OK, I get BF, but am totally fucked off with the smugness

[FunnysInTheGarden]

Most of us are failed BF, but the tone on here recently has really pissed me off. We generally FF? Non? So why the smug shit and the passive aggressiveness towards those who have to/chose to FF?

So tempted to name names, but I won't.

Just stop being so smug and holier than thou please, some people

I actually come from a country that has no recognition of disability in general, and of speech and language problems in particular. I would say it is not that dissimilar here, in some respects.. beyond a small group of educated families and professionals, individuals with speech, language and communication needs are marginalised and ignored. Sign language is not like formula in this respect, mind.. just have to say that in case anyone picks me up for not saying it. My job is to help people communicate no matter what, by any means necessary. So the opposite of addressing speech, language in communication issues, is, in breastfeeding terms, 'just let the ones who have trouble starve, that's the way they were made'.

So I do understand..

"You forget that most people you speak to on the internet on general discussion boards will have almost no experience or formal knowledge of speech therapy. Therefore, when discussions arise most people are speaking from a position of ignorance. When it comes to breastfeeding however, there are many, many, many women on this board in particular who have very good knowledge that they've acquired as experienced breastfeeding mothers and as trained peer supporters and counsellors. It's not 'preachy' to discuss the evidence on breastfeeding in the context of the debates we have here on this board. You speak as though women are constantly putting forward these comments with complete disregard to what has gone before on the thread, and using this to bolster your argument that this type of discourse is insensitive and inappropriate."

Actually, what I was saying is that the more knowledge you have, the more sensitive and conciliatory you need to be to get your message across? So in the speech and language case, I am like you: frustrated by what I read, concerned for the children at stake, irritated by the dismissal of speech issues e.g. 'no one ever went to school not talking' etc. But I think that responding with shock tactics would be counterproductive.. I think I need to give information etc but to do so in a way that doesn't close ears, raise hackles or potentially cause defensiveness.

A lot of people who ff have almost no experience or formal knowledge of breastfeeding. As, let's face it, has been proven on this thread with some of the examples given e.g. that formula saves children in the developing world etc.

So I suppose what I am saying is that if I wanted to have a good old rant about how infuriating it was that people dismiss communication or marginalise children with language problems to the extent that they are really disabled by the ignorance about, I would have this discussion with other speech therapists, not with the general public.

Because to borrow the nauseating phrase, I think you have to win hearts as well as minds. And in my case, the emotive bit is implying lifelong disability... so I would tread carefully with this, though I know it to be a risk for some. I would reassure but highlight the important actions to take (e.g. secure a referral etc). Explain and advise..

So maybe I am looking at it from a professional viewpoint here, which is that to facilitate change you have to understand where the person's fear is and be sensitive to it by giving as much information as is necessary at the outset.

I know they are not the same: obviously in my case I would be hoping that the sensitive issues of prognosis would go on to be dealt with by a professional with a full history face to face. It's not a matter of leaving this information out.. just not overwhelming someone and putting them off by creating so much fear the person can't listen to the message.

From reading this thread, there are some very toxic posts and I now realise that women are up against it when it comes to bfing.

I actually think organiccarrotcake's post a while ago was very very telling, in terms of the amount of support that was required for successful breastfeeding. (Hope you don't mind me singling you out organic, but you provided a comprehensive run down). How can the average woman in this country have a chance in hell of making it work? Especially if she already has a child. There is NO recognition in society at large of the demands of breastfeeding and it seems like we're measured in terms of how quickly we get back to "normal" after having a baby. I'm sure even straightforward breastfeeding is challenging, but where there are problems - non-latching, fighting baby; tongue tie; nursing strikes; mastitis; PND (to name a few of the ones that apply to me) - then it becomes nigh on impossible.

I can't help feeling that it is nigh on useless for the Government to be promoting exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months when the reality for the majority of women is that they struggle to get beyond a couple of weeks. Even those of us doing pretty darned well in comparison with the average can end up feeling like we've failed if we don't manage to achieve the recommendation. This is why I think it would be better for the focus to shift towards encouraging and supporting ANY breastfeeding, and gradually changing society's attitudes. Perhaps EBF for 6 months is more realistic for the next generation of mothers.

Possibly - well yes, mostly. It's clearly the case that there's a chronic lack of support in most places. Crikey, I had EVERY help (as my PCT is fabulous for that) AND I had no choice but to EBF (due to dairy intolerance and family allergies) and I still found it really hard. Without that incentive and help I wouldn't have. I didn't the first time (EBF till 4 mo then combined fed and early weened, although BF until 15 mo) and DS1 has bad eczema. I don't feel guilty about that even though I now realise I did the wrong thing, because I didn't know what I know now so why blame myself?

Interestingly I've just been talking to one of the main peer support groups in our area today to try to work out what we (DH and I) can do to try to help to ensure that they retain funding from the PCT after Christmas as it seems that they will lose the funding due to Government cuts. It's just not top priority which is understandable but very sad.

Therefore, surely the best thing we can do is to help each other by being nicer to each other than on here (I mean, what is WRONG with "funny"?) and continue to support each other through the main thread (which is happening) and at the same time push our local PCTs to actually fund decent peer support for BF.

This article (from the same blog I pointed you at on your thread, gaelic), sums it up I think:

analyticalarmadillo.blogspot.com/2010/07/formula-feeding-mums-start-shouting.html

On another note I noticed a post elsewhere about a newspaper article discussing bottle-fed infants being statistically more likely to be obese in later life. A responder just dismissed it as being written to make FF mums feel guilty. This attitude is as unhelpful as it is dangerous. Very few people out there are trying to make other people feel bad (even the awful bitchiness you encountered, arses, wasn't said to the girl's face), they're putting across useful and interesting information which helps people to make their own decisions. If those decisions were made before coming across the information, ie if a mum decides to FF before coming across information that had she known it before would have made her instead choose to BF, why should she feel guilty about it?

People putting the info out aren't trying to make those people who have already made their decisions feel bad! They're trying to help give information to people who have yet to make their decisions.

Is it better to not publish research???

gaelicsheep, you say "I can't help feeling that it is nigh on useless for the Government to be promoting exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months...."

I understand your argument, but this 'promotion' simply does not exist.

The UK has a 'nutrition statement' published by the DH - and why would it not? - that states what the recognised recommended start is for infants.This is an important message for policy makers, HCPs, local PCTs, managers, and so on....far more than a promotional 'instruction' to individual mothers. They need to know this is policy, of course, and why.

But the actual length and exclusivity of the statement/policy is not promoted strongly, and probably rightly, for the reasons you state - that just getting bf accepted as an option is the first major step. I think this is what is happening as we speak - things are changing.

You know, most pregnant women really don't know about 'exclusive bf to 6 mths'. I know this because I take antenatal classes and I ask them. They are aware that bf is better than ff (though they may not know why).

"If those decisions were made before coming across the information, ie if a mum decides to FF before coming across information that had she known it before would have made her instead choose to BF, why should she feel guilty about it?"

Well, I guess, because there is a potential negative outcome for her child, so regardless of when this information is introduced, it has the potential to be emotive/problematic.

In my experience of working with disability, parents often feel tremendous guilt about their child's difficulties even when they have had zero input into those difficulties: when nothing they have done or could have done would have altered their situation. I think it goes with the territory of being a parent.. So it stands to reason that in the case of feeding, where there has been a moment where a certain feeding method has been 'chosen', even though it may not have been a true, free 'choice' for whatever reason (e.g. PND, just not being able to cope etc) there is huge scope for guilt (misplaced as it may be) and sense of failure.

Personally, I don't know if the type of research that is sometimes highlighted is all that helpful.. e.g. support that says that x is a possibility statistically when the root causes/support etc is not in place.

Again, to explain my thinking about the use of evidence in a more neutral way, I will use an example from my own profession.

So, there is a certain type of speech disorder that can be treated by a certain type of intervention but it requires intervention for 20 weeks, three times a week for an hour each time when the NHS has maximum of six half-hour sessions available. No can do. So I tell the parent about it, but that they can't have it.. If I then combined this with telling them that untreated speech disorder was statistically likely to lead to ongoing literacy difficulties, later social and emotional difficulties and potential participation in criminal activities I would not be telling any porkies.. but it would be highly likely to be quite devastating to them. And yet the majority of the research might not reflect their individual circumstances, so I would be overwhelming them with information that really, isn't going to do much more than make them feel lousy.. because they still can't have the intervention.

How much worse would it be if I met a parent of a young offender and told them that if they had had x intervention at x age, perhaps they wouldn't be in this situation? What would be the point of that?

I suppose what I am saying is that discussion of evidence in the context of risk to children, and in the context of - I guess - health-related behaviour, is a tricky, tricky thing.. It is particularly tricky when the people who are sharing information about a risk are people who are not exposed to it (e.g. in this case, women who EBF explaining the risks of formula to women who FF).

I just wonder what is to be gained from it. Surely there is research about how to make things happen vs statistical information about long-term outcomes that would be more relevant to both prospective mothers and
those who are feeding.

I don't think that people discuss these research articles to make people feel bad.. but the reality is that it does, you know? And there are valid, complex reasons for that.. so if it degenerates into a bunfight (I know, kettle, pot, black etc.. but..), then I wonder what impact that really has on feeding?

I discuss research on 'worst cast scenarios' and long-term outcomes for kids with communication difficulties all the time.. just not with parents who are struggling without being very sensitive to the impact it might have on them.

But what should someone do and say if they want to argue the case for the intervention over 20 weeks being made available? (rather than taking it as a given that it won't be)

Because it seems to me you want those people to shut up, and leave that intervention over 20 weeks permanently unavailable, to avoid the risk of upsetting people whose children can't currently have it - even if more open discussion about the risks of an untreated speech disorder might lead to that intervention becoming possible after all.

What if enough parents campaigning could get that intervention made available to more people? What if all the speech-related parenting forums contained a mixture of parents whose children were too old for that and couldn't get it now even if it was suddenly made available, and parents whose children were still young enough to benefit? How do you control the debate so you don't upset the parents of the older children, while still giving those parents of small children the chance to fight for something that will help theirs? How can you hide from public knowledge the fact that that intervention is worth having - which unavoidably means knowing the long-term differences in outcomes between those who have it and those who don't?

Exactly Donottilt

"I discuss research on 'worst cast scenarios' and long-term outcomes for kids with communication difficulties all the time.. just not with parents who are struggling without being very sensitive to the impact it might have on them."

Well I can not think of a parent that would not want to know of relevant research that could impact their child?

What if the parent had private health care available, what if the parent was willing to pay for the correct level of intervention.but you never found this out because you wanted to be sensitive.

All credit to you Arses - you've got some stamina!

But I'm off to work today so don't have time to respond. Not sulking though and haven't gone off it a strop!

Donottilt and fizzledrizzle, absolutely not!

Perhaps I worded it badly as it's not quite as clear-cut as you make out, which I believe to be true for ff vs bf too. Read the sentence again:

"I discuss research on 'worst cast scenarios' and long-term outcomes for kids with communication difficulties all the time.. just not with parents who are struggling without being very sensitive to the impact it might have on them."

This is not about avoiding these conversations with parents, it's about being careful to share the information in a way that is accurate but sensitive.

So, for example, I remember having a mother in absolute bits because she had come across some research about the youth offending population etc and suddenly had visions
of her son behind bars.. the answer to her distress is not to say: "yes, well, 77% do you know. Sad, isn't it? Never mind, hopefully your next one won't have this issue", not least because it is not a proven thing, it is a possible thing, and I as a professional have a responsibility to put that into context for someone who does not have access to the research I have to explain carefully that it is a multifactorial thing and that he has x risk factor but y resilience factors and explain what she could do about it (yes, including said intervention if it were suitable for her child).

However, if she told me (as often happens) that she had personal circumstances which meant that she couldn't really commit to doing a particular intervention (e.g. depression, a child with a terminal illness whose treatment was a greater priority, just didn't feel she could cope) I most certainly would NOT tell her that there was some statistical research that suggested rather than proved a correlation between her son's disability and a litany of terrible outcomes all in one go and chuck a load of research abstracts at her.

It's hard to draw absolute parallels of course. I was using the intervention as a metaphor for bfing support/intrinsic factos for the women, not really reflecting anything about any particular intervention and perhaps I just didn't pull it off as a metaphor. In practice, of course, it's a very different thing. I am talking about using some sort of judgement in relation to the conversation that is happening at the time.

So sharing something in a bald, stark way that is suggestive of a particular negative outcome but not actually predictive of one is what I am talking about. Breastfeeding your child is no guarantee against preventing obesity or them having cancer. Does that mean it has no value? No. Formula feeding your child may bbe physiologically quite an easy thing to do, but to say that someone didn't 'need' to do it is a bit reductive of the complexity of the cultural, social, personal, individual factors that lead to uptake of supplemental feeding.

