the blogosphere, and even real-life gatherings of parents, are all atwitter about Hanna Rosin's article in the Atlantic titled "The Case Against Breastfeeding".
i have slightly mixed feelings about it. there are some good points to be made. women in particular do tend to beat themselves and others up over parenting choices, even when they really aren't choices. case in point, i'm still second-guessing my every move, wondering if there was something i could have done to avoid a c-section. not that the end result wasn't totally perfect and worth it, but still. anyway, anything that makes people who honestly did their best to breastfeed feel better about their decisions - especially the decisions that weren't really a choice - is good. although rosin understates the scientific case "against formula", breastfeeding advocates are sometimes guilty of overstating it (although their reasons for doing so are possibly worthy?)
so to the extent that the simplistic idea is out there that "breastmilk = superbabies, formula = dumb, sick babies", rosin is right.
on the other hand, maybe there is less of that than rosin thinks. i've never met any of these crazed lactivists that defenders of formula insist are everywhere. every breastfeeding advocate i've ever met has understood that while formula is an artificial substitute, and has inherent risks as a medical intervention, different mom-baby pairs will have different challenges, situations, and risk tolerances. formula has its place, and the "lactivists" i've met aren't against its use in general, just against its nonchalant use, against potentially harmful marketing tactics in regions where constant access to safe formula and safe water are not guaranteed, and against breastfeeding-ignorance and breastfeeding-hostility that increases formula use unnecessarily. if a mom only thinks she has low supply because she's been erroneously told that feeding her newborn more than once every 3 hours is going to 'spoil' her, or other misinformation about what's normal and healthy in a breastfed newborn, can't we be against the misinformation without being against the mom?
of course, it is hard to keep from judging people who take bigger risks than we are comfortable with. i would never judge someone with legitimate supply and/or latch challenges who tries and does what she can. i would never judge someone who had taken bad advice and sabotaged themselves unintentionally, or someone for whom external pressures (unsupportive partner, hostile workplace, or logistical challenges) force the issue. but someone who just doesn't feel like breastfeeding? intellectually, i know that her choice is a valid one. formula is not poison and the risks are pretty small - more of a public health issue on a large scale than an individual issue in an otherwise healthy baby. but while i can understand almost anything that would cause a mother who theoretically wanted to breastfeed to be unable or even just unwilling to do so, i simply cannot understand not wanting to breastfeed at all in the first place. so yeah, i get a little judgy. but that mom needs to understand that my opinion doesn't really matter, and i can't make her feel bad for her choice without her permission.
but what really drives me crazy in the article is this:
Breast-feeding exclusively is not like taking a prenatal vitamin. It is a serious time commitment that pretty much guarantees that you will not work in any meaningful way. Let’s say a baby feeds seven times a day and then a couple more times at night. That’s nine times for about a half hour each, which adds up to more than half of a working day, every day, for at least six months. This is why, when people say that breast-feeding is “free,” I want to hit them with a two-by-four. It’s only free if a woman’s time is worth nothing.
hey, you know what's a serious time commitment? a baby.
let's leave aside the overestimate of the time involved, and let's leave aside the glossing over of the fact that formula doesn't magically make the baby eat faster - it just lets you hand off some of the eating time to your partner, while dramatically increasing prep time.
having a baby means changing your priorities. of course you can still work in meaningful ways while exclusively breastfeeding - i am. what you can't do is work in meaningful ways, exclusively breastfeed your child, and do everything you used to do exactly the same way before you had the baby.
i watch significantly less tv now. i read less. i knit less. i don't go to the gym anymore. i go out socially a lot less. i am not playing in my steelband anymore. i even have to work harder at work to make up for time lost to pumping (which, ironically, gives me time to read a little bit.)
but it's utterly ridiculous to imagine that formula feeding would change that. even if it gained me a little bit of "free" time (by taking away some of rebecca's "free" time of course) i would spend that time playing with my baby or just watching her sleep! in fact, i treasure our nursing time. i'm a mom now, and my life is no longer about me, me, me.
breastfeeding means that i'm responsible for feeding the baby. but that doesn't mean, as rosin says, that we can't still equally divide the work of our household. egalitarian marriages don't require every duty to be split exactly 50/50. we split ours based on preferences and aptitudes - as long as one partner isn't constantly doing more work than the other, it doesn't matter if i always put away the laundry because rebecca hates the chore, and it doesn't matter if rebecca always cleans the bathroom because i hate it. likewise, it doesn't automatically sink our chances at an equal partnership if i feed the baby 100% of the time. the simplistic idea of splitting every task 50/50 is out the window, sure, but that never happens anyway.
for a stay-at-home mom who doesn't have to pump, breastsfeeding ensures that no cold, hard, cash has to be laid out specifically so that the baby can eat. if that same mom were to formula feed, she would spend about $100 a month more than she otherwise would have. the math isn't as simple for moms who work outside the home, but the general principle is still there: breastmilk is basically free. if you choose to formula feed, you're committed to spending actual cash, cash that someone has to go earn, on baby formula for a year. it isn't discretionary spending, and you can't really go back to breastfeeding once you've switched to formula, even if it becomes a financial necessity.
i'm a knitter; i enjoy handicrafts and do them in my spare time. i have some yarn someone gave me. if i make a hat out of it, is it free? yes and no. i couldn't sell it for enough to "pay myself" even minimum wage for the time i spent on it. but i didn't have to pay for it, and i enjoy having something to do with my hands while i sit on the bus. so in that sense, hell yeah, free hat.
so yes, hanna, breastfeeding is "free". it's free like walking instead of driving is free. it's about quality of life and doing something to free ourselves, even if just a little bit, from the earn/spend cycle. everyone makes choices about how to spend their time. the kind of accounting you're doing, adding up the pennies and nickels you could have been making instead of spending time giving your child the best possible nutrition, counting the opportunity cost of all the things you'd rather be doing, is pretty distasteful to me.
:)
Posted by: sara | Friday, March 20, 2009 at 02:52 PM