Breast is not best, language, guilt and lactivism musings

[patch2006uk]

Vintage, are you reading the same thread as everyone else? Or are you being blinded by your own expectations of what this thread could be?

 

[patch2006uk]

In the future, many of you may be humbled in future preganancies and with future babies and maybe, just maybe, someone will get in your face or you'll read something online how you didn't try hard enough, didn't want it hard enough, and we'll see how confident, guilt and grief free you will be able to be.

Go look at your baby right now. Imagine somebody saying things this awful about your child's life prognosis for future health and ailments.

Isn't it awful went your friends or family insult your breastfeeding? Been tolld your starving your baby? Ha! Try being told you're setting your kid up for cancer, low IQ, skin issues and illness. Let's see whose back is up then.

What, like those of us who had c-sections, and are told by newspapers that our babies are going to be fat and asthmatic? Formula feeding, like a c/section, carries risks that the natural method does not. That's life.

 

[vintage67]

Isn't it awful went your friends or family insult your breastfeeding? Been tolld your starving your baby? Ha! Try being told you're setting your kid up for cancer, low IQ, skin issues and illness. Let's see whose back is up then.

You are making this such a battle between people who use formula and people who breastfeed and frankly it is ridiculous. When you address your post to "you people" I take it you mean people who breastfeed? I have never been disrespectful to anyone for their method of feeding their children nor have I cast judgement, but you seem to be reinforcing a really horrible barrier between people who breastfeed and people who use formula when the majority of people don't see the need for such segregation.

Trying to belittle the insults people receive for breastfeeding by insinuating that it is nowhere near what you have to deal with is ridiculous and unnecessary, it isn't a competition at all and it's hypocritical to expect people to revise their comments when you are belittling their experiences at the same time.

"You people" refers to the people who have recommended psyche evaluations, implied people were influenced by cute pictures on formula cans and the people who agree with those horrible articles.

 

[vintage67]

No one should be insulted for feeding their child.

But a risks based campaign instead of a benefits campaign insults both mothers and children, inflames and degrades mothers and ultimately gives breastfeeders/breastfeeding a bad image by making it seem push and not "natural."

 

[SnuggleMum]

"You people" refers to the people who have recommended psyche evaluations, implied people were influenced by cute pictures on formula cans and the people who agree with those horrible articles.

You are grossly over simplifying. I stand by what I've said about the power of advertising, product placement, the normalisation of formula, and the use of things like cute pictures on formula cans. Research shows these things do influence breastfeeding rates. It isn't an insult. I'm affected by marketing too - all of us are. No one thinks "Oh, I was going to breastfeed but this cute duck makes me want to use formula!" - it is much more complicated (and subtle and manipulative). Billions is spent on marketing, for a reason - it works. I don't think that is an insult - we are affected by everything we see and hear, it is impossible not to be!

 

[patch2006uk]

No one should be insulted for feeding their child.

But a risks based campaign instead of a benefits campaign insults both mothers and children, inflames and degrades mothers and ultimately gives breastfeeders/breastfeeding a bad image by making it seem push and not "natural."

But there are no 'benefits' to doing what's natural. Giving information to people on which to make an informed decision doesn't disempower people.

 

[mia_leacey]

Vintage, I'm really sorry but I have to agree with emma and patch.

What you went through sounds utterly horrific. No one should have to have suffered what you did and I'm really sorry for your pain.

Here's where I'm coming from.

I know that in one city, in one month, the number of women who were breastfeeding when their baby was 10 days old was 141 and at 6-8 weeks that number was 30. (What I don't know is how many women were formula feeding at 10 days.)

It's really difficult because what those statistics don't reveal is WHY any of the 111 stopped breastfeeding, just that they did, but can it possibly be that all of them went through such an ordeal as you did? Of course some of them will have had legitimate medical reasons why they could not continue but perhaps, just perhaps, some of them will have been given some duff information. (and I quote - "Do I have enough milk, my baby is 6 weeks old and feeding crazy?" Mw's reply - "Oh I don't know, why don't you just not feed for 48hours to give your boobs chance to fill up, then express the milk so that you can see how much you're making?")

Drawing a line under that one and going way back to the whole breast isn't best question...
In discussion with my husband he suggested "Choose Breast."
That way there's no value judgement placed on the slogan.
No one would have to choose breast, that would just be the recommendation. No doubt as an idea it will absolutely enrage some and I'm not sure how I feel about it myself as yet really. Just putting it out there.

 

[xemmax]

No one should be insulted for feeding their child.

But a risks based campaign instead of a benefits campaign insults both mothers and children, inflames and degrades mothers and ultimately gives breastfeeders/breastfeeding a bad image by making it seem push and not "natural."

