">>>>But I also think that without the ready-formula, women of the past were more likely to work through those very real (but avoidable in Utopia) problems.<<<<
Then why before ready-made formula were they creating all those different feeding aparatuses to supplement or replace breastfeeding?"
"More likely" is what she said. Not guaranteed.
Evidence that there were alternative feeding mechanisms does not indicate that it was a regular occurrence. I notice that the baby bottle museum makes no reference to the cost of such an item. The fact that the Princess of Wales had one does not mean that the average person had access to them.
Besides the fact that this site cites absolutely *no* sources whatsoever except images. I'm not a cultural historian, but I can say that making inferences from images alone when text is available (and it is, for that particular period) is poor scholarship.
That's what I was talking about when I said Eurocentric elitism. Just because the Queen's English wasn't spoken doesn't mean it was a "primitive" language.
At the same time, you are projecting your own perceptions on a modern world on cultures hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago. You make claims about how it likely was and when history and anthropology experts tell you it just doesn't seem logical, you want conclusive, irrefutable proof that you are wrong. What about conclusive proof of your claims?
>>>Of course mom's have a "right" to make the choice. But the whole point of asking what the child might choose is to take the focus *off* of mom for a second and focus on what's best for the child. What's best for the child doesn't change just because mom 'doesn't wanna' or is 'unhappy' . That was my point. That's all.<<<<
Another way to get at this is ask mom if she understands the risks of formula, and/or explain the risks. If she knows the risks and she knows the risks primarily relate to the baby's well being, that properly puts the focus on the baby. It's more direct than "what would the baby want" and puts mom in the control position WITH the information rather than making her trying to imagine the baby being in control.
I agree with the second sentence but from the minimal research I've gotten to do today in response to Harmony's questions, it appears the first sentence is not quite accurate.
Pages
">>>>But I also think that without the ready-formula, women of the past were more likely to work through those very real (but avoidable in Utopia) problems.<<<<
Then why before ready-made formula were they creating all those different feeding aparatuses to supplement or replace breastfeeding?"
"More likely" is what she said. Not guaranteed.
Evidence that there were alternative feeding mechanisms does not indicate that it was a regular occurrence. I notice that the baby bottle museum makes no reference to the cost of such an item. The fact that the Princess of Wales had one does not mean that the average person had access to them.
Besides the fact that this site cites absolutely *no* sources whatsoever except images. I'm not a cultural historian, but I can say that making inferences from images alone when text is available (and it is, for that particular period) is poor scholarship.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks to Heather (blessedmom0508) for the beautiful signatures!
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks
<>
That's what I was talking about when I said Eurocentric elitism. Just because the Queen's English wasn't spoken doesn't mean it was a "primitive" language.
At the same time, you are projecting your own perceptions on a modern world on cultures hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years ago. You make claims about how it likely was and when history and anthropology experts tell you it just doesn't seem logical, you want conclusive, irrefutable proof that you are wrong. What about conclusive proof of your claims?
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks to Heather (blessedmom0508) for the beautiful signatures!
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks
>>>Of course mom's have a "right" to make the choice. But the whole point of asking what the child might choose is to take the focus *off* of mom for a second and focus on what's best for the child. What's best for the child doesn't change just because mom 'doesn't wanna' or is 'unhappy' . That was my point. That's all.<<<<
Another way to get at this is ask mom if she understands the risks of formula, and/or explain the risks. If she knows the risks and she knows the risks primarily relate to the baby's well being, that properly puts the focus on the baby. It's more direct than "what would the baby want" and puts mom in the control position WITH the information rather than making her trying to imagine the baby being in control.
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
That's interesting, I had it through an IV in the back of my hand.
<>
And again.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks to Heather (blessedmom0508) for the beautiful signatures!
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks
I agree with the second sentence but from the minimal research I've gotten to do today in response to Harmony's questions, it appears the first sentence is not quite accurate.
And does not indicate that baby was not being bf'd at all.
Pages