"Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

"Clisby Williams" wrote in message
...


dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Clisby Williams wrote:



dragonlady wrote:



In article ymHPa.38200$H17.11890@sccrnsc02, "Corinne"
wrote:





I was alerted to this article on an email group I'm part of....I was
AMAZED
and greatly disappointed to read the following:

"The August 2003 issue of Real Simple magazine, currently on
newstands,
contains an article titled "20 Time Wasting Rules to Break Now."
(page 136)

What's one of the rules to break? Breastfeeding. The article states
that with bottle-feeding, "you know exactly how much food the baby is
eating, and Mom may be less tired because Dad has no excuse to sleep
through 3 a.m. feedings."




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.

meh




Actually, that's the one thing I agree with. My first child was
formula-fed, and my second
breastfed. The formula-feeding was definitely simpler for me. But
then, it might have
made my life "simpler" to plop the babies in a playpen in a soundproofed
room and close
the door. What's simplest is not always what's preferable.

Clisby




I don't want to dispute you -- I believe you -- but I can't figure out
how formula and bottles could be simpler than breastfeeding, especially
if you spend much time out of the house, but even if you are home all
the time.

Can you explain how it was simpler?

meh



Sure. The major thing, of course, is that if you formula-feed a child,
you don't have to do
it all. Until my daughter was about 7 months old, my husband did the
majority of the
feeding (he was the SAHP for most of that time.) How could BF possibly
have been simpler for me?

With my breastfed child: for the first 3 months, breastfeeding was
very difficult. YMMV,
but I can't consider something that caused that much pain to have made
my life simpler.
The second three months were much better, but still not easy, by any
measure. And again,
I had to do it all. That's the huge downside of breastfeeding. I
think it's easy now; but
I have a 17-month-old who only nurses 3-4 times in a 24-hour period, and
probably wouldn't
care if I cut it back to twice.

In my experience of reading these newsgroups, people who talk about the
inconvenience
of formula feeding typically are grossly exaggerating the amount of time
and bother it takes.
Here's the kind of thing I read:

1. You have to sterilize bottles. (No, you don't.)
2. You have to get up in the middle of the night and fix a bottle.
(Only if your definition
of "fixing a bottle" is: reach in the refrigerator, pull out a
bottle, stick it in the baby's
mouth. If you have a picky baby, maybe you microwave it for 10
seconds first.)
3. If you go out with the baby, you have to wait until you find
somewhere to warm up
the bottle. (No, you don't.)
4. You have to go to the trouble of buying the formula. (Oh, give me
a break.)
5. You might run out of formula. (Never happened. How much
trouble is it to remember
to buy the only food your baby eats?)



Clisby






Sorry I certainly don't want to say that breastfeeding is time wasting. I
have every intention of breastfeeding my second for as long as possible.

However I do agree, bottle feeding was easier for us. For pretty much the
same reasons. I made up all the bottles at once and then he had the same
amount at the same time very day, very simple. I did breastfeed him at first
before he got into a pattern, I imagine bottle feeding on demand in the
early weeks is a bit more complicated though.

Judy

toto wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:02:10 -0400, Clisby Williams
wrote:



toto wrote:






Difference in the time frame? When my children were young, we did
not have so many ready mixed things.





Maybe - but I still don't see how it could involve much paraphernalia.
If I hadn't had ready-to-feed formula, I could have filled the bottles of
water and taken along enough powder to mix. Or if you mean before
there was powdered formula - I could have taken along a couple of
bottles already filled with formula. At worst, I wouldn't need
it and would throw it out, but that's no big deal. It's not like I had
to carry around a portable sterilizer or something.

Clisby



Well, perhaps you didn't have to carry it around, but bf mothers
don't have to carry around breast pumps either.


No, but I don't hear FF mothers say they aren't BF because they don't
want to
carry around all the paraphernalia.

I'm curious why the comment is made the other way around. What is it
that people imagine
you have to carry around with you to FF? Or do some people really think
a couple
of bottles and a baggie of powder or a can or so of ready-mixed formula
is a lot of
stuff?

Clisby

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

On 12 Jul 2003 19:10:18 -0700, Banty wrote:


Friends: Sooo, what are you doing Sunday?
Me: I finally have time to get back to that quilt I've been putting off!
Friends: Oh - since you're not reaally doing anything, how about going boating
with us on Sunday!

NOt really doing anything????????????????????/

Barb ( who loves to quilt but does try and have both a big and a
protable project at all times, since she travels at a minute's notice
sometimes)

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
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Karen Askey wrote:

I'm curious why the comment is made the other way around. What is it
that people imagine
you have to carry around with you to FF? Or do some people really think
a couple
of bottles and a baggie of powder or a can or so of ready-mixed formula
is a lot of
stuff?



As Cheryl said in another post, it must be a huge YMMV thing. I've not used
formula, but I've exclusively bf my first and am using bottles of ebm for my
second. Almost every ff mom I have known in person has stated that a few times
she had to return home earlier than planned or go back to the house upon
setting out because they didn't bring enough formula or they plain old forgot
to pack it. I myself have had to turn around 1/2 doz times in the past 3
months b/c I forgot to bring DS's bottles along for the outing. I just am not
in the habit of thinking of it since I never had to with DS#1!


Well, I can see that. It might be different if you BF the first and
bottlefeed the 2nd (I know
you're not formula-feeding, but the mechanics of carrying the bottles
around is similar). I never
forgot to take formula with me and never forgot to buy it - of course,
you can buy it at
any grocery store or drugstore around here, so it wouldn't be any big
deal if I did forget it.


