To remove the toy baby feeding bottle from my dd's new doll bath and feeding set?

[Springfleurs]

I was brought up to think that breast feeding was a strange and rather disgusting thing to do.

Luckily managed to overcome this myself and b/f both dc for 5 months and 14 months respectively.

Took dd to a toy shop today and she chose a doll bath and feeding set. Unpacked it for her when we got in and there is a feeding bottle in there. I know it might seem a bit precious but it irritated me slightly, as though it was a mandatory piece of equipment for all babies/dolls.

Or

I am taking it all rather too seriously?

I posted on this thread saying words to the effect of getting het up about a toy doll's bottle is ridiculous.
Which it is. But, I am not a 'rabid FF-er'. Far from it in fact. I chose to breast feed. My choice. And lucky for me that I could. And I am totally 'pro' breast feeding per se, but equally I wouldn't waste my energy getting worked up about other people and how they feed their babies.
Breastfeeding is/was a tiny part of mine and my daughter's life... thankfully we have moved on from that into far more interesting territory. I just don't understand why some people use they method they feed their baby to define themselves. In the nicest possible way, it's hardly a big achievement. You fed a baby. Umm, so what?
And I have never ever seen a formula commercial, but that's because I don't watch shit commercial channels (and if I do I fast forward the ads). Just chucking my tiny bit of smugness onto the thread to counteract the all round smuggery.

Leonie, I think you really need that night out you've been denying yourself for five years.

LT... so where are your figures, then? And are they based on fact or wishful thinking? I'm quite intrigues to know how you came to be so much better informed than the NHS, the WHO, the AAP, etc.

If you're wnat to make forceful assertions and accused other posters of lying, you should have some evidence to back your arguments up.

SM nice to see you back.

I am desperately mustering every ounce of willpower not to respond to any of leonie's posts, it is very hard...

Sf I have seen plenty of malice on this board, i think maybe you are choosing not to see it. Some terrible things have been said, to people who did not deserve it.

Can I suggest that if people want to have a FF/BF debate, about the various pressures on people and the reasons for the low take-up of BF in this country, then a thread is started in the feeding section where people can talk about it calmly. Or more calmly anyway. Some of you might find out that overall many people are in agreement.

However I still will not be swayed from the viewpoint that I have taken throughout this thread, which is that a bottle for feeding a dolly is not a big deal. At all. And is extremely unlikely to affect a childs later choices when feeding her own children.

"there is more to parenting than initial mode of feeding. much much more"

I don't think that anyone here has implied that how you feed your baby is the only important aspect of how you parent them.

Scarlet, the figure is a guess. They say so. That is what an estimation is.

Are you with me so far? Good. That means it isn't a fact. Yes? Just as my 'the moon is cheese' statement is a guess.

You don't have to have any special qualifications to come to the conclusion that their guess, being peddled as absolute fact by certain posters, is obviously a wild exaggeration at best.

Leonie, just when I started thinking you might be alright - of course I know you wont take a baby out of someones hands, I just said your post did have the tone of evil FF mother about it thats all.

"but equally I wouldn't waste my energy getting worked up about other people and how they feed their babies"

I think you'll find that some people see this as a very political issue - that it's about powerful commercial forces undermining something that up until very recently (in evolutionary terms) had been a central feature of infancy and of maternity. This is the way I see it personally. I think the biggest losers in the more or less wholesale switch to ff, has been babies. I do get worked up about it sometimes because I think babies deserve to be protected from commercial interests, and they can't speak for themselves.

what do you mean "I have many times leaked milk at the sight/sound of someone else's crying baby who was promptly fed with a bottle"

are you suggesting you lactate for other women's babies with a bottle as the stimulus. now that is unorthodox

you cannot feed or save anyone else baby and i suggest your physiological and psychological responses are indicative of you taking all this way too seriously

Anyway really going now as the little corner I have just found in the garden has a bit fat spider in it

Leonie - good luck disengaging DS, just give her a bottle in future

DD2 I meant (gone now)

"being peddled as absolute fact by certain posters, is obviously a wild exaggeration at best."

This information appears in many official documents, including in main stream midwifery textbooks. If this information is presented as a 'fact' in NHS sponsored patient information and in professional textbooks, I don't see why it's unreasonable for someone to quote it as such in the course of an debate about this issue.

Hang on a minute, what if her DD sees babies out in public being bottle fed, should she cover her daughters eyes in fear of unwanted influence?

My daughters never had dummies - should I have hidden all of their dolls dummies - lol!

What is the world coming to?!

I've never seen a formula commercial but I was bottlefed and never knew anyone who breastfed or saw anyone breastfeed-ever. I still went on to breastfeed three children. The fact that other people can give a baby a bottle is an advantage of FF, IMO. It can be a very bonding and rewarding experience for dads, grandparents, etc. Again, I'd rather see mom/immediate family feeding baby than a stranger or self feeding.

What - that particular estimate (which is from years ago anyway, not that it would even have been true then) is in all the books? You have really shocked me now. But they even CALL it an estimate! Big clue!

I am so glad members of the voting public are unclear of the difference between an estimation and a fact. Fills me with the greatest confidence for the forthcoming elections on Thursday

An estimate is an educated guess. Estimates are used all the time when it isn't possible to give exact figures. It doesn't make it a lie.

Well, it ain't a FACT...

If that's an educated guess, I'm a sherry trifle.

I really hate the quoting thing, but gotta be done.

gabygirl

It's easy to say that the effect of Nestle's aggressive marketing compared to dolls having bottles is 'unquantifiable' in this country. In developing countries, it certainly is quantifiable. less to do with Tiny Tears, more to do with Nestle's underhand marketing techniques.

'Women have always had to work'

Yes, but women haven't always led such isolated lives. We haven't always been so distanced from female relatives and peers. We haven't had to work 40 hour plus weeks and rely on paid childcare to look after our children.Our lives have completely transformed in the last 25 years, let alone the last century. Thus is undisputable. And I would say it has to have had an effect on bf-ing - in this country, anyway. I see it with my own eyes, anyway, no matter what the dreaded 'stats' say.

And no, nobody has said FF is evil, but there have been ragingly patronising and insulting things said about women who haven't exclusively breastfed (like they are some sort of uniform group. Hello!?) and then excused with 'but I'm just basing my opinion on the facts'. It's not OK.

In very few other subject areas on MN is it deemed appropriate for women to be quite as vile to each other as on this topic. I really think that needs addressing.

Oh Good God, my typing is atrocious! The edited version:

I really hate the quoting thing, but gotta be done.

gabygirl

It's easy to say that the effect of Nestle's aggressive marketing compared to dolls having bottles is 'unquantifiable' in this country. In developing countries, it certainly is quantifiable. less to do with Tiny Tears, more to do with Nestle's underhand marketing techniques.

'Women have always had to work'

Yes, but women haven't always led such isolated lives. We haven't always been so distanced from female relatives and peers. We haven't had to work 40 hour plus per week and rely on paid childcare to look after our children.Our lives have completely transformed in the last 25 years, let alone the last century. This is undisputable. And I would say it has had to have had an effect on bf-ing - in this country, anyway. I see it with my own eyes, anyway, no matter what the dreaded 'stats' say.

And no, nobody has said FF is evil, but there have been ragingly patronising and insulting things said about women who haven't exclusively breastfed (like they are some sort of uniform group. Hello!?) and then excused with 'but I'm just basing my opinion on the facts'. It's not OK.

In very few other subject areas on MN is it deemed appropriate for women to be quite as vile to each other as on this topic. I really think that needs addressing.

"You don't have to have any special qualifications to come to the conclusion that their guess, being peddled as absolute fact by certain posters, is obviously a wild exaggeration at best."

Where are your facts? How can you say that these figures are over-exaggerated,when you have absolutely nothing to base your assertions on.

The estimated figures quoted are not simply plucked randomly out of the air by scientists and health economists. They would have looked at the statistical likelihood of formula-fed babies requiring hospital treatment for particular illnesses and compared the with the statistical likelihood for breastfed babies. From these statistics, thay would be able to calculate a predicted change in morbidity rates that would be expected if a defined higher proportion of babies were breastfed. They could then multiply the change in predicted illness rates by the average cost of hospital treatment per case and so come up with a best estimate of the predicted change in costs.

But there will be other factors at play here, Scarlet. Their own figures suggest that less affluent mothers are more likely to ff. I would think that babies from more deprived areas are more likely to be hospitalised full stop for a variety of reasons, so the inference is drawn that ff is the root of all evil. Besides which, some of these bodies have an agenda.

You are quite right that I have nothing to base my assertions on - other than an enquiring mind, which doesn't passively swallow any statistic thrown at me.

Hoochiemooma, the £50 million for the NHS saved refers to all babies in the UK being breastfed for 3 months.

(This is from the 1997 study which estimated a £35 million saving, adjusted for inflation at a rate of 3% per year. This is with reference to gastro-intestinal illnesses only.)

It's quite common for breastfeeding mothers to leak when they hear another baby cry, I know women who have older children who still feel the tingle when they hear babies cry. It's not because someone is getting too involved in breastfeeding.