Breast feeding mother try to ruin cinema !

taz70

taz70 wrote: »

Well, as pointed out, none of the statistics back this up. Ireland has one of the lowest - if not the lowest - rates of breastfeeding in the world.

I posted three sources that back this up. Try reading them before posting whatever it is that you already happen to believe. In any case, my point was that bottle feeding doesn't need to be "normalised", as it already is normalised. That may not be a good thing, but it is a fact.

taz70 wrote: »

I for one want my kid to have proper nutrition - not inferior substitutes

Nice one. You carry on feeling superior. Meanwhile, people will continue to do what they do. I'm surrounded by people, some of whom were definitely breastfed as babies, some of whom were definitely not. I can't tell the difference, and you couldn't either.

Last but by no means least, spare us the sanctimonious "someone who lost relatives in the Holocaust" guff. It just sounds naff.

implausible

Deleted User wrote: »

I posted three sources that back this up. Try reading them before posting whatever it is that you already happen to believe. In any case, my point was that bottle feeding doesn't need to be "normalised", as it already is normalised. That may not be a good thing, but it is a fact.

The sources you quoted all refer to initiation rates i.e. mothers who were breastfeeding when they left the hospital. One of the studies refers to that rate dropping off to 10% at 6 months - not quite in the 40 and 50% category.

And, yes, you are right - normalisation is a fact. And that is exactly why the breastfeeding mothers objected to a formula company sponsoring a mother and baby event as it hammers home to all mothers how 'normal' formula-feeding is.

implausible

This whole thread has predictably turned into a breast vs bottle debate. Feeding infants is always an emotional issue, but I hate the way anyone who breastfeeds and who talks about the advantages is automatically branded 'militant' or a 'Nazi' (obviously the sign of an argument lost). I don't like people smoking around me or my son and I don't feed him junk food, but no-one has ever accused me of being a militant anti-smoker or being militantly anti-junk food.

The other word that crops up regularly is 'guilt'. Now, perhaps, as mothers, we are preprogrammed to feel this, but if a woman has made an informed choice to formula feed her baby for whatever reason, what has she to feel guilty about? Instead of this logic being applied, breastfeeding mothers are accused of making other mothers feel guilty. Nobody in my immediate circle or family breastfed, but it's not like I went around whipping a boob out with a smug air of superiority about me, berating others for being 'bad mothers'. I believe that breastfeeding is best, but I don't preach at my friends, anymore than they would preach at me for not using a certain brand of nappies.

Here's a thought - what if the cinema viewing was sponsored by a Health Promotion Breastfeeding campaign? I suspect that there would have been a thread started somewhere about mothers being made to feel guilty when they went to the cinema.

CK2010

taz70 wrote: »

I for one want my kid to have proper nutrition - not inferior substitutes - and I despair for the the kiddies who parents think breastfeeding is yukky or they worry about their boobs.

not all people who choose not to breastfeed their child are that flippant about their choice. there are many reasons for choosing not to breast feed and to imply that their reasoning for doing so is as flippant as it being "yukky" is just as bad as people implying that breastfeeding mothers are nazis.

taz70

Deleted User wrote: »

Last but by no means least, spare us the sanctimonious "someone who lost relatives in the Holocaust" guff. It just sounds naff.

Wow. Just wow. I'll be sure to pass that on to my grandmother. She'll be reassured that losing her siblings was just "guff" and "naff". Maybe now she'll be able to just "get over it".

taz70

taz70 wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. I'll be sure to pass that on to my grandmother. She'll be reassured that losing her siblings was just "guff" and "naff". Maybe now she'll be able to just "get over it".

Ah, it was your grandmother who lost relatives in the Holocaust. I thought you said it was you.

My grandmother's husband took a German bullet during the Normandy landings - but she doesn't post on Boards, so the less said about her husband the better, eh?