For me, all the "stuff" i have to think about now is the number of bottles I
might need (1? 2? more?), the little cooler, an ice pack, an extra nipple (in
case the one I have rips), and sometimes my Avent breastpump if I am concerned
I might be gone long enough that I should also pump. That's, to me, a lot more
than I ever had to take when I was only bf. When you pack that into a backpack
with a couple diapers each for 2 kids, wipes, a couple of small toys or books
to distract the older one, a change of clothes for at least one child, a sippy
cup and snack for older child, my wallet, and burp cloths, I'm getting a little
loaded down.


Like you said later in the post, this is at least partly because you're
pumping. Which, by the way, I
think is great. Women who exclusively pump for their babies are the
heroines of feeding, IMO.
I didn't have to take a cooler, or an ice pack, or a pump.

When I'm out and about in town I don't worry as much b/c I can always return
home if I need to. But if I go to my mom's where my emergency freezer stash is
not readily available, then there is a little more pressure to plan the number
of bottles and to pump once I get there.

Of course, that's b/c I'm pumping. If I was ff then I could just pick up a can
of formula and some bottled water if I was to run out during errands. Over the
long haul, though, that's an expense I'd rather avoid while I can.

Again, I guess it's a YMMV thing, but especially since I bf the first and am
not in the habit of thinking about taking a bunch of stuff with me, and perhaps
b/c I'm pumping and using ebm and a specialty feeding device, bf is definitely
much easier for me!!!!!



I can well imagine. I pumped for my first child for a little over 2
months and it nearly drove
me crazy. I would never claim that pumping/bottlefeeding was easier
than breastfeeding.

Clisby

Cheryl S. wrote:

Elizabeth Reid wrote in message
. com...


I don't know. I used powdered formula, and I carried a couple of
bottles of water, plus a Baggie of powder. Nothing that would require
a giant bag, and if you carry water plus powder there's no
fretting about anything going bad, because the clock doesn't
start until you mix the two together.



This is clearly a huge YMMV thing. For me, getting out the door was
hard enough the first few months, and even this much more to do (measure
water into bottles and powder into baggies) would be more than I wanted
to add. I really liked that feeding, at least, was the one thing I
never had to think about at all. Plus, water is heavy, and my diaper
bag was heavy enough already (compared to the tiny purse I'd been used
to, pre-baby). I wouldn't want to have to carry water around. The
biggest thing for me is that I really dislike washing dishes, so adding
several bottles and nipples a day to the dish-washing is way more than
I'm willing to do in order to use formula. But, like I said, YMMV.



Sure. And in my case, most of the burden of that fell on my husband,
anyway. I will readily
admit that BF would have been easier than FF for *him*.

Clisby

Sue wrote:

Cheryl S. wrote in message news:bes69l$8en21


Another INTJ heard from. ;-)



If I knew what that meant, I could probably say that I am too. )

--
Sue
mom to three girls




Well, of course, because INTJs are cool. The initials come from the
Myers-Briggs
personality assessement test, which is based (I think) on Jungian
psychology. Anyhow, you
answer a bunch of questions and are assessed on these characteristics:

I/E introverted/extroverted
N/S intuitive/sensing
T/F thinking/feeling
J/P judging/perceiving

I took it at work once - I can't remember if it was a team-building
exercise or something
else. There are web-based tests, too - I took one of those once and
also came out
as INTJ.

However, you didn't say what kind of needlework you do.

Clisby

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...

I don't feel guilty or have second thoughts; I guess that was the point
I was trying to make: the if the article was REALLY about reducing
guilt, they should have said that, instead of making it sound like
breast feeing was a "time waster". For some people, it DOES appear to
be a time sink; for others it appears to be a time saver. Either way
-- do what works, and don't look back!


Amen!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/4/03

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"The Ranger" wrote:

dragonlady asked in message
...
[snip]
but I can't figure out how formula and bottles could be
simpler than breastfeeding, [..]
Can you explain how it was simpler?

In our case it was as simple as:
1) Purchase multiple cases of concentrated liquid formula insert myriad
of
choices from Toys-R-Us (either at a B&M or on-line); store in pantry
until
needed. On our trip through TX, we were able to purchase pre-measured,
fully-mixed liquid formula where we swapped their lid for our bottle
nipples.
2) Get two cans from storage. Pop tops with can opener.
3) Pour both into pitcher; measure out appropriate amount of water.
Stir.
4) P(remeasure)our into all available bottles. Cap. Refrigerate.

During feeding the steps we
1) Grab two at a time from 'fridge, pop into microwave, nuke for 30
seconds,
shake, test.
2) Pop on nipple cap and pop into infants' mouths.

I remember feeding taking a maximum of 15 minutes for each child. (Spawn
was
a little more difficult because she was a lazy feeder and tended to try
to
nap.)

The Ranger



OK -- but how was that simpler than:

1) Sit down
2) Plop out breast(s)?

Which requires no refrigeration, microwave, store, pitcher, or measuring
cups?

(Again, I really am NOT trying to be difficult; I've heard people say
that bottles were simpler than breasts. Since my first was
bottle/formula fed after a few months, and my twins breastfed, I have
the comparison, and considered breast SO much simpler -- I'm just trying
to understand why, for some folks, the bottle is simpler.)

(And, yes, I understand that for many people bottle feeding is
necessary/desirable for reasons that have nothing to do with simplicity.)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care


I thought Clisby's answer was pretty descriptive. Pumping is a drag. There
is nothing simple about it. Dad was home all day; she wasn't. And the
ability to share feeding can simplify things. Simple is in the eye of the
beholder if you ask me. Each family's organizational style is different.
Some people acheive efficiency by job sharing, some by stripping steps.

S