Every so often another baby t-shirt appears in the shops with a slogan that annoys the breastfeeding community. Something along the lines of 'Party in my crib. 2am. Bring a bottle' or the Old Navy 'formula powered' onesie that caused a fuss a couple of years ago, or the latest one I've seen (which inspired this post), linked on Facebook, on the wonderful Analytical Armadillo's page, which was just odd: an equation showing a picture of a cow + picture of a milk bottle = feed me.
Lots of people say 'Chillax, it's only a t-shirt – Jeez, way to overreact!” when this sort of thing gets flagged as less than ideal. What they are failing to realise that this t-shirt is not the problem; it's a symptom. It's as if you've described a blemish on your body to your doctor, and they tell you, 'Hey, it's one tiny zit, don't freak out' – not understanding that the significance is not that one spot, but that there are hundreds of them forming a rash all over your body!
This culture has a pervasive attitude of bottle = baby. These t-shirts feed into that assumption, making it harder to challenge, and making it harder for people to choose to breastfeed. Everyone THINKS they know breast is best, but the message they actually get is breast is the ideal, a special extra, for those privileged few who can manage it, while formula is normal, and just as good. (Which is not logically possible, people. But that's a topic for another day.)
This prevailing attitude and assumption is very comparable to the reasoning behind 'Pink stinks' http://www.pinkstinks.org.uk/ Everywhere we look, the idea that 'pink is for girls' is reinforced. It's as well known as 'a is for apple'! There is nothing wrong with pink as an option. There is EVERYTHING wrong with giving boys a choice between blue and green and red and yellow (but not pink), while girls have the choice between coral and fuchsia and rose and cerise! Surely such cultural bias is even more problematic when the preferred, expected option (bottles) is intrinsically inferior to the far less visible option – breastfeeding.
Personal anecdote time - my son is growing his hair out. It's not quite long enough to tie back in a pony tail yet, but he needs to be able to wear a head band of some sort to keep the hair off his face. So I started looking for hair bands for him. It took weeks before I found what I was looking for – something cheap and practical that was neither pink nor covered with flowers. In the interests of full disclosure, I did find purple – but it was a lilac shade, and very 'girly' looking. And how depressing is that? Even I, who am proud of my boy's occasional tom-girl tendencies, who am fully aware that 'pink is for girls' is a limiting nonsense – feel obliged to buy into the societal norm of NOT putting pink accessories on my son. (He is at an age where his peers are likely to tease him for it, and adults have occasionally mistaken him for a girl, purely because of his longish hair. I don't want him to be teased, and I certainly don't want to risk him ending up utterly rejecting all things feminine in reaction to it!)
This culture 'knows' that long hair = girl = pink. Just like this culture 'knows' that baby = bottle. Which isn't a noticeable problem if you fit that norm. But it makes it harder, much harder, if you don't. And adds extra pressure to conform. Especially if you are at a vulnerable time in your life – say you're a child, or a tired, nervous, struggling new parent.
Of course no one chooses to formula feed on the basis of one t-shirt. Of course they don't. And no one decides their favourite colour on the basis of one t-shirt either. But when almost every t-shirt, toy and accessory you've ever owned is pink, or has some pink on it, you start to associate pink with nice things, and you learn to love pink. What do you think is the most commonly stated favourite colour among girls? Is there any doubt in your mind? Now, it is true that some people claim that the cause and effect goes in the opposite direction: i.e. there's a biological difference between men and women – and girls get pink stuff marketed to them because they are naturally drawn to it, rather than being drawn to pink because it is advertised to them. But I can't think of a single logical reason for such a preference to have evolved (at least not only in females), and it seems even less plausible in light of the fact that in the past pink was considered a masculine shade (being similar to red - a strong colour, while pastel shades – such as pale blue – were considered more suitable for girls!) It seems much more reasonable to accept that the pervasive message of girl = pink is affecting the choices and preferences of the last few generations of women. And even if one were to accept the premise of a biological preference - there can be no real doubt that marketing pressure exaggerates that preference to a ridiculous degree. Similarly, the existence of the 2-5% of mothers who have a physical need to supplement their own milk does not account for the fact that well over 90% of mothers in the UK do so before their baby reaches 6 months!
