Irritating Tide Commercial
Circe
the father is talking about how he had to take care of his baby when the
mother got a stomach flu. He then says, "I couldn't take her anywhere near
her mother", or words to the effect. At the end of the commercial, there he
is, feeding the baby a bottle.
Grrrr! Whatever happened to breastfeeding and antibodies? Sheesh!
--
Be well, Barbara (Julian [7/22/97] and Aurora's [7/19/99] mom)
Jessica Wheelock
annoying as all of the Carnation Good start ones and the other Tide one with
the little boy & his blanket. I have complained to them about both
commercials through there website, http://www.tide.com
Jess
--
.
Circe <xx...@out.out.damned.spam> wrote in message
news:7qk0c9$cv2$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Renee Lester
: Yes, that is the most annoying advertisement ever! Well, at least as
: annoying as all of the Carnation Good start ones and the other Tide one with
: the little boy & his blanket. I have complained to them about both
: commercials through there website, http://www.tide.com
What's annoying about the blanket commercial?
Renee
Norma Anderson
longer still, it is in 4-6 different places in the mall. It shows a
woman about 20 years old holding a baby like a sack of flour, not smiling,
and the baby is crying. The large letters say : "Do you want this kind
of pager?" In small type at the bottom (so small you need to be close up
to read it) it says "Teen pregnancy... blah blah blah.." Now, I am not
promoting teen pregnancy, but the picture does not look like a teen, and is
basically anti child to me. I hate seeing it, and so does my husband.
The whole feeling of it is "babies are bad". Why does society have to be
so anti-child? It turns my stomach.
Norma
Jessica Wheelock wrote in message
<7qk41n$qri$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
:Yes, that is the most annoying advertisement ever! Well, at least as
:annoying as all of the Carnation Good start ones and the other Tide one
with
:the little boy & his blanket. I have complained to them about both
:commercials through there website, http://www.tide.com
:
:Jess
:>
:>
:
:
Kaye Teasley Muth
Circe <xx...@out.out.damned.spam> wrote in message
news:7qk0c9$cv2$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> The other day, I saw a commercial for Tide that really ticked me off. In
it,
> the father is talking about how he had to take care of his baby when the
> mother got a stomach flu. He then says, "I couldn't take her anywhere near
> her mother", or words to the effect. At the end of the commercial, there
he
> is, feeding the baby a bottle.
>
> Grrrr! Whatever happened to breastfeeding and antibodies? Sheesh!
What used to annoy me was trying to find stationery (for thank-you notes)
with a baby theme that didn't have a picture of a bottle or a pacifier
somewhere on them. Or gift-wrap paper for a baby shower. But then, I
guess a picture of the breast doesn't really work either. But why not some
other stereotypical image of babydom, not bottle or pacifier related?
Suggestions?
Kaye
Jessica Wheelock
and doesn't want to be a disciplinarian when she comes home but he toddler
has this blankie which he takes with him every where and basically because
it gets dirty she *knows* she's going to have to make him give it up.....But
then, she finds Tide with bleach or some other such additive which is
supposed to kill all the germs, so the boy can keep his blanket. It's a
really irritating commercial which was obviously written by some advertising
executive that has yet to discover the joys of parenthood and blankies.
--
.
Renee Lester <rle...@gcfn.org> wrote in message
news:7qk565$r...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us...
> Jessica Wheelock (jessica...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Yes, that is the most annoying advertisement ever! Well, at least as
> : annoying as all of the Carnation Good start ones and the other Tide one
with
> : the little boy & his blanket. I have complained to them about both
> : commercials through there website, http://www.tide.com
>
Jessica Wheelock
--
.
Kaye Teasley Muth <kaye...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ea#EgIN9#GA.96@cpmsnbbsa05...
Goraidders
>with a baby theme that didn't have a picture of a bottle or a pacifier
>somewhere on them. Or gift-wrap paper for a baby shower. But then, I
>guess a picture of the breast doesn't really work either. But why not some
>other stereotypical image of babydom, not bottle or pacifier related?
>Suggestions?
>
My husband found the cutest Thank you cards. They have little feet on the
front in gold and the background is a beige. The cutest.
Joan
pacifier and bottle graphic they used when mentioning local baby news.
She apparently said something right because they changed it to blocks
and a rattle!
Joan
Marimar
"Kaye Teasley Muth" <kaye...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> What used to annoy me was trying to find stationery (for thank-you
>notes) with a baby theme that didn't have a picture of a bottle or a
>pacifier somewhere on them. Or gift-wrap paper for a baby shower.
>But then, I guess a picture of the breast doesn't really work either.
>But why not some other stereotypical image of babydom, not bottle or
>pacifier related? Suggestions?
>
>
>
I know what you mean...I have a web page and had very difficult time
finding breastfeeding themed graphics. I did find a few through very
long search sessions.
There are some women that have their reasons for not bf at the breast
but yet do not deprive their children of mm. They
exclusively/occasionally pump and feed by using a bottle...just had to
say something about this option.
--
'''
(0 0)
--oOO----(_)-------- Marimar
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
pk
says she hopes he'll give it up ??????? before the prom or some such -
don't recall readily. Doesn't seem anti-blankets to me. My son not only
carries his blanket around but often refuses to let us at least hold it off
the ground. I worry about germs and stuff on it all the time. Now, I
wouldn't make him give it up, but I do confess to hiding very often so that
he won't take it outside with him.
Jessica Wheelock <jessica...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7qkdsn$jh6$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> I don't know if you've seen it, the mother is saying that she works all
day
> and doesn't want to be a disciplinarian when she comes home but he
toddler
> has this blankie which he takes with him every where and basically
because
> it gets dirty she *knows* she's going to have to make him give it
up.....But
> then, she finds Tide with bleach or some other such additive which is
> supposed to kill all the germs, so the boy can keep his blanket. It's a
> really irritating commercial which was obviously written by some
advertising
> executive that has yet to discover the joys of parenthood and blankies.
>
snip
Kellie Dillon
cute. When I get some extra money I am going to order some. Not the they
are expensive but living on one income you have to set priorities.
Kellie
Kaye Teasley Muth wrote in message ...
>
>Circe <xx...@out.out.damned.spam> wrote in message
>news:7qk0c9$cv2$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
>> The other day, I saw a commercial for Tide that really ticked me off. In
>it,
>> the father is talking about how he had to take care of his baby when the
>> mother got a stomach flu. He then says, "I couldn't take her anywhere
near
>> her mother", or words to the effect. At the end of the commercial, there
>he
>> is, feeding the baby a bottle.
>>
>> Grrrr! Whatever happened to breastfeeding and antibodies? Sheesh!
>
AnWinEsp
>I don't know if you've seen it, the mother is saying that she works all day
>and doesn't want to be a disciplinarian when she comes home but he toddler
>has this blankie which he takes with him every where and basically because
>it gets dirty she *knows* she's going to have to make him give it up.....But
>then, she finds Tide with bleach or some other such additive which is
>supposed to kill all the germs, so the boy can keep his blanket. It's a
>really irritating commercial which was obviously written by some advertising
>executive that has yet to discover the joys of parenthood and blankies.
