Nursing

Last week, while searching for new markets for my short story, I stumbled across an editorial piece in the Atlantic Monthly called “The Case Against Breastfeeding.” I could hardly believe what I was seeing. What passionate devotee of nursing could help reading?

 

I didn’t read very far, though. The article was three (lengthy) web pages long, and by the end of the first, it was clear to me that this was a woman who just didn’t get it.

 

In the interest of justice, I went back and read the whole thing before blogging about it, but I’m not linking because I don’t want to encourage this kind of thinking. If you really want to read it, go look it up. (Sorry. It took me two weeks to force myself to give the crisis pregnancy center the Similac samples that landed in my mailbox. I know not everyone can breastfeed, but with formula thrown at us, more people choose not to than can’t, and I don’t want to encourage anyone that direction!)

 

The author claims that, contrary to what we’ve been told, medical studies don’t show that breastfeeding gives kids major advantages over formula fed babies. Most show a minor, but not significant, betterment of circumstances, whether that be health or cognitive function. When researchers factor out parental IQ, etc., the results largely negate the impact of breast milk.

 

But the best she can do is say that the studies show no cause and effect relationship between nursing and improved health—clearly, they are linked, but the link is a rope with many strands. This is undoubtedly true, but it hardly constitutes a case against breastfeeding. One researcher is quoted as saying that any increase in IQ among breastfed babies could be related to “breast-feeding mothers’ interacting more with their babies, rather than of anything in the milk.”

 

Uh…duh?

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but…ISN’T THAT THE POINT?????

 

Her central argument goes like this: 1. The negatives of breastfeeding are “modesty, independence, career, sanity.” (Yes, every breastfeeding mother is crazed, and it’s all because she breastfeeds. Puh-leeze.) 2. Many mothers are “alienated” by breastfeeding. And 3. Breastfeeding is only “free” if you think “a woman’s time is worth nothing.”

 

As she choreographs her my-career-is-far-more-important-than-motherhood rhetorical dance, she conveniently ignores other facts. Facts like these: that bottles have to be cleaned and sterilized, regardless of what is put in them; that mixing formula adds time to the feeding process; that formula requires factories and packaging and shipping and all kinds of eco-unfriendliness.

 

It’s hard for me to speak of issues related to sexuality and parenthood without reference to my faith. But independent of all religious belief, lactation is a biological function. It is built into women’s bodies; it is uniquely feminine—the men will never, ever be able to do it. Why do women keep trying to lop off what makes us unique, and turn ourselves into men?

 

Now, I will admit that I have not reviewed the studies. If I did, I probably couldn’t make heads or tails of them. But I wonder if, as researchers try to separate out cultural influences from breastfeeding, they overlook the impact of mother-baby togetherness. Are all breastfeeding mothers lumped together in these studies, or do scientists separate out those who work and pump from those who “have baby—will travel”? My educated guess is that a mom and baby who go most places together—who are exposed to the same bugs, in other words—are going to see a much greater correlation between baby health and breastfeeding than a mom who works, whose baby goes somewhere else and is exposed to different bugs than Mommy.

 

Part of the reason I’ve held off posting this for a couple of days is that I know many mothers who work and pump, and many who don’t breastfeed at all. I do not want to sound judgmental about their choices. All life is about balance. I, too, am trying to pursue some semblance of “career,” even while full-time mothering. I guess what upsets me about this editorial is this: if nursing is only “free” if a woman’s time is without value, then the same holds true for the entire mothering profession. Both nursing and staying home constitute a huge financial savings for a family. But making it all about money, in my opinion, strips the beauty away from motherhood, makes it functional instead of an act of love.

 

In the end, it is once again all about attitude. Nursing was blissful for me the first time around. The second time was a labor of love. (Let me emphasize that: a LABOR of LOVE. Love, in its truest sense, being a series of choices and actions, not a warm fuzzy. Warm fuzzies have a way of defecting under stress; loving actions last forever. But I digress.)

 

This time, two weeks in, nursing is a mixed bag. It’s certainly true that a bottle feeding mother doesn’t have to worry about her own well-being when Baby gets sick and decides he doesn’t want to eat. I can choose to dwell on that—on having to get up two or three times a night. Or I can focus on the beauty of the process. Nursing offers me the opportunity to retreat to a quiet place and have one-on-one time with my baby. The hormonal interactions help me sleep, and tightly bond my emotions to this child who might otherwise spend as much time in someone else’s arms as in mine.

 

So I suppose my task is to adjust my attitude about the writer of this editorial, and try not to pass judgment on her either.