Marketing works. It's not insulting, or suggesting people are too stupid to make up their own minds to say so. If you think you are not affected by adverts, I suspect you are either lying to yourself or have a brain that does not make synaptic connections in the usual manner. Could you sing a jingle from an advert you haven't seen recently? Do you occasionally realise you're hungry when you see an advert for food? Do you know what I mean by 'the Dulux dog' or 'the Andrex puppy'? Then you have been affected by ads. I have never – as far as I recollect – brought Andrex or Dulux in my life. But I would be more likely to refer to those dogs by the brand name than the breed name! I know the names of the products, and if I needed paint or loo roll, and had a choice between the famous brand and an unknown one (assuming they were at the same price etc.), I'd probably go for the famous brand. I've been conditioned to believe it's a good choice – through advertising.
Advertising works. And it works on everyone. And its effect is cumulative. And any t-shirt/greeting card/wrapping paper design/icon that plays into the baby = bottle assumption is adding another layer to the advertising of formula, and therefore undermining breastfeeding. Every time we see the image of a bottle associated with a baby, that association is reinforced in our subconscious, and the idea that actually babies (and their parents!) can manage perfectly well without bottles seems less likely, even to the point of being ludicrous.
When these sorts of t-shirts appear, and get challenged, we aren't really saying that this particular t-shirt is a terrible threat. It is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. And people ARE working to fix the problem, but the symptoms need to be acknowledged and treated too. All we want is to challenge the insidious idea that formula is the normal way to feed babies. It's not ok that this culture treats the breastmilk as special and formula as normal. FORMULA is special – it's a lifesaving medication for those in need. Breastmilk is normal. And it's a shame that the assumption is that baby = bottle.
And that is why people get irritated. Not because they are judging formula feeders, or even the companies that make these t-shirts – they are just doing their job, and probably have no idea of the ramifications of their product. Not because they think this one t-shirt alone will inspire someone to formula feed instead of breastfeeding. Leaving the tap dripping into a bucket for one minute won't flood your house. Leaving it on for one week would. And one of those minutes is going to be the one when the bucket starts to overflow...
Lots of people say 'Chillax, it's only a t-shirt – Jeez, way to overreact!” when this sort of thing gets flagged as less than ideal. What they are failing to realise that this t-shirt is not the problem; it's a symptom. It's as if you've described a blemish on your body to your doctor, and they tell you, 'Hey, it's one tiny zit, don't freak out' – not understanding that the significance is not that one spot, but that there are hundreds of them forming a rash all over your body!
This culture has a pervasive attitude of bottle = baby. These t-shirts feed into that assumption, making it harder to challenge, and making it harder for people to choose to breastfeed. Everyone THINKS they know breast is best, but the message they actually get is breast is the ideal, a special extra, for those privileged few who can manage it, while formula is normal, and just as good. (Which is not logically possible, people. But that's a topic for another day.)
This prevailing attitude and assumption is very comparable to the reasoning behind 'Pink stinks' http://www.pinkstinks.org.uk/ Everywhere we look, the idea that 'pink is for girls' is reinforced. It's as well known as 'a is for apple'! There is nothing wrong with pink as an option. There is EVERYTHING wrong with giving boys a choice between blue and green and red and yellow (but not pink), while girls have the choice between coral and fuchsia and rose and cerise! Surely such cultural bias is even more problematic when the preferred, expected option (bottles) is intrinsically inferior to the far less visible option – breastfeeding.
Personal anecdote time - my son is growing his hair out. It's not quite long enough to tie back in a pony tail yet, but he needs to be able to wear a head band of some sort to keep the hair off his face. So I started looking for hair bands for him. It took weeks before I found what I was looking for – something cheap and practical that was neither pink nor covered with flowers. In the interests of full disclosure, I did find purple – but it was a lilac shade, and very 'girly' looking. And how depressing is that? Even I, who am proud of my boy's occasional tom-girl tendencies, who am fully aware that 'pink is for girls' is a limiting nonsense – feel obliged to buy into the societal norm of NOT putting pink accessories on my son. (He is at an age where his peers are likely to tease him for it, and adults have occasionally mistaken him for a girl, purely because of his longish hair. I don't want him to be teased, and I certainly don't want to risk him ending up utterly rejecting all things feminine in reaction to it!)
This culture 'knows' that long hair = girl = pink. Just like this culture 'knows' that baby = bottle. Which isn't a noticeable problem if you fit that norm. But it makes it harder, much harder, if you don't. And adds extra pressure to conform. Especially if you are at a vulnerable time in your life – say you're a child, or a tired, nervous, struggling new parent.
Of course no one chooses to formula feed on the basis of one t-shirt. Of course they don't. And no one decides their favourite colour on the basis of one t-shirt either. But when almost every t-shirt, toy and accessory you've ever owned is pink, or has some pink on it, you start to associate pink with nice things, and you learn to love pink. What do you think is the most commonly stated favourite colour among girls? Is there any doubt in your mind? Now, it is true that some people claim that the cause and effect goes in the opposite direction: i.e. there's a biological difference between men and women – and girls get pink stuff marketed to them because they are naturally drawn to it, rather than being drawn to pink because it is advertised to them. But I can't think of a single logical reason for such a preference to have evolved (at least not only in females), and it seems even less plausible in light of the fact that in the past pink was considered a masculine shade (being similar to red - a strong colour, while pastel shades – such as pale blue – were considered more suitable for girls!) It seems much more reasonable to accept that the pervasive message of girl = pink is affecting the choices and preferences of the last few generations of women. And even if one were to accept the premise of a biological preference - there can be no real doubt that marketing pressure exaggerates that preference to a ridiculous degree. Similarly, the existence of the 2-5% of mothers who have a physical need to supplement their own milk does not account for the fact that well over 90% of mothers in the UK do so before their baby reaches 6 months!
Marketing works. It's not insulting, or suggesting people are too stupid to make up their own minds to say so. If you think you are not affected by adverts, I suspect you are either lying to yourself or have a brain that does not make synaptic connections in the usual manner. Could you sing a jingle from an advert you haven't seen recently? Do you occasionally realise you're hungry when you see an advert for food? Do you know what I mean by 'the Dulux dog' or 'the Andrex puppy'? Then you have been affected by ads. I have never – as far as I recollect – brought Andrex or Dulux in my life. But I would be more likely to refer to those dogs by the brand name than the breed name! I know the names of the products, and if I needed paint or loo roll, and had a choice between the famous brand and an unknown one (assuming they were at the same price etc.), I'd probably go for the famous brand. I've been conditioned to believe it's a good choice – through advertising.
Advertising works. And it works on everyone. And its effect is cumulative. And any t-shirt/greeting card/wrapping paper design/icon that plays into the baby = bottle assumption is adding another layer to the advertising of formula, and therefore undermining breastfeeding. Every time we see the image of a bottle associated with a baby, that association is reinforced in our subconscious, and the idea that actually babies (and their parents!) can manage perfectly well without bottles seems less likely, even to the point of being ludicrous.
When these sorts of t-shirts appear, and get challenged, we aren't really saying that this particular t-shirt is a terrible threat. It is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. And people ARE working to fix the problem, but the symptoms need to be acknowledged and treated too. All we want is to challenge the insidious idea that formula is the normal way to feed babies. It's not ok that this culture treats the breastmilk as special and formula as normal. FORMULA is special – it's a lifesaving medication for those in need. Breastmilk is normal. And it's a shame that the assumption is that baby = bottle.
And that is why people get irritated. Not because they are judging formula feeders, or even the companies that make these t-shirts – they are just doing their job, and probably have no idea of the ramifications of their product. Not because they think this one t-shirt alone will inspire someone to formula feed instead of breastfeeding. Leaving the tap dripping into a bucket for one minute won't flood your house. Leaving it on for one week would. And one of those minutes is going to be the one when the bucket starts to overflow...
I almost totally agree with you but bottles don't always equal formula. I had problems bf dd1 and got made to supplement with ff after a short sorrel in hospital. Anyway, I couldn't get her back on the boob and instead e exclusively expressed for a year and got her completely back onto ebm after a few weeks and also donated to the milk bank.
ReplyDeletedd2 is happily bf at almost two. :-)
I did have one funny moment when I went to waterbabies with dd and the baby next to me picked up our identical bottle and had to explain what was in it.
But I agree that bottles are all pervasive. I confiscated the one that came with dd's dolly. We also try to avoid pink.