Room
discussion
Topic Flagged for Deletion
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Patricia
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Aug 09, 2011 04:43AM
I agree in the "normal" world this would have been bizarre. But I think under the conditions they were in, it was understandable. It was comforting and nutritious for him, and there was no society to be wary of.
reply
|
flag
It took me a little while to figure out what he was talking about, but it didn't really bother me all that much. Then again, I did breastfeed one of my girls until she was 3. I am always fascinated by what young kids are thinking, and I felt it was appropriate that Jack would think about "it" the way she wrote about breastfeeding; describing the texture/taste/amount, etc.
My personal feelings aside, I think within the context of this story it was more than appropriate. Perhaps Ma's captor refused to bring them any milk and she felt she had to do something to give her boy the nutrition he needed. Water keeps you alive yes, but we all know the nutritive value and benefits of mother's milk. And since we are being told this story from Jack's POV, it's not surprising that it's mentioned so often - I mean come on, we, as adults, drink liquids more than twice a day. And I'm sure, as Patricia noted, that it provided comfort for Jack. It was after all, the only world he knew. There was no reason for him to think it was odd.
Hmmm....yeah, you're right Laura - they did have milk for cereal. I had forgotten (I read this a while ago).
I'm a little taken aback on a few posts that take a stand ( strong or mild) against breast-feeding.Doctors actually recommend breast-feeding upto 3 yrs and there is no substitute to a mother's milk. In case of Jack,it was more of emotional security that a child feels through an act of breast-feeding. Under the circumstances that He & his mother were in, people device various coping mechanisms, for both of them, breast-feeding was just that.
I think it leant a fair bit of believability to this story, to be honest. To look at the circumstances, I think it was the smartest thing she did to keep him as healthy as possible. It's also a bit silly to say she should have stopped because she has access to milk. It doesn't really compare in terms of nutritional value and has no antibodies unlike breastmilk. If you've never been a mother and/or done no research on breastfeeding then I understand your apprehension. And certainly nursing an ordinary child of his age in the real world is not necessary. But in this extreme situation it was brilliant.
Laura, you need to do some research on attachment theory in psychology. Saying that one person did just fine without any sort of attachment toy/blanket/etc. is like saying there is one person who smoked and didn't get cancer. Different children are different in their comfort needs. I have two kids, one is four and still has an attachment toy, one is one and never did. Both are healthy, well-adjusted kids.As to breastfeeding, here are the World Health Organization's recommendations (exclusively to 6 months, complimentary with other foods to 2 years and beyond): http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeedi...
And honestly, as a parent, I find my toilet-trained 4-year-old MUCH easier than my in-diapers one-year-old. So from a parental point of view your "lazy" comment makes no sense.
Since my child doesn't sleep over at school it won't be an issue. It is not a big deal to leave it at home for daytime activities, including daycare, so school will be no different.
Laura, I don't profess to know any more about you than what you have divulged thus far, but I find your latest posts to be inflammatory and close-minded. You are making assumptions based primarily on *your* feelings - every situation is different after all, and should be addressed with a "one child at a time" approach. I'd be interested in hearing if you yourself have a child.
Even if you don't (ESPECIALLY if you don't), you should perhaps refrain from making blanket statements on how women should feed their children.
I can understand where you are coming from there. I do find myself cringing when I see a young child walking around a store with a soother. But at the same time, I think you need to be careful with how you equate breastfeeding with a problem. I agree that there can be some parents who don't do enough to encourage their children to embrace the world and challenge themselves with new accomplishments. Children of toddler-age are actually in a sensitive period for independence. But at the same time, there is definitely something to readiness for things like toilet training. All I want to say is, just don't be too quick to judge.
I'm surprised at the turn this thread has taken. Let's stick to the book!
Your last sentence, Laura - "once they learn how to exist in society, they shouldn't have anything to worry about" is interesting to me, with regards to the book, especially. Society for Ma and Jack was Room. There was nothing else for them. I think given the circumstances, she did incredibly well raising Jack for 5 years. She sheilded him from the horror of Old Nick and didn't let on that they were captives in this horrible situation. She created a good society for Jack.
