Chris writes:


>
>My impression is that poverty limits a women's available choices.  When
there
>is NO affordable alternative to breastfeeding, then poverty would lead to
>higher bf rates.  But when there is an alternative and the woman has some
>resources she can spend on it, then poverty may push her away from
>breastfeeding because she sees bottle-feeding as a way to free her time and
>energy to use in ways that will benefit her and her family more, as in the
>case of a woman who bottle-feeds so she can go to work and bring home an
>income to provide food for all the children, not just for the baby.
<smip>

Chris, this is so interesting and (I think) true. The real social,
qualitative stuff of research into feeding 'choices' has yet to be
done.  Formula is something a poor woman in Western society  is
*allowed*, in social terms, to buy. She is also *allowed* to buy
cigarettes. And she is also *allowed* to spend a lot of money she
does not have on frilly furbelows for her baby.

Here, it is possible to obtain many baby goods on credit even if you
are very poor. So clothing and prams and cots and things are
relatively easy to buy, for anyone. The very poorest mothers get milk
tokens which mostly cover their formula costs, but mothers who are
less than very poor don't get them...but they have a measure of
independence in choosing to spend their limited income on formula.

All the stuff you say about responding to cues is true, too.

Poor women do not have many choices in our world. They probably have
a lot fewer than poor men.

That's why infant feeding is a political issue.

Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne UK

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html