|just trying to make women feel less guilty for trying and not being able to bf.....
I have been keeping a PG Blog (http://reagans.blogspot.com/
), which helps keep friends/family updated on my pregnancy without inundating everyone with e-mails...
I posted on my blog about the Real Simple issue, including my letter to the magazine (and a link to Mothering!
I received an e-mail from one friend in Australia (3 kids, all c-sections, all FF) saying that she agreed with the RS article; that she found BF to be too hard and too time-consuming; that FF made it so that her DH could help with feeds. She said she was glad to see that the magazine addressed FF-ing to make women who "couldn't BF" feel less-guilty.
As you know, here's the magazine's response on their Web site:
|"But not all mothers are able to nurse for the 12 months recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The advice in the article is intended for those women — women who sincerely want to do the right thing but are defeated by circumstance and subsequently saddled by guilt. In no way are we suggesting that breast-feeding is a waste of time."
I excerpted this to my Aussie friend, and explained to her that, if RS truly wanted to offer comfort to these supposedly "defeated" or "guilt-ridden" women, then perhaps they should have written an insightful, sensitive article dedicated to the subject, instead of a 200-word blurb sandwiched between "What's the worst that can happen -- if you jaywalk?" or "if you sneak your own food into a movie theatre?" or "if you wash your dog with human shampoo?" Further, I explained that I view this as intellectual dishonesty, especially since the OB/GYN they used has taken fellowship monies from a company that makes infant formulas.... at the very least, he's a less-than-objective party.
I think I was able to make the point that it isn't about BF vs. FF; it's how the matter was handled, from start to finish, by the magazine.