I don't see how it insults children or mothers and I don't see how it makes breastfeeding seem unnatural. Surely as breastfeeding is natural and biologically normal then it should be the basis of which substitutes can be compared against, discussed in terms of the effects (be them positive or negative, risks or benefits) of using them, not of the effects of using the biological norm? By discussing the benefits of breastfeeding it implies that formula is the norm, which isn't the case. I am really interested in this and support the view that breastfeeding should be marketed differently but that doesn't mean that I have any negative views on formula or mothers who use it out of choice or necessity, not at all. I certainly don't think it should be limited or made less available or judge anyone in any way for using it but I strongly believe that low breastfeeding rates are largely due to the normalisation of formula and I think this could be changed.

 

[vintage67]

Mia, I have no problem with a campaigns to promote breastfeeding.

I do have a serious problem with a campaign that would bully someone into breastfeeding by making "threats" agains their children, which is what a risk based campaign does. It leaves a mother nowhere to go. There isn't that much donor milk available and if Dr. Sears and the LLL have their way and everyone breastfeeds into primary school, there will be even less.

You can give all the information you want, but life takes turns sometimes that "information" can't fix and I don't see why we have to make a formula feeding mom seem reckless and irresponsible.

 

[SnuggleMum]

Mia, I have no problem with a campaigns to promote breastfeeding.

I do have a serious problem with a campaign that would bully someone into breastfeeding by making "threats" agains their children, which is what a risk based campaign does. It leaves a mother nowhere to go. There isn't that much donor milk available and if Dr. Sears and the LLL have their way and everyone breastfeeds into primary school, there will be even less.

You can give all the information you want, but life takes turns sometimes that "information" can't fix and I don't see why we have to make a formula feeding mom seem reckless and irresponsible.

I find that really objectionable. LLL is a support organisation, and the only aim of a LLL Leader is to help women have a breastfeeding journey they are comfortable with.

 

[patch2006uk]

'Choose breast' has a bit too much of the feel of an instruction. I'd worry some would decide not to BF in a sort of silent protest to being 'told' what to do.

I personally think initially there should be an 'Every feed counts' type message. Something that highlights that colostrum is basically a baby's immune system in liquid form. If women only latched their babies on once or twice, there would still be an overall improvement in infant health. It could also be used for extended BFing too, as 'every' feed counts, whether the child is 1 day, 1 month, 1 year or older.

Vintage - I don't understand why you feel so much guilt. You freely admit you tried everything available to you - pumping, herbs, LCs. You also have underlying medical issues known to cause supply issues. Add to that the infection you got after your second, and I think anyone would say you tried more then most would be prepared to to try and breastfeed. If anyone deserved to succeed based on effort, it sounds like it was you. And yet, for whatever reason, it wasn't to be.

Yes, it must be hard to feel confronted with positive breastfeeding messages, but surely you know you did all you could for your babies? Why all the guilt?

And I don't think anyone here has said that there are no genuine, valid reasons for not BFing. Some problems just can't be overcome. But most can. And women who want to breastfeed should get the support that they deserve in order to achieve their personal goals, be that 1 feed, or years of feeding, and everything in between.

 

[patch2006uk]

Mia, I have no problem with a campaigns to promote breastfeeding.

I do have a serious problem with a campaign that would bully someone into breastfeeding by making "threats" agains their children, which is what a risk based campaign does. It leaves a mother nowhere to go. There isn't that much donor milk available and if Dr. Sears and the LLL have their way and everyone breastfeeds into primary school, there will be even less.

You can give all the information you want, but life takes turns sometimes that "information" can't fix and I don't see why we have to make a formula feeding mom seem reckless and irresponsible.

No, no it isn't. No one is suggesting a campaign that says 'breastfeed or your baby will definitely get sick'. All we're saying is that it'd be nice if it was acknowledged that breastfeeding isn't a weird, hippy way of feeding a baby, and that substitutes are held up for comparison against the biological norm. Like you wouldn't want to know the benefits of eating real food against taking a diet pill, you'd want to know the potential risks of the pill. It's just having the science and the language the right way up.

Oh yes, and evil Dr Sears, wanting babies to be fed and loved

 

[mia_leacey]

I very much like 'Every feed counts'
But surely we have to get away from the value judgements imposed by 'Breast is best.'

 

[xemmax]

Mia, I have no problem with a campaigns to promote breastfeeding.

I do have a serious problem with a campaign that would bully someone into breastfeeding by making "threats" agains their children, which is what a risk based campaign does. It leaves a mother nowhere to go. There isn't that much donor milk available and if Dr. Sears and the LLL have their way and everyone breastfeeds into primary school, there will be even less.

You can give all the information you want, but life takes turns sometimes that "information" can't fix and I don't see why we have to make a formula feeding mom seem reckless and irresponsible.

