+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,821
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    How discriminatory to those who can't do it or have reasons they don't want to. No, I don't agree.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    Guest654  (30-03-2012)

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,276
    Thanks
    3,697
    Thanked
    3,090
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lulu56 View Post
    I think it's a disgusting idea.

    As PP said it's motivation enough. Or it should be.

    I was physically UNABLE to -- NOT my choice. Even medication and round the clock pumping failed to get my body to produce.

    A BF payment would be just something else to pile on top of my guilt and rage.
    Totally agree with this, and I could have written the above post. Even 21mths later that suggestions still brings those feelings to the surface.

    Kimberleygal - Not all playgroups are like that. I go to a lovely one, filled with very lovely ladies (some of whom have become good friends), and not one judged me or looked down upon me (or anyone else) for FF.

    Just sounds like the ladies who made that suggestion have maybe had a very easy BF journey, and haven't seen others close to them go through the opposite experience. I'm guessing (hoping) it's naive rather than unkind of them.
    Last edited by Guest654; 30-03-2012 at 18:42. Reason: typo

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,276
    Thanks
    3,697
    Thanked
    3,090
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Hope their comments weren't directed at you, Nutsy.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Guest654 For This Useful Post:

    Benji  (30-03-2012)

  6. #44
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    7,877
    Thanks
    3,397
    Thanked
    5,160
    Reviews
    8
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NutsyK View Post
    Glad I'm not the only one then.. I didn't breastfeed and it wasn't even because of pain or anything.. I basically can't stand the feeling of breastfeeding.. when breastfeeding my daughter I used to get so angry and envision throwing her off my just to get her away from my breast haha. I didn't even try this time as I knew it'd be the same
    TBH in that case I can't believe they would bring it up. I hope you gave/give them your thoughts on such a hair brained scheme! You can only hope as Girl X said that it is naivety.

  7. #45
    Opinionated's Avatar
    Opinionated is offline Winner 2009 - Best Avatar
    You know you love me.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    There already is a cash incentive. It's called "The not buying formula benefit".

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Opinionated For This Useful Post:

    Benji  (30-03-2012),halloweendee  (30-03-2012),jacobsmamma  (30-03-2012)

  9. #46
    headoverfeet's Avatar
    headoverfeet is offline The truth will set you free, but first it will **** you off. -Gloria Steinem
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,954
    Thanks
    3,142
    Thanked
    4,892
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    IMO the whole cost of formula thing is rubbish, long term breastfeeders are more likely to be worse off $ wise due to loss of wages.

    http://www.miller-mccune.com/busines...feeding-40520/

    For the non-clickers

    "Lactation Breeds Lack: The High Cost of Breastfeeding
    New research finds mothers who breastfeed for six months or longer are more likely to suffer a severe and prolonged loss of earnings.
    By Tom Jacobs

    The percentage of American mothers who breastfeed their babies has risen over the past decade, but it remains far below the rate public health officials would like to see. Newly published research provides one possible reason why.
    It turns out all that healthy, nutritious milk comes at a surprisingly high cost.

    A study of 1,313 American women who gave birth between 1980 and 1993 finds those who breastfed for six months or more suffered “more severe and more prolonged earnings losses” than mothers who breastfed for a shorter amount of time, or not at all.

    “Our results suggest that breastfeeding, at least for six months or longer, is not free in an economic sense,” write sociologists Phyllis Rippeyoung and Mary Noonan. Their findings are published in the American Sociological Review.
    According to the most recent government statistics, 74.6 percent of mothers report they breastfed their babies. But only 44.3 percent were still breastfeeding at six months, and 23.8 percent at one year, the minimum cutoff age recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    In an attempt to find out why, Rippeyoung and Noonan studied data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, an annual survey of a large group of Americans born between 1957 and 1964. They specifically looked at how childbirth and subsequent breast feeding impacted a woman’s earnings over the following years.