Allow me to repeat, for the sake of clarity. What you posted sounded naff. By the way, what you posted above sounds just as naff, because the Holocaust has the square root of sod all to do with the point at issue.

deemark wrote: »

The sources you quoted all refer to initiation rates i.e. mothers who were breastfeeding when they left the hospital. One of the studies refers to that rate dropping off to 10% at 6 months - not quite in the 40 and 50% category.

And, yes, you are right - normalisation is a fact. And that is exactly why the breastfeeding mothers objected to a formula company sponsoring a mother and baby event as it hammers home to all mothers how 'normal' formula-feeding is.

It seems, therefore, that we are in agreement. My point was that bottle feeding is a norm in Ireland, therefore it doesn't require "normalisation".

The distinction here is between that which is and that which we wish for - which is why (I suspect) my definition of "normal" is a tad different to others posting on the thread. Ideally, the rate of breast feeding would be higher, and therefore the rate of formula feeding would be lower. But it isn't. If a formula company is sponsoring something, that's their entitlement. If someone wants to ignore that sponsorship and carry on breastfeeding, that's also their entitlement. It's a bit like people who moan about the crap that's on TV, but who don't have the cop on to use the remote and turn the thing off.

iguana

taz70 wrote: »

There might be two options - well, in fact there are more than two options - but the problem is that in many people's minds they are considered equivalent. They clearly are not. Even the World Health Organisation considers formula to be the FOURTH best option for feeding infants.

What are the 2nd and 3rd best options? Are they the pig's and gorilla's milk mentioned further down your post? And which is 2nd and which 3rd?

How Strange

deemark I'd love to see parent/baby or family events sponsored by a breastfeeding promotion and awareness campaign and I don't mean some faux one sponsored by formula companies such as mumslikeus. That would really spark public debate.

Formula feeding is so established in this country that breastfeeding mothers are considered irritating and annoying and very few people question why formula companies are allowed to sponsor baby centric events. If breastfeeding mothers complain words such as nazi are bandied about.

CK2010

How Strange wrote: »

very few people question why formula companies are allowed to sponsor baby centric events. If breastfeeding mothers complain words such as nazi are bandied about.

im not being smart but why shouldn't they?
they are a company that sells a product for babies, they have the money to sponsor the event so why shouldn't they? if it was pampers/huggies nobody would bat an eyelid.
what would the opinion be if it was sponsored by Avent? seeing as their target audience would be both breast and bottle feeders..

implausible

iguana wrote: »

What are the 2nd and 3rd best options? Are they the pig's and gorilla's milk mentioned further down your post? And which is 2nd and which 3rd?

1st - breastmilk
2nd - expressed breastmilk
3rd - breastmilk from another woman
4th - formula

isn't it?

Victor

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

if you're happy with whatever way you're feeding your baby seeing the letters SMA shouldn't really pose a problem should it? So what's the harm in who sponsors it, it's not as if the babies are going to demand formula as soon as they see it

The formula companies are seriously manipulative, so much sothat there are certain legal restrictions on their marketing.

implausible

CK2010 wrote: »

im not being smart but why shouldn't they?
they are a company that sells a product for babies, they have the money to sponsor the event so why shouldn't they? if it was pampers/huggies nobody would bat an eyelid.
what would the opinion be if it was sponsored by Avent? seeing as their target audience would be both breast and bottle feeders..

The EU was serious enough about promoting breastfeeding to restrict formula advertising before 6 months, to ban below-cost selling of formula and to ensure you get no loyalty points etc, but they didn't legislate about sponsorship. You're right - why shouldn't they? They have found a loophole, same as the tobacco, junk food, alcohol and toy companies do.

No problem with Avent - they are not marketing one form of feeding over another.

It amazes me that people find breastfeeding awareness strategies uncomfortable and complain about being made to feel guilty, but have no qualms about being directly marketed to by a multi-national company.

implausible

Victor wrote: »

The formula companies are seriously manipulative, so much sothat there are certain legal restrictions on their marketing.

Slightly off-thread, but did anyone see the episode of the Simpsons this evening - it's the one where Homer claims not to be affected by advertising and then 'decides' to go to Clown School:)

Companies advertise because it works.

