Hi,



While I can see merit in Karleen's suggestion of equating the term "infant
feeding" with breastfeeding, we do need a generic term that covers anything
at all that is fed to an infant.  That is, whether the baby is breastfed
(directly from the mother or another woman), bottle-fed breast milk,
artificially fed, or given complementary food after 6 months.  I agree we
need to use a term that differentiates types of feeding that aren't natural,
whether we are talking about commercially packaged artificial baby milks or
traditional artificial feeding (diluted or undiluted animal milks,
cereal-based preparations, arrowroot-based foods).  I thought of
"sub-optimal infant feeding", but I don't think that would take off.  The
book distributed to all new mothers in the post-World War II period in
Queensland, Mother & Child, titled its chapter about substitutes,
"Artificial or Unnatural Feeding".  (Curiously, this was at a time when
mother-books by a leading manufacturer of artificial feeding products were
distributed to new mothers, too.)



"Feeding" was used for a long time in Australia as a short form of the word
"breastfeeding", and people always understood what was meant.  So other
women would ask, "Are you feeding your baby?", which was short for "Are you
feeding the baby yourself?" or "Are you breastfeeding?".



In this part of the world, "breastfeeding" has always carried the
implication of "the closeness", implying the whole package, not just the
milk.  This was so, even when medical people and the public had begun to
think breastfeeding had been superseded by factory-made products, when they
still accepted that "the closeness" was good for the mother-baby bond. (As
Australians and Britons will know, the word "nursing" isn't a substitute, as
it is usually taken to mean holding the baby, usually without breastfeeding
and often in a fairly perfunctory way that doesn't carry an idea of nurture.
Anyone can "nurse" the baby.)



Also on the topic of terminology, most Lactnetters will be aware of
geographical preferences for using either the word "nipple" or "teat" for
artificial nipples. We probably should be more specific in terminology,
calling an artificial nipple just that, an "artificial nipple" - there is no
way it is anything like the human variety in consistency, texture, action,
despite superficial appearance, and despite the claims of advertising.
There was a time in the interwar period, 1920s/'30s, when the term
"mouthpiece" was put forward by some writers of manuals for mothers, for
nipple/teat.  It didn't catch on with the public, but "mouthpiece" would be
a good generic term to use today, considering the variety of mouthpieces
marketed for infant use, either on bottles or sippy cups. I propose to start
using the term in my own writing.



Virginia



Dr Virginia Thorley, OAM, PhD, IBCLC, FILCA

Brisbane, Qld, Australia

E: [log in to unmask]



Wed, 30 Dec 2009 (Australian Eastern Time) Karleen Gribble wrote:

Subject: Re: Need a reference!

Too many times breastfeeding is idealised and formula feeding normalised in
language. I'm doing my bit to try and chip away (and obliterate the phrase
"optimal infant feeding" but it's hard work!

Karleen Gribble

Australia






             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome