Hi Marianne,

Your long post made me both happy and sad - happy that you are so clear
about the importance of clear thinking and clear language, and the
underlying ethical issues.  Sad that there is so much misunderstanding of
*who* benefits by having babies fed unnecessarily from bottles (irrespective
of what's in the bottle).  Certainly not the baby, not the mother (more
work), and not the environment.  However, bottle-feeding of breastmilk as a
"standard" practice is of inestimable benefit to the manufacturers and
distributors of bottles, teats (mouthpieces) and breast pumps.

Marketing bottles and associated equipment to breastfeeding women is not
new.  In the past, in my country (Australia) and elsewhere, pregnant women
who were planning to breastfeed were urged by the health services, as well
as advertisers, to buy two bottles and some teats, as they were told to give
water and juice by bottle.  (Mothers like me who declined to do so were
considered "bad" mothers who didn't care about their babies' wellbeing.)
When breastfeeding became more fashionable again (at least with young
babies) and health services began to advise against giving juice, the
changes practices could have reduced the market for bottles.  Not so!  These
clever marketing people came up with "breastmilk containers" (which were
really feeding bottles), and fancier pumps, and marketed the idea that if
the contents of the bottle happened to be breastmilk, well, that was A Good
Thing. Somehow this was also "freeing" the mother - don't ask me how!  Jenny
Doncon's very heartfelt Lactnet post discussed the lack of freedom that
exclusively expressing involves, in a difficult situation where it was her
best alternative.  (You have done well, Jenny.)

Persuading mothers who don't need to use bottles at all that they are a
"normal" part of "breastfeeding" (as you mentioned) is sad.  But what
wonderful marketing!  You say that even breastfeeding advocates are
assisting with it!  What's the next thing - portable oxygen cylinders for
the general public, because it is beneficial for a small minority with
airways disease?

Marianne, I know you'll agree with this.  In countries where mothers cannot
avoid a return to work very early, a new focus on changing industrial
conditions to benefit women with babies seems to me a better long-term goal
that just making a small area for pumping and a refrigerator, which seems to
be increasingly considered to be the gold standard for assisting mothers and
babies.  It isn't.  Workplace crèches, or childcare facilities that serve
workplaces in adjacent buildings, breastfeeding breaks, and job sharing -
all these are worth working towards. Too hard?  Some of you will remember
when smoking was considered normal, including where food was served, and
non-smokers were expected to put up with the smoke drifting in their faces,
including those of us who are sensitive to cigarette smoke.  It was a time
when saying "no" to a perfunctory "Do you mind if I smoke" shocked people.
Changing that culture was considered unlikely - but now it has happened.

I've spent a lot of my life proving the "impossible" is possible. The above
isn't impossible.

Good luck with your writing, Marianne.

Virginia, in Brisbane, Queensland

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

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