Rewording your gut reactions/personal beliefs

[carriebft]

How do you personally change the more harsh beliefs you have when you put them into words out in the lactivism trenches. BY this I mean, first, do you have any "harsh beliefs" such as I do; for example, I feel "formula can kill babies." And do you change the way you talk about those beliefs when you are out promoting breastfeeding? What changes do you make? Have you found any especially effective wording/conversations? How do you approach it all?

I understand that this thread will include personal beliefs that may be harsh to readers. Please refrain from attacking those beliefs but, rather, concentrate on how those beliefs can be turned into more effective conversation and knowledge spreading.

[rmzbm]

I try to stick to FACTS. If it's a FACT, I don't much care if it IS harsh. "Formula can kill babies" is a FACT.
There are many harsh facts about formula. Noone does anyone any favors to downplay them.

[ShadowMom]

Well, in that situation I would probably just say that the infant death rate is twice as high for babies who were exclusively formula fed (or whatever the accurate statistic is).

"Formula can kill babies" is a true statement, but it kinda borders on fearmongering without putting it into perspective with the facts. It's a rather excitable way of putting something and if you're trying to reach others maybe not the best choice, as you have already said.

I think really the way to deal with this sort of situation is to try to see the world through the lens of the actual mother you're talking to, or through the lens of moms who are using formula. It can be hard to do that because you have to let go of some judgmental beliefs, but it really helps you understand the support that those sort of mamas might need... IMO.

[bellymama]

Originally Posted by rmzbm

I try to stick to FACTS. If it's a FACT, I don't much care if it IS harsh. "Formula can kill babies" is a FACT.
There are many harsh facts about formula. Noone does anyone any favors to downplay them.

i can be down with that..., however, i am curious (i am new to this whole lactavism thing, so i am still learning a lot about facts, opinions, beliefs, etc) when you say formula kills babies, are you refering to babies in third world countries...and how because of the lack of water sanitation, the use of formula can cause death? or is there more to it than this? i understand completely that breastmilk is best, but from my understanding, formula is something that can save lives when used APPROPRIATELY, in my opinion: when mother CAN NOT lactate and donor milk is either not available or something she is comfortable using for whatever reason....
in these situations, which obviously and unfortunately do exist, would you still consider formula to kill babies? i am asking this with a purely sincere tone, no sarcasm....i honestly wonder.
from my limited knowledge of formula, i would say that i agree with the fact that formula causes death when used in areas where water sanitation isn't up to par. i would say that formula does not kill babies in places where water sanitation is up to par.
i wish that formula was like a prescription drug, that you could only use it when there is no other option, and that you had to have doctors prescribe it so you could get it. because i think that it is necessary, for adopted mothers who cannot relactate, mothers who have had breast cancer or breast reduction surgeries that make it impossible for them to lactate, or any other health reason that i am unaware of that causes this....because if it didn't exist what would these mamas and babies do? again, with no sarcasm or snarkiness (never heard that word till i came here ) what are your solutions for those situations?
thanks!

[carriebft]

for me personally, there are a lot of things I put under this category. There is the AAP statement that 720 babies could be saved every year if they were breastfed, there is the Enterobacter sakazakii risk, the risks of the immune system not living to its biological norm, etcetc. I have a lot of things I put under my personal belief that formula can kill, but when I go out into the world and I find a situation i feel would benefit by talking about this belief I have, I do change the wording. That's what I mean here by how we change our beliefs when we turn them into words in order to further the lactivist movement.

But there are time when I don't change them. For example, I feel formula expensive to tax payers and, much of the time, unnecessarily so because we have breasts to feed our children. So, with my neighbor today (see other thread on my neighbor) I just came right out and said it could save him, the tax payer, money if he supported breastfeeding. But I would not say that to, say, someone I know on welfare.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by bellymama

i am asking this with a purely sincere tone, no sarcasm....i honestly wonder.
from my limited knowledge of formula, i would say that i agree with the fact that formula causes death when used in areas where water sanitation isn't up to par. i would say that formula does not kill babies in places where water sanitation is up to par.

This is actually not true, although it seems to be a pretty common misconception that formula is only dangerous for babies in third world countries. In the US, the relative risk of formula fed infants dieing is a 5 (a child who is not breastfed is 5 times more likely to die in the US than a child who does receive breastmilk.) And while that number isn't as high some other countries, it's still high enough that we should be taking notice.

This article
http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/a...a-report-2.htm
does a fairly good job of explaining how formula plays into the death rate of babies in the US.

[ShadowMom]

The death rate is actually higher for formula-fed babies than breastfed here in the U.S. The exact number escapes me, but I believe the difference is 1/1000 for breastfed babies, and 2/1000 for formula fed babes.

I assume that's what the previous posters were referring to. I don't think anyone here will argue that formula is an absolute LIFESAVER in situations where a mama does not have breastmilk, either her own or a donor's, available.

[L&IsMama]

I don't reword my personal beliefs if they are factual. And in the case of breastfeeding, my personal beliefs towards formula happen to be fact as well. Why should I sugar-coat the truth because the facts may make someone uncomfortable?

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by L&IsMama

I don't reword my personal beliefs if they are factual. And in the case of breastfeeding, my personal beliefs towards formula happen to be fact as well. Why should I sugar-coat the truth because the facts may make someone uncomfortable?

I definitely say that is valid.

I started this thread as a kind of spin off the other one to try and help those who wondered what they could say instead of saying what popped into their head or what they believed if they thought that belief might be offensive. But it is perfectly valid to feel that changing those stronger words is not the way to go.

[songbh]

I think context is everything. Also, "Speak the truth in love." If a person is paying attention to subtle cues from others (which, I grant you, is much harder to do on a messageboard than in person), then her gut will tell her how to speak the right truth for that situation, at that moment, in the most loving way.

Probably one of my "harsh beliefs" is that the medical profession sabotages or neglects breastfeeding at just about every conceivable opportunity.

Said the wrong way, this belief can make a mother feel attacked or criticized for trusting her doctor, or for following the advice of nurses after a hospital birth.

Phrased the right way and AT THE RIGHT TIME, this perspective can encourage a mother to educate herself and be an informed consumer of healthcare.

In another context, and phrased more strongly, this line of thinking might guide someone to question WHY the system works so badly so often, and get them thinking more critically and radically.

It all depends on context, timing, audience. And of course tone of voice and body language (also very hard to read or convey well on a messageboard or over e-mail.)

If you are interested in pursuing this type of effective communication skills based on respect and clarity, I encourage you to check out your local LLL groups and ask about a "communication skills" series. This is a big focus in LLL, for Leaders and mothers alike.

[angelachristine]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

This is actually not true, although it seems to be a pretty common misconception that formula is only dangerous for babies in third world countries. In the US, the relative risk of formula fed infants dieing is a 5 (a child who is not breastfed is 5 times more likely to die in the US than a child who does receive breastmilk.) And while that number isn't as high some other countries, it's still high enough that we should be taking notice.

This article
http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/a...a-report-2.htm
does a fairly good job of explaining how formula plays into the death rate of babies in the US.

I think I would reword the "formula can kill" statement into a positive bfing statement. From the above article, the risk of SIDS decreases if you breastfeed or premature infants have a higher rate of survival if breastfed. That way you give the facts without the harsh statement.

[bellymama]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

This is actually not true, although it seems to be a pretty common misconception that formula is only dangerous for babies in third world countries. In the US, the relative risk of formula fed infants dieing is a 5 (a child who is not breastfed is 5 times more likely to die in the US than a child who does receive breastmilk.) And while that number isn't as high some other countries, it's still high enough that we should be taking notice.

This article
http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/a...a-report-2.htm
does a fairly good job of explaining how formula plays into the death rate of babies in the US.

thanks for the link...there is so much i don't know, i appreciate it.

[thismama]

"Formula kills babies" is too generalized and inflammatory. I was rolling my eyes til I read AM's further information. I say if you are going to use really shocking facts, you need to be very specific, or you will lose people who know ff babies who are thriving and think you are totally off your nut. Kwim?

[Clarinet]

I agree with Thismama and Shadowmom. I think facts are very helpful in changing someone's mind but realistically, how many babies do you know that died as a direct result of formula feeding? Me, none. When I hear "formula kills babies," my gut reaction is to roll my eyes and move on. But when I hear formula fed babies are 5 times more likely to die than breastfed babies, I can evaluate for myself the reasons why babies in general may die (ailments undiagnosed, SIDS, contagious illness and lack of immunity, etc.) and then break it down into two categories - 16.67% breastfed and 83.33% formula fed. That I can appreciate rather than the general "deadly formula" statement.

[sonrisaa29]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

This is actually not true, although it seems to be a pretty common misconception that formula is only dangerous for babies in third world countries. In the US, the relative risk of formula fed infants dieing is a 5 (a child who is not breastfed is 5 times more likely to die in the US than a child who does receive breastmilk.) And while that number isn't as high some other countries, it's still high enough that we should be taking notice.

This article
http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/a...a-report-2.htm
does a fairly good job of explaining how formula plays into the death rate of babies in the US.

I found her followup article on Formula called "When It has to be Formula" (see top of article for the link) extremely enlightening and well written.

[Ruthe]

Originally Posted by angelachristine

I think I would reword the "formula can kill" statement into a positive bfing statement. From the above article, the risk of SIDS decreases if you breastfeed or premature infants have a higher rate of survival if breastfed. That way you give the facts without the harsh statement.

You need to read this:
http://www.bobrow.net/kimberly/birth/BFLanguage.html
excerpt:
"When we (and the artificial milk manufacturers) say that breastfeeding is the best possible way to feed babies because it provides their ideal food, perfectly balanced for optimal infant nutrition, the logical response is, "So what?" Our own experience tells us that optimal is not necessary. Normal is fine, and implied in this language is the absolute normalcy--and thus safety and adequacy--of artificial feeding. The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior. Those are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary.

Advantages. When we talk about the advantages of breastfeeding--the "lower rates" of cancer, the "reduced risk" of allergies, the "enhanced" bonding, the "stronger" immune system--we reinforce bottlefeeding yet again as the accepted, acceptable norm.

Health comparisons use a biological, not cultural, norm, whether the deviation is harmful or helpful. Smokers have higher rates of illness; increasing prenatal folic acid may reduce fetal defects. Because breastfeeding is the biological norm, breastfed babies are not "healthier;" artificially-fed babies are ill more often and more seriously. Breastfed babies do not "smell better;" artificial feeding results in an abnormal and unpleasant odor that reflects problems in an infant's gut. We cannot expect to create a breastfeeding culture if we do not insist on a breastfeeding model of health in both our language and our literature..."

[Ruthe]

http://www.massbfc.org/advocacy/makeCase.html
"effective lactivism"

[bellymama]

Originally Posted by Clarinet

I agree with Thismama and Shadowmom. I think facts are very helpful in changing someone's mind but realistically, how many babies do you know that died as a direct result of formula feeding? Me, none. When I hear "formula kills babies," my gut reaction is to roll my eyes and move on. But when I hear formula fed babies are 5 times more likely to die than breastfed babies, I can evaluate for myself the reasons why babies in general may die (ailments undiagnosed, SIDS, contagious illness and lack of immunity, etc.) and then break it down into two categories - 16.67% breastfed and 83.33% formula fed. That I can appreciate rather than the general "deadly formula" statement.

same here...
i would never wear a shirt that said that specific quote.

[bellymama]

Originally Posted by Ruthe

http://www.massbfc.org/advocacy/makeCase.html
"effective lactivism"

good article.

[My4Boys]

I agree with Songbh - you have to know your audience, read their cues, and use the apporpriate languange to keep them listening. If you see them begin to shut down to what you are saying, change you tactics. I think it is possible to do this online as well - but a little more difficult. This is why I more often express stronger views here, at Mothering on the lactivism forum, than I would on a mainstream board - I assume (wrongly sometimes) that my audiance already has the facts and a similarly based belief system to my own.

I had an online acquaintance who was unable to temper her views to her audience. She was banned from Christian boards for her breastfeeding views, banned from Breastfeeding boards for her Christian views, and banned from mainstream parenting boards for her stance on everything from breastfeeding and homeschooling to religion and sexuality. It wasn't the strength of her convictions that were the problem - it was her inability to temper her words to foster open communication.

By playing to my audience on a mainstream board I have been able to convince several moms who had terrible experiences with breastfeeding to try again. I have helped many moms past the 2 week and 6 week panics, the sleepless nights, the sore nipples, the 'lack of milk'. I've created a few budding lactivists. (I have not had as much success with CIO. I'm still trying, very, very, gently)

It is easier IRL because you have body language and a give and take in conversation. But context, and finding that persons motivation, make a huge difference in the long run.