"Proud Formula Feeder"?
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 12-14-2006 - 8:27pm |
In my playgroup, I've noticed some members have a blinkie I haven't seen before: "Proud Formula Feeder". In the past, I've seen the "Formula Feeding Mom" and "It's formula, not rat poison", but this new one struck me as odd. I can understand simply stating that you formula feed or saying that formula isn't rat poison (because it isn't), but I've been trying to figure out just why someone would be "proud" to FF.
While I don't think that women should necessarily feel guilty about not BF, I don't get what about FF there is to be proud about. Most (or maybe even all) of the women with said blinkie acknowledge that breastmilk is better, so why would they be proud to feed their babies something they know is substandard, even if they couldn't BF and FF was their only choice? What do you ladies think? Is/should there be such a thing as FF pride?



Pages
Sometimes, yeah.
But if we go back to the notions that moms who don't follow a strict diet won't make "good" breastmilk, and we counter with,
Cathie
<>
Yes, I totally agree. When I considered weaning DD, I was all concerned about the affects that the medication would have on her; I totally overlooked the fact that not breastfeeding period would also have risks. I think, however, that we tend to downplay the risks associated with FF to an extreme that we don't do with breastfeeding.
For the most part, I don't think people even realize there are risks to not breastfeeding.
"Perhaps IRL, but in a forum like this, there is no way to "hear" a person's tone. I've been posting here long enough to have a "feel" for cybersteph's posts and I didn't take what she said to be any kind of slams against FFers in general. What I assumed she meant (and please correct me if I'm wrong Steph) was that when this topic is debated here, many FFers (not all) will get really upset when confronted with the facts about formula and many many many of them leave. Sometimes it's because they don't like the way other posters come across. Sometimes it's because they "can't handle the truth!""
I guess I'm assuming that the attitude isn't in a vaccum. That (maybe not cybersteph personally) some people have that perception/feeling towards ffers and it is not limited to a debate board. I also said *if* that is indicative of her attitude, she would have a hard time hiding it here, on other boards, or IRL. Sorry for the mix up.
I guess I was just trying to point out that sometimes we don't have to come right out and say something for the message to come shining through anyway.
"IRL, I would agree. However, THIS is a debate board where you are addressing people who often have the opposite POV and quite often, you have to use extreme examples to (hopefully) have the other party even consider your POV."
True enough, but remember the topic of this thread? I know we've gone off on many different tangents but the question was why might someone feel it necessary to claim to be "proud" of ffing. I think part of why that is, is the overuse of these kinds of extreme examples, they certainly aren't limited debate boards. They exist on other boards, other websites, and IRL. Sure sometimes extreme examples are necessary, but it would be nice if they were saved for the extreme cases. They aren't.
The breastfeeding + medication point is another good example. Several times moms have said they don't feel comfortable exposing their infant to medications so they FFeed. They don't consider formula "risks" into the equation. I actually wonder how many moms would switch if their Dr gave them that concerned look and started rambling off potential side effects and then started saying that there are still long term studies that need to be done and asked the mom how long she planned to feed this "yet-to-be proven" product to her child. (My dr did this when I went on a medication that is approved by Hale's while nursing my toddler)
Any way, just a thought.
Melissa
>>Well, I'm just gonna join the Judgemental Breastfeeder's Club along with Steph b/c I get this image in my brain, too, when ff'ers start sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling LA LA LA LA LA in response to facts about formula.<<
And I'll say the same thing to you that I said to her. You would have to be a pretty good actress to mask that kind of contemptuous attitude IRL, or anywhere else for that matter. This is a lot of why ffers feel so alienated by bfers.
>>What are you finding "extreme"? Do you object to discussion of formula as having risks and increasing liklihood of disease, chronic conditions, and stunted development? Why are you so quick to defend the substance despite reams of research and fact proving its inferiority and inability to meet the standard nature has set for infant nutrition?<<
I don't defend the substance. I defend the woman's right to choose. I don't object to stating facts. I object to forcing one's opinion on someone who never asked for it in the first place. I find extreme the use of over the top arguements when basic fact would be more than sufficient.
>>How would you have us debate this topic? Why is bringing up the point that even malnourished women make breastmilk far superior to formula an extreme example? How on earth? This is debate...and I have used that point IRL in reponse to questions about diet and breastmilk. <<
I am not naive enough to believe that these kinds of examples are used *only* on debate boards - you acknowledge that yourself. I'm sure there is plenty of research on diet and exercise and the effects on breastmilk that the starving woman arguement is unnecessary in *most* situations. I is an extreme example because as I have mentioned several times now, the arguement in favor of bfing stands alone. Let's remember what the topic of this particular board is about in the first place - why might a woman feel the need to proclaim herself "proud" of ffing? Part of it is to avoid the sanctimony. When this type of inflammatory rhetoric is used *when it is entirely unnecessary* it is only going to ostracize ffers and those who are undecided. No one wants to be identified with a bunch of zealots, over the top arguements only *weaken* the point. It makes those who use them (again, *unnecessarily*) look too extreme.
>>I am charged with presenting accurate, true information to my clients concerning lactation (among other things). If I am asked, for example, whether or not a bottle of formula a day will have any effect on the baby, I must truthfully say that yes, it will -- it alters the gut flora at the very least. Would you rather I put on my fakest smile and say, "Oh, of course not!" If I am asked if breastfeeding really increases IQ, I truthfully answer no: a breastfed baby's IQ is just what nature meant it to be, barring environmental influences (which have at least 50% responsibility for intelligence). Studies show that ff babies' IQ's are an average of 2-8 points lower, depending on the study. And again: environmental influences have a lot of say in this, too, so there are no guarantees. However, we do know that breastmilk contains substances which support development of the brain and nervous system which formula does not contain. Am I supposed to shake my head and call those studies hogwash and then add that the formula companies' recent addition of DHA/RHA to their product has fixed that gap?<<
I never asked anyone to lie. Are you incapable of making your arguement without using extreme examples? Are the simple facts not good enough for you?
>>Breast is best, there's nothign wrong with formula, it's okay if you don't breastfeed -- these all need to go. Breast is not best: it's normal and standard. THere's a lot wrong with formula, which is why they continually improve it. It's not okay if you don't breastfeed, and your child may not be "just fine." Point blank. And the more we continue to reiterate this message, regardless of who gets up in arms about it, the closer we'll get to proper breastfeeding rates. The more we Watch Our Language, the more we tell the *real* truth, not the one formula company ad execs are promoting and paying ACOG, AAP, and AMA to promote as well, the more women who will initiate bf'ing and see it through until the child weans.<<
So you are against women having a say in what happens to their bodies. You think bfing should be dictated. I can never agree with that. Sorry. It's fine to share facts, but you are suggesting that women should be forced: "It's not ok if women don't bf", it shouldn't be up to the women. Who should make the decision then? You?
CIndy, I'm wondering if you still might not be taking enough fenugreek to make an impact. 6 capsules is the MINIMUM acceptable dosage per day and that's provided the capsules are at least 580mg. You may want to up it even more. See here for more info: http://www.kellymom.com/herbal/milksupply/fenugreek.html
Also, if you're needing additional bf support, I don't want it to get lost here in the middle of a long debate thread. Why don't you pop over to the bf board and we'll see if we might be able to give you some more tips to increase supply?
Dana, mom to Kevin (10/24/01) and Jason (10/15/04)
>>And I'll say the same thing to you that I said to her. You would have to be a pretty good actress to mask that kind of contemptuous attitude IRL, or anywhere else for that matter. This is a lot of why ffers feel so alienated by bfers.<<
Contempt? I'm with Stephanie, this is a wash. You are bound and determined to believe that our opions of formula automatically project to those who feed it and are fed it. If you had been on this board as many years as hte rest of us have, you'd see our point -- the many, many women who come here insisting with all their might that formula does not have risks, it's not inferior to breastmilk, and on and on. No matter what evidence we provide, what arguments we make, what facts we state, they refuse to give even a little, refuse to aknowledge that there are risks to ff'ing. Then, when they realize that they just can't win, they start crying about being judged, being bad moms, being made fun of, etc. Because they cannot win using true logic, they employ fallacy in the form of ad hominem argumentation.
BTW, I am a qualified grade 5-12 theater teacher...I suppose I *am* a pretty good actress. But I don't have to act when discussing lactation with expectant families. I fed my first child formula, and my 2nd was half bf/half ff. If I were to hold the contempt you vehemently insist I must, if I were to have the opinion of ff'ing mothers that you assign to me, I would also have to hate myself, consider myself a terrible mother, and look down on myself. That's a pretty trick. My problem isn't that formula exists; it's that the attitudes which drive parents to choose an inferior, expensive substance over an exemplary, free one is indicative of a society that cares only for convenience, individual needs, and selfishness. I don't think that's an acceptable direction for our national moral compass. Not to mention that widespread, unnecessary formula use leads to increased medical costs and environmental pollution, which affects every member of our society.
>>I am not naive enough to believe that these kinds of examples are used *only* on debate boards - you acknowledge that yourself. I'm sure there is plenty of research on diet and exercise and the effects on breastmilk that the starving woman arguement is unnecessary in *most* situations. I is an extreme example because as I have mentioned several times now, the arguement in favor of bfing stands alone. Let's remember what the topic of this particular board is about in the first place - why might a woman feel the need to proclaim herself "proud" of ffing? Part of it is to avoid the sanctimony. When this type of inflammatory rhetoric is used *when it is entirely unnecessary* it is only going to ostracize ffers and those who are undecided. No one wants to be identified with a bunch of zealots, over the top arguements only *weaken* the point. It makes those who use them (again, *unnecessarily*) look too extreme.<<
Sure there is. But when you have a woman in her 9th month of pregnancy calling you at 10 PM in tears because she's read or been told that if she doesn't eat a "perfect" diet then her breastmilk won't be good enough for her baby, then the malnourished mother example DOES work! It's reassuring for most mothers to know that even women who are eating nothing produce breastmilk that is superior to formula. Does that mean that I advocate that mom eats fast food, junk food, and no fresh meat/veggies/fruits/whole grains? Of course not. But it's not an extreme example, it's fact and quite comforting to the majority of the population. My clients are already provided with handouts explaining how breastmilk is made and how what they eat affects it (in fact, they are provided with many, many such handouts on a multitude of lactation topics in an effort to counteract the myth that abounds with the general public and many mainstream baby-related medium).
>>I never asked anyone to lie. Are you incapable of making your arguement without using extreme examples? Are the simple facts not good enough for you?<<
I believe that we have established that what *you* consider extreme and what *I* do are two very different things. Are you so ethnocentric that discussion of breastfeeding outside of North America has absolutely no value to you? Do you only care to understand the experience of those who live in developed western countries? Perhaps it is because I grew up in Europe, but I do not live in a bubble. There is more to the world than America and Canada. I realize that's hard for most people to grasp -- that the majority of the world's population lives in *other* places and that they don't have the same beliefs we do and they have a perfect bf'ing rate (gasp) -- but nonetheless, it's true.
>>So you are against women having a say in what happens to their bodies. You think bfing should be dictated. I can never agree with that. Sorry. It's fine to share facts, but you are suggesting that women should be forced: "It's not ok if women don't bf", it shouldn't be up to the women. Who should make the decision then? You?<<
Why are you against women doing what is best for the babies they have chosen to bring into this world? Why do the "rights" of the mother trump those of the child? And no, you have misread that quote; you left the 2nd part out. It reads: "It's not okay if you don't breastfeed, and your child may not be "just fine." IOW, it's ridiculous for most of society to walk around insisting that formula fed babies are "just fine," when in fact a great many are not. It is not fair to women, and especially to babies, to minimize or hide the truth about formula. A woman cannot make the choice you so covet unless she has all of the information -- and the average American woman absolutely does *not*. Another part of my job is enforcing informed consent; and I have yet to meet a formula feeding mother IRL who really had all of the facts when she made her decision. Often times she switched on the very bad advice of a pediatrician or other healthcare professional, or because she mistakenly believed some incorrect information in regards to breastfeeding and felt that she was harming her child. How exactly is that a choice?
I'd like to point out that as per our constitution, one person's rights stop where another's begin; you cannot stamp on the God-given rights granted to each American by virtue of birth. The only reason that Roe vs. Wade was decided as it was is that a fetus is not considered to have rights until it is born; once a baby breaths, it becomes a citizen and has rights. And yes, you're going to come back at me and say that parents have to make decisions that are in the best interest of the child and that parents have the right to decide for their children until they are 18...we've heard it before. But I always warn in advance that I am a baby's advocate, not a woman's. I won't argue the rights of an unborn child because it's awfully sketchy as to whether or not that fetus is in fact alive, but I will certainly argue those of a live baby. A mother will do what a mother will do, but I think that if families knew the real risks of formula and its true effects far fewer would choose it and would instead seek out breastfeeding support and lactation consultation. That's the point here: not to remove choice, but to give families an accurate picture of just what formula is and what it lacks.
Someone would be proud of formula feeding because of how they perceive breastfeeders think?
Cathie
Pages