CK2010

deemark wrote: »

No problem with Avent - they are not marketing one form of feeding over another.

It amazes me that people find breastfeeding awareness strategies uncomfortable and complain about being made to feel guilty, but have no qualms about being directly marketed to by a multi-national company.

there is no marketing involved in breastfeeding (obviously apart from pumps, creams, etc.), but the actual food product cannot be marketed because its natural, its free, there is nothing to market.

alot of people dont have a problem with breastfeeding awareness strategies, they have problems with the way its enforced- constant pressure within maternity hospitals, and im only speaking from my experience here, but it was very intense when i was pregnant.

taz70

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, it was your grandmother who lost relatives in the Holocaust. I thought you said it was you.

My grandmother's husband took a German bullet during the Normandy landings - but she doesn't post on Boards, so the less said about her husband the better, eh?

Allow me to repeat, for the sake of clarity. What you posted sounded naff. By the way, what you posted above sounds just as naff, because the Holocaust has the square root of sod all to do with the point at issue.

Yes, and these are my relatives too - or am I not related to my grandmother's brothers?

For clarity, as you don't seem to understand my point, using the term "nazi" to describe breastfeeding advocates is pretty stupid. The term has not just historical and political meaning, but is also offensive to those who have family members who experienced the atrocities of the actual nazis. But I guess you'll have another pithy comeback...

iguana

deemark wrote: »

1st - breastmilk
2nd - expressed breastmilk
3rd - breastmilk from another woman
4th - formula

isn't it?

That's what I assumed but when I read on and saw that taz70 wrote that pig and gorilla milk were better than formula I wondered if they were numbers 2 and 3.

How Strange

CK2010 breastfeeding awareness HAS to be enforced in maternity hospitals. Breastfeeding is not just best but it's natures way of feeding an infant. As I said before every mother should be supported and assisted to breastfeed for at least the first days after birth so the baby gets colostrum from it's mother.

In other countries there is no alternative in maternity hospitals. There's no formula brought around a few times a day.

Breastfeeding awareness strategies without support and complete encouragement in hospitals is completely useless.

taz70

iguana wrote: »

That's what I assumed but when I read on and saw that taz70 wrote that pig and gorilla milk were better than formula I wondered if they were numbers 2 and 3.

Well, to be fair I didn't say they were better than formula, just wondered whether we'd be comfortable feeding our babies milk from other animals as easily as we do formula based on cow's milk!! Gorilla and pig were the ones that came to mind - in fact, donkey's milk is the closest to human breastmilk in terms of protein/lactose/fat composition.

I still would think there would be a "gross" factor associated with drinking donkey milk

taz70

taz70 wrote: »

But I guess you'll have another pithy comeback...

If you're over 70, let me know and I'll re-think. Otherwise, you never met these people and you didn't lose them - so stop using your grandmother's loss to score petty political points on a message board.

If your grandmother posts on a thread about how she lost her relatives, I'll respond to that with the respect and sensitivity she deserves, which is a lot more than you're showing her right now.

CK2010 wrote: »

alot of people dont have a problem with breastfeeding awareness strategies, they have problems with the way its enforced- constant pressure within maternity hospitals, and im only speaking from my experience here, but it was very intense when i was pregnant.

It's unfortunate that you had a negative experience. Others have had the opposite negative experience, i.e. of feeling under pressure to use formula. I wonder sometimes if both those negative experiences are symptoms of a bigger issue, which is how much we've medicalised pregnancy and childbirth over the decades. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good has come out of that and childbirth is a lot safer for mothers and babies this way. But on the other hand you have to wonder does this make the experience of pregnancy and birth more depersonalised, and more "medical" than it should be.


Just adding: I see someone else responding to your post by talking about "enforcing" breastfeeding. Nice one, eh? :eek:

CK2010

How Strange wrote: »

CK2010 breastfeeding awareness HAS to be enforced in maternity hospitals. Breastfeeding is not just best but it's natures way of feeding an infant. As I said before every mother should be supported and assisted to breastfeed for at least the first days after birth so the baby gets colostrum from it's mother.

