Lovely positive story about breastfeeding in the Daily Mail

[sherby]

wow

I'm pretty sure the baby over her shoulder is a different baby to the one she fed. But the baby she fed did not look malnourished either.

I think her intentions were genuine imo

So how do you choose? Out of all the starving babies in that one village, how would she have chosen just one?

Are there risks to someone feeding a baby who is HIV positive for instance? Because if there are then this would have had to be a lot more co-ordinated than just turning up in a village and feeding a random baby.

Surely she would have been better placed to give money towards setting up a milk bank and donating some of her own milk by way of a statement so that any baby would be able to benefit in future, rather than just feeding one baby while she was being filmed.

"So how do you choose? Out of all the starving babies in that one village, how would she have chosen just one? "

I would recommend choosing the cutest and most photogenic [cynical emoticon]

Now, call me a cynic but isn't it a bit "convenient" for Ms. Hayek that this story comes out just before the release of a new film (Cirque du Freak due to be released 19 Feb 2009)? Nice breastfeeding story, pah. Nice publicity more like!

The BFG the best way to ensure that these babies are breastfed is to provide food for the mothers. Not donated food, but a way that they can produce (or buy) their own food from within the local economy.

not milk banks, etc.

Tik, I did read your posts. Just didn't understand....

IMO there needs to be both.

There needs to be food for these mothers, there also needs to be support to help them to breastfeed their own babies. But in the event they are unable to do so, a milk bank would be preferable to formula which is expensive and carries risks because the water used to mix it with is often contaminated.

Tiktok - obviously you are a bfc and therefore my knowledge of bf issues , as a bog-standard bf mother of 2, is tiny in comparison to yours. I am greatly indebted to the many bfcs who have helped me in the past.

But this is surely an argument about perceptions and therefore one in which even the layperson has a valid point to make. I wasn't trying to patronise and I'm sorry if I misquoted anyone on Mexico and colonisation. I am probably not reading things as closely as I should as I have just had the morning from hell topped off by my kids smearing playdoh all over the telly

ilove and giveusabreak: in a nutshell, here's what I mean:

• the film raises too many questions - the baby looked well-fed, the mother looked fine, so why was mother 'unable' to bf, and what help was she getting to do so?
• what happens when SH leaves? How does one feed help anyone?
• is this not reminiscent of rich, overseas people coming into Africa and bountifully 'rescuing' rather than working with populations and services? (Things used to be all bountifulness, but then we knew better)
• the mother looked uncomfortable and unhappy - maybe she was fine about it, but she is rather left out of the story, and the story becomes all about SH

Other people may have different perceptions of all of this, and that's fine

I think there is something else bothering me: the complete absence of the voice of the local women and/or the mother. 'We' have just decided that 'she' isn't making enough milk: what does the mother say/feel? I could think of nothing worse than being in her position actually, with the eyes of the world on a rich Western woman providing my baby with stuff from her rich priviliged body that my poverty-striken body is unable to provide.

Where is her voice?

I find it depressing tbh

MP - my point, too, and I seem to have ended up on two threads about this, making similar unhappy noises about it all

Good post MP. The look on the mother's face made me sad too.

As I said in the previous thread it's not the same baby.
When you watch the film, she's nursing alone and indoors- there is no sign of the baby's mother at all. It doesn't mention anything about the mother not being able to nurse, only that the week old baby is sick.

The scenes where you see her outdoors with a baby in her arms and an African woman by her side are shot later and the baby is clearly not the same one.

I don't know about the background obviously, but the journalist explains that the babies are not always nursed because locals believe they shouldn't have sexual relations with a nursing mother. As a result a lot of new fathers encourage their partner to stop nursing, to the detriment of the infants.

A hospital worker then mentions they'll like to see mothers nurse their babies for 2 years (to the journalist's surprise) and it then moves on to Hayek nursing the week old infant- as I said the mother's not mentioned, only the fact that the infant is sick.

auroirec - she is not alone indoors. She is speaking to people towards her right hand side, and you see a brief shot of the nurse (or part of her) at 33 secs. Later, the clip shows the lady who is sitting next to her out of doors, indoors.

Tiktok you're right I just saw that.I'm not sure what to think anymore.

It's worth seeing the whole film though. If you scroll down the page I actually posted it yesterday (from a blog link but someone mercifully post another link without the blog).
It's a 10mns or so documentary that addresses the issue of infant mortality, the problem with preventable disease and the need to BF for all mothers. It's very interesting and informative. In context I didn't find Hayek BF exploitative or gimmicky.

See the other thread on this for the whole kettle-of-fish which is the HIV issue....

Helicoptering in charitiable celebrities is always going to be problematic, and the same happens when Bono/Madonna/Angelina visit, with the press following them -- what happens when they leave, was their visit necessary/helpful/going to make a difference.

I think SH's urge to feed the baby was spontaneous and unrehearsed, and she later talks about her grandmother's response to feed another woman's child.

Agree with Tik that it doesn't solve the root problem, namely why can't the mother feed her baby and addressing these reasons.

But, the word, 'wet nurse' wasn' mentioned once, and for the Daily Mail, surely this is a step forward?

I'm glad to see this thread... read the others yesterday and thought exactly the same - how is this helping the mother, and what was wrong with her supply anyway? But didn't post as it was so late.

I feel uncomfortable about it all.

Message withdrawn