Women across the blogosphere have responded to Hanna Rosin in droves, but I haven't seen some of my thoughts, so I am posting them here.
I agree with Rosin that people such as Dr. William Sears hype breastfeeding out of proportion to its proven benefits. However, that doesn't mean that breastfeeding doesn't have very real benefits. Rosin's attempts to distort science in the other direction are weird and sad. She makes herself out to be someone who cannot understand the concept of statistical significance. There is NO experimental data with human controls that exactly match the experimental group--you'd have to have a parallel universe.
Rosin points out that breastfeeding's benefits come from feeding the baby at the breast, not just from breastmilk. Rosin's bizarre response to this idea is that this makes breastfeeding less important. Wouldn't that make it MORE important? How many formula feeding moms open their shirts and hold the baby skin to skin against their heart at every feeding? How can you possibly replicate the sucking action at the breast (which helps with jaw and palate development) with a rubber nipple? If the breastfeeding process and the breast milk are BOTH important, why would formula feeding with a bottle be a better idea?
Every decision a person makes has risks and benefits. There was a debate on Feministing a few months ago about whether a woman planning breast reconstruction surgery should consider its impact on her ability to breastfeed--it comes down to how much damage she is doing to herself by living for an extra X number of years with problems caused by her large breasts. Of course she should have the surgery if she feels she needs it now. As for Rosin, there is real damage to her psyche and her relationship to her son if she seethes with anger through every night feeding. I think that in her case, it's to her benefit and her son's to use formula. But why does that mean that breastfeeding doesn't have very real benefits?
Rosin is all wrong about the breastfeeding ad campaign. The dandelion and ice cream ads were so ridiculous that the people who originally designed the bottle-with-inhaler ads withdrew from the campaign. The people who "thought the better" of the inhaler ads were formula companies, who lobbied vigorously to have them axed. I disapprove of guilt and shame as a means to public health, and I agree that the ads Rosin describes are offensive. But the more effective offensive ads were pulled because of corporate interests, not feminist consciousness. Here's a link to a WaPo article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083002198.html
Rosin spends her whole piece railing about upper and middle class mothers enslavement to breastfeeding, but when it comes to pumping, she suddenly takes up the plight of the working poor. I agree that pumping is especially difficult for women with low job flexibility. It's generally an unpleasant experience to begin with. But many women stop breastfeeding long before they return to work, and many mothers who do not work at all never even start breastfeeding. Pumping is another risk-benefit analysis. A mom can decide to partially breastfeed, using formula only when she is at work. The employed mothers I work with at WIC all have jobs like custodian, waitress, or Wal-Mart employee. The ones who have fully breastfed by pumping in closets or their cars are extremely proud of their decisions.
When it comes to health, Rosin doesn't think about poor mothers at all. She touts having a prolonged episode of diarrhea in infancy as no big deal. She says that most U.S. babies do not die from diarrhea. Well SOME do, and most of the ones who do probably do not have private health insurance. Let's also not forget what a hospital bill can look like, even for a simple rehydration procedure. If Rosin's family even notices such an expense, paying that bill may mean they forgo a few restaurant meals. For a lower-income family, an emergency room visit could cost several month's rent. A prolonged hospital stay could cause bankruptcy. And even if the baby doesn't die, does that mean it doesn't suffer?
Rosin doesn't mention the long-term benefits of breastfeeding for a mother's health. Breastfeeding significantly reduces a woman's risk of breast cancer and some other reproductive cancers. It also helps with post-pregnancy weight loss. Some women may feel that inconveniences associated with breastfeeding may be worth lowering their cancer risks.
Finally, while others have made this point, I am compelled to ad my two cents. The idea that breastfeeding inherently leads to gender-based and unequal parenting is just not true. She says there's no point in her husband getting up in the night to help with feeding. Why not? If he brought her the baby, changed the diaper, and put the baby back to bed (assuming he doesn't sleep with them), then she'd get more sleep. Or she could pump milk for night feedings. If her husband is an ass, or if the two of them lack creativity, that is not the fault of breastfeeding. The majority WIC moms I work with formula feed. Believe me, that is not lending equality to their relationships. The entire institutional structure of our society assumes that the mother will be the primary parent. Breastfeeding may not promote gender equality, but it's hardly a culprit against it.
So for heaven's sake, don't breastfeed if you don't want to. And if you can't, we should all be grateful that modern substitutes generally preserves a baby's life and health. But don't pretend that breastfeeding doesn't have tangible benefits over formual feeding for most mothers and babies.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Case Against Hanna Rosin: Breastfeeding's Risks and Benefits.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12796
I'm amazed at the outrage over what seemed to me to be a very fair and balanced article on breastfeeding - just about one of the few articles I've ever read on the subject that wasn't pure pro breastmilk propaganda.
Beyond the scientific and health points that Rosin makes so well, there are class and gender issues.
One, being able to breastfeed for a whole year is a CLASS PRIVILEGE - far easier for nonworking homemakers married to rich guys and upscale professional women than it is for secretaries, nurses, seamstresses and janitors - many of whom have to go back to work shortly after they give birth to their kids.
Second, I'm amazed that feminists can't see the fundamental sexism here. The breastfeeding model basically has the mother doing 100% of the feeding for the first year, with the father (even assuming the parents are married or live together - a big assumption among working class parents) basically staying in bed while the mother does all the work.
Sorry, that sounds really sexist to me!
Beyond that, there's this whole fanatical religious aspect to this - to the breastfeeding advocates, there is some magical trancendental power to women's breastmilk (hey, it's not an accident that La Leche League had it's roots in the Catholic Church!)
Rosin at least tried to apply some scientific data to breastfeeding fundamentalism - and, of course, got her head handed to her by the prophets of the breast, who brook no opposition.
I've looked at this a lot, because I have been considering a breast reduction off and on for several years, and one of my concerns was the ability to breast feed, because I do want children. There are PROVEN benefits. Even if a woman can't exclusively breastfeed for a full six months, doing so when she can still helps. It's not that there's a magical power, it's evolution. Human milk is optimized for human babies. I still haven't decided what costs are worth the benefits, but you can't ignore those benefits, either.
EVERY decision has a cost. Thing about breastfeeding is that the cost is so individual, while the benefits much more universal. I'd rather see breastfeeding more strongly encouraged, but no one discouraged from their choice.
And biology occasionally throws feminism some curveballs it has to deal with. Breastfeeding is one of them. Thing is, even though it sets feeding with the mother, it can be evened out in an equal relationship by the father taking on more of another chore, or several chores. People prefer certain chores. I love cooking, hate cleaning. Some love to clean. So, just because the choice of breastfeeding makes one chore the woman's doesn't automatically make it unfeminist, rather the attitude by the couple is what makes a relationship situation feminist or unfeminist in this case.
I don't have a citation but I actually read somewhere that mixing breast milk and formula is worse than just formula. Is that true?
In AIDS research there is some indication that mixing them puts the baby at higher risk for contracting HIV from an infected mother than exclusive breastfeeding does.
"Second, I'm amazed that feminists can't see the fundamental sexism here. The breastfeeding model basically has the mother doing 100% of the feeding for the first year, with the father (even assuming the parents are married or live together - a big assumption among working class parents) basically staying in bed while the mother does all the work."
So you're advocating that women sacrifice the health of their children to prove a point?
Biological functions are sexist are unfair and you're not going to stand for it anymore?
If you're going to be concerned about the sexism inherent in breast feeding, wait til you find out how the children are actually born.
staying in bed while the mother does all the work
I always find this amusing. Getting out of bed, picking up a screaming baby, walking to the kitchen, turning on the light, which shocks both your eyes and the baby's, heating water, measuring formula, getting them both into a bottle without spilling using only one hand, and then staying up with the baby until she's finished the bottle or fallen back asleep is work. Rolling over in bed to lift the baby out of the bassinet and into bed with you where she can nurse while you go back to sleep is not work. Not much anyway.
I returned to work after three months and breastfed for a year. I'm a wage slave trying to complete my dissertation, and believe it or not, adjunct wages put you just under the poverty line. I'm not wealthy. It is true that I have an employer that's flexible and supportive of pumping mothers and I have a vehicle which allowed me to go to the daycare at lunch to nurse. But you don't have to be a wealthy stay-at-home mom to breastfeed, and those kinds of myths end up hurting poor children A LOT.
And guess what? Breastfeeding costs a fraction of formula. That's good for low-income people. Further, the many, many benefits of breastmilk have been proven repeatedly. Maybe it doesn't help prevent acne, as the author suggests. But the benefits when it comes to diabetes and obesity, asthma, meningitis, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (due to avoiding the digestive irritation of cow's milk proteins), ear and respiratory infections, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis sorta makes the whole "it won't prevent acne" thing irrelevant, no?
As to your point about mothers having to do all the work for the first year...I read or paid bills or graded papers or worked on my dissertation while I nursed or pumped. You don't have to sit and stare blankly at the wall for the those 30 minutes. My partner acknowledged the added work load and picked up a larger share of the housework. The fact that the increased workload of having a new infant in the house almost always falls on the mother is a cultural shortcoming which does need to be addressed, but resorting to bottle feeding is not the way to address the deeper issues of gender equity when it comes to childrearing and domestic work.
I totally agree.
The self-righteous breastfeeding maniacs are all middle and upper class women too. As gregoryabutler points out, it's more difficult to breastfeed if you've got to go straight back to work after having a baby or you have no flexibility to pump breast milk. I'm sure there are plenty of lower class women who would LOVE to have the choice. My mother worked when she had me, and I was bottle fed. By the time my mother had my younger brother, my father was making more money and mother could afford not to go back to work- my brother was breastfed. (and we both have high IQs and my brother had much worse acne of the two os us). In the US, that's how it works. The developing world is a difference story, apples to oranges.
There was some TV show or movie that I'm completely blanking on what it was...a waitress sees a woman bottle feeding and comments on how terrible it is that she's not breastfeeding. The mother responds with, "were you breast fed?" and the waitress says, "yes" and the mother says something like, "so you're saying that if I breast feed my child she can grow up to work in food service."
I also believe that it's got to contribute to gender inequality in parenting. yeah, the father CAN get up with for feeding, but come, on, is he really going to after like the first week? It just enforces the idea that the children are the mother's responsibility.
Regardless of economic class, many women are not comfortable breast feeding. I can tell you that I would not do it- it sounds horrible to me. I also think pregnancy sounds horrible, and I don't think people should tell that me that because I'm a woman it's something I should want to do. So I don't think it's fair that anyone should quilt a woman into doing something she's not comfortable with with her body. Period.
I agree with Ms. Rosin's article having been a breastfeeding mom and feminist. Full Disclosure: I breastfed my two children for over two years each. The part of her article that got me the most are the high costs of breastfeeding to the mother:
"Recently, my husband and I noticed that we had reached the age at which friends from high school and college now hold positions of serious power. When we went down the list, we had to work hard to find any women. Where had all our female friends strayed? Why had they disappeared during the years they’d had small children?
The debate about breast-feeding takes place without any reference to its actual context in women’s lives. 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."
As a sociologist, I know that there are socio-economic factors in the IQ, health, and success of children that far outweigh statistically the benefits of breastfeeding (even if you accepted the most generous study results). We need to be looking at improving the socio-economic status of women and children in this country by providing state-sponsored daycare, single-payer healthcare, free higher education and making sure women have access to higher paying fields.
There was a debate on Feministing a few months ago about whether a woman planning breast reconstruction surgery should consider its impact on her ability to breastfeed
--------------
Don't you mean "breast REDUCTION"???????
Because those that get breast RECONSTRUCTION done, usually had something like...oh, I don't know. BREAST CANCER with a mastectomy and NEEDED reconstruction done.
I did, in fact, "consider" what it would mean to have RECONSTRUCTION done. I did, in fact, "consider" the "impact" it has had on my son.
So, make sure you get your vocabulary straight, thanks.
You are absolutely right. I typed the wrong word. Although reduction is, in fact, a way of reconstructing the breast.
The point is that women, feminist or not should not feel like breast-feeding creates sexism or endorses it. There is point at which one has to realize, yes men and women are different. I think I would happen to be alot better at breast-feeding than my fiance.
Theres no shame in mothers taking care of their child in more intimate ways that their significant other (male) because obviously biology has decreed this would be so, for example Breast Feeding and even the act of child bearing puts the woman in a much more intimate relationship with their child. Of course that is not to say that the father would have a less important relationship with their child, just his role would be a little different, especially in the beginning. He cannot bear a child and he cannot breast feed it. But he can certainly help with all other aspects of child-rearing.
I myself don't necessarily feel beast-feeding necessarily makes a huge difference in the outcome of a baby. Environmental factors can overcome the potential statistical benefits of breast-feeding. For example my sister was breast feed and I was not. At this point she is overweight, always did poorly in academics, high anxiety and what not.. however I faired a little better, i was never overweight and am majoring in engineering at my college. Don't statistics say that a breast-feed child is less likely to be overweight and can improve IQ by around 7 points? The fact is, that these are just statistics..and thats it. If you cannot breast feed your baby for whatever reason..it doesn't necessarily make a big difference. Focusing on creating a healthy environment for your child would be more beneficial than worrying about what you're feeding it at infancy.
For the record, it's entirely possible for men to breastfeed. They have the same mammary glands as women, it's just a lot easier for women, because the breasts will (in general) produce milk when a woman is pregnant whether or not she wants them to due to specific hormones.
Find me a man who can healthily breast feed an infant. lol
There's info about it here and here.
using an anecdote about you and your sister is REALLY not very convincing.
my friend was adopted and never breast-fed, whereas i was breastfed. and yet she gets better grades than me, is healthier than me, and is involved in more extra-curricular activities than i am.
it doesn't prove anything.
personally, i think this is a great article. i don't have children, so i can't speak from experience, but it seems like the benifits of breast-feeding have been greatly exagerated. sure, it may be healthier, but women who would rather do other things shouldn't be shamed into nursing. if a woman wants to use formula, i think her baby will live.
Thank you thank you pointing out the plight of women who DO have to worry about their baby dying from diarrhea (etc).
I posted a really similar reaction on my own blog!
http://disastermusings.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-science-goes-wrongor-why-i-find.html
Class privilege, huh? Yeah, this is a problem for a lot of folks...
But, I went back to work full-time at my $30K a year job shortly after my son was born. I breastfed my son until he was a little over two. I pumped in bathrooms, airports, cars, etc. etc. etc. I kept on through two bouts of mastitis and not-so-supportive employers. Breastmillk, as someone has already pointed out, is free.
Am I proud and did I feel powerful? Yes. Absolutely.
You are absolutely right. I typed the wrong word. Although reduction is, in fact, a way of reconstructing the breast.
the issue I have with all of this backlash is that the article posted didn't claim that breastmilk doesn't have benefits, and didn't claim that nobody should breast feed. just that it isn't so necessary that women who can't or don't want to should feel like terrible mothers. I don't know, I feel like that's pretty feminist. Why is the idea that breast feeding isn't worth infinite sacrifice so objectionable?
I don't disagree with Rosin's main point--just all of the inaccuracies and twisted logic she used to support it, and the way in which she tried to make her personal experience a universal truth. As I said, if you don't want to or can't breastfeed, formula is generally a safe substitute. Every family has to decide if breastfeeding's benefits are worth any tradeoffs involved.
I think there are a couple of issues here. In the article, she says the benefits of breastfeeding are "thin." This just doesn't fit with much of the recent research on the topic. It probably is true that nursing doesn't reduce your child's risk of developing acne. OK. But what about all the other, much more serious conditions of which it has been proven to reduce their risk? I'm sorry, but I'm more concerned about diabetes than acne.
Second, the difficulties she cites breastfeeding as creating for women are not accurately attributed to breastfeeding. Any mother with a new infant is going to have a dratically increased workload. Using formula instead of nursing is not going to reduce your workload if the father is not engaged and doesn't see himself as a full partner in the project. The fact is, if you're looking for an equitable solution, the father is going to have to take on more of the housework than he had before. It's a no-brainer. Both parents end up with more work. That's what having kids is like. And a father who's really invested in parenting will bond with the baby and learn how to soothe him/her. Most fathers have been socialized not to do this, so they don't. The real issue here is cultural attitudes that end up disproportionately burdening the parents according to gender. Advocating for formula feeding isn't going to change that.
no, using formula instead of nursing isn't in and of itself going to change your whole parenting and relationship. Your partner can, clearly, be involved in other ways. but really, if breastfeeding is a problem for you-either because of time or because it's painful, or impossible, or not giving your child enough to eat, you're not dooming your child to a life of disease. I know it shows a lot about my social class position that I've heard this instead of the opposite, that formula is what will doom your child to a life of disease. but that doesn't make either true.
Yeah, I don't think I've ever claimed that formula will doom your child to a life of disease. But claiming that the benefits of breastfeeding are thin ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary. I realize a lot of this research might not be that accessible to the general public (I admit I used my mom's access to it, since she's a nutritionist). But it's still irresponsible to tell parents who are weighing the decision that there's little or no benefit to breastfeeding. I think the feminist thing to do is to support informed decisions, which requires not mischaracterizing the data.
I wasn't really offended by this article at all, but that could be because breastfeeding v. formula is not a question that is particularly relevant to my current phase of life.
I don't think the author was trying to bash breastfeeding or "debunk" what benefits might exist. I think she was trying to challenge what she viewed as an oppressive dogma among upper-middle class women that NOT breastfeeding is always a bad mothering choice and following that train of thought to several possible conclusions.
Obviously, one can take issue with the idea that women would choose breastfeeding out of some form of peer pressure rather than rational choice. But I think that Rosin's point is that we should be just as skeptical and critical of the current "fashion" for what makes a great mother as we are about other areas of life.
To be clear, breastfeeding isn't necessarily a "fashion" as many of you have pointed out there are studies showing benefits. But I think that Rosin used breastfeeding as just one example (perhaps not the best!) of how some societal advice to mothers, even if shown to be healthy and positive, is part of a larger social system that doesn't always have women's best interest in mind.
Also, if Rosin IS right about an assumption in certain circles that breastfeeding is clearly superior, what does it say to mother's who have adopted or can't breastfeed? What about to their children?
Your last point is an important issue--one that gets brought up a lot in reference to promoting breastfeeding. My answer to this is that there are many things we do that are better or worse for kids, and parents don't always have the choices we want to believe that they have. For instance, we know that kids should eat a balanced diet with whole grains and fruits and vegetables. However, many poor families cannot afford the healthiest foods. Should we then pretend that corn syrup laden applesauce and Wonder bread are as healthy as fresh broccoli and whole wheat? We know that newer and larger cars generally have the best safety records, but many families who can afford a car can afford only a used one or a small one. Should we not release safety information so that people who can't afford the safest cars won't feel guilty? It's true that formula feeding is not is good as breastfeeding. However, formula feeding is significantly better than any other alternative to breastfeeding. Can't we help support the healthiest choice whenever possible and simulatneously realize that it's not always possible?
I am utterly shocked to find this sentence on a supposedly feminist website article:
'It's generally an unpleasant experience to begin with. But many women stop breastfeeding long before they return to work, and many mothers who do not work at all never even start breastfeeding'
I'll repeat part of it "mothers who do not work at all " If you can't see what is wrong with this sentence then you are NOT a feminist, and I would wager that 75% of the comments made on this site are from NOT feminists. I am truly saddened.