Gah! Ulrika spouting off in today's Evening Standard

[lizzytee]

Yes, it's in response to Kate Garraway on cross-nursing/wet-nursing. The bit I love (not) is her statement that formula is the "time-honoured", "modern" alternative. As if wet nursing was something newly invented by flaky Californians?

I do respect her opinion but wish she would get her facts straight

Is the commenter gabydolores from this thread?

I'm gabydolores.

Just couldn't help myself.

Ulrika. Stoopid woman.

does she have a book coming out
or a career on the skids

She's an idiot.

She's lashing out because she doesn't want to carry on breastfeeding her own baby and she feels guilty about it. To be confronted with the fact that there are women who are so generous as to breastfeed other people's babies must be a horrid experience for her in light of this.

Sigh. I had a (professional) phone conversation with Ulrika once. She wanted us to cancel a contract which she (or someone on her behalf) signed. She was saying that we had forged her signature. She hung up on me when I advised her that we will dig out the paper version of the contract to confirm or rebut her statements. Oh well. Silly bint.

i disagree that being famous and espousing your quacky theories necessarily has any leverage,or influence

dont think people believed martine McCutcheon when she warbled on about blood group diet or liz hurley watercress wt loss diet after pg, or the queen of routine books advice. over simplistic to say read something believe it, act on it

most people are discernable, and can spot a whopper

after all we are all hear deriding and debating UK comments so we didnt believe it did we

it isnt monkey see monkey do

I would like to be able to agree scottishmummy, but allaround us we are surrounded by celebrity endorsement. Prince Charles and homoeopathy, gwyneth Paltrow and cupping, even shampoo ads and the latest face cream. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work

scottishmummy - the general public is fairly good at spotting ridiculous whoppers such as the examples you gave, or when Heather Mills suggested that we pump rats for milk to drink.

But this arcticle is different because there are plenty of myths and untruths about breastfeeding and to someone who doesn't know much about breastfeeding, it's not obvious that Ulrika is speaking rubbish.

so how come we all can spot it yet the implication is others wont/cant?yet not us

it was obvious enough to posters, enough to get folk posting.no one said i read it therefore it is true

so are are we on a higher intellectual plane?

no we are not

we chose not to beleive it based upon higher executive functioning,choice,beliefs,prior knowledge,preference and volition

the processing and retention and action based upon information is complex.depends upon your beliefs/class/locus of control

the flaw in the "oh but it is on the telly/famous role model preposition" is that we dont all see the same message or process , retain , or act the same way

you do individual choices, and volition a great diservice if you lump eevvryone as a homogenous mass who all believe UJ article

Interstingly though none of you.who all saw through it

Why

because you have opinions, can be discerning

so can other's

"so are are we on a higher intellectual plane?

no we are not"

It's got nowt to do with intellect and everything to do with experience and knowledge.

It seems blindingly obvious that the women posting on this thread and this board are not going to be representative of your average ES reader because they are likely to have a better knowledge and understanding of breastfeeding, by dint of the very fact that they lurk on a board where it's regularly picked over and discussed in depth.

If you're not well informed on the subject then you're probably not going to realise that Ulrika is talking rubbish. It's a common myth (enthusiastically perpetrated by the formula companies) that the quality of breastmilk is seriously compromised by a woman having a suboptimal diet; it's also a common myth that many women fail to make enough milk to feed their own babies - especially if those babies are on the large side; also not common knowledge about the damage that formula feeding has done to the health of large numbers of babies in the developing world.

I think articles like this ARE damaging and irresponsible - they distort and mislead and pander to people's ignorance.

My knowledge of breastfeeding has improved since reading information on mumsnet.

And before I became pregnant with my first baby, I did think formula milk was virtually the same as breastmilk, it never occurred to me that formula milk came from cows.

ANyway I'm clearly not on any intellectually higher plain because no way can I put the argument across as well as Tittybangbang (great name btw, who were you before?)

Yes, titty makes some good points. I don't think many people would make infant feeding decisions based purely on what UJ has to say, but if her article is perpetuating myths that are already widely believed then it is damaging.

ttb please ealborate and substantiate that MN poster is not like a ES reader

you said "It seems blindingly obvious that the women posting on this thread and this board are not going to be representative of your average ES reader because they are likely to have a better knowledge and understanding of breastfeeding"

so please do discuss your supporting data,demographics and sources?or are you making an anecdotal (unsubtaintiated) claim

are you suggesting then that MN poster is more informed/clever than ES reader

the flaw in the manipulative media influence actions theory is it doesnt influence all people or all actions

consider oppresive totalitarean regimes with state tv state media, do all the citizens beleive just because it is on tv. No they dont and in fact they do rebel and protest

it is really patrionising to suggset the MN audience can differentiate UJ narrative but other's others esp ES readers cant

waht happens if you read ES and post on MN do you get confused

That's hilarious - doesn't she realise that babies in Africa are dying because their mums are trying to give them formula. Stupid cow - you need clean water for formula feeding otherwise the nasty bacteria get in th formula and make the ickle baby sick! gah.

And wasn't it the case that orphaned babies were often wet nursed? Oh and didn't rich ladies hire on wet nurses so they didn't have to bother feeding. And how is formula 'time honoured'

UJ is talking an exceptional amount of kak.but hey got all us talking, got her back in papers

i imagine she is trying to revive her flagging career as.............hang on.... hang on ....................give me time it will come..............nope it's gone

well, it may be patronising to assume all ES readers are not as informed as your average mner on this subject, but id bet my bottom dollar that in general its true. people dont tend to make themselves 'experts' on a subject until it becomes relevant to their daily lives (or comes to their attention some other way), so it seems only logical that people may well accept the 'facts' and 'info' quoted in the article as real or true.

i know f all about astrophysics. use some long sciency-sounding words on me and tell me you are and i'll believe it, dont make it so, does it.

yes and we chose information derived from many sources, process it, retain some of it.maybe believe , maybe not.

depends on the individual

someone mentioned cuppping and homeopathy

well i would neverr chose to beleive thta, but some do

reading something does not make one necessarily act or belive

govt campaigns about 5-a-day were heavily marketed, lots of literature, high profile

campaign failed despite prolific nature, so not all print literature is effective in getting across a message or influencing behavious. neither is UJ!

se dont all beleive everything in papers.we can decipher and chose messages

consider the range of newspapers available
telegraph
guardian
sun
Daily mail

all reflecting different and diverse audiences and opinions

so if peole beleive print media so readily, ask yourself do you

or do you choose