old, and is nursing an infant now. She said she wanted to reduce the risk of breast cancer for herself and for her three daughters, referring to research indicating that extended breast-feeding may reduce the risk for both mother and daughters.

Scientists who study breast milk almost all speak of it in superlatives. Even the International Formula Council, a trade association, acknowledges that breast-feeding "offers specific child and maternal health benefits" and is the "preferred" method of infant feeding. The American Academy of Pediatrics states in its breast-feeding policy that human breast milk is "uniquely superior for infant feeding."

Dr. Haynes, of the Health and Human Services Department, said, "Our message is that breast milk is the gold standard, and anything less than that is inferior." Formula "is not equivalent," she went on, adding, "Formula is not the gold standard. It's so far from it, it's not even close."

More here



A BROWN BRIT CALLS FOR AN END TO BROWN FAVOURITISM

A Dewsbury Asian councillor is calling for the scrapping of two black and Asian organisations which he says are dividing the local community and giving ammunition to the British National Party. Councillor Karam Hussain (Lib Dem - Dewsbury West) says the first to go should be the North Kirklees Black and Asian Police Forum and the Kirklees South Asian Consortium. He would also like to get rid of the Kirklees Racial Equality Council which was partly funded by the government, because he says it is a waste of taxpayers' money. He also wants to launch a campaign to unite the town and put an end to any groups and organisations which might divide the community.

"Groups like this are to blame for the BNP gaining two more seats in the local elections, and I blame the Labour Party because they set them up," he said. "The Labour government have always encouraged this kind of political correctness, and people are fed up. This is why some are turning to the BNP. "People want to know why Asian people are getting this kind of special treatment. But Asian people didn't ask for it. They don't want these organisations. "It's ridiculous to have a community police forum for everyone, and then set up another just for black and Asian people. Why should this be? What purpose does a separate forum serve?

"All this political correctness comes from Westminster, and local people are suffering because of it." "Asian people have been living in this area for more than 50 years and are quite able to look after themselves. They don't want to be treated differently. They feel insulted by these groups. "Like the rest of the community they'd rather see the money spent on getting more police officers, more doctors and nurses, more teachers, rather than on ridiculous forums like these."

Councillor Hussain admitted being bitterly disappointed with the result of the local elections which he felt left the town divided. He said: "We have two wards with three Asian councillors in each - Dewsbury West and Dewsbury South - and one ward with three white councillors - Dewsbury East. This is not representative of the local community. "In Dewsbury West the Lib Dems deliberately chose a white candidate. We'd have won if we'd put up an Asian candidate but we chose a white candidate, who we knew to be the best for the job. "We always ensure we have a white councillor in Dewsbury West. We want what is best for the local community."

Members of organisations criticised by Coun Hussain have hit back, saying the job they do is vital to the local community. Dr KH Khamas, chairman of the Black and Asian Police Forum, said: "There is no truth in this. "This forum is very useful. It has been going for six or seven years. Good work has been done in north and south Kirklees. "I think this forum has brought both communities together. These groups are trying to build love and peace between the two communities. "Some people are against the police forum but most people support it - they support the relationship between the forum and the community."

Jamil Akhtar, acting chief executive of the Kirklees Racial Equality Council, said: "If anybody, regardless of race or colour, feels they are being discriminated against, we help them. We have even dealt with a case from the BNP. "Twenty per cent of our clients are white, and we ran a project entirely for white youths with anti-social behaviour problems. "We are a volunteer organisation and we work with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the local authority to make sure that if anyone feels they are being discriminated against, they can be dealt with. "We work with the whole community to help make Kirklees a nice place to live - for everybody."

Source



Novel program treats women who batter men

Darlene Hilker is an unusual woman. It is not because she was caught up in domestic violence; that's a common crime. Nor is it because she was the abuser; research increasingly reveals that men are often victims of domestic violence. She is unusual because, on a judge's order, the Florida woman became one of the first to be enrolled in the Women Who Batter intervention program run by Domestic Abuse Shelter Homes. The 26-week program is being watched as a potential model for use nationwide.

Hilker's case and how it is being handled reveals a shift in the social dialogue surrounding domestic violence. Men are finally being recognized and taken seriously as domestic violence victims. It is about time. A 2000 National Violence Against Women survey conducted by National Institute of Justice/Centers for Disease Control estimated that 1.5 million women and 835,000 men are battered each year.

The shift also suggests a new danger: men may become the next government-protected group of victims. If so, the politics of victimhood with its demands for class privilege will continue. Victimology as a growth industry for lawyers, social workers, experts and bureaucrats will flourish. If men become the next 'oppressed group,' it will be in the same manner as women did decades ago. In the 1950s, women who had been raped or battered were often further brutalized by a legal system that dismissed them. Women's just cry to have their bodies and rights equally protected by law became distorted by radical feminists who used political correctness and government enforcement to call for privilege instead. Perhaps the most blatant distortion: the crusade for equal access to education and employment turned into affirmative action and quota systems.

The swing in society's reaction to domestic violence was no less dramatic. Domestic violence became the black-and-blue symbol of man's oppression of woman, with domestic violence victims being pre-defined as female. For the last decade, the legislation defining domestic violence has been called the Violence Against Women Act.

Even the men who had been undeniably battered were given short shrift. Donna LeClerc, executive director of Women Who Batter, explains, "there's a lack of equality in the justice system. Women [abusers] serve half of the sentence a man does for the same crime, if she serves time in jail at all."

The media coverage of the Hilker case provides another window into how anti-male even relatively balanced accounts of domestic violence have become. The local NBC2 News coverage quoted Hilker on her rage "building up and just getting to the point where it exploded. You never know when it's going to happen. Something just triggers in your head and you do whatever." In separate coverage of the Women Who Batter program, the Florida Herald Tribune described the 'plight' of batterer 'Mary Smith' (false name). The "seething" Mary suffered verbal abuse from her husband; their 16-month-old son long was allegedly force-fed by him. Then, "finally, when he made another crack about her weight, she took a knife and carved a 17-inch gash in his stomach."

The Herald Tribune quotes LeClerc: "Women, more than men, were more likely to have committed their offense under the influence of drugs or alcohol." Tonine Garbarino, a facilitator with the Women Who Batter program, is reported as saying that abusive females tend to be "reactive and defensive" while abusive males tends to be "proactive and aggressive."

At least two aspects of the foregoing comments are worth comment. First, research into the abuse of intimates by women is in its infancy. Even now, many of feminist-inclined experts -- upon whose 'research' decades of domestic violence policy and law have been built -- only grudgingly admit that abusive women exist. I doubt the possibility of making accurate generalizations about such a freshly exposed and controversial facet of domestic violence.

Second, whether intended or not, the descriptions sound like excuses. The Herald Tribune and those it quotes seem to be saying that women are driven to violence by men and by bad lifestyle choices, whereas men are violent. Indeed, Garbarino comes close to absolving women of responsibility when she states, "There's a nanosecond where the woman says there's a nothingness. She doesn't remember a thing, but all she knows is she's hit someone or cut someone."

I have rarely seen abusive men described so sympathetically. Indeed, even the articles on Women Who Batter vilify abusive men in comparison. Nevertheless, the model program in Florida represents progress, as does its partner program, "Men Entitled to Nurturing." This program began functioning in January with such goals as to assist men who are fleeing abuse. LeClerc notes, "There are no safe havens for men to run to with children. And if a man runs off with his child, it's considered kidnapping. The playing field is stacked against [men]…in this situation."

If the foregoing is progress, what constitutes the end point, the ideal? Ideally, the anti-male bias that first ignored male victims and now treats their abusers with kid gloves will be eliminated. A judge will look at male and female abusers and see no legal difference. Government will get out of the psychology and rehabilitation business that has created "the domestic violence industry" -- a bureaucratic infrastructure of those who make a living off treating victims of, or providing services related to, domestic violence.

Perhaps the bitter lessons of radical feminism will prevail and men's calls for equal treatment will not turn into rage-filled demands for retribution. Perhaps this time, the law will swing toward justice and not so badly overshoot.

Source

No comments: