Heaven just started a great thread about books that are breastfeeding friendly.
Something that gets my goat is when bottle feeding is used without context.
For example, the latest eye rolling grr is with the Justine song "why does the baby cry?". My daughter (4) tells me it is probably crying because it wants its mummy. And thinks that the person giving it a bottle might be a big brother or sister. Of course, I am applying my own judgement, but it annoys me because it portrays a baby effectively CIO. It normalises bottle feeding and cot sleeping to the most critical of audiences. Whilst they might be cultural norms, it is not biologically normal and given all the research to show how important breastfeeding (and attachment parenting) is, it seems a greater offense for media aimed at children to not portray biological norms.
It it just me, or does this kind of thing get your goat too?
Very much so. I get infuriated when opportunities to normalise breastfeeding in TV or cinema are instead used as an opportunity for comedy. Just think of how many times in movies or TV men have used milk only to be told it was actually breast milk (Look who's talking, Friends, Meet the Fockers, for example). It's rare to see a woman just feeding her baby, although one programme that has positively shown women breastfeeding their babies is actually Two And A Half Men. Twice there have been mothers breastfeeding in a very normal way on that show with no jokes or innuendos. Considering how women are portrayed regularly on that programme it was a refreshing change.
In general though, breastfeeding in the media is a chance to stereotype hippy mums, or joke about the disgusting process of ingesting human fluids.
Absolutely! There are a few wonderful examples, but on the whole - it is terrible. It annoys me in adult shows, but mortifies me when it is in Childrens media. Play School, normally brilliant, often shows 'babies' being bottle fed. Missed opportunity.
Exerpt:
"It's understandable why few people, even few psychologists, believe that "moderate" spanking harms children. They say: "I was spanked and I turned out well."
But that's not the way we measure the potential harmfulness of a given act. Like smoking, spanking is a "risk factor" - about a third of heavy smokers die of a smoking-related disease. That means two-thirds can say, "I smoked all my life and I am ok"
And this got me thinking...replace 'spanking' with 'artificial feeding' and it is the same deal. As as society we have agreed that spanking is not a good idea. Our government has put in place measures to attempt to protect our children as best we can from smoking.
I think it is a big call to say the Government should "protect" children from, as you call it, "artificial feeding". Formula feeding is not "harmful" and to say so is, IMO, offensive. It definitely should not be equated with smoking and corporal punishment.
I also think there are not "risks" associated with not breastfeeding. There may be implications or different outcomes but the term "risks" is loaded. Call it semantics but I think if you want a forum that is inclusive, choice of words is very important.
It gets my goat hon. I was just thinking about it all today actually after reading a thread on BB about the reasons some breastfeeding mums have heard as to why they should stop. https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums...eeding-165351/ It just makes my mind boggle. And it's not just younger woman. I had an older grandma say to my DS "gosh you look healthy you must love your (whatever formula brand she said)" I didn't say anything but I did leave thinking holly molly even the oldies think formula is the norn Then I was thinking today about how it is becoming the norm and rather than society becoming more natural and back to human instinct with attachment parenting, cosleeping, breastfeeding and natural birth we are heading even further in the other direction
I realise how loaded it is to put artificial feeding in the same paragraph as smoking and spanking, but the reasearch supports that there are 'risk factors' associated with not breastfeeding. I realise it is an emotive issue. I agree that it is semantics, but I do think that as far as risk factors are concerned the article is the same. Artificial feeding, however, has it's place (unlike smoking and spanking, for which there is no justification).
The risk factor does not mean that the artificially fed child will definately be disadvantaged, there are many examples of very healthy non-breastfed children. Likewise, there are examples of unhealthy breastfed children. It is not cut and dry. BUT the research shows that there is significant long term risk associated with not breastfeeding. AND one of the main reasons that breastfeeding is so difficult is that mothers are often not supported properly when they do want to breastfeed or they choose not to breastfeed because they believe that artificially feeding is a legitmate and equal choice.
Fair enough - it is a choice, and only a mother can make the best choice for her family. BUT is it an informed choice? and what information and messages are being recieved?
Ultimately, if ideas of what is 'normal' are established in early childhood, surely we (as a society) should be aiming towards biologically normal (and supported by research) approaches?
The long term outcomes of artifical feeding means that there are higher incidences of heart disease, diabetes and allergies. This puts a greater demand on medicare.
But, as I said in the original post, it is not just the breastfeeding, but also the leaving the baby to cry normalises a practise which might work for some mothers, but has alot of research showing long term risk factors.
Whilsts as adults we can critique the media and come to a hopefully informed decision, children view the media quite different. After immediate real life experiences, the next most powerful influence is the media.
I thought it warrenteed some reflection, and I appreciate the discussion that comes from it. The best way to learn new things is to talk about it, and ask questions.
Please don't get me wrong. I love breastfeeding. My mum was very active in the ABA in the 70s and 80s. I grew up with seeing it as "normal", and expected it was what I would do.
But I had physical problems which made breastfeeding very difficult (as many women do). That, coupled with the fact that my DD was prem (sleepy and had attachment issues) and I had to go back to work when she was a couple of months old, and lots of other personal reasons, meant I didnt express feed once she went into daycare. Of course I would have liked to keep going but, you know, sometimes life doesn't go how we want it to go. I was very informed and educated, but I did what I had to do at the time.
I don't want to get into a debate about attachment parenting or breastfeeding versus formula feeding. You do what's right for you. I will do what's right for me. Another person will do what's right for them. But it's probably good to remember that while most of us want what's best for our children, it's inevitable we are all doing at least one thing that is less than ideal or may be considered "harmful" by someone. (I am sure there are, for instance, studies that show attachment parenting is less than ideal for children and/or parents.) In the meantime, we each make choices and do the best we can with what we have.
I agree nothing2lose, but this thread was started to point out that whilst there are alternatives to breastfeeding, breastfeeding is biological normal. It just annoys me that when big names like Justine have an opportunity to portray biologically normal, they don't. This influences people (in particular the children that are the target audience) away from biologically normal approaches. This is not about when you have tried and have a biological reason making breastfeeding difficult, but rather about the subconscious messgages recieved in our formative years.
Breastfeeding is not easy. It is a learned skill, and like driving a car or riding a bike, once you have mastered it, it becomes almost unconscious. ABA, as you mentioned, is there to help when you are learning to breastfeed (in particular). But my issue is that before we even get to the point of actually breastfeeding, the media has portryed images that undermine breastfeeding. The same can be said of birth. Not everyone is savvy enough to see through the media and hollywood birthing is often the only exposure to birth, just as media images of how to care of babies has the power to shape our behaviour and choices.
At the end of the day we make our own choices, and are responsible for them, but sometimes I wonder what and of subliminal/sub conscious messsages have undermined our choices. Are we really as aware as we think we are? I think it takes becoming a parent sometimes to reflect on our influences and our belief systems. And it is a good thing to reflect and re-evaluate ourselves.
Breastfeeding and the media
Reply With Quote
Then I was thinking today about how it is becoming the norm and rather than society becoming more natural and back to human instinct with attachment parenting, cosleeping, breastfeeding and natural birth we are heading even further in the other direction 
Bookmarks