Okay your latest comment wasn't written when I posted, so I just wanted to debate that a bit. How exactly was he supposed to be independent? He couldn't get more than a few feet from her! In the 'real world' children have the opportunity to start to socialize with other people a bit, even play in another room. There was no opportunity for this. I think the book really did a good job at looking realistically at the issues of being in this room. I will agree I was put off by a lot of the situations, as you were, but I do think it made sense for the story.
Ok, perhaps this is not a good time for me to continue this conversation. No less than 30 minutes ago, I had to turn away a patient because the doctor had just called over to say "cancel my afternoon, I have an emergency hysterectomy to do" and the patient's husband started yelling about how many strings he had to pull at work just to get the time off for this appt, while the woman stood there with her hand on her hips rolling her eyes.
I finally looked at her point blank and said "if that were YOU on that table having a c-section and a hyster, wouldn't you want the doctor there with YOU?"
They huffed and left the office.
So I'm just a little perturbed.
We have all manner of lazy, irresponsible, stupid girls walking in here to see this high-risk doctor and all I can think is "How selfish they are!"
Perhaps a discussion about babies (whom I feel entirely obligated to defend at this point), is not the way to go. LOL
Have a great day!
Laura wrote: "No, I don't have children. Thank God for free speech, right? Ha, ha ...That whole "one child at a time" approach is crap. Babies are blank slates; you make them your own. You teach them wha..."
Sorry Laura. Free speech for sure, and you are entitled to say the sky is orange if you like. But every child is very different.
Interesting discussions here, whether on the book topic or not. It shows the wide varieties of feelings about breastfeeding. I still think it causes a stir because of the sexual connotations our society places on breasts. Here's the odd part, for me... that I kind of struggled with. The breastfeeding part in the book kind of bothered me, too. Yet I consider myself a strong proponent of breastfeeding and am supportive of moms who choose to continue it for as long as they want... but again, I don't really like to personally SEE it happening after certain ages, because I begin to feel embarassed. I'm affected by the same societal pressures, I guess.
I found myself trying to understand what it was like for the poor mom stuck in that room, feeling so hopeless. How would I have reacted regarding raising my child, including the breastfeeding part? I really have no idea.
I will say this about babies: I strongly disagree that they are blank slates. I have watched several nieces/nephews come into the world and then my own two. ALL of them arrived on day one with a personality all their own. We do our best to guide them and teach them, but they come to us as their own person. That's part of the beauty of miracles of babies. How boring this world would be if we all arrived as blank slates and could be entirely made and formed by our parents. Ick! My siblings and I would have turned out all the same. Thankfully, we are not.
I think Ma and was really bored. Who wouldn't be?
Wow- I am quite shocked to see such anti-breastfeeding opinions from women when it's the most natural thing in the world. I don't have a child either but I am certainly pro breastfeeding when it's possible for the woman to do so and have no problem with breastfeeding in public. Breastfeeding women do not flash their breasts at the public that I have ever seen! They are discreet using their clothing or a muslin to cover themselves.Describing a written passage about breastfeeding as pornographic is one of the saddest things I have heard. I wonder if it that sort of attitude that is leading women away from breastfeeding these days?Just as an FYI- the World Health Organisation recommends that you should breastfeed for a minimum of 6 months and then continue to breastfeed up to 2 years old, with that supplemented by other foods.
As for the novel- it was my impression that Ma was concerned about whether Jack was getting enough nutrients and that was why she supplemented his diet with breastmilk. Also- mostly he slept in the cupboard alone. Sometimes he slept with her as many, many ,many young children do. It's really very common for a small child to spend occasional nights in bed with their parents! I did so myself when I was upset.
Just to clarify - - the WHO 6-months point is for how long to exclusively breastfeed, meaning with no other foods. It then says quite clearly that breastfeeding should continue up to 2 (or beyond), along with other foods added in. It is NOT saying to stop at 6 months.In Canada the the US, the recommended minimum is one year, with the solids starting at 6 months as well. Laura, I wanted to be sure you understood this clearly, in case you one day do have a child. Breastmilk (or formula) should be the main part of their diet up to one year. No doctor would condone stopping earlier.
