"Proud Formula Feeder"?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-23-2004
"Proud Formula Feeder"?
1054
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?

vanessa.jpg

Lilypie 1st Birthday Ticker



happilymarried.gifprincess_breast.gif
survivor1.gifprofessionalmama.gifikeajunky.gif
borntobebreastfed2.gifCIO.gifCCCAdult.gifth_72.gif

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 1:55pm

"I am proud of what I did accomplish. "


And you should be!

Cathie

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-21-2006
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 2:03pm

"Look at the first sentance and tell me how I should read it so it doesn't say that women should *have* to bf. Isn't saying it's not ok if they don't bf, if not the same, then very close to saying that they should be forced to bf?"

If I meant that I thought that women should *have* to breastfeed, I would have written "Women should have to breastfeed." I'm a writer by trade; it's a sure bet that if I write, "It's NOT ok if women don't breastfeed" I mean "It's NOT ok if women don't breastfeed."

You are absolutely correct about changing "breastfeed" to any vice under the sun. It's NOT ok if people smoke. It's NOT ok if people drink (and I mean vast quantities because I think a glass of wine here or there is beneficial). It's NOT ok if people take crack, coke, heroin, you name it.

People *are* going to do what they want and I would not want their freedom taken away, but that doesn't negate "It's NOT ok if people ____."

Would it be better if I turn it around and say, "It's ok if people smoke"? Well, we know that's not true, or otherwise there wouldn't be stop smoking campaigns and rules about where you can smoke in public.

If I said, "It's ok if women don't breastfeed" it wouldn't be true either. If it were, no one would care at all about increasing the breastfeeding rates.

RPS

 

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-12-2006
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 2:04pm

"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. "

And again I say that I am trying to respond to the original question - Why would a ffer claim to be proud of ffing? I don't think saying you are proud of your decision in *any* way suggests that you don't believe there are risks. I think it is an attempt to avoid engaging in an argument *in the first place*. I've yet to see anyone on this particular debate board with a blinkie that says she's proud of ffing or it's not rat poison etc... I think most ffers would avoid this kind of board like the plague because they *know* they will be crucified.

"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 think here we agree and disagree. I don't think it is so far fetched to feel bad about ones self for decisions one has made - it's not tricky at all. Perhaps you personally don't feel bad about ffing and never let anything anyone else said get you down. Good for you. Of course to say you don't have an attitude toward ffers now is hard to believe when you envision them as overgrown children, how did you put it - "sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling LA LA LA LA LA ". My mistake, that's not insulting at all. I do agree with you that we as a society are selfish and he!! bent on doing the convenient thing even when it adversly effects all of us. But like I said in a prior post, that is part of living in a free society (or semi-free). There's good and bad in having that kind of freedom, whether you think the freedom should be taken away is another story.

"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 think the example of the woman in her 9th month calling at 10 pm is an extreme case that required an extreme example. Of course I would like to give women the benefit of the doubt and assume that *most* of us are clever enough to figure out that if a *perfect* diet isn't necessary (ideal yes, necessary no) when the child is in utero, then it is obviously not necessary after the child is born. Not a big leap. So yes, I suppose it is reassuring in a moment of doubt, but again it is the *overuse* of such arguments that I feel causes ffers to feel the need to proclaim themselves "proud".

"I believe that we have established that what *you* consider extreme and what *I* do are two very different things. "

Obviously.

"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."

Of course not. But lets include the other things women in those 3rd world countries with the perfect rates face shall we? Being someone's property, no right to vote, no right to work outside the home, for example. I'm sure women in strict patriarchial societies all bf, but they also cannot initiate divorce, cannot have custody of the children in the event of a divorce, cannot get an education, cannot get birth control without their husbands permission, etc... If we are going to bring up conditions in impoverished 3rd world nations, let's bring up *all* conditions. I am more than aware that a world exists outside North America. But what I was saying is that when a woman, in North America, is asking about diet/exercise and bfing I don't think starving women in 3rd world countries needs to be the *first* example given. It often is.

"Why are you against women doing what is best for the babies they have chosen to bring into this world?"

I'm not against bfing, I am in favor of free choice.

"Why do the "rights" of the mother trump those of the child?"

I didn't make the rules. Adults have many, many more rights than children, and let's not forget it is *her* body. When my mother told me she just wasn't comfotable with it when asked why she didn't bf us, I didn't question it any further. It is her body, her breasts, and her children. It was her decision to make, not mine. I'm not impressed with the 'the one who is affected most doesn't have a say' argument when it comes to abortion, and I'm not impressed here.

""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. ""

And even more *are* just fine. There are risks in everything we do. Should we all be forced to play it safe all the time no matter what? You did say 'It's not ok if you don't bf' which does suggest that you would like to see that choice taken from women. I can't agree with that.

"But I always warn in advance that I am a baby's advocate, not a woman's."

That much has become abundantly clear.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-12-2006
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 2:24pm

"People *are* going to do what they want and I would not want their freedom taken away, but that doesn't negate "It's NOT ok if people ____."

Would it be better if I turn it around and say, "It's ok if people smoke"? Well, we know that's not true, or otherwise there wouldn't be stop smoking campaigns and rules about where you can smoke in public."

Well I guess we just have to disagree here because I do think it is okay for adults to smoke. Just because people are campaigning to do away with something doesn't make it wrong. People are campaigning against legal, safe abortions. People are trying to enact a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage. Point is there are two sides to every issue. I *am* opposed to outlawing smoking (probably because I was a smoker for 15 years so I have some sympathy) but I am *not* opposed to restricting where smoking is allowed. I can understand why someone eating their dinner might not want to breath someone else's 2nd hand or sidestream smoke. That doesn't mean it should be done away with entirely. What a person does in the privacy of his/her own home is their own business.

"If I said, "It's ok if women don't breastfeed" it wouldn't be true either. If it were, no one would care at all about increasing the breastfeeding rates."

Again, not entirely true. I would say it is okay if women don't bf. It is a personal, private decision that an individual woman has to make for herself. Just because your neighbor, for example, ffs doesn't mean you have to, and vice versa. I don't think giving women the freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies means they are all going to choose the same thing. We don't all have abortions. And trust me, many people care about doing away with them, even though the current law says they are ok. Your arguement doesn't hold water. People who care now would definately still care.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-06-2003
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 2:57pm

<

I was terrified of becoming a mother and had no idea what kind of mother I would be. You do not learn to become a mother from books, and I did not think I could do it.

So, I am proud that I did it! I became a mother and learned to love on a whole new level. I also managed to do what I needed to do for her. That is in all aspects of my care for her.>>

You have every reason in the world to be proud of what you've accomplished as a mother. Let's face it, there are BAD mothers in the world. Good moms deserve accolades and to feel accomplished.

So, be proud of being a mom and celebrate THAT instead of taking someone else's accomplishment (breastfeeding) and assigning your own "pride" to it out of defensiveness. (And I don't mean you personally; just the general "you" that would declare herself a proud formula feeder).

<>

Personally, I would also choose not to breastfeed a child if I were HIV+. It is not a risk I would be willing to take. But I am comfortable with the idea of taking medication and nursing, as the risks of FF far outweigh the risks associated with a baby possibly ingesting 1-3% of the dose I receive.

<>

And what's that supposed to mean???

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-06-2003
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 3:10pm

<>

Where are you getting this idea that we're trying to do away with FF? No one is advocating forcing women to breastfeed. What we have always advocated is getting information out that says 1.) formula is NOT a "good enough" way to feed a newborn, and 2.) women deserve support from society in general to make breastfeeding work.

No one -- absolutely no one -- is saying all women have to breastfeed. I'm fully in favor of choices. But I'm also in favor of giving people the real information instead of a watered down version of the truth. Formula feeding is not "fine" -- it has health consequences. If mom is comfortable assumming that risk, that's OK with me. Totally her choice. But I'm not going to propogate the myth that FF is the same as breastfeeding. It's not even close.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-12-2006
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 5:30pm

I get the idea when ffing is compared with smoking for example. Many people want to do away with that, and it seemed the poster I was responding to would as well.

I agree that formula is by no means an equivelent substitute and I certainly agree that women who choose to bf need and deserve more support. I agree with telling women the truth. It's just something about the whole 'ffing is not okay' statement that rubs me the wrong way. No it's not equal to bfing, but I don't think that makes it catagorically wrong either. It is a choice. And sure I suppose most who ff don't know *all* the information, anymore than those who bf know *all* the info, and it is commendable that you want to get that info out there. I just have a lot of difficulty with that particular statement. It is *way* to close to saying 'ffing is not ok and no one should be allowed to do it.' The second part seems implied or as though women should have to *prove* they can't bf before they are allowed to ff. I suppose I am guilty of reading too much into it, but I still don't see it as that much of a stretch. If something is deemed "not ok" how long before it is outlawed?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-21-2006
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 8:06pm

"I get the idea when ffing is compared with smoking for example. Many people want to do away with that, and it seemed the poster I was responding to would as well."

I never said I'd do away with smoking. It's a nasty, expensive habit and it can come with dire consequences. Guess what -- I'm a smoker.

I also would never do away with formula. There are situations that make it necessary.

It's impossible to have any sort of discussion when you prefer to read into what people are saying instead of taking their words at face value.

RPS

 

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2005
Sat, 01-06-2007 - 11:48pm

>>>I never said I'd do away with smoking. It's a nasty, expensive habit and it can come with dire consequences. Guess what -- I'm a smoker.

I also would never do away with formula. There are situations that make it necessary.

It's impossible to have any sort of discussion when you prefer to read into what people are saying instead of taking their words at face value.>>>

I think it is how it comes across here. I also was a little taken aback by your words. I was not sure what was actually being said and I amn glad that you did clear it up.

Unfortunately we do have to make choices before our children can make their own and sometimes we have to make tough choices. My mother wanted to do a lot more for my sister when she was headed down a bad road but due to finances, she could not. It still kills her to this day. I had to make the hard choice to formula feed. I cannot go back now, I can say that with what I was dealing with, that was the choice I had to make and not any easy one. However, in the end, she ate, I fed her and it certainly was not always easy but when she ate well, I felt like I had done alright! Now she eats almost anything and again I feel pride that I did the best I could at that time!

I listened to the song where the singer said, And then you might know what it's like to have to choose. I think that is what it comes down to...I had to choose and no amount of additional information about how horrible formula feeding is will change what happened...

Only that next time it will be different!

Spud...

PS: I would have given up smoking to breast feed...it probably would have helped me, now I will quit if I get pregnant again however, those late nights got me smoking a pack a day...Kylie seems to have come out on top, however, formula feeding nearly killed me...(joke, absolute joke here)!







Lilypie




iVillage Member
Registered: 12-12-2006
Sun, 01-07-2007 - 8:23am

"It's impossible to have any sort of discussion when you prefer to read into what people are saying instead of taking their words at face value."

I'm glad both you and cybersteph confronted me on this one because I really didn't know *why* I had such a problem with the statement "ffing is not ok" and I really gave it some thought. I don't have a problem when someone says the any of the following:

Ffing is not as good as bfing.
Ffing should not be entered into without lots of research and consideration.
Ffing carries certain risks.

So why should "ffing is not ok" bother me?

What I came up with is that it is a blanket statement that, without any qualifiers, is simply not true.

To put it in perspective:

I don't have a problem with any of the following:

Medicated births are not as good as unmedicated ones.
Medication during childbirth should not be used without lots of research and consideration.
Medication during childbirth carries certain risks.

But I would have a problem with "medication during childbirth is not ok."

Both ffing and childbirth medication effect two parties, one of which is very small and vulnerable. However, I think there are circumstances that warrent pain relief just as I think there are circumstances that warrent formula use.

See, I have a problem with that kind of blanket statement that does not allow for exceptions. It's like you're saying it could never be ok. Your statement doesn't allow for extenuating circumstances. It says that no matter what reason's a mother might have for ffing, her reasons could never be good enough. It is not ever ok. Thanks for making me look within myself to figure this one out. I enjoy this kind of challenge. Probably why I haven't shied away from this whole debate - even though I seem to be the underdog here (I am a Browns fan BTW ;) have always rooted for the underdog).

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Pages