>
People's writing must have helped. I saw the commercial recently, and it's been
edited. "Discipline" is never mentioned. It was wrong for two reasons: 1}
Discipline has nothing to do with blankies and 2} It implies working parents
don't discipline because they're too tired. The revised commercial is fine.
Anne
e-mail: AnWi...@aol.com
Jessica Wheelock
commercial infers that women who work outside the home are not willing to
discipline their children. I'm probably not explaining it very well, sorry.
Both of the commercials have made me not want to by Tide, that's for
sure.....
--
.
pk <page...@spamlesshousing.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:01bef5a9$42594f60$8b34cf82@pmorton...
> I don't get your point. The kid gets to keep his blanket in the end - mom
> says she hopes he'll give it up ??????? before the prom or some such -
> don't recall readily. Doesn't seem anti-blankets to me. My son not only
> carries his blanket around but often refuses to let us at least hold it
off
> the ground. I worry about germs and stuff on it all the time. Now, I
> wouldn't make him give it up, but I do confess to hiding very often so
that
> he won't take it outside with him.
>
> Jessica Wheelock <jessica...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <7qkdsn$jh6$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> > I don't know if you've seen it, the mother is saying that she works all
> day
> > and doesn't want to be a disciplinarian when she comes home but he
> toddler
> > has this blankie which he takes with him every where and basically
> because
> > it gets dirty she *knows* she's going to have to make him give it
> up.....But
> > then, she finds Tide with bleach or some other such additive which is
> > supposed to kill all the germs, so the boy can keep his blanket. It's a
> > really irritating commercial which was obviously written by some
> advertising
> > executive that has yet to discover the joys of parenthood and blankies.
> >
> snip
Jessica Wheelock
in.
--
.
AnWinEsp <anwi...@aol.com.net> wrote in message
news:19990902094347...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> >
> >I don't know if you've seen it, the mother is saying that she works all
day
> >and doesn't want to be a disciplinarian when she comes home but he
toddler
> >has this blankie which he takes with him every where and basically
because
> >it gets dirty she *knows* she's going to have to make him give it
up.....But
> >then, she finds Tide with bleach or some other such additive which is
> >supposed to kill all the germs, so the boy can keep his blanket. It's a
> >really irritating commercial which was obviously written by some
advertising
> >executive that has yet to discover the joys of parenthood and blankies.
> >
>
Mad
anwi...@aol.com.net (AnWinEsp) wrote:
> >
> >I don't know if you've seen it, the mother is saying that she works all day
> >and doesn't want to be a disciplinarian when she comes home but he toddler
> >has this blankie which he takes with him every where and basically because
> >it gets dirty she *knows* she's going to have to make him give it up.....But
> >then, she finds Tide with bleach or some other such additive which is
> >supposed to kill all the germs, so the boy can keep his blanket. It's a
> >really irritating commercial which was obviously written by some advertising
> >executive that has yet to discover the joys of parenthood and blankies.
> >
>
> People's writing must have helped. I saw the commercial recently, and
it's been
> edited. "Discipline" is never mentioned. It was wrong for two reasons: 1}
> Discipline has nothing to do with blankies and 2} It implies working parents
> don't discipline because they're too tired. The revised commercial is fine.
>
Haven't seen the edited version ... have they cut out the part where his
blankie touches the slimy fish? That has always grossed me out! :p
Madolyn
-------
email me at madolyn a t mediaone d o t net
AnWinEsp
>>
>
>Haven't seen the edited version ... have they cut out the part where his
>blankie touches the slimy fish? That has always grossed me out!
No, I think the fish is still there. :)
Anne
e-mail: AnWi...@aol.com
Jessica Wheelock
throughout mom's illness and the commercial made it sound like she wasn't
supposed to have the baby anywhere near her.
--
.
J. Oliver <oli...@gtelco.net> wrote in message
news:oliverj-0409...@ip93.gtelco.net...
>
> > >> The other day, I saw a commercial for Tide that really ticked me off.
In
> > >it,
> > >> the father is talking about how he had to take care of his baby when
the
> > >> mother got a stomach flu. He then says, "I couldn't take her anywhere
> > near
> > >> her mother", or words to the effect. At the end of the commercial,
there
> > >he
> > >> is, feeding the baby a bottle.
> > >>
> > >> Grrrr! Whatever happened to breastfeeding and antibodies? Sheesh!
>
> Maybe it's pumped breastmilk....if you look closely (yes, really closely)
> you'll notice that the bottle is an Avent brand...promoted heavily by
> breastfeeding moms because the pump that goes with the bottles is really
> good and the nipples are made so that breastfed babies who use the Avent
> bottle/nipple system are less prone to nipple confusion.
>
> --
> Usenet Rule #1
>
> You have the right to remain silent; anything you say will be misquoted
and used against you.
Kbaitchros
>If it is breastmilk than that's even worse! Because bay's should be bf
>throughout mom's illness and the commercial made it sound like she wasn't
>supposed to have the baby anywhere near her.
>
Maybe if they chose an Advent bottle, someone on staff was sensitive to the
issue... but I don't think it's WORSE... that's what ebm is for - Dad's deserve
to feed baby if he wants to!!
--Karen (Baltimore, Md. Mom of daughters Casey, 6 breastfed for 5 months, and
Carly, still nursing at 22 mos)
Jessica Wheelock
about the commercial and what it says to the general public, that a sick mom
shouldn't be near her baby, and so the baby should be bottle fed. That's
all..............
--
.
Kbaitchros <kbait...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990905082143...@ng-da1.aol.com...
Shannon and Mike
> >Subject: Re: Irritating Tide Commercial wrote:
>
> >If it is breastmilk than that's even worse! Because bay's should be bf
> >throughout mom's illness and the commercial made it sound like she wasn't
> >supposed to have the baby anywhere near her.
> >
>
> Maybe if they chose an Advent bottle, someone on staff was sensitive to the
> issue... but I don't think it's WORSE... that's what ebm is for - Dad's deserve
> to feed baby if he wants to!!
Maybe so, but if you're breastfeeding and go out of the way not to have mom nurse
when she's sick, the baby's missing all those antibodies. That's why I'd think
it's a little worse if it's EBM. My kids both got lots of EBM, sometimes from
their dad who just wanted to feed them. But from the way the ad's described, it
sounds like they're saying dad HAS to give EBM, because heaven forbid the baby get
near mom...
--
Shannon
sha...@home.com
remove "nospam" when replying
Shannon and Mike
> In article <37D33994...@home.com>, sha...@nospam.home.com wrote:
> > > Maybe if they chose an Advent bottle, someone on staff was sensitive to the
> > > issue... but I don't think it's WORSE... that's what ebm is for -
> Dad's deserve
> > > to feed baby if he wants to!!
> >
> > Maybe so, but if you're breastfeeding and go out of the way not to have
> mom nurse
> > when she's sick, the baby's missing all those antibodies. That's why
> I'd think
> > it's a little worse if it's EBM. My kids both got lots of EBM, sometimes from
> > their dad who just wanted to feed them. But from the way the ad's
> described, it
> > sounds like they're saying dad HAS to give EBM, because heaven forbid
> the baby get
> > near mom...
>
> not true...baby gets the antibodies if it's EBM....the antibodies just
> don't "disappear" when the EBM gets put in a bottle. The antibodies are
> there whether the milk is gotten from the "source" or from the bottle.
>
True. I worded it poorly. But if the baby's not nursing directly, the mom isn't making
antibodies directly in response to what's in the baby's system. So it doesn't seem like the best
idea to me to have the baby avoid direct nursing for days on end.
Kaye Teasley Muth
Shannon and Mike <sha...@home.com> wrote
>
> True. I worded it poorly. But if the baby's not nursing directly, the
mom isn't making
> antibodies directly in response to what's in the baby's system. So it
doesn't seem like the best
> idea to me to have the baby avoid direct nursing for days on end.
>
Kaye
Jessica Wheelock
going on with baby's health. So even if baby has a cold & mom doesn't will
still produce the antibodies to fight baby's cold. Cool huh?
Jess
--
.
J. Oliver <oli...@gtelco.net> wrote in message
news:oliverj-0609...@ip110.gtelco.net...
>
> > Shannon and Mike <sha...@home.com> wrote
> > >
> > > True. I worded it poorly. But if the baby's not nursing directly,
the
> > mom isn't making
> > > antibodies directly in response to what's in the baby's system.
>
> "Kaye Teasley Muth" <kaye...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Is this true? Mom is making antibodies to Mom's flu, right?
> >
>
> yes, mainly, but there is some evidence that suggests that if the BABY is
> sick and is nursing directly, the mommy's body will produce antibodies to
> fight whatever bug the baby has---the baby then gets these antibodies in
> the milk too.
>
> However, this cannot happen (mommy making antibodies for baby when baby is
> sick) if baby is not nursing directly. In the commercial, the baby is not
> the one sick, and getting the antibodies in the mommies milk (no matter
> the delivery method) for the mommies flu, should have been adequate.
Amanda Reed
irritating commercial.
Amanda
BeckyKouma
I asked my husband what he thought of it. He said he hated it! I thought he
was picking up the breastfeeding issue.
He said,"No, it makes the Dad look like a fumbleing idiot! He acts like he
can't do anything! And what's worse, the Mom is in the other room. It's not
like he couldn't ask her a question."
I hadn't even thought of it like that.
Rebecca
Mommy to Noah, born February 3,1999 (5 weeks early)
To respond take away "nospamno"
Kbaitchros
>What happens is that baby's saliva on mom's nipple lets her body know what's
>going on with baby's health. So even if baby has a cold & mom doesn't will
>still produce the antibodies to fight baby's cold.
Jess, please quote the source for thisinfo. THanks>
Jessica Wheelock
Lawrence. Or Breastfeeding & Human Lactation by Riordan & Auerbach. I
think there's a paper on it with Dr Jack Newman's stuff at www.bflrc.com or
try Ted Greiner's site www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/3156/ (I can't make
any promises about the web sites, but the books have tons of info.)
--
.
Kbaitchros <kbait...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990907053204...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Susan Hochtman
following my posts regarding my efforts to keep breast-feeding in spite of
having dangerously high blood pressure, they know that this is true. However,
this is only a commercial! Might I suggest that anyone who gets their
nutritional and health information from a commercial is looking in the wrong
place?
I in fact did get a stomach flu when my baby was 8 weeks old. My husband was
away for the week on a business trip, and I was so weak I couldn't leave bed.
Diana and I basically spent the whole week in bed, and when she was hungry, I
rolled over and gave her a boob. I only left bed to change her diaper, and that
was quite an effort.
My point is this - in spite of educating myself about breast-feeding and all, I
didn't know until then that it was better for her to breast-feed than not when I
was ill. My pediatrician told me so, when I called her, and of course, she was
correct. I had read various things about antibodies, but I wasn't sure they
were true until I experienced it, and no, Diana did not get sick (although she
must have been bored as hell, laying in bed with mom for a week straight).
When I was better, I ran around telling everyone this amazing story of the
further advantages of breast milk, and no one I told knew about the antibodies
until I told them. They were all as amazed as I was. Therefore, I couldn't
expect some Madison Avenue copywriter to know about this.
I love breast-feeding, and I admit that I kind of look down on mothers who don't
do it. But the fact of the matter is, by the age of four months, only 24% of
mothers are still breast-feeding. Sad, but true. I think the Tide people are
just trying to reach the majority of mothers, who don't breast-feed. It's just
a commercial, after all. We can't expect them to be educated about our own
cause.
Yes, more mothers should do it, but I still believe it is their business and
their decision. I have the advantage of being a stay-at-home mom, and I
breast-feed Diana on demand - sometimes virtually all day, if she wants to, as
I'm sure you all have with your own children. I've decided to make this
commitment, and I think it is the best for my child, but I certainly understand
other mothers not wanting to make that kind of commitment. It saddens me, but I
understand it. I can't blame the Tide people (or the other advertisers
mentioned in this thread) for addressing the realities of the world.
Circe
>Listen, I am as much a breast-feeding advocate as anyone - if anyone has
been
>following my posts regarding my efforts to keep breast-feeding in spite of
>having dangerously high blood pressure, they know that this is true.
However,
>this is only a commercial!
But commercials and television in general are a *major* source of cultural
information. To my mind, this commercial promotes the bottle-feeding
culture. That's why I object to it.
When is enough enough? Aren't you sick of baby bottles on baby clothes,
shower invitations, shower cakes and baby dolls that come with baby
bottles? How will we ever make the shift from 80% bottle-feeding at 6 months
to 80% breastfeeding at 6 months when all the images we see are of babies
getting bottles.
Sorry, but claiming this is only a commercial and I should ignore it gets
right up my nose!
>Might I suggest that anyone who gets their
>nutritional and health information from a commercial is looking in the
wrong
>place?
And might I suggest that businesses have a moral obligation not to
perpetuate misinformation in their advertisements, *particularly* when it
has nothing to do with the product they're selling?
--
Be well, Barbara (Julian [7/22/97] and Aurora's [7/19/99] mom)
"The hardest thing about raising children is that they're not stupid." -- Me
Kaye Teasley Muth
amazed to hear that a nipple can tell by the saliva on it that
a body should produce antibodies. That's one clever nipple.
I would love to hear the medical research that supports such a claim.
Can you be more specific (more than making reference to books I don't
happen to own)? Like what the studies show and how they were
conducted to establish the causation, etc.
Kaye
Jessica Wheelock <jessica...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7r3fqo$t0c$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Jessica Wheelock
happens to be on the nipple with a bf mother/baby combo) that causes a
chemical reaction. Any disease baby may have will be sensed by mom's immune
system and that in turn triggers mom to produce antibodies. Does that make
any more sense? I'll try to find some easier to find references, the books
are my bibles (so to speak) so I generally refer to them.
Also I am not saying baby won't get colds, etc. but if baby does it'll be
milder, etc. (I know we all know that but I gotta cover myself!!!!:) lol)
--
.