All grey shades, that's all I am saying. Discuss the research but in it's proper context... e.g. DISCUSS the research e.g. 'well, x research has shown a slight statistical link between ffing and obesity but of course obesity is a multifactorial phenomenon' vs 'x research shows that there is a statistical link between ffing and obesity'. Because, actually, one is true and the other isn't.. and you either discuss research in a very considered way, seeing it as a work-in-progress etc or your discussion becomes null and void.

Incidentally, I am not saying that people don't do this! Just trying (and I feel, still failing) to explain what I think about the sharing of research in adversarial, emotive arguments.

I fully appreciate this is not a clinic, it is a public forum.. but it is my take on things, which is as coloured by my professional background and empathy for parents generally as it is my own experiences feeding.

Tiktok - I'm in Scotland and it's been shoved down my throat, at least it feels like it. Perhaps I'm just more sensitive to it because it seems so difficult to achieve however determined I am. I have a list of statements at the front of DD's red book listing a whole load of stuff that the HV needs to discuss. EBF to 6 months, risks of formula, risks of artificial teats, risks of dummies - they're all there. And she did discuss it, very diligently.

Funny, Don't confuse backing of with knowing that it is useless to try to teach a pig to sing.

life calls and all that too.

gaelic - I know something of the promotion of bf and ebf in all parts of the UK and it is fairly consistent and standard, though individual practitioners everywhere will have a different emphasis and approach, naturally enough.

Yes, parents should be informed of 'ebf to 6 mths', I am sure you'd agree. It's interesting you feel it has been 'shoved down your throat' but telling, I think, that you recognise you are possibly more sensitive to this because you have personally found it is so difficult to achieve. It can be difficult to achieve ebf to 6 mths in our culture, and even more difficult if you throw into the mix unavoidable infant health problems, residual issues from birth and whatever else has the potential to complicate things.

arses, for what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying now you have abandoned rant mode :) Parents in the midst of problems need sensitive and nuanced and individualised communication when it comes to discussing the risks and possible outcomes of anything. In the context of feeding babies, this does not mean telling a woman who has given formula for any reason all the possible downsides of this...even if one is asked 'tell me the facts, what could this use of formula lead to?' the reply can be honest and still careful and respectful.

I try to explain, too, that babies' needs for comfort, closeness, responsiveness and familiarity can still be met with a bottle - and should be, IMO, so parents need to know these needs are not met by babies being passed round any Tom, Dick or Harry for bottle feeding, or being fed to a rigid schedule, or being left to cry until 'the time'...all that sort of thing. I expect (knowing nothing about it) that an SLT's work also includes working on communication and relationships just as much as the vocal and auditory 'mechanics' of speech - and you work to support good family dynamics to this end.

What you don't do is to pretend speech and language difficulties don't matter, or that the parents' concerns about it are trivial and unwarrented. I suppose, continuing the analogy, you don't regard parents delighted their toddler can sing a nursery rhyme, or say his name, as 'smug' :)

"Well, I guess, because there is a potential negative outcome for her child, so regardless of when this information is introduced, it has the potential to be emotive/problematic."

But you can't make another person feel guilty. That's their choice. gaelic and I have been in similar circumstances. She now feels guilty - I don't. And I don't love my kids any less - I'm just less hard on myself. It's a choice. It's horrible to think something I've done may have caused my son's eczema. Or, maybe it's better than it would have been if I'd not EBF for 4 months. Or maybe it would have been no different either way. I can't change any of that but I can try again with my new baby and again do the best I can with what I know now.

Of course sensitivity is essential - but to hide evidence so as not to upset people simply harms the chances for those coming up behind.

BTW no criticism intended in any way g. If anything people would be critical of me for not feeling guilty - but not feeling guilty is totally different to not caring.

Oh I know that. I used to screech at my mother when she used her favourite phrase: 'no one can make you feel anything'. Really screech.. but then I grew up and started saying it to my husband, who doesn't screech but does some sort of less audible male equivalent.

I think Tiktok understands me. It's not about hiding evidence, just choosing how to discuss it sensitively.

"What you don't do is to pretend speech and language difficulties don't matter, or that the parents' concerns about it are trivial and unwarrented. I suppose, continuing the analogy, you don't regard parents delighted their toddler can sing a nursery rhyme, or say his name, as 'smug' "

Though I have seen this on behaviour/development here e.g. (to paraphrase) poster a says: 'really worried that my son who is three has no words" and poster b says: "well my son is only two and he can conjugate latin verbs".

Obviously not quite, but in that context, I would say that's smug and unnecessary, yes!

So in terms of bfing/ffing, you could say: 'wow, I feel so amazed and privileged that I could feed my tiny man for 2 years exclusively, especially when I read research that shows it will protect him from x, y, z" and that would be fine! However, if someone posted immediately before you to say: "God I feel so shit about myself because my entire family is obese and I really wanted to feed my son exclusively but I just didn't have the mettle for it and was so low I caved..'.. well, then, that would change how I would view the message quite a lot!

Of course, this is all hyperbolic. Not suggesting this happens, exactly...

Yep, 'tis hyperbolic :) That is, it doesn't actually happen.

What does happen, I think, is that off-screen, as it were, the mother sitting at her lap top reading the posts, feeling shit about herself [insert scenario you have described], comes across the 'I feel so amazed' post and reads it as smug.

But the 'amazed' poster does not, cannot, know about the shit-about-myself poster sitting at her laptop.

"Oh I know that. I used to screech at my mother when she used her favourite phrase: 'no one can make you feel anything'." She'd make you feel SO angry, huh!

But seriously, what you then say about discussing it sensitively. Clearly so but noone is ever perfect - and this medium is SO imperfect as a way to put across complex thoughts and feelings. Little benefit of the doubt is given and offence is taken more easily when the contributors don't know each other as people.

Well, got to throw a massive spanner in my whole argument here...

I haven't been on this subforum a lot, it's true. I've posted on some of the light-hearted threads about bfing that have come up in dicussions of the day..

but the thread I referenced reading earlier before I was a mum (about someone talking about cancer risks in relation to bfing/ffing) was, I have now found out by virtue of the Chickenpox thread in AIBU, written by a troll called washwithcare!

So perhaps my whole prejudice against online forums and This Sort of Thing comes from a troll experience!

Just had a quick look at some of washwithcare's posts. Oh dear. Appalling. [insert shamed sniggering emoticon]

arses - Rather sadly, I knew exactly which thread you were talking about when you mentioned it! I think other posters did jump on the bandwagon, but you're right it wasn't wholly representative. I probably should have pointed out the troll factor earlier.

Smug? Yes I'm bloody smug, it took a lot of work to breastfeed my baby. This despite the snubbing I got from all the mums in my antenatal groups for saying I intended to breastfeed.

Also despite one of the midwives on the ward taking away my son on the first night to give him a cup feed of formula without telling me what she was doing and where she was taking him.

I was determined after that to breastfeed him even though the treatment I got on the wards was terrible. I had no help in changing him or anything, despite being bed bound after an emergency c section and losing 2 pints of blood. They didn't even get food for me, I had to get my family to bring me food in. I was treated like a second class citizen, all for wanting to breastfeed my son.

Now that I've finally reached six months I plan to go longer, but yes I'm bloody smug at over coming all that crap to breastfeed my son.

LithaR I had the same thing happen but on the third night in hospital. MW took my baby away and fed 2 lots of formula.

I was new to this mum stuff and she said she was trying to help me. Said she was going to help settle my baby and went away for 6 hours! (Hence the 2 lots of formula).

What really annoyed me was in my notes (which I read because someone had left them with me by mistake) she said I had come to her and was disoriented. I had gone to her asking for another toilet as the one near my bed needed cleaning!

Only by coming on these forums and because of reading the Politics of BFeeding did I get through it - and because of an on to it MW at the hospital.

It seems to be a common issue still where MW's give formula.

Can I request my notes?

Is there anything we can do about this?

I see HunkerMunker came on this thread - I just wanted to thank her as she spoke a great deal of sense when I was bfing.

and tiktok too.

I had a bit of a row with my GP SIL for suggesting that having formula in the hospital could impact upon supply. She actually barked "rubbish" at me so I calmly explained what I knew from kellymom etc and she said "well, hospitals don't have time for all of that" and said babies with jaundice had to have formula.