Sorry - didn't understand this bit. Why would there be less if people did breastfeed into primary school?

 

[patch2006uk]

I very much like 'Every feed counts'
But surely we have to get away from the value judgements imposed by 'Breast is best.'

Absolutely.

This is where I'm struggling with Vintage's points - surely 'breast is best' implies that formula feeders aren't doing what's best for their children. Surely that's as much a guilt trip, if you read into things like that, as anything else would be?

I don't like breastmilk being called 'liquid gold' either. I understand it a little more than some phrases - especially pumped milk, which can literally take blood, sweat and tears to get hold of - but it again implies that breastmilk is something super special. I dunno. It's not a name I'd choose to call milk.

 

[patch2006uk]

Mia, I have no problem with a campaigns to promote breastfeeding.

I do have a serious problem with a campaign that would bully someone into breastfeeding by making "threats" agains their children, which is what a risk based campaign does. It leaves a mother nowhere to go. There isn't that much donor milk available and if Dr. Sears and the LLL have their way and everyone breastfeeds into primary school, there will be even less.

You can give all the information you want, but life takes turns sometimes that "information" can't fix and I don't see why we have to make a formula feeding mom seem reckless and irresponsible.

Sorry - didn't understand this bit. Why would there be less if people did breastfeed into primary school?

That's a good point. Surely, in the world of donor milk, the bigger the pool of potential donors, regardless of the age of the children, the more milk there will be?

 

[patch2006uk]

I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment.

To those saying 'it's the woman's choice whether she BFs or not', what about the baby's choice? Surely, as babies are born with the urge and ability to latch and feed (except in cases where there's a medical problem), then their biology is telling them to breastfeed. Surely the body that breastfeeding or not affects the most is that of the child? The woman has already sacrificed her body to carry the pregnancy to term, what's another few months of milk production?

Would, say, the ECHR or similar uphold a law that said babies deserve breastmilk?

 

[DLA]

I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment.

To those saying 'it's the woman's choice whether she BFs or not', what about the baby's choice? Surely, as babies are born with the urge and ability to latch and feed (except in cases where there's a medical problem), then their biology is telling them to breastfeed. Surely the body that breastfeeding or not affects the most is that of the child? The woman has already sacrificed her body to carry the pregnancy to term, what's another few months of milk production?

Would, say, the ECHR or similar uphold a law that said babies deserve breastmilk?

Well in that case I would say that the mother's right to choose not to BF, but FF instead outweighs the "baby's choice", as the baby will still be properly fed, nourished, cared for. If it were some odd, hypothetical situation where there was no formula and the mother had to BF or the baby would starve, then I would say the babys choice outweighs the mother's choice. In the first scenario it's not necessary to BF for the baby to be healthy.

 

[patch2006uk]

I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment.

To those saying 'it's the woman's choice whether she BFs or not', what about the baby's choice? Surely, as babies are born with the urge and ability to latch and feed (except in cases where there's a medical problem), then their biology is telling them to breastfeed. Surely the body that breastfeeding or not affects the most is that of the child? The woman has already sacrificed her body to carry the pregnancy to term, what's another few months of milk production?

Would, say, the ECHR or similar uphold a law that said babies deserve breastmilk?

Well in that case I would say that the mother's right to choose not to BF, but FF instead outweighs the "baby's choice", as the baby will still be properly fed, nourished, cared for. If it were some odd, hypothetical situation where there was no formula and the mother had to BF or the baby would starve, then I would say the babys choice outweighs the mother's choice. In the first scenario it's not necessary to BF for the baby to be healthy.

That makes sense. But how about in countries where formula fed babies aren't adequately fed. Where formula is expensive and conditions are unsanitary, and many many babies die? Would it be ethical to 'force' a woman in that situation?

And how about if any baby has an underlying condition that breastfeeding could help with, say an autoimmune disease, or a digestive condition? Could their moms be forced into breastfeeding?

I'm not saying I think this should happen, btw, but I believe that by debating the extremes you often find what you really believe in

 

[Missy86]

I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment.

To those saying 'it's the woman's choice whether she BFs or not', what about the baby's choice? Surely, as babies are born with the urge and ability to latch and feed (except in cases where there's a medical problem), then their biology is telling them to breastfeed. Surely the body that breastfeeding or not affects the most is that of the child? The woman has already sacrificed her body to carry the pregnancy to term, what's another few months of milk production?

Would, say, the ECHR or similar uphold a law that said babies deserve breastmilk?

Its an interesting point, my only defence is that bf hurt me so much more than pregnancy did. Emotionally and physically.

But maybe if there was such a law women who bf successfully would be forced to donate milk