Victoria (daisyduck) wrote: "Wow- I am quite shocked to see such anti-breastfeeding opinions from women when it's the most natural thing in the world. >snip< Describing a written passage about breastfeeding as pornographic is one of the saddest things I have heard. "I'm with you, Victoria. Tis sad indeed.
Thanks, Victoria and Cheryl. You're both a lot nicer than I would have been had I replied again. ;-)I nursed 4 girls and while I did nurse in public settings I don't think I ever flashed anyone.
And Laura, next time you're in the mall and hungry, please feel free to take your meal into the bathroom.
I took the whole breastfeeding thing as a way for Ma to ensure that Jack was getting nutrients that he needed. Old Nick barely gave them enough food to survive and it wasn't all that healthy - beans, hot dogs from what I remember. He complained about the price of vegetables when Ma asked for free ones. So to me, it was a small thing that she could control in her life that was virtually uncontrollable.As to the comment, someone made about books - they only had a couple - which they had requested for Sunday treat - she couldn't just sit and read/let jack play
I love when non-parents criticize parents. Especially when they are ignorant and rude. I know a lot of people who end up breastfeeding longer than they intend. It's not a big deal. People need to stop sexualizing it.
Ma did it to give her son all the nutrients she could. Everyone knows that the antibodies in breastmilk are important and if you look in 3rd world countries where food is scarce, you'll see people breastfeeding a lot longer than in the US. Room was their 3rd world country where they couldn't get nutritious food.
>>As for breastfeeding, I would NOT do it. It is not natural to me AT ALL<<Our breasts have the capability to produce milk for our babies. That's about as natural as it gets, my dear. I dare say it's the number one reason WHY we have them in the first place just like any other mammal on the face of this earth.
And no one is disdainful of you, Laura, for being a proponent of bottle-feeding. We are, however, appalled at your rude, narrow-minded, blanket statements of how a child should be raised when you yourself have not had any at all.
It would be refreshing if you allowed others their own opinions as easily as we are expected to accept yours.
I like what Maureen said about eating in the bathroom at the mall. Good one, so funny!
"Topic Flagged for Deletion"???? Really???I really hope that this form of censorship is the work of one perturbed vindictive Laura, and not that of Goodreads, which showcases a great many books on this website that were burned for their controversial content once upon a time.
I would guess that the conversation took a nasty turn and that's why it's flagged.
I don't think it should be deleted. The conversation has gotten a bit heated, but I don't think it's out of hand, and I think the points are still worthy of discussion. But I will leave it in the hands of the moderators to decide that.
If you notice, all of Laura's posts are gone. I wonder if she deleted them?
Cheryl wrote: ""Topic Flagged for Deletion"???? Really???I really hope that this form of censorship is the work of one perturbed vindictive Laura, and not that of Goodreads, which showcases a great many books ..."
I agree. It's an emotive subject but I think the tone of the discussion has been fairly civil. There has been no obscenity, personal abuse or libel. Deleting this thread would amount to censorship of the opinions expressed. I don't like the fact that Laura's posts have already been deleted (whether she deleted them herself or they were deleted by moderators) since a lot of the discussion no longer makes sense.
I agree Joan! Although heated, I've read and been part of way worse flame wars than this. I certainly don't think it's worthy of deletion.
I didn't appreciate her talking about my kids and if I whip my boobs out at the playground to feed them. I think many of her comments were completely inappropriate and offensive. I think she probably deleted her own comments. If goodreads did then they would have deleted the thread already.
Well, in either event, I'm glad she's gone.
Honestly to me she just sounded young. I can understand the feelings she expressed coming from someone who understood very little about nursing, and feeding a baby in general. I think she didn't realize all the underlying layers there are to this issue, and didn't know she'd get so much backlash. It is too bad her comments were deleted, as I think other people could have learned something. But now the thread just seems kind of pointless.
Gosh i wish i could have read the deleted comments on this thread!! How is it that you can read a book about kidnapping and years of sexual and mental abuse, and all you get from it is disgust at a mother with limited resources breast feeding her son inorder to give him enough nutrients to survive? i am astonished at how some peoples minds work.
I also came across this post deletions. If monitors want to see members opinions, I don't believe in censorship accept in the case of personal threats against someone's health or life. Otherwise, GR folk have a lot of choice in not following or friending people who upset them. This conversation comes up with newspapers, TV shows and talk radio, too. Nobody is forced to continue with a thread or conversation. People can simply quit reading or listening. Heated conversations are normal sometimes. I know I'm not made of fragile glass! Anyone with a husband/partner/wife or teen children certainly must be made of sterner stuff. Conversations would be incredibly boring if we all agreed endlessly on the same points for 20 comments or more. just my opinion. ; )
I think it is likely that the OP deleted her posts and changed the title. Either because no one was agreeing with her or she may have received some messages to her account from people less civil than the respondents on this thread.
It doesn't make much sense for GR to change the title to 'flagged for deletion' and then leave it up for another 7 months. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have deleted the topic then and there if they felt the need to do so.
Also, it would seem the only reason for deletion would be the OP's views as another poster pointed out there had been no abuse, threats, etc. Although the OP's posts are gone it is still easy to see what the argument was about and deduce some of the OP's comments from the remaining posts (in fact some posts quote her) making that reason somewhat obsolete.
It doesn't make much sense for GR to change the title to 'flagged for deletion' and then leave it up for another 7 months. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have deleted the topic then and there if they felt the need to do so.
Also, it would seem the only reason for deletion would be the OP's views as another poster pointed out there had been no abuse, threats, etc. Although the OP's posts are gone it is still easy to see what the argument was about and deduce some of the OP's comments from the remaining posts (in fact some posts quote her) making that reason somewhat obsolete.
I don't recall if the captor used a condom or not. Cause another reason to breastfeed is to prevent getting pregnant.
What? That is not true...she still could have got pregnant!
Yes, you can get pregnant while breastfeeding, but you have reduced fertility. It's often used as a means of birth control in developing countries."In third world countries, very few people have access to 'western' birth control methods. Breastfeeding is the only method of child spacing most have access to - and it does have a tremendous impact. One study suggests that if all breastfeeding were to stop, there would be a 20-30% increase in the birth rate worldwide within a year. "
http://www.storknet.com/cubbies/breas...
Sorry, my disagreeing with your statement comes from the word prevent. It does not prevent it, it reduces the chance of it occurring , just the same as only having sex during certain dates in your cycle or using certain methods of having sex (trying not to be too graphic)...Not a prevention, it just reduces the odds.
Steph wrote: "Gosh i wish i could have read the deleted comments on this thread!! How is it that you can read a book about kidnapping and years of sexual and mental abuse, and all you get from it is disgust at a..."I totally agree with you.
Steph wrote: "Sorry, my disagreeing with your statement comes from the word prevent. It does not prevent it, it reduces the chance of it occurring , just the same as only having sex during certain dates in your..."You're right, it was the wrong word. :-)
I got pregnant while breastfeeding a 10 month old. ;-)
I don't think she was using it as birth control. From the first chapter she suggests that now Jack's five, perhaps he could go without breastfeeding, but he says no. I don't think she was doing it for herself but for him, just like most of her actions. Jack found comfort, pleasure and security in nursing and why would she deny him that?
On page 9 of the paperback version, it says "Ma takes her pill from the silver pack that has twenty-eight little spaceships..."I took this to mean Old Nick provided her with birth control pills, although I was a bit perplexed about how he was able to get them without a prescription.
I'm sure Jack's mom prolonged her breastfeeding for a number of reasons, but one reason might have been so she would have some nourishment for Jack in case Old Nick stopped bringing food as a means of some kind of perverse punishment. This did happen once in the novel and it seemed like this wasn't the first time.