Kaye Teasley Muth <kaye...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:O$5RewW##GA.294@cpmsnbbsa05...
Susan Hochtman
> When is enough enough? Aren't you sick of baby bottles on baby clothes,
> shower invitations, shower cakes and baby dolls that come with baby
> bottles?
No, because even though my five-month-old baby has had formula only three times
in her life (2x in the hospital when the neonatal nurses insisted that I was
"starving" her, and I was too inexperienced to know better - now that really
gets up my nose!, and once early on when I didn't have any more milk after a
marathon day and she was sucking, getting nothing, and screaming), she still
uses bottles for expressed breast milk, and, occasionally, water. When I know
we are going someplace I will express a bottle and bring it. It's not that I
have anything against nursing her in public - believe me, I have made every
restaurant in town into a titty bar. It's just that it's easier to let her have
her bottle while I am eating in a restaurant, so that I can enjoy a nice dinner
out, too. I figure that as long as it's EBM, there's no harm in it.
I would never give her formula again. My supply got up quickly after that one
horrendous day, and I haven't fed her any since. I feel like it would be
poisoning her. I say this just to let you know that I, too, feel strongly about
breast-feeding.
> How will we ever make the shift from 80% bottle-feeding at 6 months
> to 80% breastfeeding at 6 months when all the images we see are of babies
> getting bottles.
>
Now, here's where we part ways. Although I feel very strongly about
breast-feeding my baby, and I do feel that mothers who don't are robbing their
children and themselves of something important, I also feel that it's every
mother's individual decision. I can't know what their situation is, and I can't
tell other people what to do. So, no, I don't think we need to make the
"shift." I had no shift to make, because I never considered any other way, and
I think it's every mother's responsibility to make that decision - not mine or
anyone else's to "shift" her.
I don't think the breast-feeding issue is a propaganda issue, and I don't think
people don't choose to breast-feed because of media images. I think there's
enough information out there that everyone now knows that breast is best.
How do I know this? Because, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every non-breast-feeding mother
I've met has said something to the effect of, "I tried to breast-feed, but
couldn't." My husband and I laugh when we hear this, because we know it's bull
(usually). We wonder how the human race managed to survive, with all these
mothers who are unable to breast-feed. If these mothers weren't well aware that
they were doing the wrong thing, they wouldn't feel the need to make up a story.
So, in my opinion, the media have nothing to do with it. I think it's in some
cases laziness, in some cases fear, and, in others, the mothers are just too
busy with other things (other children, work, or whatever) to be able to make
that commitment and stick to it. But whatever my opinion may be, I don't think
I have the right to tell another mother how she should live her life, without
knowing her situation, and walking a mile in her shoes.
My OB-GYN, for instance, worked very hard to be a doctor and build up a
practice. Her work hours enabled her to breast-feed only for a very short time,
before she had to go to work. And I can see by the way her office works, that,
as she said, she would have no time to pump. I can understand that she didn't
want to give up a career she worked very hard for in order to breast-feed. It's
not a choice I would have made, but I'm not her. She did, however, strongly
encourage me to breast-feed for as long as possible, even telling me that it was
more important to breast-feed (right now) than to have a mammogram (which you
can't, while you're breast-feeding). I have to think that she's regretful that
she couldn't take her own advice, and for that, I feel sad for her. She's a
real nice lady.
> And might I suggest that businesses have a moral obligation not to
> perpetuate misinformation in their advertisements, *particularly* when it
> has nothing to do with the product they're selling?
> --
>
Again, I think the Tide people were just dealing with the reality that most
mothers don't breast-feed. Even mothers who do know better often stop after
about four months or so. I know someone who claimed that she breast-fed her
baby for "a long time." When I asked her how long, she said, "Six weeks!" I
almost laughed in her face.
That's the reality, and I don't think the media can or will change it. It's the
way many women are, for whatever reason. I guess I'm just petty enough to feel
superior to them, and know that I'm doing the best for my baby that I can, and
will do so until she's at least 18 months (if I can manage to keep myself
healthy, and keep on my doctors to only give me blood pressure medicine that
allows me to breast-feed). I imagine that I will watch my beautiful baby zip by
them in school in future years, due to the increased brain power she is getting
from my breast milk. Maybe I'm kidding myself, but I can dream, can't I?
By the way, on the topic of commercials... Diana and I went to an audition for a
Carnation Good Start Formula commercial (Diana is signed with a modeling
agency). I was nervous about going to the audition, because I knew that she
wouldn't actually drink the stuff, and I didn't know whether she'd need to, or
whether they'd even allow a breast-fed baby to do a commercial for formula.
Well, I walked into this waiting room, and in there are about 50 mothers with
their babies, and ALL except one of them were breast-feeding them, right in the
room! I thought it was funny, and ironic.
It also proves my point, I think, that the media has nothing to do with it. All
those mothers were there for a formula commercial, and even that didn't convince
them not to breast-feed. They knew better, in spite of media messages.
Circe
>Circe wrote:
>
>> When is enough enough? Aren't you sick of baby bottles on baby clothes,
>> shower invitations, shower cakes and baby dolls that come with baby
>> bottles?
>
>No, because even though my five-month-old baby has had formula only three
and,
>occasionally, water.
<snip>
As it happens, I work outside the home, so my son (and soon, my daughter)
has received plenty of expressed breastmilk in bottles. My point is that our
culture tells us by all these images that a bottle is the default, normal
delivery method of feeding a baby. I really believe that unless and until
the association of babies with bottles diminishes significantly,
bottle-feeding will remain the most common feeding method.
>
>> How will we ever make the shift from 80% bottle-feeding at 6 months
>> to 80% breastfeeding at 6 months when all the images we see are of babies
>> getting bottles.
>>
>Now, here's where we part ways. Although I feel very strongly about
>breast-feeding my baby, and I do feel that mothers who don't are robbing
>their children and themselves of something important, I also feel that it's
>every mother's individual decision. I can't know what their situation is,
>and I can't tell other people what to do. So, no, I don't think we need to
>make the "shift." I had no shift to make, because I never considered any
>other way, and I think it's every mother's responsibility to make that
decision
>- not mine or anyone else's to "shift" her.
>
I agree that it's every mother's decision to make. That said, I still
believe that most women choose what they're most comfortable with. For most
women in the US, that's still bottle-feeding. I happen to be the breastfed
daughter (though only for 20 weeks) of a breastfed mother -- fairly unusual,
given that my mother was born in 1936 and I was born in 1964. For me, the
decision to breastfeed was easy, but I had a lot of familial support for
that decision.
That's not, however, that case for the vast majority of women in my age
group. I have read quite a number of messages in this very newsgroup from
women who have never seen *anyone* breastfeed. Given absolutely no role
models, I think it's quite difficult for such women to buck the trend and
choose to breastfeed. And while I don't think one or two commercials that
show breastfeeding mothers is going to change the universe over night, I
*do* think that if we saw breastfeeding as the normal, default method of
feeding babies in the media, there would ultimately be a shift.
>I don't think the breast-feeding issue is a propaganda issue, and I don't
>think people don't choose to breast-feed because of media images.
Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I do wonder how you think
bottle-feeding became the more common way of feeding babies? Because I'm
pretty certain that media images (advertisements for formula in particular)
had a *lot* to do with it. And if media images don't affect people's
behavior, why do businesses spend billions of dollars each year on
advertising?
>I think there's enough information out there that everyone now knows
>that breast is best.
>
Again, through my newsgroup experience, I think almost everyone pays lip
service to "breast is best", but that most people can't really explain *why*
it's best and, ultimately, don't really believe that there's all that much
difference. It's as if they're comparing Kraft Macaroni and Cheese to the
store brand. "Yes, the name brand is best, but the store brand is perfectly
fine."
>How do I know this? Because, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every non-breast-feeding
>mother I've met has said something to the effect of, "I tried to
breast-feed,
>but couldn't."
And why do you think they couldn't. I don't think this is a laughing matter
at all. I think most women who couldn't breastfeed couldn't because they got
lousy advice from family, friends and even doctors who knew more about
bottlefeeding than breastfeeding. I think they had no role models or
advisors to help them through the tough patches. And I think that, when
everyone else is bottlefeeding (or at least it seems that way), it's *very*
easy to decide you just can't do it and switch to bottles. And again, when
our media reinforces the stereotype of bottle-feeding, it just *adds* to the
subtle pressure to give up breastfeeding.
>My husband and I laugh when we hear this, because we know it's bull
>(usually). We wonder how the human race managed to survive, with all these
>mothers who are unable to breast-feed. If these mothers weren't well aware
>that they were doing the wrong thing, they wouldn't feel the need to make
up
>a story.
>
I've got to tell you that I find this particular paragraph terribly
condescending. Throughout most of human history, virtually everyone was
breastfed. That meant that daughters could rely on their mothers, aunts,
grandmothers, and other mothers in the community for advice and assistance
when they had difficulty. That chain has been broken in modern society. Most
women now can't rely on the older generation or even their peers for support
and good information; and sadly, they often can't even rely on medical
professionals for it.
When women tell you they couldn't breastfeed, it's because *they* believe
it. They believe it because everyone around them told them they couldn't.
Their own senses told them they couldn't and bad information confirmed what
they believed (i.e., if baby feeds every two hours, you don't have enough
milk). I don't believe these women are "making up a story" at all. I just
believe they were victims of the bottle-feeding culture.
>So, in my opinion, the media have nothing to do with it. I think it's in
>some cases laziness, in some cases fear, and, in others, the mothers
>are just too busy with other things (other children, work, or whatever) to
>be able to make that commitment and stick to it.
But where do you think women get the idea that bottlefeeding is easier (so
they do it if they're lazy), more reliable (so they do it they're afraid),
or quicker (so they do it if they're busy)? See, again, I think the media
and the images we see daily have an awful lot to do with our perceptions of
the world. And just as I believe that many young people are influenced to
take up smoking because they see it being portrayed as "cool" in the movies
and other media, I believe that many women are *influenced* choose
bottle-feeding because they see it portrayed as normal, healthy, and easy in
the media. And I think it ought to stop.
>But whatever my opinion may be, I don't think I have the right to tell
>another mother how she should live her life, without
>knowing her situation, and walking a mile in her shoes.
>
Nor do I. But I don't see how getting the media to portray breastfeeding
more often is telling another mother how to live her life.
<snip>
>> And might I suggest that businesses have a moral obligation not to
>> perpetuate misinformation in their advertisements, *particularly* when it
>> has nothing to do with the product they're selling?
>
>Again, I think the Tide people were just dealing with the reality that most
>mothers don't breast-feed.
Ah, the media's cry whenever it's held up to scrutiny: "We reflect reality;
we don't make it." All I can say is I think that's a load of bull. Again, if
the media doesn't affect people's behavior, why do businesses advertise at
all?
>Even mothers who do know better often stop
>after about four months or so. I know someone who claimed that
>she breast-fed her baby for "a long time." When I asked her how long,
>she said, "Six weeks!" I almost laughed in her face.
>
Well, the first 6 weeks *do* seem pretty long, especially the first time
around :->!
>That's the reality, and I don't think the media can or will change it.
The media alone certainly can't change it. But the media in conjunction with
education probably can.
>It's the way many women are, for whatever reason. I guess I'm just petty
>enough to feel superior to them,
I think this *is* petty, though I guess I've had my share of superior
moments. Still, I can't understand why you wouldn't hope for the best for
*every* baby. And if there's anything that might influence women to make
better choices, I don't see why you'd oppose it.
<snip>
>By the way, on the topic of commercials... Diana and I went to an audition
>for a Carnation Good Start Formula commercial (Diana is signed with a
>modeling agency). I was nervous about going to the audition, because I
>knew that she wouldn't actually drink the stuff, and I didn't know whether
>she'd need to, or whether they'd even allow a breast-fed baby to do a
>commercial for formula.
>
Frankly, I'm sort of appalled that you'd consider having your daughter do a
commercial for a product that you wouldn't use. You see, I wouldn't let my
child be used as an image to promote formula. After all, my child (and
yours) didn't become healthy and beautiful on Carnation Good Start, but on
breastmilk, yet using my child's image in a commercial for that formula
implies that my child became that way on their formula.
>Well, I walked into this waiting room, and in there are about 50 mothers
>with their babies, and ALL except one of them were breast-feeding them,
>right in the room! I thought it was funny, and ironic.
>
And I think it's ironic that so many breastfeeding mothers would let their
children's faces hawk formula.
>It also proves my point, I think, that the media has nothing to do with it.
>All those mothers were there for a formula commercial, and even that
>didn't convince them not to breast-feed. They knew better, in spite of
>media messages.
>
Two things cross my mind here. One, I'm willing to bet that most of these
mothers are highly educated and pretty well-off economically. Those two
factors alone mean they're more likely to breastfeed. And two, I don't
believe any of these women were there (including you) because they believed
in or used the product in question; they were there (including you) because
they want to get their children into commercials. (Not saying I disagree
with that or think it's wrong, BTW, only that it doesn't prove anything one
way or another about the affect of the media on women's infant feeding
choices)
D.Chenier
<7r8qmo$k6h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Susan Hochtman wrote in message <37D5E9C1...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >Circe wrote:
> >
> I agree that it's every mother's decision to make. That said, I still
> believe that most women choose what they're most comfortable with. For
most
> women in the US, that's still bottle-feeding. I happen to be the
breastfed
> daughter (though only for 20 weeks) of a breastfed mother -- fairly
unusual,
> given that my mother was born in 1936 and I was born in 1964. For me, the
> decision to breastfeed was easy, but I had a lot of familial support for
> that decision.
>
> That's not, however, that case for the vast majority of women in my age
> group. I have read quite a number of messages in this very newsgroup from
> women who have never seen *anyone* breastfeed. Given absolutely no role
> models, I think it's quite difficult for such women to buck the trend and
> choose to breastfeed. And while I don't think one or two commercials that
> show breastfeeding mothers is going to change the universe over night, I
> *do* think that if we saw breastfeeding as the normal, default method of
> feeding babies in the media, there would ultimately be a shift.
>
In my case I am the bottle-fed daughter of a bottle-fed mother. I was born
in 1956 and, at that time, it wasn't formula that was found in the bottles,
it was carnation milk or "famer's way" milk. My mother only started to use
formula with my younger sister and brother. Even though I had actually seen
a few women breastfeeding before my son was born, most of those women
breastfed only a few weeks (the average was 6 weeks) and most of them were
supplementing. A friend was an extended nurser and I know that she nursed
her youngest for almost 2 years, the others were nursed for 18 months. SHE
was my only example of extended breastfeeding.
When I was having problems nursing my son, the only advice I heard from my
mother and MIL was: wean. Never having breastfed and still full of the
inadequate and wrong information THEY received about nursing, they were
sure that his problems were due to lack of supply. I DID end up weaning
him, very reluctantly, at 8 weeks and lived to regret it. The problem, it
turned out, was caused by undiagnosed thrush. Even if it HAD been
diagnosed, I am so inept at pumping, it is unlikely that I would have
succeeded in pumping enough to keep my supply going until he was done with
the infection.
My point is that with the lack of a role model, especially one in the
family, it was very hard to persevere. Even when the nursing went so well
with my daughter and I just did not bother to wean her, from the time she
was 6 months my extended family was telling me to wean her. Until she was 2
yo, I had full support of my husband in my decision, which helped, a lot.
However, after 2 1/2 years, even dh was starting to question the validity
of nursing such an old child. It was only through support on the internet
that I was able to persevere until she self-weaned last April.
Like you, I think that once breast-feeding is recognized as the normal way
to feed a baby, perception and adherance will change. Right now, it is
still only seen as the best, it is not yet seen as the norm.
> >I don't think the breast-feeding issue is a propaganda issue, and I
don't
> >think people don't choose to breast-feed because of media images.
>
> Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree. But I do wonder how you think
> bottle-feeding became the more common way of feeding babies? Because I'm
> pretty certain that media images (advertisements for formula in
particular)
> had a *lot* to do with it. And if media images don't affect people's
> behavior, why do businesses spend billions of dollars each year on
> advertising?
>
And because formula happened at a time when babies got better odds at
survival. Some doctors and mothers attributed this to formula feeding over
breastfeeding. However, they overlooked the fact that medicine had made
huge progress at that very same time and that babies were surviving because
of these medical innovations. Also, at about the same time, women were
working in factories in lieu of their husbands who were off to war. Then,
in the 50's, everything got a whole lot more "sanitized", with sterile
births in hospital environments and it was the era of "prudishness" where
baring a breast to nurse was considered extremely rude. If you ad to this
the women's lib movement, the fact that women's activity in the workforce
have gradually increased in this century, you have a whole lot of reasons
why breastfeeding decreased drastically and bottle feeding increased.
Furthermore, I think that at the end of the last century and right through
the 60's, breastfeeding was seen as a sign of poverty. The rich used to
have wet-nurses for their babies. And formula, being expensive, would be a
sign of affluence. Therefore, most likely, this was another incentive to
bottle-feed: to appear affluent and to have the freedome to do what you
please, no matter if baby is hungry or not.
> >I think there's enough information out there that everyone now knows
> >that breast is best.
> >
> Again, through my newsgroup experience, I think almost everyone pays lip
> service to "breast is best", but that most people can't really explain
*why*
> it's best and, ultimately, don't really believe that there's all that
much
> difference. It's as if they're comparing Kraft Macaroni and Cheese to the
> store brand. "Yes, the name brand is best, but the store brand is
perfectly
> fine."
>
And, they do not realize that formula feeding is actually quite inferior to
breast. It is one thing to say breast is best, another to say that formula
is inferior. Women still think that formula is only slightly less than
breast and they still associate breast-feeding with nursing a new-born.
> >How do I know this? Because, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every
non-breast-feeding
> >mother I've met has said something to the effect of, "I tried to
> breast-feed,
> >but couldn't."
>
> And why do you think they couldn't. I don't think this is a laughing
matter
> at all. I think most women who couldn't breastfeed couldn't because they
got
> lousy advice from family, friends and even doctors who knew more about
> bottlefeeding than breastfeeding. I think they had no role models or
> advisors to help them through the tough patches. And I think that, when
> everyone else is bottlefeeding (or at least it seems that way), it's
*very*
> easy to decide you just can't do it and switch to bottles. And again,
when
> our media reinforces the stereotype of bottle-feeding, it just *adds* to
the
> subtle pressure to give up breastfeeding.
>
I've heard many a woman say she "couldn't" breastfeed because she didn't
have enough milk. I would then learn that they figured they didn't have
enough milk because they didn't get engorged and they had actually NEVER
attempted to breast feed. Others I know have decided not to nurse because
they wanted to smoke, without actually realizing that while smoking and
breastfeeding is really not the ideal situation, it is still better than
raising a bottle fed baby in a second-hand smoke atmosphere. And most of
those women who claimed the baby rejected the breast, only found this out
because the baby had already been fed several bottles of formula and was
proudly wearing an industrial size pacifier. Severe case of nipple
confusion. And not only the media does this, often doctors are STILL
advising the exhausted moms to supplement through growth spurts.
--
Danielle,
Maman to Marc-Andre - May 22, 1991 and Genevieve - Dec. 18, 1995 and
recently weaned
Writing from Canada
Parent-L Birth secretary
Visit my new web-page, view new pics of the kids, and, please, sign my
guest-book!! http://members.tripod.com/~dchenier/home.html
My ICQ # is 6463692
Canadian Special Education Chat Room -
http://members.tripod.com/~dchenier/canspec.html
&canspec ICQ # 33710657
Jessica Wheelock
I couldn't agree with you more. In our culture we are constantly bombarded
with images of happy little babies guzzling down a bottle of formula as if
that was the natural way to go. We are told that such & such formula is
made to be gentle on tummies, or that it has lots of iron and isn't that
wonderful.
In pediatricians offices we see posters of happy baby's and the formula
company's logo. I heard once that (in the US) the pediatrician that hands
out the most samples of formula in a year gets a free vacation, It wouldn't
surprise me if it were true.
It really makes me so sad...........And the unfortunate thing is, too many
believe the marketing without even a second thought.
Jess
--
.
Circe <xx...@out.out.damned.spam> wrote in message
news:7r8qmo$k6h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
Circe
<01befaf9$7b933c00$5dd8...@DanielleChenier.pwgsc.gc.ca>...
<snip>
>The problem, it
>turned out, was caused by undiagnosed thrush. Even if it HAD been
>diagnosed, I am so inept at pumping, it is unlikely that I would have
>succeeded in pumping enough to keep my supply going until he was done with
>the infection.
>
Just thought I'd point out that it's not necessary to stop nursing when
treating thrush. Thrush must be treated in both mother and baby to prevent
reinfection, but pumping and dumping is definitely *not* necessary. It can,
of course, be really uncomfortable, though!
Miche
(J. Oliver) wrote:
> Maybe it's pumped breastmilk....if you look closely (yes, really closely)
> you'll notice that the bottle is an Avent brand...promoted heavily by
> breastfeeding moms because the pump that goes with the bottles is really
> good
It depends on which pump you mean. If you mean the (manual) Isis, then
yes the pump is great. The Avent mini-electric is a piece of junk.
Oh, and apologies for jumping into an old thread - I've been out of the
country for a week and a half - over 1100 messages to read now!
Miche
--
User Friendly, the coolest cartoon on the Web!
http://www.userfriendly.org
D.Chenier
> >turned out, was caused by undiagnosed thrush. Even if it HAD been
> >diagnosed, I am so inept at pumping, it is unlikely that I would have
> >succeeded in pumping enough to keep my supply going until he was done
with
> >the infection.
> >
>
> Just thought I'd point out that it's not necessary to stop nursing when
> treating thrush. Thrush must be treated in both mother and baby to
prevent
> reinfection, but pumping and dumping is definitely *not* necessary. It
can,
> of course, be really uncomfortable, though!
I didn't stop nursing BECAUSE we had thrush. We stopped because he would
cry hopelessly when trying to nurse. He was our first baby, VERY high needs
and we were simply at the end of our rope. At that time, we were
supplementing, occasionally, in order to releave my intense fatigue,
because he seemed to be going from one growth spurt to another (he went
from 9 lbs 9 at birth to 15 lbs at 3 months). We simply noticed that he
didn't cry as much when he was drinking from a bottle. Also, most likely
due to a poor latch brought on by the pain of the thrush and, probably,
nipple confusion, he was showing signs of not getting enough milk: not as
many diapers, a little bit of lethargy and a little bit of dehydration. We
only found out he had thrush 2 weeks later, when I took him to the doctor's
because he had started refusing the bottle. That's when we learned that he
had thrush and that he probably cried because of the pain in his mouth when
sucking. Of course, sucking on a breast required a lot more effort and
probably caused more pain. By that time, I figured, it was too late to
start re-establishing my supply. At that time, 8 years ago, I had NEVER
heard about relactation.
When I said about pumping even WITH a diagnosis, I was referring to the
possibility that he may have gone on refusing the breast for a while, since
that is, essentially, what he was doing when we weaned him. I was also, I
guess, referring to the possibility of infecting and re-infecting each
other.
Thank you for the clarification, since it will probably, hopefully, prevent
other mothers from early weaning unnecessarily.
Laura or Alan Gabelsberg
society doing what we do (breastfeeding), but I also try to stay open-minded
that not everyone can fit into that mold or wants to. Forgive me for saying
this, it seems like those are rather high expectations for our society. I
wish it could be like that too, but consider the circumstances of the last
50 years. I wouldn't hold it against someone if they make different choices
than I do, but I reserve the right to pity them for what they are
missing. )hehee) just kidding..,...
D.Chenier
<0A4CAD382808CCA9.E12E3F9E...@lp.airnews.net>...
Actually, I think that if the media started treating breastfeeding as the
normal way of feeding a child, there would be a lot more doing it. And it
doesn't have to be intensive or very costly. Just start showing babies
nursing instead of babies with a bottle. Not in all commercial, but at
least in some commercials. Stop presenting formula as the "done" thing.
Start presenting breastfeeding as the "done" thing. And de-emphasise the
"sexual" aspect of the breasts. That's all. And it doesn't have to be
major. Just a little representation will go a long way!!!
Miche
becky...@aol.comNoSpamNo (BeckyKouma) wrote:
> Another point of this commercial-
> I asked my husband what he thought of it. He said he hated it! I thought he
> was picking up the breastfeeding issue.
>
> He said,"No, it makes the Dad look like a fumbleing idiot! He acts like he
> can't do anything! And what's worse, the Mom is in the other room. It's not
> like he couldn't ask her a question."
>
> I hadn't even thought of it like that.
A lot of ads make men look like fumbling idiots who shouldn't be trusted
around children. It's disgusting and sexist.
miche
Anna Evans
D.Chenier <danielle...@pwgsc.gc.ca> writes
>Actually, I think that if the media started treating breastfeeding as the
>normal way of feeding a child, there would be a lot more doing it. And it
>doesn't have to be intensive or very costly. Just start showing babies
>nursing instead of babies with a bottle. Not in all commercial, but at
>least in some commercials. Stop presenting formula as the "done" thing.
>Start presenting breastfeeding as the "done" thing. And de-emphasise the
>"sexual" aspect of the breasts. That's all. And it doesn't have to be
>major. Just a little representation will go a long way!!!
>
>
Danielle, I agree with you! But I have worked in Marketing and helped to
make television commercials. Effectively what would be required to
display this convincingly is an actress who was also the nursing mother
of a young baby and was happy for the baby to be on set whenever
necessary. When you factor in the client's likely desires for 'a face
that fits the product' or 'a 30-40 brunette with a cheeky grin', you
make the casting director's job practically impossible. It's not so
surprising they choose to show bottle-feeding instead. Plus if they were
doing multiple takes (Which they usually do) that baby would have to be
continually hungry, or submit to having its 15 minute feed broken up
into 30 x 30 second nips with 5 minute breaks in between! Which of us
would agree to that for our children?
Of course it might be possible to give the appearance of breastfeeding
using a sleeping baby, and a willing non-nursing actress, but in my
experience, if you put a young baby against a naked breast (Male or
female!) they will try to nurse regardless, and I don't imagine many
actresses are going to go for that (Or mothers, come to that)!
Anyway, I think it is more realistic to expect the media to make efforts
to portray breastfeeding as the norm in real life (News stories, current
affairs, and yes, Sesame Street!) than it is to expect Manufacturers to
make Herculean efforts to use breastfeeding in commercials.
Anna
--
Anna Evans
Mum of Becky, 2, and Lorna, born 23rd August 1999
Reading, UK
http:\\www.keba.demon.co.uk
Jessica Wheelock
While I understand that the logistics of nursing pair on a film set may be
difficult, wouldn't it be just as easy not to show a baby feeding at all?
In media portrayals baby seems to always equal bottle. Why? Why can't the
images be of baby smiling, or laughing or having a bath or any of the 100's
of other things baby's do? These are just rhetorical questions in a bottle
feeding culture, I know. It's just sad and very annoying.
--
.
Anna Evans <an...@keba.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hxspkCAq...@keba.demon.co.uk...
Brian J. & Danette B. Preston
is breastfed, and they imply it heavily, you just see the mom starting
to unbutton her shirt, is a wonderful promo for breast feeding even
though they don't show the baby actually nursing!! D
Jessica Wheelock
easy, natural thing. Why can't we have more like that?! Sigh............
Jess
--
.
Brian J. & Danette B. Preston <bjp...@televar.com> wrote in message
news:37DA80DB...@televar.com...
Susan Hochtman
Sorry for the personal E-mail, but my last several posts to the newsgroup didn't
show up. I don't know why. But here is my response to your last post:
For most women in the US, that's still bottle-feeding.
I guess I must have a different point of view, because where I live (a suburb
of Los Angeles) almost all the mothers I know
breast-feed. And the ones who don't sort of apologize for it.
I happen to be the breastfed
daughter (though only for 20 weeks) of a breastfed mother
Lucky you! My mother wouldn't have dreamed of it.
That's not, however, that case for the vast majority of women in my age
group. I have read quite a number of messages in this very newsgroup from
women who have never seen *anyone* breastfeed.
Where I live, I see mothers breast-feeding all the time - in parks, zoos,
restaurants. My cleaning lady used to bring her baby with
her when she worked for me and breast-fed the baby on her breaks. She carried
her in a sling while she worked.
On July 4, I went to a party, and when Diana got hungry, I asked the people at
the party if they would mind if I sat there and fed
her, and everybody was, like, "Of course not. We all breast-feed our children"
When I felt a little uncomfortable in such an
intimate situation, one of the mothers said, "Come on, let's all support Susan
in her breast-feeding!" And they did. And the fathers
weren't fazed by it either.
But I do wonder how you think bottle-feeding became the more common way of
feeding babies?
Actually, I know the answer to this, because I've done some research. The
formula companies actually paid off the doctors to
encourage the use of formula instead, by giving freebies and other inducements.
They still do. My sister-in-law (an OB) gets all
kinds of "samples" from these companies. After awhile, all doctors told their
patients to bottle-feed - they didn't know any other
way.
This is especially egregious in other countries, where women are told by doctors
that it's the "modern, American" way. Which has
really become a scandal, because in places like Africa, where women want to be
like what they think American women are, they
are actually endangering their children. There is a lack of pure water there,
and babies have started DYING from dysentery and
other diseases caused by impure water used to mix formula!
And why do you think they couldn't.
I don't think they couldn't. I think they CHOSE not to. After all, it is a
huge commitment. In the early weeks, I found that I
couldn't leave Diana for more than a couple of hours at a time. I think many
mothers just don't want to be that attached to a
baby.
In my area, a lactation nurse visits every mother in the hospital, to help her
with breast-feeding. There is also a "baby-line" to
answer questions, and, every day except Sunday, a breast-feeding workshop where
you can take your baby and practice with a
lactation nurse, and work out any problems.
The women I know who didn't are women who I think are lazy in this respect. One
of them, after telling me "she didn't have
enough milk," let it slip in a later conversation that she was really relieved
when her milk dried up. "Thank God for that little pill,"
she said. I think the women make up these stories because most women in my area
do breast-feed, and the ones who don't feel
guilty and embarrassed, and feel like they need to make up an excuse.
Perhaps you and I have different ideas on this topic because of our different
experiences?
I don't think this is a laughing matter at all.
I was laughing because with I thought it was so obviously a lie. All these
women couldn't possibly "not have enough milk," which
is what they usually say.
I think most women who couldn't breastfeed couldn't because they got
lousy advice from family, friends and even doctors who knew more about
bottlefeeding than breastfeeding.
Every doctor in my area encourages breast-feeding, as do all the prepared
childbirth classes. My OB even told me, when she
informed me that I couldn't get a mammogram while I was breast-feeding, that it
was much more important that I breast-feed than
that I get a mammogram right now.
I've got to tell you that I find this particular paragraph terribly
condescending. Throughout most of human history, virtually everyone was
breastfed. That meant that daughters could rely on their mothers, aunts,
grandmothers, and other mothers in the community for advice and assistance
when they had difficulty. That chain has been broken in modern society. Most
women now can't rely on the older generation or even their peers for support
and good information; and sadly, they often can't even rely on medical
professionals for it.
When women tell you they couldn't breastfeed, it's because *they* believe
it.
I will have to disagree on this one. As I said, all my doctors encourage it.
At a recent birthday party for a 2-year-old,
breast-feeding was all that the mothers talked about. We all exchanged war
stories, funny tales, etc. There were questions asked
and answered. At this particular party, there was not one mother who wasn't or
hadn't breast-fed her child. It seems to me that
that's plenty of support, although I agree that it would have been wonderful if
I could have asked my mother about it.
And just as I believe that many young people are influenced to
take up smoking because they see it being portrayed as "cool" in the movies
and other media,
Actually, I started smoking when I was 16 because my best friend encouraged me
and insisted that I do it. I can honestly tell you
that in my case, the media had absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't know
about my friend, though.
I think this *is* petty, though
I admit that - I know when I'm being petty and small. I'm not perfect - I know
that.
Still, I can't understand why you wouldn't hope for the best for
*every* baby.
I do hope for the best for every baby. That's why I get upset with mothers who
make up these stories about not having enough
milk and such. And I do think they are making up stories. I would be happy to
help any mother who needed breast-feeding
advice, and, at least in my area, there are tons of resources to help.
And if there's anything that might influence women to make
better choices, I don't see why you'd oppose it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think women should make their choices
based on the media. They should get educated,
read books, talk to people who have been there.
Frankly, I'm sort of appalled that you'd consider having your daughter do a
commercial for a product that you wouldn't use. You see, I wouldn't let my
child be used as an image to promote formula. After all, my child (and
yours) didn't become healthy and beautiful on Carnation Good Start, but on
breastmilk, yet using my child's image in a commercial for that formula
implies that my child became that way on their formula.
See, now, this is where I'm trying to do the best for MY baby. If she had
booked that commercial, she would have earned
$40,000 or more. That would be a great foundation for her college education,
and for other things that I would like her to have
that I might not be able to afford otherwise. If someone is going to do that
commercial, why shouldn't it be my beautiful Diana?
And I think it's ironic that so many breastfeeding mothers would let their
children's faces hawk formula.
Again, I think these women were trying to do the best for their babies, too.
Some of these women were obviously poor, and
perhaps booking a commercial would be the only way some of them could get to
college.
Two things cross my mind here. One, I'm willing to bet that most of these
mothers are highly educated and pretty well-off economically.
Untrue - as I said above, most of the women were obviously poor. There were a
couple that seemed pretty well-off (though I
don't know how educated they may or may not have been).
And two, I don't believe any of these women were there (including you)
because they believed in or used the product in
question; they were there (including you) because they want to get their
children into commercials.
I'm sure there was some of that (my baby could be a star, etc.). But I know
that I have no particular desire to see my baby on TV
for its own sake. As a matter of fact, as soon as she's old enough to
understand what's going on with these things, I will no longer
pursue this work. My only thought was that while she was little enough that
taking a couple of pictures won't bother her (babies
can only work 20 minutes a day), I would try to do something to ensure a better
future for her than I might otherwise be able to
provide. No matter how I feel about formula, $40,000 is nothing to sneeze at.
Thanks for the interesting and thought-provoking reply.
Best, Susan
CSpero3038
>easy, natural thing.
It seems to me that the formula companies show these idyllic pictures of a
woman breastfeeding. For me, getting started breastfeeding with my premature
daughter was not idyllic, easy, or natural. I think the formula companies
promote this picture of breastfeeding to discourage people that have any
problems -- oh, well, it didn't come easy, I'll have to use formula. Good
things are not always easy.
Christie