wrote:
Sarah,

I was hoping we could have this discussion on the merits of the points
we were trying to discuss with resorting to ad hominums.

Sarah Vaughan writes:

[...]
Regardless of how
: little concern you have for the feelings of women who dare to feed
: formula, there are damn good _practical_ reasons for trying to avoid
: presenting the message in a way that's hurtful or offensive.

Again, I think it is an unwarrented attack to characterize me as not
having concern for people who dare to feed formula.

The 'you' in that post was meant in the more general sense (the
equivalent of 'one'), and was relating more to some of the other
comments I'd had in the thread. When I read your response here, I was
all set to post and clarify this point and apologise, because I do
realise that it was unclear and didn't come across the way I meant it to.

Then, I read your response to Jen's post in which she was disagreeing
with your suggestion of making formula prescription-only. In addition
to pointing out some practical disadvantages of this approach with which
I wholeheartedly agree, she also told her own story of breastfeeding
problems and made it quite clear how much she and her baby would have
suffered as a result of such a regulation. And your response was to say
that you'd just have to agree to disagree. No comments on how you might
avoid women having to be put through such a situation, not even an
acknowledgement of the fact that this seems to be a potential flaw in
the plan you're advocating. No indication at all that you're bothered
by the thought of putting women through those kinds of difficulties,
just as long as it's in the cause of a strategy which you believe
(without evidence) is going to increase breastfeeding rates.

I'm honestly staggered by this attitude. I don't really know what to
say to it. But I know what I can't say, right now - I can't honestly
say "Sorry, Larry, I don't believe you'd ever disregard the feelings of
women who dare to feed formula."

[...]
: Larry, maybe you missed this, but a few weeks ago a woman said that she
: was leaving this newsgroup because she couldn't face the reaction she
: knew she'd get if she mentioned that she was now, due to circumstances,
: feeding her nine-month-old breastfed son *some* formula. Previous posts
: on this group had left her feeling this way. That's the effect that
: this sort of attitude has on people. How many other women are there out
: there who leave groups like this or don't join them in the first place,
: precisely because they can't face such attitudes? How helpful are we
: going to be to women and babies if that's the way we come across?

The person you were referring to is Betsy, otherwise knows as oregonchick.

No, the person I was referring to is Jen, otherwise known as hooferoo.
I hope you've read her post in reply to yours, explaining her feelings
on this issue, and taken it into account; because if there's someone who
feels like this even on a strongly pro-breastfeeding newsgroup, then
what worries me is how many women there might be who simply never dared
post on the group at all due to worries that they'd be judged.

Larry, I understand that your intentions are of the best, and I know
that you aren't personally one of the people whose comments made Jen
feel uncomfortable with staying here. But I think this is an example of
why it is so crucially important that our attitudes don't come across as
being judgemental or extremist.


All the best,

Sarah

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

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell