Oh dear Oxfam have made a bit of a boob (or actually a bottle in this case!)

[mawbroon]

Have a look at this. Especially around 2 mins when Mel B makes an appearance

If you understand why this is a big blunder on their part and feel strongly enough to complain, then you can do so here

but the ad wasn't even about breastfeeding/feeding babies was it?

I'm always confused on the 1.5 million figure - UNICEF say the 1.5 million children die each year due to a lack of clean water and sanitation - I've always wondered how the 2 figures are the same.

I can understand the point is hard to 'get' and why it is easy to confuse it with a breastfeeding/bottle feeding stance. But here's my attempt at an explanation of why Oxfam should not have used this clip:

• in the little video, short clips are used deliberately, to stand for different populations, different ideas, different sectors - so there are people at work and play, of different ethnicities, each of them in their way being a representative of something beyond their own individuality. With me so far?? It would be odd if all the 'names' were white, or male, or young, or instantly recognisable as celebs - they want a spread, don't they, so each little clip is doing more than just being itself - it's part of a comprehensive, inclusive whole, and each clip is a symbol of something wider than itself
• so....just as the subjects of each clip are chosen, the use of imagery and icons and symbolism is also deliberately chosen, and in the case of the bottle clip, very clearly so. Mel B had to find a bottle, put something in it, and use it as a vehicle for her name - she didn't use a notepad, or a leaf, or cake icing . If she had used any of these, they would have meant something as well, but no, she used a bottle, which also means something...and in this society it means 'babies' or, possibly 'mothers' worldwide, and especially in the areas of the world where Oxfam does its work, in areas of poverty and deprivation where this campaign is targetted, bottles are associated with infant mortality. They are a risky accoutrement to babyhood. Babies fall ill and die because they are used, because they cannot be used safely in those circumstances. Western women - like Mel B - can use bottles relatively safely, it's true. But because of these serious risks of using bottles elsewhere, it is at the very least odd and inconsistent* of Oxfam to permit the use of a bottle as a symbol of babyhood

Does this help? I don't think it has much to do at all with whether a mother can or can't breastfeed. It certainly has nothing at all to do with someone's right to use formula milk. It's to do with symbolism and imagery, and iconography...and Oxfam should know better.

So, if Mel B bottle fed her children then that should be kept as some kind of dirty secret?

(last comment not directed to you tiktok)

OK, Chequers

I'll answer your point anyway

No, it's not a dirty secret if she bottle fed her children, but if she did, and this is the reason behind her use of the bottle for her name, then someone should have put her straight - 'Mel, you can't use a bottle because bottles symbolise babies and mothering, and this campaign is about putting an end to world poverty and linking the use of this symbol to a campaign that's working in areas where bottles actually kill babies living in poverty...well, you can see we can't use it.'

PS I also think that Oxfam should be working against the use of a bottle as an icon standing for babies/mothering in any context.

It's just in this particular context, it's especially crass and unthinking.

I see the point re: the developing world. I was reacting to the comment that she shouldn't associate with bottles because she undermines breastfeeding. If that's how she fed her child then that's normal to her. I agree it's in poor taste given the nature odf the advert though.

so, apparently 1.5 million children die each year because of contaminated water. How many of those children to you think might have died if they'd been breastfed? from the diseases contracted by their mothers who drank the contaminated water, from HIV passed on by their mothers, but most of all from malnutricion when their mothers could not produce enough milk.

It is not the formula companies who are at fault here. Whether people want to admit it or not formula has a place in society, both ours and in the 3rd world. (although I do think that more needs to be done to make formula more accessible/affordable in the 3rd world). But the people at fault are the governments of these countries who are doing nothing to help with the serious issue of water contamination in these countries. You could take away the formula, and people would still be dying. And it would still be because of the contaminated water.

Breastfeeding isn't the be all and end all. A woman might breastfeed a baby for six months, and after that that baby still has to grow up living in a country where it will be exposed to the diseases that are in the contaminated water it has to drink, where it might already have HIV/will contract HIV at some point in its life. If that baby survives to adulthood, it really isn't going to matter whether that baby was breastfed or not.

If we can improve living conditions for the people in these countries, then the breast ve formula debate for the third world will be less relevant, and people can just campaign for formula to be made more affordable for those who choose to use it.

IMO it's this militant attitude from the pro breastfeeding mob that puts a lot of people off breastfeeding in the first place.

Tiktok has got it spot on.

As usual

you can link everything to breast feeding if you try hard enough.

The campaign is NOT about breast feeding. The use of the bottle is 100% irrelevant.

wannabe, your post is a classic example of someone who knows a little bit about this issue, but not enough to make some embarrassingly blinding errors, sorry.

I'll take it point by point

mothers who are ill from contaminated water do* not pass on diseases to their babies.

• breastfeeding not only protects the babies from formula made with contaminated water (or from bottles washed in it, or unwashed in anything) but from a range of infections that might be fatal - not fatal here, usually, where we have medicine and health care, but babies die of 'simple' infections elsewhere, which of course are not always linked to water

babies of mothers who are malnourished breastfeed just fine* - unless the mother is literally starving, her milk will be sufficient in quality and quantity for her infant to thrive. Chronic undernourishment is not good, but it will not affect her infant. Fully breastfed infants in third world conditions usually grow well - nutrition workers in these situations try to keep the mum breastfeeding, and away from influences that tell her that her milk is not enough, or from situations that separate her from her baby. Older infants not taking all their diet from breastfeeding may suffer along with the rest of the family because of lack of food

• mothers with HIV should breastfeed exclusively for 6 mths and then stop. Research shows this is better for infant health than either fully formula feeding or mixed feeding (there are good reasons for this - full bf with no formula gives some protection against the virus, whereas any formula affects the gut-bloodstream interface and increases the risk of the virus passing through)

• it certainly does matter in later childhood and adulthood if a baby was breastfed - breastfeeding in infancy gives long-term protection against a range of illnesses and conditions which persists even after breastfeeding ceases. In countries with poor health care, this can matter a lot

Hope that enlightens you a bit. I do agree that formula should be cheaper for those that need it, however - but its distribution in vulnerable areas needs careful control.

The lack of understanding and awareness of this issue being shown by some people on this thread is truly amazing.

It's a ridiculous thing for Oxfam to do they should know better. They do know better. It is inexcusable.

I have complained and I hope others do so too.

fgs

Its not formula in the bottle. Too clear looking

I thought that too Gawain.

Gawain - it doesn't matter what is in the bottle. It's the use of the bottle that is wrong - the use of a bottle to symbolise babies and motherhood. It could have had orange juice in it, or clear water, or Extra Virgin Olive Oil....in fact, it is a white liquid and is clearly intended to symbolise milk, anyway.

It could be expressed breastmilk, I suppose, or watery formula - not important.

My bet is that people in third world countires won't be downloading this from Youtube.

I doubt people in the third world have much use for trays or didgeredoos either. I took the items they wrote on to represent the person who wrote them and yes Mel B is a wealthy woman who can afford clean bottles. so what.

this whole thread is redic

Gawain - what an odd thing for Oxfam to permit, then - a wealthy woman using a bottle to symbolise herself (which is how you interpret it)?? It may do (again, how strange) - but it also symbolises other things, too, and Oxfam should have been alert to it.

omg this entire thread as custy said is ridiculous

I am constantly amazed at this forum and its militant and as someone mentioned earlier "gestapo" attitude to breast feeding

How the feck did OP get this video and make it into a bf issue

Some people have huge chips on their shoulder about the whole breast feeding issue and will grasp at anything to make their point its madness.

Tictok as usual makes some very valid point- but the OP was just bleeding barmy

Do you guys ever get bored of being so militant? Never fancy a day off?