I just cant believe this!!!

Wow. What a bunch of entitiled, self-important, superficial crap.

"Due to a number of inappropriate posts, the comment feature has been turned off this blog."

Really now? Who'd have guessed?

There was one comment that rang a bell with me - "This column illustrates in its own small way everything that is wrong with the world"

Of course, they published this because they knew it would evoke this kind of reaction. Still, I can't help being gobsmacked...

Wow!!

When she believes that BFing so obviously ruins the breasts, I couldn't believe she'd actually physically had her own child. Imagine the risks she took with ruining her entire body by doing so.

Doesn't she know that men (and snobbish women) should get over it - breasts are for babies and not for snaring husbands?

I actually felt really sorry for her, she'll never know what she missed out on, despite her glorified view of the world.

I just feel sorry for her she obviously lives in an extremely warped and shallow world and I feel sorry for the child she is undoubtedly raising to have the same warped view.

LuckyRed wrote: I don't understand what the big deal is. Everyone has a different style of parenting and have different beliefs and values, I don't see why she should be shot down for hers.

hmmmm really?? did u read the whole article?

 i dont really understand why the article was even published , It doesnt really make any sense . I understand that breastfeeding is best for baby but not all people can breastfeed but i personally dont understand why someone would choose not to breastfeed simply because they did not want a boob job and why they would write this down in the herald newspaper for all to see, to me it makes her look self absorbed and small minded not educated like she likes to think she is , she obviously isnt eduacted enough to realise that most sagging is caused by not wearing a supportave bra during pregnancy not the actual breastfeeding . everyone is entitled to their own opinion but i just think the whole article is rubbish and self endulgent.

I don’t particularly have any issue with her making her own choices, LR. I mean, I bet lots of us side-slept their babies (I didn’t, but I know lots of people do). And while I think it’s rather pathetic to choose not to breastfeed because you’re worried about the cosmetic affect on your boobies, as a mature adult I’d do my best not to judge someone who made that choice. They’ve obviously got a whole world of insecurities going on that I don’t have a clue about (!), so they’re more to be pitied than mocked.

It’s not her decisions as such, rather the tone of the article that does me in. I’d totally understand the argument “The WHO recommends this. However, that’s blanket advice and for reasons a, b, c & d, it was healthier for me and my baby to bottle-feed / side sleep / whatever.” But she’s coming from the point of view that “The WHO recommends this. However, because their advice is aimed at dumb people, and I’m super-brainy, I’m above all of that guff and however I choose to do it is right.”

I’m also very unimpressed by the general feel in the article that money = intelligence. In other words, if you’re rich, it’s because you’re smart. You’re then able to disregard any advice because, after all, it’s meant for dumb poor people. If you’ve got less money, it’s because you’ve also got less brains. Obviously this is true to some degree (I’m betting your average meth addict doesn’t have many brain cells to rub together), but ridiculous really. We’re not rich, but I’m happy to bet my DH is waaaay more intelligent that someone who can write guff like that

I whole-heartedly agree with you Hopes! I couldn't have said it better myself!

Edited to add: I just read this rebuttal on stuff.co.nz and thought you guys might want to have a read: Stuff blog

Edited by ereynolds