First-born in 1982: The midwife acted as though she would support me with breast-feeding, but when it came to it, I saw neither her nor anyone else who told me what to do for at least three days. I was in hospital for 10 days after the birth because I had had a general anaesthetic and ventouse. I was told (I repeat TOLD) not to breast feed, although I would have been quite happy to.
I hadn't read anything in advance, and wasn't aware of the advantages or anything, but I did want to breast feed. But because of this, DS No. 1 was bottle fed, and my blouses and dresses were always soaking wet at the front with the milk I was losing.
Second-born 1983: I wasn't going to be put off again. All my babies had a very soft stool (bottle and breast), and the doctor told me at 10 months to stop breast-feeding because this would be the cause of the "diarrhoea". I stopped completely and abruptly (although I was still feeding 2-3 times a day). I'm sure No 2 has a couple of issues to this day because of that sudden and brutal cut-off.
No 3 I breast-fed for 19 months until he wasn't interested any more. By now I had learned that instincts rule and not to listen to anyone's advice.
So, on the basis of my own experience, if I see someone bottle-feeding, I do not condemn them for it, but I wonder if they believed something they had been told by the midwife or someone else with medical clout, and whether it really was their best choice.
What I do object to is when people claim that bottle-feeding is less hassle. How can anyone come to that conclusion? The expense, the faff of cleaning, sterlilising, measuring out, the clutter you have to tote around. You need two hands to feed the baby, whereas with breast-fed you have a hand free to read a book with the toddler, or to eat or drink a little something. And, and, and.....