In other countries there is no alternative in maternity hospitals. There's no formula brought around a few times a day.

Breastfeeding awareness strategies without support and complete encouragement in hospitals is completely useless.

yes, it has to be enforced, i know that, but not in the way they currently do. theres is a huge difference between encouragement and bullying. breastfeeding awareness strategies need to be enforced but not not by pressuring people, by making people state multiple times that they've made their decision, by targeting women at their most vulnerable even when they know they've already made an informed decision.
theres support and then theres pressure. and last time i checked SMA never pressured or bullied me. midwives on the other hand..

January

taz70 wrote: »

Yes, and these are my relatives too - or am I not related to my grandmother's brothers?

For clarity, as you don't seem to understand my point, using the term "nazi" to describe breastfeeding advocates is pretty stupid. The term has not just historical and political meaning, but is also offensive to those who have family members who experienced the atrocities of the actual nazis. But I guess you'll have another pithy comeback...

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're over 70, let me know and I'll re-think. Otherwise, you never met these people and you didn't lose them - so stop using your grandmother's loss to score petty political points on a message board.

If your grandmother posts on a thread about how she lost her relatives, I'll respond to that with the respect and sensitivity she deserves, which is a lot more than you're showing her right now.

Oh for God's sake, give it a rest you two, or take it to PM.

Taz70, please realise that the term "nazi" is used a lot on the internet, to describe different types of people... including grammar "nazi's" etc... don't take it to heart...

How Strange

CK2010 breastfeeding awareness, information and training by healthcare professionals is so haphazard and shoddy in this country that some people will say they felt coerced to breastfeed against their wishes and others will say they were just handed formula straight after birth.

Essentially there is no clear strategy. Doctors, midwives, public health nurses don't have adequate training and will often tell mothers that baby isn't performing according to their charts (for formula fed babies) or isn't getting enough so they have to use formula. In the majority of cases it's totally unnecessary otherwise the human race would've died out thousands of years ago.

Mothers are naturally anxious and vulnerable post birth and only want the best for their babies so they believe what these professionals tell
them. Women often say they were bullied or pressurised by implications of not bring a good mother if they don't do what they're told.

It's a fact that formula manufacturers are targeting women in poorer countries which historically had almost 100% breastfeeding rates such as Thailand, Vietnam, parts if Africa (remember the Nestle atrocity). Poorer women with little or no access to clean water are bring aggressively
targeted by formula companies. That's why I don't support formula companies being allowed advertise. Their strategies can be passive and
benign (cinema, baby events, smiles for crumlin) or aggressive but they both serve the same end; to convert women to formula feeding. In poorer countries babies are dying because of these aggressive marketing strategies due to a lack of clean water and because the mothers cannot afford to buy the formula which is given free or very cheaply at first.

How Strange

How Strange wrote: »

(remember the Nestle atrocity).

Jaysus, will I ever forget? For about 3-4 years in the 1980s, I had a list longer than your arm of Nestlé products that weren't allowed into my house.

But I gave up. Have you seen the list of brands they own? :eek:

SMA, as it happens, is part of the Pfizer group. The Farley's brand is owned by Heinz. Let's face it, food of any description is big big business.

How Strange

Another fact; globally one in seven infants are drinking formula produced in Ireland. I'm using my iPhone so can't copy and paste but that's from an Irish Times article on 7th March 2011.

Enterprise Ireland proudly declared in March 2011 that 15% of the worlds formula was produced in Ireland.

This may explain why successive governments have been soft on pharmaceutical formula producing
companies advertising and sponsorship. It also makes you wonder about the presence of free formula in
maternity hospitals.

How Strange

How Strange wrote: »

Another fact; globally one in seven infants are drinking formula produced in Ireland. I'm using my iPhone so can't copy and paste but that's from an Irish Times article on 7th March 2011.

Not the same article, but the same news - plus a bit more.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0715/1224300758842.html

How Strange wrote: »

Enterprise Ireland proudly declared in March 2011 that 15% of the worlds formula was produced in Ireland.

Of course they're proud, as well they might be. The target is 20% of the world market. For a country with something like 0.07% of the world's population, that would be a remarkable achievement - it's remarkable anyway.

And given the issues and risks involved, I'd much rather see Irish food manufacturers supply the raw materials and Irish universities and agencies research improvements to the product. Let's face it, the alternative market leader is probably China, and they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory.

Sittingpretty

@taz70

Thankfully my own self worth doesn't have it's basis in the opinions of those on a message board, otherwise I may take offence to the intimation at my lack of sophistication.

As for suggesting I'm equating breastfeeders to actual nazi-ism? did you read my post? I breastfed my own baby.

My point clearly was that it's not for me or anyone else to shove my ideals down anyone else's throat or to make them feel bad for what is their decision.

That seems to have whizzed over your head As you took one word of my post out of context to ride on the coat tails of someone else's loss. Not exactly brimming with sophistication yourself.

Now, seeing as we are actually on the same side of the fence you tell me the point of squabbling amongst ourselves

Orion

Sittingpretty wrote: »

you tell me the point of squabbling amongst ourselves

There's none. And if the squabbling doesn't stop this thread has a limited lifespan. It's nearly run its course as it is.

monument

Dades wrote: »

Barriers to breastfeeding? From the look of the replies I've received it appears there are no barriers to breastfeeding and shame on anyone who suggests the alternative is not evil. For both my kids my wife was aggressively encouraged to breastfeed (expressed eventually after a lot of tears) so I find this notion of wannabe breastfeeders being oppressed by Big Company somewhat weak.

Big companies spend millions to billions on advertising and marketing.

For example: Coca-Cola spent $2.6 billion on advertising alone in 2006 (the last year they give on their website), that's up more than a billion since 1996. That's before you include anything like their marketing, sales, retail promotion and PR spends.

They spend these amount for nothing? I would find that very strange.

Hobbitfeet

When I read comments by people saying some women just cant breastfeed I wonder what is so different about Irish women? to say Scandinavian women where breastfeeding rates are one of the highest, that means that some of them just cant??
If some women just couldn't do it wouldn't that mean rates would be a lot lower in a say Scandinavia?
In my opinion the only difference in the majority of Irish women (and men, children and teens) is the perception of breastfeeding as being disgusting and shameful. I think the church has had a lot to do with low numbers of breastfeeding and the perception of it being shameful not something you should do in public.

Hannibal Smith

Hobbitfeet wrote: »

When I read comments by people saying some women just cant breastfeed I wonder what is so different about Irish women? to say Scandinavian women where breastfeeding rates are one of the highest, that means that some of them just cant??
If some women just couldn't do it wouldn't that mean rates would be a lot lower in a say Scandinavia?
In my opinion the only difference in the majority of Irish women (and men, children and teens) is the perception of breastfeeding as being disgusting and shameful. I think the church has had a lot to do with low numbers of breastfeeding and the perception of it being shameful not something you should do in public.

I'm one of the ones who couldn't do it, and the church had nothing to do with my inability to do it. I was producing milk, but the boy couldn't latch on. He was 4 weeks early and was no where near ready to be born, but because I had pre-eclampsia he had to face the world a little earlier than he'd have liked. I was stressed about my bp, which wasn't settling, stressed about how he was doing, stressed about my wound and was a little shocked at meeting my little fella at 36 weeks. I tried and tried the breast feeding and at one stage I thought it was working, when the nurse came to me and told me if you look at his throat you'll see he's not actually drinking anything and to be honest that scared the bejaysus out of me, the concept that I thought I was feeding him but I actually wasn't. It just wasn't working. So instead I gave up and decided to go with the bottles, and top it up with expressed milk.

I was more ashamed of not being able to breastfeed than I was about breastfeeding.