Late to the party - did lobbyists take down the breastfeeding post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

You’re literally on the side of the Trump administration which joined your Very Principled position on defending the noble infant formula. It’s hilarious you think you can talk about misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

You’re literally on the side of the Trump administration which joined your Very Principled position on defending the noble infant formula. It’s hilarious you think you can talk about misogyny.

I detest Trump but a broken clock is right twice a day. It was a very logical decision to protest an extremist resolution banning not only formula but infant food. And despite breastfeeding formula and infant food is necessary in cases to support babies. The media, especially the NYtimes, seized on that to demonized trump. So that was a form of breastfeeding extremism and shoving unreasonable breastfeeding down our throats and I am glad it was defeated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

Speaking out how extremist breastfeeding rhetoric has become is not attacking protections for breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

+1 I extended breastfed my kids and I highly resent the way breastfeeding was shoved down my throat.

+1 I hated it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And there are "health experts" that bully moms into breastfeeding when its health benefits beyond a certain point are questionable. And hospitals that put moms and newborns at risk under the guise of being "baby friendly."

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there are "health experts" that bully moms into breastfeeding when its health benefits beyond a certain point are questionable. And hospitals that put moms and newborns at risk under the guise of being "baby friendly."

What are you talking about?

Plenty of stories. Personally my milk came in late and my kid dehydrated with red crystals in the diaper. But I was told not to give formula as it could ruin breastfeeding. Second child I told everyone I didn’t want the lactation consultant to see me. Guess who came in minutes after the baby arrived- the lactation consultant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

Speaking out how extremist breastfeeding rhetoric has become is not attacking protections for breastfeeding.

Trying to keep women from getting maternity leave by delinking the benefits of breastfeeding, however, is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As someone who breastfed all kids until past age two, I think pro-BF sites and language tends to be incredibly, deeply misogynist. I’m glad to see people pushing back here.

In the other thread, the point was made by several posters that the messaging around breastfeeding used to be that formula was better. I know people here are proclaiming that is 2023, but history is always worth learning to put things into context. The pro breastfeeding message today is in a large part a reaction to messages and advertising in the past, advertising so extreme that many countries limit ads like we do for alcohol and tobacco. We are always swinging from message to message about things. Don’t eat butter, eat margarine! Oh wait, butter is actually better. Spare the rod, spoil the child! Oh wait, let’s not hit our kids. Remember the era of non fat everything? Those potato chips with olestra that would send you running for the toilet? We would eat foods with no fat but a million grams of sugar. Pregnant women were encouraged to smoke in the 30’s - it relaxes the mom and the added bonus was lower birth weight babies! This was an actual touted benefit for pregnant women smokers. We went from that to pictures of emphysematous lungs on cigarette packs within decades.

Okay? The current messaging around breastfeeding is still awful and misogynistic and desperately needs updating.

And the attacks on women who breastfeed or efforts to undermine any protections for women who breastfeed…aren’t misogynistic? That’s an interesting take given how few men breastfeed.

Now you are just deflecting.

You’re literally on the side of the Trump administration which joined your Very Principled position on defending the noble infant formula. It’s hilarious you think you can talk about misogyny.

I detest Trump but a broken clock is right twice a day. It was a very logical decision to protest an extremist resolution banning not only formula but infant food. And despite breastfeeding formula and infant food is necessary in cases to support babies. The media, especially the NYtimes, seized on that to demonized trump. So that was a form of breastfeeding extremism and shoving unreasonable breastfeeding down our throats and I am glad it was defeated.

The specific language the Trump officials worked to excise was “protect, promote and support breastfeeding". The NYT picked it up but so did the global news media including the BBC.

Also, and I know you know this, the WHO can’t “ban” formula or infant food. They removed WHO support to nations trying to prevent "inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children" and the fact that you consider that as “extreme” says a lot about your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people hate breastfeeding on this board. Your post won’t last long or is going to be get some seriously snarky responses. I’d find a more supportive group and ask this to be taken down.

No, they just hate sanctimonious breastfeeding bullies who stigmatize formula feeding to the detriment of mothers.

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yeah why support a biological function that has raised human beings for over 4,000 years? that would be silly

Thank you for being Exhibit A.

[Anonymous]

Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok I’m giving up on the quote function this morning:

I mean, she’s not wrong. What is more troubling to me is that it’s the same companies who were willfully allowing babies to die outside the United States to pad their bottom lines within our lifetimes. I don’t understand why people can look at a company who knowingly put babies in harms way— and think that they care at all about “our” babies. The formula industry needs to be regulated much, much more aggressively than it is now.

She is not wrong that formula companies are marketing their products? Okay? The point you make about regulation is a separate one. Formula itself is highly regulated do please stop implying that the product itself is unsafe. That is not helpful to families that need to give their babies formula. What is going on right now, in 2023 is a separate issue which neither you nor OP have addressed directly because it is about protecting access to formula, not convincing people to avoid it.

Btw lactivists also knowingly put babies in harms way by insisting that formula supplementation is evil and demanding that women who have undergone major surgery room in with their babies. Why should we trust them about a thing? I honestly think they belong in hell for starving babies