RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 12th 05, 02:59 PM

wrote:
wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?

While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.

Beats me, I'm not into suds.

As for what is fed to babies,

Ye gawds in all the years I've been lurking in this funny-farm I can't
think of another topic having popped up which is a far afield from the
code test war. Ever. .

WEIRD!

it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.

The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

Uhhh . . are you "explaining" all this to me James or what? If so spare
me willya, I was raised in those days and so were my kids and those
times spanned more than just a couple decades. Yeah there was a bit of
hardware involved but the process was a no-brainer and it wasn't nearly
as complicated as you've intimated. Tongs? sterilizer pot? Bottle rack?
What? Nonsense. Never had any of 'em. By the way the handiest widgets
by far were the 'lectric bottle warmers. Didn't have any friggin'
pacifiers ether.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

Yeah as if. In the first place you weren't there, I was but never mind
that little detail. The bottle-feeding days were the biggest move
forward ever in the liberation of women, especially moms. Finally moms
didn't have to hover over their wee ones 24/7 and were able to do
"radical" things like trudge off to jobs and even short vacations
without the kid thus getting the ravenous little beasties out of their
lives for awhile for a break for others to feed. I sure did my share
and so did grandparents and others.

The two problems with the current politically correct
gotta-do-the-boobs drill are (1) it puts the moms back into the same
crippled sorts of lives the cave women lived and (2) fathers don't have
to be bothered with the feeding so they can wander off and be Real Men
again. Bull****. Lemmee clue you about the biggie which has been lost.
A non-mom reapetedly having the sole responsibility for feeding an
infant is by far the second most powerful bonding force there is.

I spent thousands of hours in that mode and looking back I wouldn't
have missed it for all the world. My sons-in-laws have no idea what I'm
talking about when the topic comes up and the grumpy old ex couldn't
agree more despite the fact that agreeing with me on any subject galls
her no end.

What paper diapers? Don't be silly . .

In closing here James ponder this: You've spent more than just a few
minutes rachet-jawing with my youngest. Who was 100% bottle-fed as
often as not by her daddy. What evidence do have to offer which
indicates that she'd have been better off if she'd been boob-fed
instead?

Watch bottle-feeding come back again and remember where ya heard it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv