dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Barbara Bomberger wrote:



On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:30:47 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:



Aside from everything else that's wrong with this, I can't, personally,
imagine that bottle feeding is LESS time consuming that breast feeding
-- assuming you aren't "propping" your baby, which is a bad idea anyway.
I know I visited households with twins the same age as mine who were
being bottle fed, and the amount of time devoted to mixing formula,
cleaning bottles, buying stuff, and, in one case, keeping the two
formulas seperate -- it just looked like a real time consuming effort
compared to plopping a breast (or two) out.


Well first of all, I didnt clean bottles. I used the replaceable bags
and had enough nipples to lst a long time.

Secondly (and this is a benefit, having done both), my younger
children could be held and fed by their dad, by me, by their ten year
old sister ..you get the drift.

I got much more sleep as a formula feeding parent, and much more free
time.

This is not a statement about the value of one kind of feeding over
the other, just a statement on my experience with the "time" factor.

Barb




I can definately see how formula and bottles would be a time saver and
simpler for the mother in a household with more adults (or older kids)
than babies; I know how much I enjoyed feeding my younger brother and
sister -- and if mom had nursed, I would not have had that particular
pleasure. I guess I was just thinking in terms of "person hours" --
the total time spent -- not just "mother hours".

meh



Yes. It's just like hiring a cleaning service makes life simpler for
me. Of course somebody
else is putting in the time cleaning - but the important factor is that
it ain't always me.

Clisby