Talk:Wet nurse

Midwifery

I don't like the use of "suitable one" in the line "Furthermore, a wet nurse often completes the duties of the midwife, if a suitable one is not found." Perhaps it should simply read read "Some wet nurses are also trained to serve as a midwife during childbirth." Cafe Nervosa | talk 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Deco 02:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether that may be missing the point. Wet nurses are predominantly in developing countries and in fact I expect mostly in the poorest and least developed at that. So I wonder whether many of them have actually trained as a midwife (although it depends what you mean by training I guess). It might be better to say able to serve. And maybe, if necessary since it appears to me that the original writer was indicating normal/proper midwives are preferred of wet nurses which is something your modification appears to be missing Nil Einne 04:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lactation without pregnancy and other queries

I'd really like to see a source on this statement: "Through frequent stimulation of the areolae and nipples, a woman may begin lactating and, therefore, be able to nurse." I find it surprising. Thanks. Derrick Coetzee 01:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Breastfeeding#Lactation without pregnancy. It surprised me too, I can't find any mention of it in any of my texts but one of my girlfriends once started lactating unexpectedly, she called Telehealth and the nurse said that they get a lot of calls about it, but it's normal. Matt 20:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi, I changed the end of a sentence from 'insure an heir' to 'ensure an heir'. October the 25th, 2004. Cheers.

---

I'd also like to see a source on the statement about women getting pregnant and killing their babies soon after birth, just to become wet nurses. Sounds like a complete myth to me... any reliable sources? Especially in light of the further info that women don't need to be become pregnant in order to lactate. 11 Oct 2005.

---

21/10/05 - I changed "inoperative breasts" to "insufficient milk production". I did not think "inoperative breasts" provided sufficient information, and also felt that it was offensive (ie. the implication that women are somehow inoperative if they are unable to sucessfully breastfeed).

---

20/10/06 "Though it is not widely known in developed countries, a woman who has never been pregnant may produce milk. Through frequent stimulation of the areolae and nipples, a woman may begin lactating and, therefore, be able to nurse" Wow, I don't think this is true at all...so correct me if I'm wrong, but someone's been messing with this page oO.

03/04/09 what if you have a baby older than the chil you would like to wet nurse is it ok? are there any medical complications?

---

The idea of an "heir and a spare" is mythology. The fact that Prince Charles had two sons does not somehow prove that he set out to have an "heir and a spare". The concept is nothing more than news media hokum.124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

nursing older people

There are some wet nurses who nurse those who are no longer babies / toddlers. I don't know how old of an age this continues to, but I think some info about it should be added. --Kalmia 06:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Other uses of the term

What about a section that investigates how the term is applied outside of it's text book definition. ie: Washing DC "Wet Nurses" or other common uses of the phrase.

umm... i'm not sure how to change it, but the part about stalin's grand daughter or whoever and the wet nurse union is, i'm pretty sure, complete bull. very clever though. but someone might want to change that. i looked it up and couldn't find anything, so if it turns out to be true,at least cite it.

I spent some time reading and I could find nothing that supported any of the claims about the never-pregnant being able to breastfeed (other than the one linked above, and I'm not convinced) and the total garbage about Stalin's grand-daughter and "wet nurse pimps. Hilarious, yes, truthful, no way. You could have at least run spell-check on the fake union's name.Caligi 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Useful sources

Here a recent New Yorker piece with lots of sources within it, if anyone wants to add bits to our article: [1]. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another recommendation, but I can't vouch for it, not having seen it: "For a mindblowing historical perspective on class, market forces and wet-nursing, I recommend certain chapters of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's "Mother Nature"." BrainyBabe (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"The virtues of cross-nursing and the 'yuk factor'" by Rhonda Shaw in Australian Feminist Studies, Volume 19, Number 45, November 2004 , pp. 287-299(13). Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wet nurse in China

Wet nurses are still common in many developing countries, although the practice poses a risk of infections such as HIV[1]. Following the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, in which contaminated infant formula poisoned thousands of babies, the salaries of wetnurses in the world's most populous country increased dramatically [2] The use of a wetnurse is seen as a status symbol in some parts of modern China [1].

Well, dude. Things need to be existing for a period of time, and then "increse dramatically". And I totally agreed with "The use of a wetnurse is seen as a status symbol", because 1. It is weirdo. 2. It is expensive. 3. No one has done that before, at least for the last 50 years, and until the year 2005.

--Sqchen (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Promotion of formula milk

I've removed the following sentence since I believe it to be completely wrong: In countries like the United Kingdom, that do not observe the above International Code and thus allow penetrative promotion of baby-formula as equal or superior to breast milk, and aggressively market it via product sample distribution through hospital gift-bags, mass-media advertising etc. Put it back if you can confirm precisely which country should be mentioned - it's certainly not the UK. I've also taken out this bit: wet-nursing has been on occasion viewed as child abuse. It needs moving to a more appropriate part of the article. Mister Flash (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Get rid of the Nipple

Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.185.255 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

So Jewish Bible is mythology while Islam is tradition, in piece on wet nurse from Moses. Very interesting piece from antisemitism, it appears it was Justin Raimondo who wrotes that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.140.169 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

African-American slave wet nurses

I'd like to see something about this as least mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.204.131 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Additions under the headline: Renaissance to 20th century

      I would like to add to the existing paragraph under the Renaissance to the 20th century from this :

Wet nursing was reported in France in the time of Louis XIV, the early 17th century. It was commonplace in the British Isles: For years it was a really good job for a woman. In 17th- and 18th-century Britain a woman would earn more money as a wet nurse than her husband could as a laborer. And if you were a royal wet nurse you would be honored for life.[6] Women took in babies for money in Victorian Britain, and nursed them themselves or fed them with whatever was cheapest. This was known as baby-farming; poor care sometimes resulted in high infant death rates. Dr Naomi Baumslag[17] noted legendary wet-nurse Judith Waterford: "In 1831, on her 81st birthday, she could still produce breast milk. In her prime she unfailingly produced two quarts (four pints or 1.9 litres) of breast milk a day."[6] The English wet-nurse in Victorian England was most likely a single woman who previously gave birth to an illegitimate child, and was looking for work in a profession that glorified the single mother.[18] English women tended to work within the home of her employer to take care of her charge, as well as working at hospitals that took in abandoned children. The wet-nurse's own child would likely be sent out to nurse, normally brought up by the bottle, rather than being breastfed. Fildes argues that "In effect, wealthy parents frequently 'bought' the life of their infant for the life of another."[19] Wet-nursing in England decreased in popularity during the mid-19th century due to the writings of medical journalists concerning the undocumented dangers of wet-nursing. Valerie A. Fildes argued that “Britain has been lumped together with the rest of Europe in any discussion of the qualities, terms of employment and conditions of the wet nurse, and particularly the abuses of which she was supposedly guilty.”[20] According to C.H.F. Routh, a medical journalist writing in the late 1850s in England, argued many evils of wet-nursing, such as wet-nurses were more likely to abandon their own children, there was increased mortality for children under the charge of a wet-nurse, and an increased physical and moral risk to a nursed child.[21] While this argument was not founded in any sort of proof, the emotional arguments of medical researchers, coupled with the protests of critics of the practice slowly increased public knowledge and brought wet-nursing into obscurity, replaced by maternal breastfeeding and bottle-feeding.[22]

      to the following:

France: Wet nursing was reported in France in the time of Louis XIV, the early 17th century. In 18th century France, approximately 90 percent of infants were wet nursed, mostly sent away to live with their wet nurses. The high demand for wet nurses coincided with the low wages and high rent prices of this era, which forced many women to have to work soon after childbirth. This forced mothers to have to send their infants away to be breast fed and cared for by wet nurses who struggled even more poor than themselves. With the high demand in wet nurses, the price to hire one increased as the standard of care decreased. This led to many infant deaths. In response, rather than nurse their own children, upper class women turned to the practice of hiring wet nurses to come live with them instead. In entering into their employers home to care for their charges, these wet nurses had to leave their own infants to be nursed and cared for by women far worse off than themselves, and who likely lived at a relatively far distance away. The Bureau of Wet Nurses was created to serve two purposes. It supplied parents with wet nurses, as well as it helped lessen the neglect of charges by controlling the months salary payment to wet nurses. In order to become a wet nurse, women had to meet a few qualifications including a good physical body with a good moral character. Wet nurses were often judged on their age, their health, the number of children they had, as well as their breast shape, breast size, breast texture, nipple shape and nipple size, since all these aspects were believed to affect the quality of a woman’s milk. In 1874, the French government introduced the Roussel Law, which “mandated that every infant placed with a paid guardian outside the parents’ home be registered with the state so that the French government is able to monitor how many children are placed with wet nurses and how many wet nursed children have died.” England: Wet nursing was commonplace in the British Isles: For years, wet-nursing was a well-paid, respectable and popular job for many lower class women in England. In 17th- and 18th-century Britain, a woman would earn more money as a wet nurse than her husband could as a labourer. And if you were a royal wet nurse you would be honoured for life.[6] Women took in babies for money in Victorian Britain, and nursed them themselves or fed them with whatever was cheapest. This was known as baby-farming; poor care sometimes resulted in high infant death rates. Dr Naomi Baumslag[17] noted legendary wet-nurse Judith Waterford: "In 1831, on her 81st birthday, she could still produce breast milk. In her prime she unfailingly produced two quarts (four pints or 1.9 litres) of breast milk a day."[6] It was common for upper class women to hire wet nurses to breastfeed their children. The English wet-nurse in Victorian England was most likely a single woman who previously gave birth to an illegitimate child, and was looking for work in a profession that glorified the single mother.[18] There were two types of wet nurses in Victorian England. There were wet nurses who were on poor relief and struggled to sufficiently provide for themselves or their charges, and then there were professional wet nurses who were well paid and respected. Up until the 19th century, most wet nursed infants were sent far from their families to live with their wet nurse for up to the first three years of their life. As many as 80 percent of wet-nursed babies who lived with their wet nurses, died during infancy, which led to a change living conditions. English women tended to work within the home of her employer to take care of her charge, as well as working at hospitals that took in abandoned children. The wet-nurse's own child would likely be sent out to nurse, normally brought up by the bottle, rather than being breastfed. Fildes argues that "In effect, wealthy parents frequently 'bought' the life of their infant for the life of another."[19] Wet-nursing in England decreased in popularity during the mid-19th century due to the writings of medical journalists concerning the undocumented dangers of wet-nursing. Valerie A. Fildes argued that “Britain has been lumped together with the rest of Europe in any discussion of the qualities, terms of employment and conditions of the wet nurse, and particularly the abuses of which she was supposedly guilty.”[20] According to C.H.F. Routh, a medical journalist writing in the late 1850s in England, argued many evils of wet-nursing, such as wet-nurses were more likely to abandon their own children, there was increased mortality for children under the charge of a wet-nurse, and an increased physical and moral risk to a nursed child.[21] While this argument was not founded in any sort of proof, the emotional arguments of medical researchers, coupled with the protests of critics of the practice slowly increased public knowledge and brought wet-nursing into obscurity, replaced by maternal breastfeeding and bottle-feeding.[22]

United State: Colonists from England had brought with them to North America the practice of wet nursing. Since the arrangement of sending infants away to live with wet nurses was the cause of so many infant deaths, by the 19th century, Americans adopted the practice of having wet nurses live with the employers in order to nurse and care for their charges. This practice consequently raised the death rate for the biological infants of wet nurses. Many employers would have only kept a wet nurse for a few months at a time since it was believed that the quality of a woman’s breast milk would lessen over time. Since there were not any official records kept which pertained to wet nurses or wet nursed children in the United States, we lack the knowledge of precisely how many infants were wet-nursed, for how long they were wet-nursed, whether they lived at home or else where while they wet-nursed, as well as how many wet-nursed babies lived or died. The only evidence which exists, pertaining to wet-nursing in the United States is found in help wanted ads in newspapers, through complaints about wet nurses in magazines, and through medical journals which acted as employment agencies for wet-nurses. In the South United States, it was a very common practice for slaves to become wet nurses to their owner’s children. Some slaves had to leave their own children in order to wet nurse and raise their owner’s child until that child was old enough to attend school, however in some instances, the slaves child and the owner’s child would be raised together in their younger years. In Hospitals: Wet Nurses were often hired to work in hospitals so that they could nurse premature babies, babies who were ill or babies who had been abandoned. During the 18th and 19th centuries, congenital syphilis was a common cause of infant mortality in France. Mercury was used to treat syphilis, however it could not be safely administered to infants. In 1780, began the process of giving mercury to wet nurses who could then transmit the treatment to the infants with syphilis through their milk in the act of breastfeeding.

Kabkzb (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Kabkzb

References

Changes Under the Headline "Reasons"

  I'd like to add the following few changes to the piece written under the headline: Reasons.

There was increased need for wet nurses under circumstances when the rates of, infant abandonment by mothers, and maternal death during childbirth, were high. Some women choose not to breastfeed for social reasons. Many of these women were found to be of the upper class, for them, breastfeeding was considered unfashionable, in the sense that it not only prevented these women from being able to wear the fashionable clothing of their time but it was also thought to ruin their figures. Mother’s also lacked the support of their husbands to breastfeed their children since hiring a wet nurse was less expensive than having to hire someone else to help run the family business and/or take care of the family household duties in their place. Some women chose to hire wet nurses purely to escape from the confining and time consuming chore of breastfeeding. Kabkzb (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Kabkzb

References

I would like to add the following changes under headline Current Attitudes in Developed Countries

Dating back to the Roman times and up until the present day, philosophers and thinkers alike have agreed that the important emotional bond between mother and child is threatened by the presence of a wet nurse. Kabkzb (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Kabkzb

References

Title paragraph

I believe the title paragraph should be edited to give general information first, and then specific information in the lower sections.

The current title paragraph: A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds and cares for another's child. The women exposes her s nipples to the father to check and then if the father approves the nipples then that women is allowed to let their baby suck milk from the woman. It is a ritual in Africa that the father and the wet nurse are left alone for one week and have sex and appease themselves to each other's body and then the father finally declares that the nipples are good enough. In fact the milk is also tasted by the father.[1] Wet nurses are employed when the mother is unable or elects not to nurse the child herself. Wet-nursed children may be known as "milk-siblings", and in some cultures the families are linked by a special relationship of milk kinship. Mothers who nurse each other's babies are engaging in a reciprocal act known as cross-nursing or co-nursing.

What I propose: A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds and cares for another's child. Wet nurses are employed when the mother is unable or elects not to nurse the child herself. Wet-nursed children may be known as "milk-siblings", and in some cultures the families are linked by a special relationship of milk kinship. Mothers who nurse each other's babies are engaging in a reciprocal act known as cross-nursing or co-nursing.

This is because the second through fourth sentences refer to a specific cultural ritual around the practice, rather than the practice itself. 121.44.39.123 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect link

Under the Mythology section, the hyperlink for Nuakea, the Hawaiian goddess of lactation, links to the historical individual named after that goddess rather than the goddess herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.130.99 (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Home as an Idea and a Place

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 15 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katearb0n (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wcubias, Amandaaaaam.

— Assignment last updated by Heinzam (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

TTS audio

@Revirvlkodlaku: regarding my removal of the audio, perhaps I should have been more clear. This is not a human-read audio recording, but rather a text-to-speech that a user uploaded to many articles without gaining consensus first. You can read the relevant WikiProject discussion here. Opencooper (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Mother is unable...

The introduction describes the scenario of a wet nurse being employed 'if the mother is unable to nurse the child herself'. This wording implies that the mother is unable to nurse her child at all. But she may be able to nurse it, just not in sufficient amounts matching the baby's demand. So, what's wrong with adding "sufficiently"? --KnightMove (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that actually makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)