    “We found that after childbirth, short-duration breastfeeders (those who stopped before the baby was 6 months old) and formula-feeders experienced similar earnings penalties,” the researchers write. “By contrast, women who breastfed for long durations experienced a much steeper decline in earned income over the first five years of their children’s lives.”
    The cause of this gap is clear enough: “Long-duration breastfeeders are more likely to be non-employed in the years following childbirth, and they work fewer hours when they are employed.” This may reflect a shift in priorities — or a lack of options.
    “The reasons why long-duration breast feeders exit the labor force at higher rates than other mothers is difficult to tease out,” Rippeyoung and Noonan write. “They may leave work because of their own personal desires or cultural pressure, or they may be pushed out because of the incompatibility of breastfeeding in the workplace.”

    They note that women who choose long-term breastfeeding are more likely to work in managerial or professional occupations, and more likely to be married to college-educated men who make enough money to support the family while the wife takes a leave of absence.

    The unfortunate result of this class divide, the researchers write, is that “less-privileged women are less likely to be seen as good mothers,” since they often have no choice but to go back to work — usually in settings where breastfeeding is problematic.

    “Rather than continuing to pressure women to breastfeed for their children’s well-being while providing no provisions for the sacrifices women make to do so,” they conclude, “an alternative solution would be to pass a federal law protecting women’s rights to breastfeed at work.”
    (They note that the 2010 health care reform act mandates break time for nursing mothers, but argue that far greater reforms are needed.)

    The researchers also suggest rethinking “roles for men and women within the family may ease the burden associated with breastfeeding and working — a burden that is currently placed solely on mothers.”
    “Partners should be encouraged and supported to carry out other domestic duties that would support breastfeeding and relieve women’s double burden,” they write.

    In other words, it’s not enough to simply tell mothers about the benefits of breastfeeding. Real changes need to be made in both the home and at the workplace to make it feasible for more women to simultaneously earn a living and nourish their baby.
    Breast milk is undoubtedly a precious fluid, but it shouldn’t be this expensive."

    I do realize this is an American article but I do think it applies somewhat to Australia.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to headoverfeet For This Useful Post:

    Bluest Blue Box  (30-03-2012),SugarSkull  (30-03-2012),trishalishous  (31-03-2012)

  11. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,995
    Thanks
    1,382
    Thanked
    2,879
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by babyla View Post
    TBH in that case I can't believe they would bring it up. I hope you gave/give them your thoughts on such a hair brained scheme! You can only hope as Girl X said that it is naivety.
    Were they broke and looking for a way to make extra dosh?

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Alexander Beetle For This Useful Post:

    babyla  (30-03-2012),meljemillie  (31-03-2012)

  13. #48
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    7,877
    Thanks
    3,397
    Thanked
    5,160
    Reviews
    8
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Beetle View Post
    Were they broke and looking for a way to make extra dosh?
    Haha just fully laughed out loud!! Pi$$er!

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,597
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked
    275
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Witwicky View Post
    I agree that money would be better spent on LC's who conduct home visits.
    At the moment mothers are seeing MCHN's after the birth and they seem to almost always provide appalling, outdated information and often discourage breastfeeding. I think all new mothers should be given free access to a qualified LC. Women don't need cash incentives, they need support and readily accurate information!
    Yes! I visited the MCHN 10 days after leaving hospital. The hospital told me I had "feeding issues" and ds2 would lose weight. The MCHN told me ds2 was gaining too fast and I needed to put him on a diet/restrict his feeding. He was 2 weeks old! They are sooo ignorant!

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,874
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked
    1,018
    Reviews
    21
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I would much rather a voucher for a free boob job for when I have finished BFing lol.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Just*Ace For This Useful Post:

    Blessedwith3boys  (31-03-2012),Bubbles10  (31-03-2012),smallpotatoes  (30-03-2012),trishalishous  (31-03-2012)


 

Similar Threads

  1. "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?
    By Chrysanthemum in forum Pro-Vaccination
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-11-2012, 21:07

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Baby U & The Wiggles - Toilet Training ProductsToilet training can be a testing time but Baby U is there to assist you and your toddler with the daunting task of ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›