wrote:
Sarah Vaughan writes:

: And when formula is presented as something inferior given to the baby
: instead of what the baby needs and deserves, what sort of message does
: that give to a woman who really wanted to breastfeed but was unable to
: do so?

This is an advertising message. It is aimed at the general populace,
the great majority of whom CAN breastfeed, not at the special needs
mother who would like to, but can't. I think we forget that is what
started the thread in the first place.

Given that, I think the first message (that formula feeding is less
desirable than breastfeeding) should be aimed at the populace as a
whole, who can breastfeed, and that the message the formula is the
best available alternative (some may argue, but let's say approximately
:-) should be aimed at the special needs mothers who cannot breastfeed.

Speaking in the social (not personal) context, we should not comprimise
the message for the the masses in order to meet the needs of those
who are in special circumstances. Rather we should create a special,
separate message for them because of their situation.

How? They're not going to divide themselves neatly into separate
groups. Women who couldn't breastfeed (either due to biological reasons
or to poor advice) are going to be reading about children's nutrition as
well, and are going to come across posts like that.

Also, although I understand the theory behind shifting the perspective
from 'breastmilk is best but formula is good enough' to 'breastmilk is
normal and formula is inferior', I'd like to know whether there's any
evidence that the latter approach actually works any better. As far as
Psych 101 goes, it's also Psych 101 that people are more motivated by
aiming for desirable consequences than by avoiding undesirable consequences.


All the best,

Sarah

--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

But how do we _know_ that no-one ever said on their deathbed that they
wished they’d spent more time at the office?